Open Council

6th Meeting of the Budget Committee

Open Council

6th Meeting of the Budget Committee

November 21, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:31 AM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   2025 Annual Budget Update Civic Administration Presentation

2024-11-21 Submission - 2025 Budget-Presentation

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Mayor’s Budget

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That it BE NOTED that the Mayor’s Proposed Budget was provided to each member of Council, the City Clerk, and the public on October 28, 2024.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.2   Amendment - Budget Case P-31 - Councillor and Budget Chair E. Peloza and Councillor S. Franke

2024-11-21 Submission - P-31-E. Peloza

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Parks Maintenance Service Enhancements and Supports based on Action 1 in Business Case P-31 – Parks Operations Service Delivery Enhancements is considered on November 22, 2024 as item 3.1 in this report.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended by adding another part to read as follows:

That the budget impact to this Business Case P-31 - Parks Operations Service Delivery Enhancements BE OFFSET by a reduction in the annual contribution to the Climate Change Reserve Fund.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by S. Franke

That, pursuant to section 32.5 of the Council Procedure By-law, “shall the ruling of the Chair BE SUSTAINED?”

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include Parks Maintenance Service Enhancements and Supports based on Action 1 in 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-31 – Parks Operations Service Delivery Enhancements (5 permanent staff, $613,000):

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0                   2025 Tax Levy:  $0       2025 Capital Expenditures:  $404,000

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

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

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include Parks Maintenance Service Enhancements and Supports based on Action 1 in 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-31 – Parks Operations Service Delivery Enhancements (2 permanent staff, $214,000):

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0        2025 Tax Levy:  $0                   2025 Capital Expenditures:  $156,000

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

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

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include Parks Maintenance Service Enhancements and Supports based on Action 1 in 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-31 – Parks Operations Service Delivery Enhancements (4 temporary staff, $149,000):

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0       2025 Tax Levy:  $0                   2025 Capital Expenditures:  $213,000

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

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

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include Parks Maintenance Service Enhancements and Supports based on Action 1 in 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-31 – Parks Operations Service Delivery Enhancements (6 temporary staff, $276,000):

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0        2025 Tax Levy:  $0                   2025 Capital Expenditures:  $213,000

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

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

Motion Failed (2 to 13)

3.3   Amendment - Budget Case P-13 - Councillor C. Rahman

2024-11-21 Submission - P-13-C. Rahman

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include one-time funding of up to $947,000 to support Ark Aid’s Cronyn-Warner location from one-time 2024 surplus in the Housing Stability Services operating budget and that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to contribute $947,000 from the Housing Stability Services 2024 operating budget surplus to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve to facilitate this funding (it being noted that staff have indicated a report will come to Council with information on support for Ark Aid through the Federal encampment funding and/or Q3 and Q4 2024 IHAP funding):

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $947,000           2025 Tax Levy:  $0              2025 Capital Expenditures:  $0

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

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by H. McAlister

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

Motion Passed

The Budget Committee recesses at 11:57 AM and reconvenes at 12:34 PM.

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include one-time funding of up to $205,000 to support Ark Aid from previously approved one-time funding from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve (approved by Council on February 13, 2024):      

      

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $205,000          2025 Tax Levy:  $0                         2025 Capital Expenditures:  $0

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

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.4   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-2 - Councillor S. Franke

2024-11-21 Submission - P-2-S. Franke

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update to remove Budget Amendment P-2 - “Pause Current City of London Annual Community Grants Program and Implement Reduce Program based on Availability of Funding”.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to remove Budget Amendment P-2 – “Pause Current City of London Annual Community Grants Program and Implement Reduced Program based on Availability of Funding” ($496,000) and the annual contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund be reduced by an equivalent amount ($496,000):

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

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

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

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

3.5   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-3 - Councillor A. Hopkins

2024-11-21 Submission - P-3-A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update to remove Budget Amendment P-3 - “Pause Neighbourhood Decision Making Program”.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to remove Budget Amendment P-3 – “Pause Neighbourhood Decision Making Program”:

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $250,000        2025 Tax Levy:  $250,000          2025 Capital Expenditures:  $0

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $250,000        2026 Tax Levy:  $250,000          2026 Capital Expenditures:  $0

2027 Operating Expenditures:  $250,000        2027 Tax Levy:  $250,000          2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

3.6   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-15 - Councillor S. Trosow and Councillor D. Ferreira

2024-11-21 Submission - P-15-S. Trosow and D. Ferreira

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include funding for the London Extreme Clean and Hoarding program based on 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-15 – “Hoarding/Extreme Clean Program” to be funded from the Life Stabilization Operating Budget:

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Budget Committee recess at this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Budget Committee recesses at 2:12 PM and reconvenes at 2:26 PM.

3.7   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-16 - Councillor S. Trosow

2024-11-21 Submission - P-16-S. Trosow

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update to include funding for the Housing Stability Bank Expansion based on 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-16 - “Housing Stability Bank Expansion”.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include funding for the Housing Stability Bank Expansion based on 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-16 – “Housing Stability Bank Expansion”:

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $700,000           2025 Tax Levy:  $700,000            2025 Capital Expenditures:  $0

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $700,000           2026 Tax Levy:  $700,000            2026 Capital Expenditures:  $0

2027 Operating Expenditures:  $700,000           2027 Tax Levy:  $700,000            2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

3.8   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-51 - Councillor C. Rahman

2024-11-21 Submission - P-51-C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update by reducing the London Transit Commission budget for the 2026 Budget Update. To reinstate this funding, LTC must submit an amendment for the 2026 Budget Update, the online booking system be operational and that a plan for implementing the 10,000 additional service hours for 2025 must be provided to Council no later than Q1 2025. The financials are outlined in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-51 – “Transit Service Hours Growth”

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by reducing the London Transit Commission budget for the 2026 Budget Update. To reinstate this funding, LTC must submit an amendment for the 2026 Budget Update, the online booking system be operational and that a plan for implementing the 10,000 additional service hours for 2025 must be provided to Council no later than Q1 2025. The financials are outlined in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-51 – “Transit Service Hours Growth”:

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

2026 Operating Expenditures:  -$500,000     2026 Tax Levy:  -$500,000       2026 Capital Expenditures:  $0

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

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

3.9   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case WWT-1 - Mayor J. Morgan and Budget Chair E. Peloza

2024-11-21 Submission - Morgan - Peloza

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to remove Budget Amendment WWT-1 (Budget Increase for Stormwater Management Facility (SWM) Land Acquisition):

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0          2025 Rate Impact:  $0          2025 Capital Expenditures: -$1,964,000

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $0          2026 Rate Impact:  $0          2026 Capital Expenditures:  $0

2027 Operating Expenditures:  $0          2027 Rate Impact:  $0          2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.10   (ADDED) Amendment - London Police Services Operating Budget - Councillor S. Franke

2024-11-21 Submission - LPS-S. Franke

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update by reducing the London Police Services operating budget.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by reducing the London Police Service operating budget:

2025 Operating Expenditures:  -$1,616,600                     2025 Tax Levy:  -$1,616,600                   2025 Capital Expenditures:  $0

2026 Operating Expenditures:  -$1,616,600                     2026 Tax Levy:  -$1,616,600                   2026 Capital Expenditures:  $0

2027 Operating Expenditures:  -$1,616,600                     2027 Tax Levy:  -$1,616,600                   2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

7.   Adjournment

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE RECESSED

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

The meeting adjourned at 4:24 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (6 hours, 28 minutes)

[5:31] Okay, everyone, just a reminder to log in. We’re about to start. Good morning, everyone. This is a sixth meeting at the Budget Committee. The city of Wannand and situated on the traditional lands of the Nashback, Hotoshone, Nepwok, and Adwandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

[6:10] The city of Wannand is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of Wannand, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. I am joined in chambers with all members of council, excluding Councillor Hillier, who is with us virtually online. The city of Wannand 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 516-661-2489, extension 2425. I will look to members for disclosure of the pecuniary interest.

[6:52] Seeing none, I will just briefly overdo a quick overview. When we start this morning, finance has a presentation to take us through. Mr. Murray has his tax levy chart available for the day as we go through decision making points. If at any point anyone would like to see it, his team will be available to put that up for us. In advance, I had circulated my intentions for breaks. Depending where we’re at, my intention is to have lunch around 12 o’clock for around 30 minutes.

[7:31] There are some light refreshments on this side of chambers in the Halloween and Councillors lounge for you. They will have several restocking throughout the day, including at 2 o’clock. And my intention is to potentially wrap up around 4.30. We’ll see where we’re at. As you would have seen, the added agenda items were added. So we will go through this process and see where the timeline takes us for the day. And just wanted to thank everyone for those who managed to get things on added. I know after we went late, it was a hustle. I saw some emails coming in at 8.52 a.m.

[8:06] to meet the 9 a.m. deadline. So thank you to colleagues for that. Procedurally again, the mayor’s budget is the budget and it’s up to us to make amendments for addition or subtractions from it. So that is the process again, as it was in the multi-year budget. Executive directors of organizations that we might have questions of, them or representatives from their staff can be available. As we go through these conversations, I’ll note just as Councillor Kiley wouldn’t be able to see that Ms. Campbell is in the gallery with us looking to colleagues to see if there’s any procedural questions about today before Mr. Murray does his introduction for the slide deck.

[8:52] Okay, we will begin. Oh, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. I just had two procedural questions. The first is what’s on in front of us today? There’s a number of requests that are here for amendments on items where we either had a decision point earlier on either through council or through the multi-year budget and I’m just wanna confirm that you received some indication that something is different.

[9:31] Did you just clarify? Sorry, what different am I? Sorry, so just to clarify, my understanding was that we wouldn’t be seeing repeat items unless something was different, either in the submission for that amendment or that there had been someone that indicated a change of support or something of that sort in order to bring it forward? Procedurally, they are in order. The clerks did get for me, which I have placed somewhere safe, which I will find briefly. Oh, thank you, of the past voting record.

[10:05] So my intention is to when we get to certain items, just to remind us of our voting record, it’ll be our consideration as you’ve seen the agenda is long that if you know you haven’t changed on that or how far the vote split was, maybe we just speak less to it and get to the vote faster. As procedurally, it still is in order to do that. Some people have used different numbers and we will navigate that throughout the day as we go. Thank you, and my second question relates to yesterday at SPPC, we dealt with the putting of the question at council, at committees of the whole.

[10:46] I know that we still have to go through a council ratification of that, but I’m just wondering if there’s willingness to allow for putting the question now that we’ve made a decision on that, yet it still has to go to council, but is that something where we would just need to suspend our bylaws in order to do that today? I can can flirt with the clerk as it has not gone through council and it was a divided vote. I would not look to use that today. I’m afraid that we would get into a vote about putting the question before we even got into budget deliberations today and spend our time in that realm.

[11:25] My, I was hoping to address some of those concerns with having the vote record from the budget meeting and highlighting that as we go into it, so you would, people knew if it was a close vote or a 13 to two and manage our time accordingly. Looking to see if there’s any other procedural questions. Hey, that would move us into our consent items. We have one being the 2025 annual update civic administration presentation that is in your package. I will turn the floor over to Mr. Murray and I will note one thing, staff did let me know this morning that in the past Zoom screens could not see what’s on our screens and that has been fixed.

[12:05] So anyone online joining us can see us on the screen and the amendments that’s on the floor to help the public follow along in the conversation. So thank you to the clerks team and IT for making that happen, Mr. Murray. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, we thought we would do a brief five minute or so presentation just to set the stage for today and also to recap the public engagement efforts that we’ve undertaken over the course of the past two or two and a half weeks. So we’ll start with an engagement recap.

[12:40] And so we’ll go to the next slide here. So we use multiple engagement channels through the public engagement period this year. We had five in-person budget pop-up information sessions, as well as one virtual. We generally focused on high traffic areas within community facilities, typically the entranceways of those locations. We were very mindful to utilize a variety of times. So weekend, we had a weekend session, a weekday morning session, a weekday lunch hour session, a weekday afternoon session, as well as a weekday evening session.

[13:24] So a variety of times of days, we had a variety of locations as well. We had a downtown event, an event kind of in the northeast area of the city, an event in the northwest area of the city, an event in the east area of the city, as well as an event in the kind of southwest area of the city as well. I’ll also note that of the six pop-up information sessions, four of them had at least one counselor in attendance at those events.

[13:58] In terms of print ads, we had an ad that was in the Londoner publication, approximately mid-October. We also had a variety of posters that were placed in community centers, 18 community centers across the city, eight arenas, and 15 posters in library branches as well. In terms of digital ads, we made use of advertising on Facebook and Instagram. The metrics from those platforms indicate that that ad reached approximately 125,000 Londoners.

[14:36] We had six Google ads as well that were placed on high traffic websites, such as the Free Press, CDC London, CTV News London, Global News London, as well as the Weather Network. In addition to the mayor’s media release upon the release of the budget, we also had a separate public service announcement to inform Londoners of the public engagement opportunities as well. We made use of billboards. We had six billboards across the city. We also had outdoor signs in each quintile of the city as well, so five of those in total.

[15:15] We made extensive use of social media as well. There were seven social media posts throughout the 2025 engagement period through, and those were delivered as well through Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn. We also tested a new channel this year. We made use of Spotify streaming ads. We typically use the annual budget updates as an opportunity to test out potentially some different engagement channels ahead of a multi-year budget, so this was a new one for this year.

[15:49] Metrics indicate that that ad reached 62,000 Londoners through the Spotify platform as well. We made use of the City of London e-newsletter, as well as a list of subscribers to our Get Involved page. We have 261 subscribers that are following that page, and we had multiple messages that went out at various points in the process as well. It’s going to the next slide. We had budget staff, also attend a counselor award meeting as well, although I will note that I do know that other counselors also hosted their own award events.

[16:32] Those budget staff, we were not requested for those events, however. We also did a presentation for a community group, as well as two advisory committee presentations. We were answering emails and questions posed through the Get Involved platform. That was a very regular occurrence and daily effectively over the last couple of weeks. We were striving to provide responses to any questions that came in typically within 24 hours.

[17:06] The budget document was available as well at all public library branches across the city. And we also had our survey available on our Get Involved page that provided an opportunity for Londoners to provide their feedback on the various budget amendments. So if we flip to the next slide, that provides a summary of the results of that survey. And I’ll note that there were 43 responses to the survey. The bar chart that you see shows the percentage in favor of those various amendments and the percentage who do not support those specific amendments.

[17:48] So the blue portion of the bar represents those in support of the amendment. That’s the lower part of the bar. The kind of purple color at the top of each bar is the percentage no who do not support that respective budget amendment. So that is the results for P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, and P7. If we flip to the next slide, this is the results for P8 through P13.

[18:26] And again, the blue portion is those in favor of, or supportive of those particular amendments. The purple portion is those who do not support those particular amendments. And again, 43 respondents to the survey. If we flip to the next slide, this is just a recap of where we stand sitting coming into today’s discussion. So you’ll recall that the starting point for today’s conversation is a tax levy increase of 7.4% for 2025.

[19:01] As a reminder, each 0.1% roughly translates into approximately $800,000. Each 1% represents approximately $8 million on the city’s budget. So just to kind of give you a sense of order of magnitude in order to move the needle. And finally, if we go to the last slide, I just wanted to provide a few important reminders for today as we go about deliberations on this year’s budget. All of these reminders are based and founded on our strategic financial framework.

[19:41] I’ve provided a link at the bottom of this slide if you wish to go and review that in more detail. But in particular, I’ve picked out a few bullet points that I think are particularly important to keep in mind. Firstly, I would say it’s important to remember to use only one-time funding. Use that only for one-time costs or revenue phase in. If you have ongoing costs that you’re looking to fund, those should be funded through ongoing revenues. Be mindful of taking on more or new services without first reviewing the business case that supports them and considering the impact not in just this year or this multi-year budget period, but also in future multi-year budget periods as well.

[20:27] Also keep in mind whether there are long-term exit strategies that you need to think about for anything that you’re considering adding. Please be mindful of maintaining debt at a manageable level. We want to obviously ensure the sustainability financially of the city and we also want to limit the burden on future taxpayers as well because debt, of course, comes along with future debt servicing costs that we need to be mindful of as well. And finally, just be mindful of ensuring that we have adequate reserve fund balances as well.

[21:00] Reserve funds are an extremely important tool. They provide our cash and liquidity to pay the bills as they come in. They allow us to weather future economic storms. Should they materialize? They address emergencies or liabilities that may come up. They fund our asset management plans. And we also want to make sure that we have a source available to invest in one-time initiatives in the future if and as required. So with that, I will turn it back over to the budget chair to continue us through the agenda for today.

[21:31] Thank you. Thank you. Look, can you see through any questions or comments that you need to ask of Mr. Murray? Okay. I will also need a mover and a seconder to receive his thing. So I will use Councillor Lehman as the mover. Councillor Hopkins is the seconder and my speaker’s list will commence with Councillor Lehman. Just a couple of questions through your chair. I just want to confirm that survey 43 people responded in the city of London. To staff?

[22:04] That is correct. So the survey was run through our Get Involved page. It required registration in order to access. So it’s a very clear one survey per person. So there’s no ability for somebody to complete multiple copies of the survey, for example. So it was secured that way. But yes, 43 was the total number of respondents. That’s what notwithstanding our attempt and our publicizing the availability of survey, encouraging people to complete the survey at every event that we attended.

[22:40] Councillor Lehman. Thank you and through your chair. And with our multi-year budget that was completed back in the spring, there are certain parameters that you need to forecast, primarily inflation and interest rates. How are we tracking on those forecasts? Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So it’s something that we regularly keep an eye on. I think if you’re following the media and business or economic news in general, you’ll know that inflation is trending downwards, although it remains elevated, I would say, relative to what would be considered perhaps historical norms or at least pre-COVID norms.

[23:28] What I will say is that as we’re monitoring those impacts on our budget, we are constantly assessing each year through the budget update process. And this is why the budget update process is so important. It gives us those opportunities to adjust for those types of economic factors if we need to. I’ll draw your attention as well to business case P12, which is our right-sizing amendment. That’s the amendment that we bring forward every year. That’s our opportunity where there is capacity and perhaps if there are areas where maybe we’ve overestimated what the impacts of inflation could be and there’s ability to dial that back.

[24:09] We have the ability to reflect that in the right-sizing amendment each year. So we’re constantly monitoring and as there are needs to bring forward budget amendments, whether it be operating or capital budget amendments, we do that through the annual budget update process. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, one final question through your chair. We look at inflation through usually in the media, through the CPI Consumer Price Index. But what I learned in my time as chair works, we have a lot of our expenses and construction and road work where there’s a different inflation rate.

[24:46] Is that inflation rate tracking similar to the CPI? Mr. Mary. Thank you through the chair. So CPI, of course, gets a lot of the attention in the mainstream media, of course, but I would suggest that it’s not at all necessarily reflective of the basket of goods, so to speak, that the city of London would purchase. There’s some relationship, of course, and it’s a good general indicator, but obviously a lot of our spending is more construction-related. And so we look at the non-residential construction price index, which is a better indicator of what is happening as far as material supplies and generally construction costs are concerned.

[25:29] In the past, we’ve had to look at the non-residential construction price index for, specifically Ottawa and Toronto, because that is all that was available for Ontario. However, Statistics Canada has just started actually producing a non-residential construction price index specifically for London. So going forward, we will now have that as an indicator or a metric that’s available to inform future budget processes as well. Councillor Layman. Sorry, Chair, just to follow up on that, is that tracking similar to the CPI, or is that still staying stubbornly higher, which has it has?

[26:08] Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So non-residential construction prices generally in the past, even if you’re referring specifically to Ottawa and Toronto, they have generally trended much, much higher than general CPI. You know, if kind of a normal, steady state, if you will, CPI is, let’s say two or slightly above 2%. We’ve typically seen at least in the past, non-residential CPI being, you know, three and a half to 4%. What I can tell you as well is that I mentioned the new London non-residential construction price index as well.

[26:46] Over the course of the past year, that for London has been 6.6%, which is, in fact, much, much higher than even Toronto and Ottawa. And Toronto and Ottawa were 3.9. So London’s construction prices have increased, at least over the course of the past year, even much greater than Toronto and Ottawa. Thank you, Chair. Further comments or questions? W. Mayor Lewis. I’ll be really brief for the Spotify ad on my own stream.

[27:20] Also heard it a second time on the stream of a 20-year-old coach that is part of my team on our way to a rink. He’s a King’s College student, so that’s reaching a different demographic perhaps than we would normally reach. And it was a well-produced ad. So just wanted to say, good job. Thank you. Further questions or comments? Okay. It’s been moved and seconded, calling the question in East Prep. So you’re going to need to vote again.

[28:15] There was a reset in the system. Mr. Stevenson, Councillor Hopkins? I felt yes. Opposing the vote motion carries 15 to zero. That concludes our consent.

[28:52] We move into schedule items. items 3.1 is the mayor’s budget, looking for a mover and a seconder for this one. And it’s just it being noted that the mayor’s proposed budget was provided to each member of council, the city clerk, and the public on January 31st. We’re just fixing the date. But it will be that the mayor’s budget was recently provided to us for the annual update. Thanks for looking for a mover and a seconder of the it being noted that we did receive the budget.

[29:28] Moved by Councillor Frank. Seconded by Councillor Cuddy. I assume there’s no questions or comments ‘cause we’re about to get into deliberations. So call on the question. Councillor Van Merebergen. Opposing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[30:04] Thank you. The move is on to item 3.2 for it’s a business case for P31. And this is a Palosa, Councillor Frank team up. I will look to Councillor Frank to move it. I don’t have to relinquish chair for the entire discussion. And then I will hand over. So Councillor Frank’s moving it. I’m seconding it. And then I will hand over the chair to vice chair. Lehman to recognize me as a speaker. And then ideally that will conclude me. And then you can hand it back or you can keep it. But I don’t even want to keep it.

[30:43] So the motion’s officially on the floor. I’m officially re-conquishing the chair to a presiding officer, Lehman. Okay, so the motion has been moved and seconded. And are you first on the speaker’s list chair? Okay, then I will go to you. Thank you colleagues. And it was a long preamble in your packages, which hopefully outlined some of the concerns with this. This item failed on a six to nine vote through the multi-year budget discussion. I was a no, I’m a yay. So I wanted to bring this back forward.

[31:17] We’d also heard a couple of things over the course of the year. And I just want to thank and highlight for you that finance has seen this, city staff have seen this. They made up the numbers and it’s been clerked. There was a civic works report as noted in the motion that highlights the increased usage of parks, garbage being left, including some yes, household garbage being left in the parks. Recently we received the parks master plan update, which highlighted that we have underfunded parks with actually the lowest operating cost of its comparables for larger urban areas, showing that we are underfunding our parks.

[32:02] As we’ve seen the milder weather, we know that the use of our parks are being used more into colder weather months. Our temporary staff have returned to school while other staff have transitioned into arena operations as it’s a talky season, which also tends to be seeming to be getting earlier. So this is before you looking for your support as Londoners do love their green spaces and parks. Part of this also includes more washroom hours, which we’ve heard from residents being needed, regardless of where you are in the city.

[32:38] It’s washrooms are essential. And I do appreciate the London Clean and Green program. I go out with my community and pick up garbage. Residents are just finding that there’s so much of it. And staff have highlighted that with the extent use of the parks, staff have transitioned to other positions. So in the spring, staff is already behind ‘cause garbage was left in the parks in the fall in the winter. No one was around to clean it up and then the spring, the snow melts. And unfortunately we see what was left in the result. So those are my comments.

[33:12] I’m sure Councillor Frank will speak to it. I’ll also highlight that when staff made this business case and updated it for me, you’ll see the positions. I would love for you to support all of it, but staff are prepared with the numbers behind the scenes. If there was something in there that you were maybe just looking for permanent staff or just washroom staff that it can be pulled apart and made available quickly, that has been confirmed with finance and Mr. Yeoman, who’s here to answer any questions you might have. So I will hand that who’s my speaking. And then if the chair wants to hand it back, I will continue in just time from there.

[33:49] Thank you. And I will hand it back to the chair with a good comment on good leadership and taking two minutes and 40 seconds of your allotment. Thank you. I don’t think I’m used to speaking for even that long ‘cause it felt like six minutes. So thank you. I will continue my speakers list. And I’m just gonna try and keep us to our five minutes. You can obviously speak more than once ‘cause it’s a committee. So I’m not sure if Councillor Frank would like to go now.

[34:24] Okay. And then I’ll look around the horseshoe as other speakers would like to join on. And if at any point, you would like to know what you voted for last time. I have it readily available. So fine to answer that question too. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. And I’m happy to second this motion because I hear from residents all the time about the state of our parks and with no offense to staff because we, as you can see, we’re under resourced in the portfolio. I get complaints about garbage in the parks, overflowing garbage cans, public washrooms are not maintained, broken equipment that doesn’t get fixed because it’s a lower on the priority list.

[35:00] And we don’t have enough staff to fix the equipment ‘cause they’re out trying to cut all of the grass on the parks and the second we lose a temporary staff. I pretty much every other week get an email from there’s one park that loses the garbage cans and there’s a dog poop receptacle and it immediately starts overflowing almost every week but we don’t have the staff to maintain garbage cans and so everyone puts their dog poop into this receptacle and we don’t have the capacity to pick it up. So I pretty much start getting emails every single week. I’m supporting this motion because I wanna give staff the opportunity to have the proper allocation to be able to maintain the parks in a reasonable way.

[35:36] I also wanna meet resident demand. I know even myself, I’ll go out to parks and splash pads with my child and I usually bring a garbage bag and while he’s playing the splash pad, I’m picking up garbage from other people which I don’t mind doing but I can’t do that at every park in the city unfortunately. I’m sure that many other colleagues are doing the same thing. So just recognizing that there is a demand for the service, people want it, people email me about it and I think that we deserve to give the residents what they’re needing in their parks. So I’ll be supporting this as well. Thank you, I have Councilor McAllister next and then Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[36:10] Thank you and through the chair. I supported this last time. I’m gonna be sporting it again. This is definitely in terms of what I hear from my residents, one of the top concerns. My parks are taking an absolute beating throughout the year. We need to have those additional resources for the parks. Garbage is always one that comes to mind, just a few off the top of my head that I hear about a lot, St. Julian, Vauxhall, CNRA. These are a few of the parks off of Hamilton Road that desperately need more resources.

[36:44] So I’m happy to support this sport the last time and I really hope we can get to a place this time where we get some more support for our parks department. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m gonna start by saying I appreciate individuals in my ward, like Elaine the self-proclaimed garbage vigilante who uses our service London portal to report every time she sees a garbage can overflowing. That’s fantastic. I appreciate residents like Helen on Bonaventure who voluntarily goes to Bonaventure, Meadows Park, and will sometimes change out the garbage herself, put it out with her garbage collection every two weeks and put a fresh bag in.

[37:24] It’s great that we have citizens that are doing that kind of thing. I was a no on this before and I’ll be a no on this again. And I wanna be very clear that this is a problem we are never going to solve to everyone’s satisfaction. And I’m gonna give you another example. In the last term of council, we responded to complaints by lowering the threshold at which we were going to plow sidewalks in the winter. And nothing in a result of moving from eight centimeters to five centimeters, reduce the volume of complaints.

[37:57] We still had constant complaints during weather events that the sidewalks weren’t plowed to people’s satisfaction. And we spent a lot of money and we raised the property taxes to do that. And in last year’s budget, we removed that. And nothing changed as a result of removing it. The volume of complaints were just the same. You are never going to be able to staff this up to the volume that is going to satisfy everyone. And when we are looking at a 7.4% property tax increase, I’m not going to add another 1.12 million to that almost 1.2 million to that every year from now on in perpetuity.

[38:39] I just can’t do it. Now, if colleagues are interested in conversation about similar to what we had with LTC last year, about whether we are actually adequately resourcing our parks through assessment growth to account for growth and to account for the impact of parks from infill. Because certainly, if you add a couple of 15 story buildings near an existing park, you are changing the park usage and that is growth, but we are not funding it through assessment growth. That is a conversation through assessment growth policy that I would be more than willing to entertain.

[39:13] I think that would be a fair discussion. How is infill impacting our parks maintenance? But that’s not what we’re being asked to look at today. We’re being asked to look at hiking taxes to solve a problem that no matter how much money we put in the hole, it will be a black hole, the complaints will continue. If residents really want to help keep their parks clean, the best way to do that is to take a garbage home with you. If you’ve got an empty gate or a bottle or a water bottle, stick it in your pocket and take it home. I walk around East Lions Park every night before bed.

[39:48] Sometimes I have a coffee cup with me, sometimes I have a water bottle with me. I take it home with me and it’s not that hard. So I am not gonna be supporting this. And considering that we’ve heard one person who’s changed their vote, I hope we don’t have to prolong this debate too much longer ‘cause it sounds like it’s still an eight, seven. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I have a couple of questions to staff on this. I was reading recently that Woodstock Council approved 100,000 to clean up an encampment site that had been vacated.

[40:26] And I haven’t seen anything come through this council for that. So when we have cleanups that were unanticipated, that need to be done extensively like that, is that encroaching into our funding for park maintenance? Ms. Chair. Thank you, Madam Budget Chair. Our general cleanups for increased littering parks may reflect some of additional use, but cleanups for encampments and those significant cleanups are funded through the CIR program. Councillor Stevenson.

[40:58] Okay, thank you. So I do hear a lot of complaints about the condition of our parks and the condition of our roadside medians and our median planters. And in here it says an increased frequency of landscaped road medians, greater coverage and capacity for roadside litter collection. It’s really tough to give residents, for me anyway, it’s very tough to see 8%, 7% property tax increases and people feel underserved.

[41:34] And when they say, my friends come to the city and they drive up hybrid and it looks terrible or I’m driving down this other street, like what’s wrong? Why can’t we just cut the weeds, trim the bushes, plant some flowers? And I think, I don’t know if it’s like the broken window thing in New York City, but people are frustrated, our core area is in despair. I was a no last time, I’m gonna be a yes this time because we get to look like we’re a great city. We get to be polished and have our roadways look good and our parks get to be a safe, like an inviting, welcoming place to take people.

[42:15] It says who we are, I think, that our parks are well-maintained and our roadways look good. So I am gonna be a yes this time. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, I will not be supporting this amendment or this proposal and I wasn’t supporting it last time and I believe that again, and more appropriate, it’s growth space for growth, not increasing already high taxes. And I’m asking, even though we just heard that we are leading in benchmarking and comparative analysis with other cities, I’m asking our staff to come up even further with more effective and efficient strategies and improve within the current budget.

[43:09] And let’s revisit this when we go in terms of the growth space for growth. Thank you for that. And I believe that this is the creative ideas of our leaders sitting across from us will improve within their existing budget. Thank you. Thank you, further speakers. And I’m just gonna do first before we do seconds. Councillor Troso. Thank you, thank you very much through the chair.

[43:42] I do wanna thank you both for bringing this forward. I hear this a lot. I get a lot of complaints and I don’t think it’s as simple as I’m carrying your bottle home. I mean, if the place is a mess and if the trash cans are overflowing, yeah, you can bring your bottle home. You can pick up dog poop. You can do all sorts of things. But you know what? If the place looks unhealthy and uncapped and not properly maintained, people are not gonna feel comfortable going there.

[44:15] And it’s easy to blame it on certain people. But the fact of the matter is, we can’t have properly maintained parks unless we have the staff to do the work. I don’t know how we’re going to deal with the problem of restrooms if we don’t provide more money for people to do things like clean the restrooms. And that goes to the hours too. So I’m very happy to see that there are some votes that have been flipping on this.

[44:50] I think this was not a good decision that we made last time. I get so many complaints about the park. And it’s sort of like people aren’t paying enough attention to the fact that the decisions about how we maintain our parks are political decisions that are decided at budget time. I think I’m just gonna start passing out the minutes of the report for what happens today, next time I get a complaint, which isn’t to say that I shouldn’t work harder to try to be a liaison with park staff.

[45:25] And I always do that. And I do wanna commend park staff because whenever we get a complaint, and I have Gibbons Park, Ross Park, DeWitt’s Park, a lot of word sex residents are going down to Harris Park, whenever I get a complaint, I really follow through on it. It takes a lot of our staff time. Park staff is always responsible to get back to people. And I really wanna thank them for that. We need to give our parks operation more money.

[45:59] So I will definitely be supporting this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. So first I wanna say thanks to my colleagues for bringing this discussion forward. I think it’s an important one to have. My residents, yes, I hear considerably from them over the course of the year on parks maintenance, on roadway maintenance. And there’s definitely a feeling that their tax dollars are not going as far as they need to on these services. I will say do not hear from people as much on recreational activities and community events.

[46:37] I’m wondering if it’s possible to find out what the split is on those costs. Thank you, I’m just pausing your time. I’ll also go to Ms. Chair and Mr. yeoman. I know there was a behind the scenes conversation about rentals and some of the revenue generation that’d be possible with that. I didn’t already raise it of people who rent our parks and they need to be kept clean too. So I will give you a wider area if you would like to mention anything that you feel is relevant that you’ve heard in response to Councillor ramen’s question. Thank you, through you Madam Chair.

[47:15] So the cost associated with the tournament events and encampments piece that was highlighted is about $217,000. That would be the component of that. The rest is for the washroom cleaning and maintenance and general groundskeeping, mowing garbage, et cetera, et cetera. Revenue opportunities are something we are exploring with our colleagues in Rec and Sports to look for opportunities there and also our colleagues in community development and grants from a base parks perspective. It’s challenging to actually generate revenues for a service that’s provided public entry of charge.

[47:50] Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. And just to confirm assessment growth is a possibility. Ms. Chair, Mr. yeoman? Or anybody? Madam Chair, I can certainly start, but Mr. Murray probably will weigh in to make sure that I’m correct on the accounting front. Assessment growth is a possibility for where we are adding new park assets in terms of new acreage of park space. This is largely focused on the need for the over 560 parks, the 250 parks with playgrounds that we already own that we’re seeing a much longer season, a higher demand, a changing growing of the materials in those spaces and essentially an interest from Londoners to use these spaces year round.

[48:32] Right now assessment growth would not apply to the fact that we are often mowing well into the end of October. We’re seeing an earlier spring and a later fall. We’re seeing demand for different and more frequent and intense uses in spaces that already exist. Just fine, I have anything to add. Thank you through the chair. Ms. Chair is quite correct that the assessment growth policy specifically excludes service enhancements or service improvements from eligibility. It is strictly related to growth of the park and new parks that are being maintained.

[49:07] Thank you. Councillor ramen. Thank you. Is that something that just needs some tweaking in terms of our own assessment growth policy to, for instance, better consider parks where utilization has increased because more density in area to staff? Thank you through the chair. I would just caution about, so certainly council can make changes to their policies.

[49:39] I would just caution, however, that we could very easily drift into areas where we’re not fulfilling the growth, pays for growth. Man data, if we’re opening up the assessment growth policy to address service improvements or service enhancements broadly, you could run the very real risk of not having sufficient funding to pay for true growth, which was the intention of the assessment growth policy to begin with. Councillor ramen. Thank you. I appreciate the answer to those questions.

[50:11] So with that, I’ll see where the discussion goes, but I would support, at this time, the additional full-time operational staff and for the seasonal. Actually, no, I’d support the seven full-time operational part of the budget. And I’m just wondering if you can comment on how much that would be. Madam Chair, if you could just allow us a second, we do have those numbers. We’re just making sure we have the right ones for you. While staff’s looking at that, I’ll also look to just round out my speakers, those of anyone who would still be interested in speaking at this time.

[50:54] Okay, I’ll go back to finance staff. I see a hand. Through you, Madam Chair. So if we were to restrict it to just the full-time staff, the seven individuals would be 811 and operating ongoing. Councillor ramen. Thank you. Just wondering if you can comment on if that changes anything on the capital side. Yeah.

[51:26] Also note that the capital recommended source of funding was from a reserve fund, but just a staff of, you might need a minute for that one too, but just pulling out who needs what equipment. Through you, Madam Chair, the one-time capital would reduce down to $404,000. Councillor ramen.

[52:02] Thank you, and through you, can you just let me know how much time I have left? You’ve only used about a minute, 20. Thank you. So what I’ll do is I’ll go through some of these numbers, and then I’ll come back to this in my second round, but I think I asked for just the cost on this seven full-time, and I’m just wondering, ‘cause I see temporary staff was at six, and that was outlined to support for special events, neighborhood activities, sports tournaments, and community gardens.

[52:35] So I was trying to gather what the cost would be if we didn’t have the temporary positions, but just had the full-time positions, and I’m not sure if I’ve got the math correct. Okay, I think it was $404,000 for capital, and operating was started with an 8, 811,000? Yes, I’m seeing no, that was 811,000 for operating and 404 for capital. Okay, I’ll go to Mr. Yeoman, and then I will continue my speaker’s list, and then we’ll go and do seconds.

[53:09] Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for some clarification, the costs really are driven by the fact that temporary staff are on a 26-week period. Also, the salary and benefits associated with full-time staff is quite large in relation to the part-time temporary staff. Thank you for that clarity, Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Chair. I wasn’t ready for that. Okay, so I’m just kind of looking at this. I’m kind of the opinion that at the moment, we should be really looking at the need-to-habs, and really kind of prioritizing what need-to-habs we have and some nice-to-habs.

[53:49] I do see this as a need-to-have in some areas. I just wanted to ask, I guess, for the looking at the chart here with the positions and the duties and everything, I do see that we have some areas that kind of stretch out, like the first one with the five permanent FTEs, seem to be touching on every single part of the city. And so it is the temporary staff at the very bottom with the number of six, but the two middle ones I see don’t necessarily touch on the rest of the city, and I do see the washroom maintenance and cleaning portion for that included within areas that don’t go city-wide.

[54:22] So I just wanted to look at staff and say, or an ask for the washroom facilities that we have, I guess, you know, on the central areas, speaking to word 13. How is the upkeep for maintenance on that? Is that, is there a necessity there, or is there none at the moment? Just staff? Thank you, Madam Chair. So through the multi-year budget, funding was provided for enhanced washroom services at Victoria Park and the Dundas Place Field House. The mayor’s budget approved half of the request, and so that money’s been split between those two services.

[54:55] So there is an enhanced service and security that’s being provided at those locations, specifically no other improvements to washroom services were made through the multi-budget. Councilor Ferra. Thank you. And I also have my own, I guess, park cleanup vigilantes. I have several in my ward, and I do intend to give them a certificate of excellence for civic stewardship, for sure. But they are here, those individuals I’m speaking to, they’re working on this every day, and they’re doing it at their own accord, and they’re still not able to keep up.

[55:29] So I do see this as some nice, or some need to have. So with that, I guess the next question I would ask, ‘cause I haven’t heard that asked on council, or at this budget committee yet, but if we were to approve this, what would the property tax rate bump up to for 2025? If you’re asking for Mr. Murray’s chart, I think it bumps us up 0.15-ish percent, but Mr. Murray, if you have a great opportunity to show your magic chart. Certainly, we can pull it up on screen, Madam Chair, and while we’re doing that, we will just calculate what exactly that amount is, I believe it to be approximately 0.14% impact for 2025, so it would move us from 7.4 to 7.5.

[56:26] Councillor Ferra. All right, thank you for that. So like again, like I said, like I’m really trying to prioritize on what the city needs, and I do have residents asking me, what services are we getting for our property tax? And I do hear the concerns about the increasing property tax as well, and just to make sure that we don’t find ourselves in a situation where residents are paying big bills, but not getting the services that they look for.

[57:04] I do see that we need to prioritize really on the things that the city absolutely needs, especially when it comes to our public spaces, especially when it comes to the public enjoyment of that. But I also see in our multi-year budget discussion on the last cycle, the actual four-year multi-year budget, we do have some nice to have, in my opinion. So maybe looking at that further into this meeting or other budget meetings as they come up in this round, we should be really kind of focusing on that to reduce the property tax rate, but this is a need to have. And for that reason, I will be supporting this amendment.

[57:39] So I appreciate the Councillors who brought that to the floor, and you’ll see my support on this. Thank you. Based on the conversations that we’ve already had, we can certainly call as Councilor Almond already had staff separate out the numbers. If the permit staff has one vote and the temporary staff is the second one, since the numbers have already been split, just for ease of conversation, just I’m trying to avoid amendment of amendment of amendment that might happen or just for efficiency. So just letting everyone know that could be done too.

[58:14] And then I would just ask staff to send the official numbers to Mr. Murray if you wanna see anything plugged in as we go. I’m looking for other first time speakers before I go back to my list of second time. Okay, Councillor Cutty. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. I won’t be supporting this motion or this amendment. I belong to a service group. We pick up garbage three or four times a year. I’m gonna encourage my group that we increase that number. Many of the Councillors, my colleagues also belong to service groups. We could do the same. I haven’t had a lot of my constituents who complain about overflowing garbage cans primarily they complain about the grass not being cut.

[58:51] But you know what, it’s like the snow, it’s gonna come. The grass is gonna grow. And to Deputy Mayor Lewis’s point, we’re not gonna please everybody. And I think adding to the budget’s not going to, it’s not gonna solve the problem. It will satisfy a few, but the many will still have issues if they have issues now about overflowing garbage cans. But again, to in my word, I don’t have a problem with that. But I thank you. Thank you. I will circle back to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[59:27] And you’re at three minutes and 20 seconds used. Thank you, Madam Chair. So quickly, I’m gonna ask you to have the four staffing components separated out into four separate votes with math for each of the pieces included. And then a fifth vote on the capital expense, whatever that is on the outcome of the four staffing results. And then Madam Chair, I’d like to add an additional clause. And I can’t give you the math because it’s gonna depend on what the math is in terms of how people vote on the five different sections ahead.

[1:00:09] But I’d like to add an additional clause and that additional clause would read to the effect of and that the operating, sorry, that the expense, the budget impact for this business case be offset by a reduction to the climate emergency action reserve fund at whatever dollar amount is the result of these five votes. Because if we’re gonna argue that this is earlier springs and later falls, and then we’re gonna argue that this is climate matter, then it should be funded from the climate emergency action reserve.

[1:00:52] Okay, I don’t know, Sam, just a second. So that was a lot. I’m gonna have to add, I’ll go to staff first, realizing if we could separate things out into one, two, three, four. Just each one has potentially different needs for the capital equipment that people are gonna need. So I’ll go to staff first, if there’s an easy or prescribed way to pull that out. And then, ‘cause I just, in case capital fails, we’d have people with no equipment.

[1:01:30] So that’s my concern on that one. I see a nod from Deputy Mayor. So just looking to staff to see the easiest way to chunk those out, having heard the desire of Deputy Mayor Lewis. Madam Chair, we are working to provide those in the four sections as provided in the table with respect to the appropriateness of using the climate emergency action fund reserve. I would defer to my colleagues in finance. Okay, I’ll also highlight that of people’s votes of doing the work if people, like if someone’s gonna fail anyways or pass regardless of just being mindful of where the vote split is right now before we get too far down a certain path.

[1:02:13] Mr. Murray, what is currently the balance in the Climate Action Reserve Fund, if you know? Well, you do know, so I’ll give you a moment. Through you, Madam Chair, the balance is currently $1 million. So, Madam Chair, a point of order? Yes. I’m not asking for this to be funded by that. I’m asking for this to have an offset in the annual contributions to the Climate Action Reserve Fund moving forward. Thank you.

[1:02:46] Can finance remind us what the annual contributions is to the Climate Action Reserve Fund? Through you, $1 million per year is the annual contribution. So, potentially, depending on what past it won’t be adequate to cover. Okay, so you’re aware of that. Do you wanna speak on it now? Or, ‘cause you mentioned other stuff, and I do have other speakers, so I don’t, just going back to you. Yep, so obviously it says offset by a reduction in the annual contributions. If folks vote for all of that, then there will still be a property tax impact.

[1:03:22] If they vote for some of it, then whatever that dollar value would total up to, would be the offset reduction. So, I think I’ve already said my piece on this. I’m not putting this on the property tax payer, so I’m looking for the offset, and I’ll look to see if I have a seconder. Okay, so you do host a seconder and Councillor Cuddy. Clerks are just clerking. Okay, so, is that an e-scribe?

[1:04:55] Okay, so I’ll just read it out, and if you wanna refresh e-scribe, you’re welcome to that the budget impact to this business case P31 be offset by the annual contribution to the climate emergency action plan. So, currently right now, it’s just that amendment on the floor. We can do a speaker’s list on it. It’s the Deputy Mayor Lewis, that’s the intention of your verbiage. Just looking for a nod that we got that right in the system from you and your seconder. I think it needs to say that the budget impact of this business case, number 31, be offset by a reduction in the annual contribution to the CEAP.

[1:05:43] Noted and being changed. Okay, your seconder is good. Perfect, I will start a speaker’s list strictly on the amendment commencing with Councillor Frank and then the Mayor. Thank you, I wasn’t gonna call a point of order, but last year when I tried to do this with the police budget, I wasn’t allowed, so I’m just wondering if that’s changed where you can put something on the floor and then have something else pull. That’s why I’ve separately put the police budget reduction as a separate amendment in here, ‘cause I was gonna tie it to things like this, and last year I was not allowed to do that three times, so I’m just confused as how we’ve changed this procedure.

[1:06:23] And then the second part is it’s not a contribution to the CEAP, it would be the actual Reserve Fund name, I believe, ‘cause the CEAP is a plan and the Reserve Fund has its own name, but I’m just curious as to why we’ve changed the procedure for this. So the finance question I see a nod for Mr. Murray, Mr. Murray, wording, does it need tweaking? Pretty much, I would recommend changing CEAP to Climate Change Reserve Fund. Okay, so I think that resolves that question. Finance is good with it. The other question I’ll confer with the clerk for a minute.

[1:07:17] Sorry, Councillor Frank, just for clarity, if you can bring us back to February, of was the police reduction related to the same item? Or could you, yeah, just I’m looking to confirm. Absolutely, so twice for the extreme clean program, I tried to do an increase to that within a direct reduction to the police operating budget, and then the same thing with the Housing Stability Bank, I tried to do a reduction to that with an increase to a reduction, or sorry, an increase to the Housing Stability Bank with a reduction to the police budget. I see this is very similar, and I was forced to vote on them separately and provide separate motions for both.

[1:07:55] Okay, thank you. I know that Deputy Mayor Lewis did tie this to extended usage of the park in climate-related things. Just let me confer with the clerk. I view this as an order that it’s not two separate business cases being melded together, but versus a source of finances for the business case, whereas last time your example’s given were a cleaning program and the police budget case in two different things offsetting each other, I would encourage people who just don’t like this to vote.

[1:08:54] I would like to challenge the chair on that because I don’t see the difference, and I actually do see a complete difference between park enhancements and the climate action plan. Yeah, so there’s no discussion on this one.

[1:10:13] It’s ready and e-scribed. So it’s pursued into section 32.5, the Consul procedure by-law. So shall the ruling the chair be sustained? As laid out, I have ruled that the source of funding is the source of funding. I ruled it in order. Councilor’s making a contrary statement, believing that it is out of order and not allowed. So like I said, there’s no discussion. Yes, it’s allowed and on the floor.

[1:10:47] No procedure will have to do something else with it. I don’t see any, I see nods, we seem to be good. Councilor, you understand? Yes means what’s prescribed is moving forward and no means we need to find somewhere. ‘Cause there’s no debate on it, just what is it? Sorry, Chair, okay, so just to confirm. No, we are going against the ruling of the chair. Okay, thank you.

[1:11:22] Votes open. Closing the vote, motion carries nine to six.

[1:11:57] So the ruling of the chair is sustained. The item is on the floor. Councilor Frank was my speaker on that one, so I will resume with Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I will obviously not be supporting the additional amendment and I’ve already made comments on the rest. I don’t see how cleaning up parks is related to climate change. I understand the deputy mayor reference that we have former seasons. So we have less snow on the ground. I think that garbage is produced by humans and they’re walking through the park and leaving it. It’s just more noticeable. And there are other items like washroom cleaning and other maintenance that is completely unrelated to climate change.

[1:12:32] And since this is now an opportunity for us to do this reduction method, I will plan to do that for other ones using the police budget, thanks. Okay, so this is strictly on the amendment that’s on the floor, Councilor Troso.

[1:13:26] Thank you very much through the chair. I can’t speak strongly enough against this amendment. It really opens up a lot of mischief. Where do you draw the line between something that’s related to climate change and something that’s not? And one of the fundamental flaws with this amendment is it just purports to allocate 100% of all of these costs to climate change. If we’re gonna start doing that, I think a lot of the things that we’re talking about in the mobility master plan in terms of reducing car trips is related to climate change.

[1:14:08] I think picking up leaves is related to climate change. I think a lot of the routine maintenance that the city does is related to climate change. And I really think that the intention of this motion, as I see it, because I haven’t heard, I haven’t heard a more fulsome rationale, is just to sort of like send out a signal that we’re gonna start putting things onto the climate change account. This was done with respect to our transit improvements last time.

[1:14:45] And I guess I’d like a little bit more clarity from staff. What is the scope of the program where we add money to the climate change account such that we’d be able to precisely determine what should be charged to that? And I’m sorry to be taking a lot of extra time here. And I would really sort of, I would hope that perhaps the maker of the motion could just retract it and we can move on.

[1:15:18] But so long as this motion is on the floor and has been allowed on the floor, I think this raises a lot of potential mischief and I’d like this cleared up. So what else, what other programs to the staff that the city undertakes could be similarly subject to the argument that it’s part of it should be attributable to the climate change account? Mr. Murray, or to staff of you and what the overview of the program reserve fund.

[1:15:54] Thank you through the chair. I’m not sure I can provide a concise answer to that. What I can tell you though, is that the climate change reserve fund is a relatively new reserve fund that was just established based on the outcome of the multi-year budget earlier this year. That reserve fund has been established with a bylaw that is fairly general in nature, but it speaks to funding initiatives that support the climate emergency declaration that council has made. And that could be operating or capital expenditures that are one-time initiatives or projects or initiatives or projects that are requiring a temporary source of financing not to exceed four years, generally supportive though of the climate emergency declaration.

[1:16:44] Okay, thank you. I guess that’s about as helpful as it can be and it just underlines my lack of comfort with this amendment. I’ll just be voting no on the amendment. I urge other people to do so. And perhaps we need to, if we’re gonna start looking to the climate emergency fund, perhaps we need to better define what the scope of these funds are and what the process should be for asking for offsets. ‘Cause this can create a lot of mischief. Thank you.

[1:17:16] Okay, Deputy Marlous. Madam Chair, I think it’s important to be really clear here and to be really clear so that everybody understands for the rest of the day. I’m not asking, nor does the language say, we are funding this from the Climate Action Reserve Fund. It says we are offsetting it with a reduction in our annual allocations. We as a city have multiple reserve funds that we use as levers and we increase or decrease contributions on a regular basis.

[1:17:56] Last year, we decreased contributions to the Economic Development Reserve Fund by half a million dollars. This is not taking from an approved business case. As Councillor Franken indicated, she will do with the police budget. This is taking from an allocation rate that we have set for our own reserve funds. Not a board and commissions operating budget. Not another business case in this budget. A contribution to the allocations we make annually to a reserve fund that we have established.

[1:18:34] And Madam Chair, that’s why I voted to uphold your ruling because it is very clear and a very different thing than taking from one business case to give to another to adjust a contribution to our reserve funds that we ourselves have established that we can actually cease to have if we choose to do so. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. My next speaker is Mayor Morgan.

[1:19:09] Yes, I think that we can make this more difficult than it is, but as the Deputy Mayor said, we often reduce or increase contributions to reserve funds as a funding source. In fact, there’s a business case that I tabled P4 based on Council’s direction for film London that basically fund films London. Part B is a reduced contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund. So the funds are no longer flowing into there. They’re going to fund film London for a number of years reducing that contribution. That’s something that we’ve done on a regular basis. And we can, the reserve funds that we have full control over, we can decide how much are going into them or how much aren’t on a regular basis.

[1:19:46] So I don’t have any issues with the Chair’s ruling. That’s why I voted to support it because I think if you wanna fund something from reserve fund contributions, we’ve done that many times before. We’ve increased them or decreased them to fund other projects. And the reserve funds are a piece of our budget that we have control over that we don’t fund them from the reserve funds, but can basically decide how much we’re going to contribute each year to them. And we made changes to that. In the first small tier budget, we actually have business cases that change this. I actually have this question later for Councilor Ferrara’s amendments that say fund some of his changes from the Economic Development Reserve Fund.

[1:20:24] And I’m wondering if that’s actually a reduced contribution that will fund those or whether it’s meant to populate into the fund and then fund them out of the fund. I’m unclear on that, but I’ll ask that later when we get to those business cases. The question I do have though is with the amendment, I understand the operating budget components of this. I’m unclear on if this includes the capital component. The capital component was funded again from a reserve fund, the Community Investment Reserve Fund. So my question through the Chair to the Chair is the intent of this motion to fund the operating portion of whatever we decide through the source is the capital component still funded through whatever that ends up being through the Community Investment Reserve Fund.

[1:21:08] Looking for clarity from Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, my intent is to not change the capital source of funding, the operating source of funding only, if that’s helpful. Mayor Morin. Thank you Chair. So I don’t have a problem with us having debate about the change of source. In fact, this now has potentially sources from two different reserve funds to fund a change that Councillors might wanna make. So I think we can deal with the amendment and proceed with the debate on whether or not Councillors wanna support some or all of these components when we get to the main motion again.

[1:21:45] Councillor Frank, you were looking for another turn you currently had used one minute and 50 seconds. Thank you, yes. And perhaps for clarity for myself then, I’m struggling to understand some of these nuances that perhaps are not written down in any bylaws or in any policies. What is the difference between, in when we’re doing budget setting, reducing an allocation to reserve fund versus reducing an allocation to a program area or service? To me, they’re both reductions from budget allocations we’re making. Who cares if it’s a reserve fund or if it’s a budget from a different service department or from one of our agencies, it’s a reduction somewhere in our budget.

[1:22:22] So I’m just wondering if it’s written down anywhere that there’s a difference between a reduction to reserve fund in a budgeting process or a reduction to a service department. Looking to finance if there’s any clarity of how you work numbers that you can provide? Thank you through the chair. So I’m not aware of any difference or different treatment that may apply to reserve fund contributions versus service area budget allocations.

[1:23:01] At the end of the day, the budget is council’s purview and you can adjust accordingly. Councillor Frank. Thank you for that clarity. So therefore, I think it’s up to our personal opinions and interpretations, I suppose. Again, I will not be supporting this and moving forward, as I’ve already mentioned, it seems appropriate for us to do similar things to other budget cases. Is it good? Into the side, this is strictly on the amendment to yay or nay vote calling the question.

[1:24:06] Closing the vote motion carries nine to six. Okay, that resolves the amendment, adding that in, following up with staff as we’ve been messaging to see how you’re doing at having those positions separated out, including the capital portion for each position. Just checking in before we continue with our speakers list.

[1:24:41] Madam Chair, that information has been provided by email to yourself and to the clerk. And I will note that it doesn’t add up entirely neatly on by the capital or operating. And that’s because there are some equipments that would have been pooled should the entire case be accepted. And there’s operating associated with set equipment each year in order to maintain it and manage it. So in splitting it up, we end up with numbers that are a little bit different. I believe that to the tune of about $53,000. So that has been provided to the clerk and I’ll turn it back over to you. Okay, so the clerk, thank you for pulling that together.

[1:25:35] The information is just being put into eScribe. And then I will look to the seconder of councilor Frank who just wants the numbers in there that it’s not there yet. That it just breaks out and you’ll still see the lines of operating versus capital. And we just numbered the positions one, two, three, four to keep it simple for clarity. On my speakers list, councilor ramen was next looking to see if you want to see those numbers first if you just want to continue.

[1:26:21] Councilor Layman, we’ll recognize you first and then we’ll check in on that. Are you fine speaking before you see all the numbers up? Yes, I have just a quick question. Through you chair, I’m just wondering if this increased funding within the parks maintenance service would also address roadside maintenance like embolivards and shoulders of weed maintenance. I guess it’s fully or a little bit ‘cause some of them are— Well, just, yeah, not fully, but we’ll, you know this.

[1:26:56] ‘Cause that’s where I hear complaints a lot is about the weeds along our boulevards and roadways. So I just wondering if this will go somewhat to leaving that. To Ms. Chair. Madam Chair, I believe that the request for the movers, we did not include the roadside aspects of this. This is strictly based on parks. Councilor Layman. So is that a yes? Yes. - Okay, thank you. Councilor Raman, are you ready? Thank you and through you.

[1:27:27] So I just wanna go back to this chart again. So my understanding is that if I was looking to support the mowing, the grounds keeping garbage collection, parks maintenance activities, I would be only looking to support the five permanent staff, just confirming. Madam Chair, that is correct, along with the associated capital budget. Councilor, thank you, and so I’m struggling with this one a little bit based on an earlier, and I believe it was a budget amendment where it looked at more naturalization in parks because I’m just wondering what’s the difference between increased mowing in a direction that we had on naturalization?

[1:28:19] Ms. Chair, Mr. Yaman. Thank you, Madam Chair. So yes, we do have the naturalization strategic plan item budget case business reduction there. The reduction is coming in the later years once the naturalization areas have been established, and that would be a reduction in temporary staff, the seasonal staff that we have to offset some of that. So Raman? Okay, so right now I’m inclined to support the five full-time year-round staff with this allocation because I’m hoping that it will address the plethora of complaints I receive, mostly on the mowing side, but also on the park maintenance and garbage removal.

[1:29:11] I agree, we won’t address all the concerns and there will still be complaints and that this will still be an ongoing issue, but my hope is that with more staff, this will get better, and for that reason, I’m comfortable supporting the five. Thank you. We’re just finishing with the numbers into e-scribe for you. Okay, so the numbers are just going in, the system as requested that you’ll see a case for the second for the operating in the capital for each one broken out of the five positions, two positions, four positions, six positions.

[1:30:19] I would like to use the same mover and seconder for both of them. Once it’s loaded, I’ll check with Councillor Frank, finance. Thanks for the opportunity to jump in here, Chair. I’ll just note that I think tax levy impact for this should be zero based on the previous amendment that was just supported by reducing the contribution to the Climate Change Reserve Fund. That’s an offsetting impact, so no overall net tax levy impact than to this. I will also flag for committee that by piecing these out into four individual votes, if each of them were to be supported ultimately, you would end up approving more than the original amount of the business case, both on operating and capital.

[1:31:17] So I just wanna flag that as well, that there are intricacies associated with that. This is the joy of doing wordsmithing and whatnot on the floor. Ms. Sherrod, do you have anything to add? Unfortunately, Madam Chair, I don’t know that there’s a way around that because in order to deliver any one of those four items discreetly, the number is slightly higher than should we do them all together. Should committee choose to approve all four of those items, we could potentially work with our friends in finance to create a motion tomorrow to adjust that back.

[1:31:57] I don’t know how that’s procedurally works best with the clerk, but should they all be approved, we need the funding that’s required, that’s in the business case. If they’re approved individually all four of them, then we would end up in a case where it’s actually more than we asked for and we need to find a way procedurally with the clerk in finance to have that adjusted later in the process. I see a nod from finance. Mayor Morgan. Yes, as a suggestion to my colleagues, if we were to approve, let’s say three of them.

[1:32:31] And staff say, now that you’ve approved three of them, there are efficiencies here and we don’t need that much money. I would hope that we can find a process that we could revisit a consolidated vote, whether you were forward or against it, once it gets approved by council to just say, let’s do what we all agreed to for less money, right? Whether you voted forward or not. If we could agree to that, then there’s a pathway forward here to say, we’ll have the votes. If there’s efficiencies at the end of the day, the staff want to make it done for cheaper, like we could actually just go back and reconsider it and put it all together and then just support it. Because why would we spend more than we have to?

[1:33:05] There’s got to be a way to do this in a common sense way. I get that we have to parse it out because not all are supported, but if there’s efficiencies for two or three or four, then we just figure that out after the fact and revisit it. And I’ll leave it to the chair to figure out how to do that procedurally, but I would certainly commit to regardless how I vote, support doing it for last at the end of the day, supporting the will of council as a whole. Looking to counselors to see if, based on how things pass or not, if obviously there’s the savings that we’d like to, in good faith, take those savings and adjust the numbers without a full discussion later, just a administrative cleanup.

[1:33:48] I’m seeing not in a few hands. I will continue with my speakers list as everything’s currently on the floor with Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Ferra. Yes, Madam Chair, I’m not comfortable with voting on anything that I’m not clear on. And I wonder through you if there is or to maybe to you if there’s an opportunity for us to get the numbers correct, that this somehow can be referred to later on in our process here.

[1:34:26] Procedurally, I think the only way to do it, it’s a real-time issue is to do the first vote. If it passed, we roll on to the second vote. Staff look to see if it changes any numbers. If it passes or fails, we go to the next item. If it passes, staff looks to see if there’s any efficiencies and you update the numbers, and then we go to the fourth vote. There’s, I know, we’re just in a really messy situation. That’s, I understand why the real-time numbers, but that’s the way to do it.

[1:34:59] Or we finish all four votes and do a revision right at the end of the vote. I’m seeing not from staff that we could do all four votes and then we can make an adjustment in that time of whatever the savings would be of efficiencies of the economy, the scale that we’re looking at doing. I would even call the short five-time minute recess if we wanted that point for staff to run the right numbers, have a bio break and come back. Ms. Chair and Ms. Bonbona. Madam Chair, might I suggest if we could do all four votes as you suggested at that point, staff would take anything that is approved and perhaps we could table it later in the agenda just so we can confirm the exact equipment required for whatever permutation of any of the options of all none or some of the four staffing levels that we’ve provided.

[1:35:46] There are a rather substantial number of ways that could add up differently. And until we have that, we’re not able to say, do we need the original number or some number less than that to reflect the will of council in terms of the services you’ve selected. So if we could go through that piece, if anything is approved, that is more than say one of those things or just the permanent staff, we do have that number for the permanent together. We can either advise that we do not need to provide an additional number or we will come back later in the agenda with that. Okay, I see nods from Councillor Hopkins. It sounds fair and amicable of a way forward as efficiently as possible, Councillor Ferra.

[1:36:27] Thank you, Chair. I’m not comfortable on voting on this as it is. It was pretty straightforward and clear when the business case or the amendment originally came, but now there’s a lot of different nuances I see going on with this. We’re using the Climate Reserve Fund, the Climate Change Reserve Fund, or we’re offsetting resources to the fund to put into this. I understand that that fund only gets a million a year. I’m looking at the numbers. I would like to know what the leftover is, I guess, so to speak.

[1:36:59] I do see that staff is saying that they want to look at some of the numbers to confirm some things and re-table it. I think it would be wise that we don’t vote on this right now. And I think it would be wise to just hold this off and get everything in front of our eyes before we make any votes, ‘cause I’m not very comfortable on voting when we know that some of the numbers still need to be articulated to us. So I’m gonna vote no. And I would really urge colleagues to maybe look into pulling this right now so we can get some extra information before we go forward. Councillor, there’s no way with how Councillors have asked to pull it apart to have absolute numbers at this time, ‘cause you have different changes of equipment and staffing, so you can vote no, and then everything’s just gonna fail and it’s done with.

[1:37:45] It resolves itself that way and there’s no park staff. Or we do the votes one at a time, as Councillors have requested pulling it apart, staff get those numbers, and later in this meeting, we can do everyone, no one ejected coming back and if the numbers have changed, doing a motion of finalizing the numbers, as staff will need final numbers for their budget, it’s the only way to dispose of this at this time. Unfortunately, you have the information in, okay, I’m told that it’s loaded in live in E-Scribe.

[1:38:27] You can see it as we go, just based on how much passes or fails, we’ll determine what staff will be able to do. Mr. Murray. Apologies Chair, I just do want to flag as well for committee’s awareness that this particular one reflects a net zero tax levy impact. So if this is supported, that would obviously reduce the amount of contribution then that is going into the climate change reserve fund. As was noted, we only have though a million dollars of contribution going into that reserve fund.

[1:39:05] If all of these are supported, it adds up to more than a million dollars. So once we get to the last vote likely, you will see a tax levy impact associated with that. Thank you. When we get to vote number four, you can tell us where the numerically we’re at and why we’ll stop and have a conversation. Okay, I’m seeing some nods and I see a hand. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I just have a quick question staff. I’m not sure if they can provide comment on it, but it will influence my decision. I’m just wondering, given that it’s the same department that manages parks that also manages our climate emergency action plan, if they have any input onto what they value more in their work plans, park maintenance, or us actually being able to do anything about climate change?

[1:39:57] Madam Chair, I don’t believe that’s a question that would be appropriate for me to answer. The services we provide across our organization are complex and Council has to make difficult trade offs as to staff. So all of these things matter, we wouldn’t have them in front of Council and we respect your purview with respect to your priorities for your budget. Looking to see if there’s any comments as we will call these one by one as we go, Councillor Trausau. Just a procedural question, wouldn’t it make a lot of sense to start by voting on what’s number one here at the top, which was the original motion, which has been amended.

[1:40:38] But if that passes, it obviates the need to go through what’s going to be a very, very lengthy and difficult and confusing for we voters set of options. I think of one, which is the original numbers passes. Then that’s that subject, of course, to the amendment that we passed. I appreciate that. The colleagues had asked for them to be separated out. And that’s how they got separated out as some said, they would be interested in funding some things, but not others.

[1:41:12] Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. So I find myself now in a tough position where I want to support the permanent staff. I would have loved to have been able to vote on this as a whole, but now I’m in a position where because the climate reserve is going to be depleted every vote I do, I just did the quick math on it and I don’t want to leave them with nothing. So I’m willing to now support permanent staff, but then if I support the last two cases, I’m completely depleting the reserve. So I don’t want to do that.

[1:41:44] So I just want to make it known for the record that I will support permanent. I would have loved to have supported this as a whole because now by chopping it up, I am also taking money away from the reserve fund. So I just want that to be on the record because my vote will have to reflect that because I don’t want to completely deplete what goes into the reserve fund. Thank you. I’ll note the reserve fund is just that and there’s always other ways to fund things as we go. Hey, I have Councillor Frank and then Councillor Faire again.

[1:42:23] Thank you, yes. Now given the situation we’re in, I agree with Councillor McAlister. I actually will only be supporting permanent staff for the washroom maintenance and cleaning and part maintenance activities, which is two because I’m not willing to take away that much money from the only reserve fund. We have to fund climate change, which I don’t think this is, but regardless of my opinion, I’ll only be supporting two permanent staff for washroom maintenance. Councillor Faire. I’m not going to be supporting anything here. Just because I don’t believe that the climate change reserve fund has any connection to park maintenance.

[1:42:56] We’ve had park maintenance before. We started thinking about climate change and what was happening. So just considering that, the two are not connected as far as I’m concerned and I am not going to be prone to voting on items that can deplete the reserve fund, especially when they have nothing to do with our climate mitigation initiatives that we’re trying to do. With that, I would also say, there’s a lot of information that hasn’t been answered. And again, we are voting for something that we don’t fully understand as some Councillors have said. So I would prefer not to vote on this.

[1:43:30] I would love to see if there was flexibility in the procedure by-law that we can change this discussion right now and see if we can table it and get some more information back. But if my hands are tied and there’s nothing we can do ‘cause there is no flexibility. And I would like to maybe look at the clerk to see if there is some flexibility before that. But if there’s not, then I’m just going to have to vote it down. Saying no. If you want to hear it from Mr. Schultz’s, you can. But procedurally, this is just where we’re at with the way things have been divided.

[1:44:04] No, I believe that I could see him shaking his head over there. All right, I really don’t feel comfortable voting when we don’t have all the information. But I don’t want to see this down. So I guess I’m just going to go with Councillor Frank on her direction ‘cause she clearly understands this a little bit more. So I’m going to go with the two, the number two with the, what was that? The temporary staff, permanent year round staff, number two, wash your maintenance, cleaning activities. So I guess I’m just going to vote for one, but I really don’t feel comfortable with the position that we’re in.

[1:44:37] Thank you. Councillor Lemond, can you shape the chair briefly? Okay, thank you. Used to, well, it’s different items. So you had your full flight. Please go ahead, Chair. Perfect. Yeah, for those who you couldn’t see, I promised to be brief and he didn’t need to time. I voted no for the source of funds.

[1:45:12] I still believe in the first motion that was tabled as that’s someone that I tabled and spent probably two months with staff making as I do believe that parks are a jewel of the city and definitely need more funding and care. I am willing to pay for more climate action things. As we go out of different funds, out of different sources, I don’t want us to lose this opportunity to fund things and washrooms that we need in parks and our residents desperately need in a level of cleanliness in them when they do use them.

[1:45:45] For my that’s left in a reserve fund sitting and waiting while we can operationalize funds now to serve Londoners. So I don’t like the funds, but I will be supporting the motion across the board, presiding officer. I don’t want to return the chair to you. Mr. Murray was waving at me. So I’m going to go Mr. Murray. And then I see Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Tracao. My apologies, Madam Chair. We’re just working through the best way to present these amendments.

[1:46:18] And I might suggest that we, after five permanent staff in the body of this motion, we note $613,000 and then for the operating expenditures, 2025, 2026 and 2027, we reflect those as zero as well because you will have the additional operating expenditures in parks, however, you will have the reduced contribution to the climate change reserve fund of the same amount. So it is technically a net zero as well. But if we include the $613,000 after the words, five permanent staff, I think that gives us the clarity and hopefully gives committee the clarity that you need as well.

[1:47:03] Thank you, apologies. Okay, it’s being clerked. Once it’s done being clerked, I will go back to you to make sure that you like the Councillor Tracao. So I, you just got to be a little bit quieter, I’m sorry. I will get to you in a moment ‘cause Councillor Hopkins was next. Thanks, Madam Chair. I just, I’m looking for clarity regardless of how you vote on these items. We don’t know what it’s going to look like at the end. I just want to make sure that at the end, we will be doing a final vote.

[1:47:37] ‘Cause we are now in a situation that even though you support something, you may not be able to support it. Yes, and I will pause after each vote to see where we’re at, just finance to, before we proceed. And then at the end, we will see the final numbers. We can read these with that later once everything’s done in the system. I see notes from Ms. Share. Councillor Hopkins. And that’s the clarity I’m looking for. The final vote will still take place later on through the session, thanks. And that was a nod from Ms. Share too, of once we get our votes in, we’ll know final, final numbers of where we’re at.

[1:48:26] How you know that clerks are clerking with you? Councillor Tressa. Yes, I’m sorry I was trying to follow what was going on and it was cross discussion here. And are these votes going to be cumulative in that, for example, let me just give you an example. If we vote for six temporary staff, then is it contrary to vote for four temporary staff, or will we be able to vote for each of these knowing we can come back later and vote for the whole thing or something later?

[1:49:01] ‘Cause I think it’s been a real disservice to put council in a situation where even those of us who are sitting here trying to follow the meeting are having a difficult time comprehending where this is going. I wanna vote for every piece of this. My vote ultimately is for the whole piece. But I want to be able to vote for the little piece of it without undermining the ability to come back and vote for the something that is greater than what was just included.

[1:49:33] That might not make a lot of sense what I just say, but that’s just a reflection of how confused I am right now and why I really think that by voting for the big one first, it would obviate a lot of this. This isn’t just saying let’s vote on part D separately or part B separately. This is something we haven’t seen and I think it’s very confusing. And however this turns out, I think it’s important that when our offices get complaints about the park, we be able to tell people in no uncertain terms what the vote on this was.

[1:50:11] And I think that’s being clouded and I think it’s very unfortunate. Point of order. Based on what I just heard, Madam Chair, I want the councilor to clarify it when he provides the vote that he’s also gonna provide the expense of each item that people voted for and against. Presenting a vote without context is disenchanting. That’s not really a point of order, but it’s on the floor. Okay, Councilor, both, hey, just hold tight. Mayor Morgan’s also been on the speakers list.

[1:50:47] So I’m gonna go to Mayor Morgan and then Finance is gonna, they’re just finishing with the clerk in numbers and then Finance can explain it and then we will call the vote slowly once it’s time and once I’m done my speakers list, Mayor Morgan. Yes, so maybe I can help with some clarity and I know Finance will do the same. I know it sounds tricky, colleagues, but what we’re talking about here is just economies of scale, right? There, when the business case was put together for the councilors who prepared it, it’s a modification of the original business case.

[1:51:25] They got together and they said, guess what? For this package of services, we can probably share some equipment, we can have staff do different duties and share some time and so the overall amount is this. When we break it into pieces, you lose the economies of scale, you lose the sharing of equipment, so even if you vote for one part of it, they probably still need a piece of equipment that might’ve been able to be shared in part with the other components. That’s why if you support the concept of I want five permanent staff here and I want two permanent staff here and maybe I don’t want the temporary staff, they’re gonna look at those two pieces, they’re gonna see the council supported it and then I’m gonna say, guess what?

[1:52:04] We can do that for less because we don’t need all the capital for both of those because we can share it between the two groups. So it is not as confusing as it’s being made out, it is just economies of scale. So if colleagues focus on what services do you actually want to provide and which ones don’t you? At the end, staff will be able to tell us we can actually do this for a little bit less than the individual parts because we can achieve some economies of scale with the equipment that we need to buy. But they can’t do that until they know the parts we’re supporting, right? So we’re not over-complicating this. Our staff are just helping us out to say, breaking it down allows counselors to support the parts they want.

[1:52:42] The only hook back at the end is, it’s gonna be able to be done for less if we choose more than one part, less than them separate because there will be the ability to share some resources between two of the services, particularly on the capital side. And if you actually add up the capital numbers, it’s way more because you’re probably buying a piece of equipment for each of these. So if you do one, you’re probably buying a certain piece of equipment. But once you bought that, you can do two or three of them. So that’s why I think it’ll be clearer after we make the decisions on the individual parts so you know what counselors support or not.

[1:53:14] And then at the end, staff can come back with a cost, we can come back with a modified motion to say, we can now reduce the capital ask by $200,000 because you picked two of them or something like that. That’s the only thing that’s gonna happen. It’s not gonna be, I think, that confusing once you see it play out. And I like what Mr. Yeoman nods when I talk. So, but that’s my contribution to discussion. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I just want, again, some clarification. Is the operating expenditures being offset by the reduced contribution to reserve fund?

[1:53:51] Or is what about the capital expenditure? Is that coming out of the reduced? Can we invest in reserve fund? So it’s two different funds. Okay, thank you. Yeah, if colleagues want to refresh eScribe, buy-ins and the clerks have worked together and it’s accurate in there. So if you scroll to the fourth vote, you will see that the mayors, ‘cause they’ve all been separated out, be a minute to include park maintenance, enhancements, supports based on action one and the MYB, business case P31, parks delivery service, enhancements, and then you will see where it reads the five permanent staff.

[1:54:30] So each one will break out like that and you will see the operating expenditures of $0, and the tax levy of zero, ‘cause it’s coming from reserve fund and the capital expenditures, which will come out of the community investment reserve fund. Seeing nods from finance and a thumbs up, that’s doubling down on we’re on the right track. So I am fine too. When we’re ready, call the question on this and we’ll do each one individually to make sure that everyone understands which one we’re on.

[1:55:06] So I had known currently on my speaker’s list and the first vote up would be the five permanent year round staff for the mowing, groundskeeping, garbage collection, park maintenance activities, and snow removal. Councillor Cresser, are you? Sorry.

[1:55:42] Yeah, I’m still very uncomfortable with this. I’d be more comfortable if we voted on number one first, and I don’t see any. That is, Councillor, that is number one. Number one on the screen is the original motion. Councillor’s asked for it to be pulled apart, and that’s how we got here. So I can’t, sorry, you’re gonna need to use your mic. Yeah, and again, and I’m sorry if I’m having difficulty with this, but I don’t want to make a mistake and have to come back later and ask for reconsideration.

[1:56:21] And I don’t want to lose a funding component here because different Councillors prefer one of the other funding components. This isn’t sort of a popularity test between all of them because it would be difficult to get a majority. I want to be assured that ultimately we will get to vote on the motion that was originally submitted without being told it’s contrary to something that would just pass. You procedurally, you can’t vote on it as is originally submitted because it’s already been changed for source of financing.

[1:57:01] And that was the vote that was lost six to— Originally submitted subject to the office side is what I— If it helps, once these four votes go, we will come back later in the E meeting for finalized financial numbers based on the economies of scale that the mayor laid out. And Councillor Stevenson, I did see your text. So that will be, it actually already been fixed in eScrap. So thank you.

[1:57:54] Councillor Permall. Thank you, I guess this one is much easier for me. I will be as from the beginning. I will not be supporting any of them. And my ask is looking at the staff and to come up with more efficient and effective strategies to improve the service level to a higher satisfaction of half a million of Londoners. Thank you. Thank you for being concise. As are we ready to call the first one? Are you ready to call the first one? Okay, so the first vote’s about to open and that’s based on the action one of the MYB case.

[1:58:38] This is for the five permanent staff. All in the question. Using the vote, motion carries 11 to four. This next vote that’s about to open is the washroom maintenance and cleaning and park maintenance activities as it pertains to the two permanent year round staff.

[1:59:26] Building the vote, motion carries eight to seven. The vote that’s about to open is for the four temporary summer staff in regards to the washroom maintenance and cleaning in one each of each region of the four quarters of the city. Calling the question. Closing the vote, motion fails five to 10.

[2:00:18] The next and final vote that’s about to open is for the six temporary summer staff for support of special events, neighborhood activities, sports, tournaments and community gardens. Hey, it’s just be a moment as requested staff are just checking in on the numbers of the funds that are available. Mr. Murray, a question to you.

[2:01:32] I know we passed one and two. Are we fine to call question four? Through you, Madam Chair, I do need to provide updated numbers to the clerk because we do not have sufficient remaining contribution available in the climate change reserve fund to fund this in its entirety. So I’m providing the numbers right now to the clerk. So just for clarification, we have enough to fund one and two, that’s correct. Realizing the temporary staff failed five to 10, like that we changed and we had passes, I can actually, I’m gonna assume that isn’t the case.

[2:02:14] Looking to colleagues if did you want the updated numbers, you know your intentions the last vote failed five to 10 or if we’re good to proceed and make any amendments that we need to do and wrap back for any economies of scale. Okay, I’m seeing less of just calling it without Mr. Murray’s update. Mr. Treso, currently on the floor is that six temporary summer staff for special events, neighborhood activities, sports, tournaments and community gardens.

[2:03:29] Motion fails two to 13. Okay, that disposes of item 3.2, which was, wait. Okay, so the clerks have confirmed that that clarifies that as we move through it.

[2:04:19] That takes us on to 3.3, which is the Arc Aid case. I will go in numerical order. First up was Councillor ramen. And if you just remind me of your seconder, I’ll check with them. My seconder’s Councillor Frank. Councillor Frank, you’re still remaining as the seconder on this? Looking for a seconder. My second seconder was Deputy Mayor Lewis. Deputy Mayor Lewis, are you the seconder on this one? Okay, so Deputy Mayor Lewis is the seconder.

[2:04:54] Councillor ramen is the mover. I will make note, as I did before, Ms. Campbell is in the gallery. If you have questions as we go through, they are available ‘cause they are not a delegation. They are here to answer questions pertinent to the item on the floor. Councillor ramen, would you like to introduce your motion and be the— - Thank you and through you. So I will apologize for the revisions of the revision on the motion, but of course, with new information that came available last week, I wanted to ensure that I had provided or referenced that item in the motion as well.

[2:05:36] So that’s all I’m just gonna ask, make sure that you read out the right one and the clerk will make sure that we got the right revision in here. Thank you, got it. That the Mayor’s 2025 annual budget update be amended to include one-time funding for up to 947,000 to support Arcades, Cronin Warner location from one-time 2024 surplus in the housing stability services, operating budget, and that civic administration be directed to contribute 947,000 from the housing stability services 2024 operating budget surplus to the operating budget contingency reserve to facilitate this funding.

[2:06:10] It being noted that staff have indicated a report will come to council with information on support for Arcade through the federal encampment funding and/or Q2 and Q4 2024 IHAP funding. Thank you, I’m just gonna ask for IT to get that up on the screen, is it up, perfect. So it is up, would you like to be the first speaker? Thank you. Thank you, so I’ll be brief in my comments now just in case there’s anything to clarify. So what’s in front of you is I believe an opportunity to support Arcade with some funding that we received through IHAP funding already.

[2:06:54] And so this is an opportunity for us to consider ways to fund the beds at Cronin Warner and Bishop Cronin specifically. This in my opinion upholds council’s other decision around where to fund beds and that again, I wanted to make sure that we could come to consensus on. We know that and what has been said lately, especially is that we really want to ensure that there are overnight beds available this winter.

[2:07:34] And this is an opportunity to continuing those beds past December 31st, 2024. So that is there and then this gives us a chance to when we receive a future report, have the opportunity to look at some of those federal encampment dollars that are coming through as well as other installments which have been outlined in the 400 plus thousand range of additional IHAP funding that will also be available. So if we start to piece together all that math, we have a way to contribute to sustain those 60 beds.

[2:08:17] Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So Councilor Raman went into much greater fiscal detail than I’ll go into in my comments. I was originally open to supporting this potentially as bridge funding to at least carry Cronin Warner through until the end of March when we did not know whether or not federal funding was going to appear or federal and provincial funding and provincial funding still has not appeared. However, federal funding has and my understanding is that this is an operating contingency surplus from our housing area because we did get IHAP funding from the federal government, but that IHAP funding came essentially as a reimbursement because we had already spent the money and through a provincial fund and the province said you don’t have to return that.

[2:09:11] Use it to continue to stabilize some housing services. So this money was always earmarked for some housing stability purposes. Given that the province did not come on board with encampment funding, it does leave us a little bit short in terms of the federal encampment funding to fund ARC fully, but with the IHAP contribution reimbursement from last year and with next year’s IHAP contribution, my understanding is that at least for the Cronin Warner position, this gives Mr. Dickens and Mr. Cooper the funding they need to operationalize and work with the ARC to fund something that keeps those beds at Cronin Warner working for now.

[2:09:58] And so I just threw you, Madam Chair, because I don’t want to confuse anything. So I just want to check in through you with staff and make sure if Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper can confirm that my less than eloquent financial reading is substantively accurate. Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. Yes, this is a very convoluted scenario that we find ourselves in where we are looking to apply federal reimbursement dollars as well as allocate the soon to be allocated federal encampment dollars as well as the motion reflects future reimbursement dollars that we are still yet to apply for with the federal government to this service.

[2:10:54] And so that is correct. This is a little bit messy in terms of drawing on multiple federal pots of money. And this is a reimbursement that has created a surplus. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. Just wanted to confirm that I was interpreting everything correctly. And so because it’s federal money intended for assistance with housing and homelessness stability services. And because I just said at SPPC two days ago, my priority is overnight beds and Cronin Warner is providing overnight beds.

[2:11:31] And so I’m happy to second this and get the funding through Mr. Dickens and his team to the arc so that we can keep Cronin Warner running. Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Chair. So am I going to say no to shelter spaces in my ward? No, I’m not because we need it. I wish that we could say yes to shelter spaces, especially if we have the cap and capacity already there because there’s wind up times if we’re looking for new spaces.

[2:12:04] I do want to see more indoor spaces brought into the city but the question is where, where is it going to go? So I will be supporting this and I will tell my residents why because it will help the city as a whole. And I really hope that Councillors here will take that as well and take that to your wards as well because the next shelter spaces are not going to be in ward 13. We need the city to start working on this as well. So I will say yes to this one. And I hope that everybody sees that example.

[2:12:43] Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Pervall. Thank you. I’m just going to be quick. I’m not sure whether that was directed at me or not, but just in case I want to be clear that I supported the shelter beds on Dundas Street last year to the detriment of my ward. And I did that because there were people outside in the winter. There’s been a year to figure something out and that has to happen. And so I’m still grateful for my colleagues for supporting setting that boundary that we as a city part of this whole of community response is to do better that the status quo is not acceptable for the neighbors as well as the unhoused.

[2:13:23] We have a commitment to all of them. So I will be supporting this. And yes, I look forward to finding many more beds for people this winter. That’s the commitment that we all get to make outside of the overly saturated areas. Thank you, Councillor Pervall. Mayor, my chance of part of this motion. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. No, your discretion. No, you’re speaking. Go ahead. Yeah, so I’m supportive of this motion too. I just want to say two things to it. I think this sticks to the discussion that Council and the principal of the Council is trying to espouse as best it possibly can given the pressures on the municipal budget that we’re trying to use federal and provincial dollars to supply these overnight spaces wherever we can.

[2:14:09] This is one way that we can shift an unallocated or an unspent portion from this particular year into next year to support these spaces. And I like being noted, ‘cause although we cannot make that particular decision today, we can recognize that there is other dollars available both in the federal and Canada money as well as the future reimbursed money from this envelope of funding. I feel they’re appropriate sources. And I want to say to our gate, and I know Sarah’s through the chairs here in the audience, you know, the services that are provided at this location, which I had the chance to see myself are phenomenal.

[2:14:48] And I think the work that’s being done is incredible. And to have the opportunity to use a proper source of funding to continue the work that’s being done there, I think gives Council a really great opportunity to show, stick to our principals, as well as show support for the work that’s being done. So please thank your staff for the work that they’re doing in that facility. Are there speakers before calling the question? Councilor Rama. Thank you. And I’m just wondering if it’s possible to direct a question through you to Arcade. Sure, thank you.

[2:15:22] I just wanted to first, if it’s possible, ask and just confirm with Ms. Campbell that the funding that we’re discussing today can be used at that location and what that funding could mean. Ms. Campbell and to IT, she’s just lower, lower bowl on that side. Welcome and please proceed. Thank you. And through the chair, I want to first express gratitude for this opportunity. And we were a surprised and grateful that things worked out with the federal funding and heard about that at the public participation meeting.

[2:16:00] That was great and thank you for listening to so many of our constituents about this business case. Working with civic administration, we’ve been trying to redefine the way that services have to be delivered. And I think it’s important for Council to understand that Cronum Warner does not have a front door. There is no dropping people right at that space. People cannot just come into that location. It is not a place that you can refer constituents to help you from an encampment to show up. That is not the nature of the service.

[2:16:32] And I think it’s just an important from a service perspective as city councilors that you understand what you are getting. You are getting 60, 24 hour day, 70 a week spaces for people with meals, basic needs, advocacy, wound care clinics, our partners come. There’s a lot of support. City of London people help us with income supports. Many, many things come, wrap around these people and we’re having about a person per week moving on to other forms of sheltering or permanent housing. So it’s effective in it’s moving people through from unsheltered unhoused to something else.

[2:17:11] That being said, it’s 60 spaces. Our business case anticipated 90 spaces. Decisions of council not utilize our 696 Dundas street location does put us in a very precarious position with those 30 people who currently access that space every night. And we have been planning as we have every year for the last four years for winter because winter comes every year, every single year it comes and we always are looking for more space. And we made a promise to you as council when we said if stable funding can be found then so can increases we can plan for those appropriately.

[2:17:52] And so I was really eager to demonstrate that to you through this business case and you have found sources of funding to make sure there’s no gap. And the no gap allows us to continue but also be looking for better services, more services within our community. So I want to make sure that it is anticipated whether we can do it through Corona, Warner location. I have big concerns about putting 90 people in one spot and I’m not sure that the infrastructure and the building on a capacity like we’ve got people building people helping us to look at through enough bathrooms enough showers all that kind of stuff could we support it?

[2:18:29] Could we use that space to move those 30 beds? What other spaces we’ve operated other locations through partnership in the past? We’ve already talked to some of those partners off BIA areas to consider could we open those spaces because what we cannot do is lose these life saving services that you’ve been funding up till now. I’m very committed to making sure that those continue with the funding that is proposed in this amendment and moreover to be looking on how we can do it more effectively, more efficiently for more humans. This is not the time to be saying, well, we can’t do it that way.

[2:19:05] What I can’t do is make those kinds of plans without consistent funding, without a base of staff trained, ready and able to deliver those services. Majority of this funding as you will see in the business case is staffing. There may be costs to location. You city council may have locations in mind. You open cold weather alert centers and different things. Maybe you’d like us to operate those throughout the night when you have those cold weather alerts. What can we leverage that we already have in our hand?

[2:19:39] That’s why we always use 696 Dundas Street ‘cause it’s what we own. We’ve been there for 40 years. If we don’t fully utilize what’s in our hand, I think you as fiscal responsible counselors would agree. If we’re not using what we have to its full to achieve the mandate and the mission, then we aren’t doing our job. So as much as I will comply, I will do exactly as the decisions have been made about BIA. I certainly hope that you will support and enable and help our organization do more on behalf of this community with this, I think, significant funding that is stabilizing almost 25% more shelter space in our city.

[2:20:23] If we have to reduce by 30, then it won’t be 25% more. It’ll be less than that. And if you do support it and we can find the space, we could go up again as we did last winter to 120 spaces. Again, it’s not enough, but it’s significant. And so I really wanna thank Councilor Raman and Councilor Lewis for making sure there’s not a gap and ensuring that we can be planning forward. And being you, this council is the one that directed us to bring the year round strategy. This council had the foresight to know that these short-term solutions are costly to our community.

[2:20:59] I am so grateful that you’re considering this in this way. And I hope that with this gap funding, you’re also thinking about ongoing after the encampment dollars, because this is, I think, going, if I understand correctly, until April of 2025. Thank you. Councilor Raman, do you have a follow-up to that before I go to other speakers? Okay, looking to see if there was other speakers on the item that’s on the floor. Councilor Troso. Yes, a procedural question.

[2:21:33] Does voting in favor of part A preclude voting in favor of part B? And I’m wondering what people think about that. I’m certainly not inclined to want to vote no on this, because I want that allocation. But I think there’s still some gaps that have been identified here that I’m uncomfortable with. Thank you. We’re currently just on the A. As colleagues would note, there is another one pertaining to the arc, which is from Councillor Hopkins. My intention was to make her vote on this, and then it’d be lunch.

[2:22:10] And then to put Councillor Hopkins on the floor and have that conversation there, procedurally that I was dealing with two separate things, not an A and B of the same amendment kind of thing, but rather two separate budget submissions for consideration. Okay, I just wanted to clarify to make sure that if A passes, that B is not going to be ruled out if order is being contrary and we will have a full discussion on that additional amount. And I know we’re voting on A right now and not B, but I would like to have this clear.

[2:22:42] I wouldn’t mind hearing what Councillor Hopkins thinks or what Ms. Campbell thinks. I just want to make sure, because I don’t want to vote no on this, but I don’t want to cut off the discussion on the part B. Thank you. I wouldn’t be going to Ms. Campbell for this. I’m happy to go to finance if you wanted your insights on this, if the clerk deems my intentions to be, he’s just reviewing it now. So just give a moment. So I was looking at them in two separate cases.

[2:24:02] The clerk is looking at them in two separate cases. I will note that it’s an organic evolving process based on what we do with this. May or may not change someone’s numbers that they want to put forward for something else, but going to Councillor Hopkins, it’s optional if you want to reply to Councillor Troisau. You don’t have to. Yeah, and my understanding was that there is a gap and we have two amendments to separate amendments to address the gap.

[2:24:36] And maybe through you, to staff, just to confirm that, my understanding was that there would be a gap even if we approved Councillor Ramen’s motion for 2025. Just to finance team that there were two separate motions that come in, but to the Councillor Hopkins clarification? Yeah, if I can go to Mr. Dickens. Mr. Dickens, don’t want to chop the hook, so please go ahead.

[2:25:09] Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. As we said, there’s a lot of moving parts in this scenario. We’ll try to unpack it the best that we can. When with the motion that’s currently on the screen, it is speaking to one location only, which is Bishop or Cronum Warner. If we only fund the Cronum Warner site and not the entirety of the arcade business case, then this motion, if passed, would not leave a gap.

[2:25:48] If we look at the totality of what has been submitted and was on the budget document for consideration from the arcade, if this motion passes, it would still leave a much smaller gap than originally anticipated due to fiscal calendar and municipal calendar. It would leave a gap of roughly $205,000. That is for the total arc business case. So if this motion passes, it still leaves a gap of the total arc business case of roughly $205,000 for 2020-25.

[2:26:30] That is with the overlap of when we can claim federal funding at the tail end of this year that runs until the end of March of 2025 on the fiscal year. So it’s, again, if this motion passes, it leaves no gap for just one location to be funded. If this motion passes, it would still leave a gap of 205,000 approximate for the totality of the arc business case for the calendar year 2025. Councillor Hopkins.

[2:27:06] Thank you for that. So it’s 205,000, not 1.5 million. Mr. Dickens. Through you, Madam Chair, that is based on the information we received this morning from the arc and it is at our first interpretation of it, yes. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for that. Councillor Troso. Yes, so if this passes and we have the smaller gap, Council still has options which it could put on the table to fill that gap if it so chooses, is that correct?

[2:27:43] Yes, I was dealing with this as an independent business case as it’s specific to one location only once this has been resolved. Councillor Hopkins had a correspondence, but at that time, the Council is welcome to table those numbers or alternate numbers based on this discussion ‘cause once again, it’s an organic evolving conversation and we don’t know until we see how this one plays out. But you will have your break over lunch to work out anything else and advise the clerks in finance. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just want some clarity on this and that I understand all the moving parts, but if this funding, the 947,000 is only for Cronum Warner, and how is the gap only 205,000?

[2:28:32] Because my understanding was that the federal provincial funding based on the Council decision could not be used for 696 and that street because that would be day or night resting spaces on the main street of a BIA. So I would have thought the gap would have been much larger. Mr. Dickens, if you have insight, if not, we could always go to the organization. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll start this response. Mr. Cooper can help fill in any blanks as well. So what we have been, the arch business case was submitted before Council’s decision to prevent or not allow certain services to be offered in BIA main streets.

[2:29:18] So we are working off the original business case that was submitted, the 4.2 million. The caveat here is that if we were to fund the services, a portion of those services and the associated cost of those services would still need to be relocated to a location that is allowable. So not on a BIA. So yes, so there is still a gap on the global business case, but even the fund, the global business case, the organization still needs and as they’ve indicated, they’re actively looking for help and actively searching for them.

[2:29:58] They would still need to find an alternate location. Councilor? Okay, thank you. Perfect. Further questions or comments on the 947,000 for the Crow and Where location? Councilor Ferran, looking to see if there’s any speakers, ‘cause currently I have none. Thank you, Chair. From that last question and answer, where would that alternate location be? Do we have any ideas? I don’t believe so, and I don’t want to do speculation. Gosh, I thought shaking their head that we do not know. Yeah, just stick with the amendment on the floor.

[2:30:33] Well, I guess I’ll leave it there. But, you know, again, where do the rest of the spaces go? So specifically this location, this amount of money, I currently have no hands up. I don’t see anything online. It’s been moved and seconded. ‘Cause this was moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[2:31:08] We’ve had our conversation. No hands are up, opening the question. Second of all, motion carries 15 to zero. I’ve been advised that it’s time for our bio break and it’s ready.

[2:31:41] My intention is to come back with the amendment that Councillor Hopkins may or may not have at the number that you saw or may not have seen. They can work with staff during that time. So looking for a mover and a seconder that we recess for 30 minutes, we’re just gonna come back at 12.30. It makes things simple. So just to recess 30 minutes, move by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Okay, I’m told that hand vote’s okay.

[2:32:15] All in favor, 12.30, I’ll see you back. Motion carries. Thank you, 12.30, please. Okay, one minute before we get started.

[2:36:26] Councillor Hillier, if I could just have a check that you’re still with us. Perfect, wonderful. Thank you. Sorry, Hadley, Councillor McAllister.

[2:37:12] Could you see if anyone’s in the Councillor hallway coming in or the lounge? We’re just looking for Councillor Troso. Hey, we’re just restarting. Councillor Hillier has verified that he’s online. Councillor Ferra and layman are somewhere, just not right here at the moment. Dave is right here. So layman’s returning shortly. Layman’s here, perfect. So we are all back, Hillier’s online. We are moving on to the next item that was on the added agenda, which is also an arcade case.

[2:37:48] This one is Officer Hopkins with Councillor Proussaou as the seconder. Sam, you’re good still for the seconder? Councillor Troso. Sam, you’re still seconding Anna’s. Yes. Okay, thank you. So there will be updated numbers. Nothing’s already on the floor yet. So Councillor Hopkins has that into the clerk. And that will be in e-scribes. So Councillor Hopkins, if you just wanna read out what your motion is, and then I’ll go to you to see if you wanna be the first speaker and I’ll start your timing at that point.

[2:38:21] Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment that I would like to bring forward is that the mayor’s 2025 annual budget update be amended to include one-time funding of up to 205,000. That is the latest figure that we have had given to us to support arcade from previously approved one-time funding from the operating budget contingency reserve, which was approved by Council on February 13th, 2024. So 2025 operating expenditures of 205,000.

[2:39:00] That is the amendment that I would like to bring forward. Okay, that is in e-scribe. Councillor Traw-Sau has already indicated he is the seconder. Councillor Hopkins, would you like to be the first speaker? Yes, Madam Chair. And I, first of all, I want to thank Councillor Raman for her previous amendment and for finding that surplus funding to support arc eight, 60 beds. I am bringing this forward because there will still remain a gap.

[2:39:34] They at one time had 90 beds. They now only have 60 beds. This amendment from what I understand will not even give them that extra 30, but it will be close to it and it will enable them to continue providing the spaces that is needed in the community. I would like, Madam Chair, through you, just to go to staff, just so I’ve got it, right? If staff can comment, thank you. Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper?

[2:40:12] Thank you, Chair, and through you. Yes, I will try to help explain this again. This is a tricky one with lots of different pieces. So what you see before you is the motion to fund any remaining operating gap for the totality of the arcade business case. So the additional components of the arcade business case that were not part of the previous motion would include all of the vital resting space, drop-in services, support services, and the 30 respite beds that are provided by the arcade.

[2:40:49] So this is really looking at all of those services. As has been previously discussed, it is an ask to fund the service. And if the services are funded, there would be a component that would need to find an alternate location. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to add, we know that federal funding has been announced and there will be other opportunities for extra funding. And I would definitely encourage arcade to continue those conversations with staff.

[2:41:28] I know it’s not what they wanted. We’re only looking at 2025. We’re not looking at the stability that they need to continue their services in our four-year budget. This is only for 2025. And I am hoping that we can give them some reassurance to continue the needed services that they are providing. My concern right now is that we’re gonna have less spaces than we had last year in 2025.

[2:42:07] So giving them a bit of stability, supporting of them, I think is after what we’ve heard from the community, the importance of the services that they provide and the need in our community. It is something that I am hoping committee will support. Thank you. Next speakers, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:42:38] So through you, I need to ask staff, this additional 205, is this, I mean, the funding is indicated from the operating contingency. What is this also a portion that’s represented from the IHAP reimbursement? Or is this municipal funds directly? To staff. Thank you through the chair. So this is not related to the IHAP reimbursement. This relates to funding that was previously approved by Council back in February.

[2:43:16] It is a draw from the operating budget contingency reserve. So it is in a small dollars and that was originally intended to support the stability of the sector contract awards that went forward at that time. As those contracts have been finalized, it has been determined that the full amount of that allocation that was approved at that time is not required. So this is previously approved dollars that weren’t needed for their intended purpose originally that can be repurposed for this if desired. Deputy Mayor.

[2:43:51] Okay, so I’m very happy hearing that it was already earmarked in this area. I do wanna know, does that deplete the surplus of the funds that were earmarked for this area? Or are there additional operating contingency dollars that were earmarked for this use that would still be available in the event that another partner comes forward and says, hey, like for 75,000 we can do like 12 emergency, like caught roll outs or something like that, but we can’t do it without some support.

[2:44:24] Is there anything left or does this drain that earmarked funding completely? Staff. Thank you through the chair. My understanding and conferring with Mr. Cooper is that there is approximately 2.3 million of that originally earmarked funding that is available at this point. So this would utilize some of that, but certainly not all of it. Okay, so hearing that, I’m comfortable supporting this. I think that it’s a reasonable amount to contribute and especially hearing that locations will have to be looked at, I know that location choices are limited and I don’t wanna speculate, but I want to underscore the conversation we had earlier this week, these cannot all be in one geographic area.

[2:45:13] It can’t be all one area of the city carrying the burden. We have to look at opportunities in other locations. I know we heard Councilor Ferreira say that earlier today as well, I concur that this needs to be spread out. I also recognize that there are only so many choices available, but I need to underscore that following the conversation we had earlier this week, but I can get there in terms of supporting this additional contribution for this winter, but I know and I appreciate Councilor Hawkins noting this is not long-term sustainable.

[2:45:51] And I said this on the earlier motion and I’ll say it again, our provincial partners are still MIA. I thank MP for Agiscatos for the money he was able to deliver from the federal government, but we still need the provincial government to step up here. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Yes, so I will support this as well. I wanna thank the Councilor for bringing it forward. I wanna thank the staff for the clarification on the source of financing. And I also can get behind it for the same reason. Previously, our earmarked for stabilization of the sector that was not completely utilized and so carrying this forward into the next year to provide the filling of that gap that our gate needs is I think an appropriate use of this.

[2:46:34] And I think will get us to where we need to be, given all the other funding sources we’ve had to cobble together. And I know for this one, I can be a little bit confusing for the public because I think it’s pretty clear and arcades had a good job of articulating the need and the beds. And we have done our time in a way here where I did not put this in the budget because I did believe at the time that the federal and provincial governments need to step up and they need to help us with this. They had already allocated money. We needed it to flow quickly.

[2:47:06] I wanna again thank the federal government for flowing the money quickly and being able to engage directly with the city of London on this and be able to make the commitment that our local MP made. And as we imminently move towards signing the agreement with them. But knowing the allocation is very helpful because it allows us to make these decisions in the budget process and take that substantive half a percent tax increase pressure off of municipal council at a time when we just simply cannot afford to be adding that to the budget. It can be confusing though because we’re cobbling together all these different pieces but that’s frankly what we need to do to try to deal with a situation that we never should have been dealing with in the long term anyways.

[2:47:48] The original support for winter response came from the provincial government through the pandemic. It was extended. Municipal government picked that up for a period of time but our ability to fund this in the long run is limited to non-existent in a meaningful way. We have partners who can provide these services but we require the funds. So what we have here is some funds cobbled together. I will tell you that my work, the work of FCM, the work of Ontario, big city mayors does not stop just because we may have been able to solve this temporarily in the city of London.

[2:48:23] I continue to have discussions with the federal and provincial governments about Ontario coming to the table with the encampment supports. I continue to talk through FCM about the overall need and the overall level of that encampment support moving forward. I can tell you from the federal government’s own estimations and their own goals for reducing homelessness, they have not funded it to the level that they’re expected to in the long run. And so optimistically more money will be being available through annual budget updates and budgets that will allow us to continue to provide these types of services in our communities with the right funding sources.

[2:48:59] So very happy to get behind this. Again, I know Mr. Dickens has explained it many times and probably will explain it many more. How we’ve cobbled together the different pieces of money to be able to get us to where we need to be. But I do want to just thank Mr. Dickens and his staff and I want to thank the service providers who have been very responsive and very flexible in what could be a pretty stressful situation when you say you’re not funded in the budget because we think that there’s a better way to do this. To come to the point now where we have some reasonable assurances that this is going to work out in the way that we intended, I want to thank everybody who had that added pressure, that added work to try to make this work in the way that it should have.

[2:49:37] Again, I know it was stressful for those who are in the sector, stressful for those who are working in the space, who just want to know that the funding is there so they can provide the services. And to do so within the parameters that Municipal Council has provided and the willingness to find a way to do that, I think should be commended by the service providers, including our gate. And I think we will be in a much better spot than we were a month ago. And a lot has changed in just a month here. And I think that’s really positive for our city and positive for our ability to provide a level of response to the winter and provide some stability through the course of the next year as well.

[2:50:21] Thank you. I’m going to go to Councillor Stevenson next. Thank you. I’m happy to support this as well. Although we’ve been saying it verbally, I would feel better if it was clear in the language that it either is not at the 696 Dundas location or not on the main street of a BIA. Could we just make it more clear in the motion? So that sounds like an amendment. I think that was already a decision through council. That’s already been approved.

[2:50:56] And I don’t believe we would need to, it being noted that one actually has already gone through council for final approval. Okay, I have a thumbs up ‘cause that was a council decision already made. So it’s the one that’s enacted. Looking for further speakers. I don’t see anybody online. Okay, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. So I just want to clarify some of the numbers, if I can, ‘cause I’m still not completely clear. Sorry about this, I know it’s an exercise that we’ve already done to some extent. So the original ask for from arcade for this year was 4.225 million.

[2:51:35] And the federal encampment dollars that we believe are flowing through is about 2.5 and change, let’s call it. And then we’ve got some additional money that we’re anticipating coming through for IHAP for Q3 and Q4 of 4.49.125. Is that for each quarter? The 4.49.125 to staff. Thank you and through you Madam Chair.

[2:52:10] The 4.49.125 is an anticipated reimbursement from the IHAP program for quarters two and three. So we are still awaiting the formal application process, if you will, on how to claim those two quarters, as well as quarter four. So we don’t have exact numbers, but if we base it on how our previous reimbursement rolled out, then these are the two quarter number there, and then around 237,000 for Q4, depending on how the next month and a half rolled up.

[2:52:46] Councillor. Okay, so 4.49.125 plus 237, staff? That is correct through the chair, and there’s also the reaching home incremental increase of the 900 and, or it’s just over 1.1 million, but 938, 729 being earmarked for this response. Councillor Rama. So we anticipate between all of those components that gets us to the 4.225 that will take us to March of 2026, ‘cause I’m getting different numbers.

[2:53:39] Through you, Madam Chair, if it’s helpful to divulge, we will be in an allocation agreement with the federal government. The application to receive funding through the federal encampment program has other services earmarked beyond just the arc. So as we add up math on 2.5, this and 947, there are other things that are being funded with those dollars. We have put the vast majority towards the urgency of maintaining the arc beds and services.

[2:54:18] So we have allocated almost all of the money to those things, but there are other things that are either required by the federal government to be included in terms of some specific indigenous led services, as well as any small nominal amount for the administrative side of supporting these programs. Councillor. Thank you, and I appreciate that in through you. So my understanding was from the numbers that we used for part A of this motion, we were at 4,133, 125, and so for part B of this motion, the additional component is just for the resting spaces, just so I’m clear.

[2:55:24] Through you, Madam Chair, most simplest terms, this 205,000 does contribute towards all of those other services beyond the 60 beds. So when we look at the fiscal allocation of the federal government, they’ve broken it out over two years. Year one is September of 2024, so retroactive to the end of March. And that’s where we see an overlap with year one, year two of federal funding versus the municipal budget of the calendar year. Sorry, okay, thank you.

[2:56:01] So what I’m understanding then now is that because of the difference in the timing of when these funds are allocated out. So then what date does do these funds take us through to with our gate? Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, the unsheltered homeless encampment initiative, the UEHEI, which is what we’re talking about, runs through from September 2024 for two years, and that two-year term ends March 31st, 2026.

[2:56:37] So as Mr. Dickens indicated, the first year is makes up seven months, and then 12 months after that. But it’s on a fiscal calendar, so it’s that March 31st, or April 1st to March 31st. Councillor. Thank you. And so the money that we earlier earmarked to arcade from the September 30th or September time period to December 31st, then goes back into operating contingency, basically. And we’re now using the federal money when that agreement is signed. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, that is the plan.

[2:57:12] Councillor. Wonderful, I appreciate the clarification. And I’m happy to support it. Thank you, see no further speaking, Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Chair. Just ditto to some of the comments that I heard. I am very happy for the Councillors to bring this forward, make sure that we don’t have any existing gaps. And yeah, I’ll just leave it there. I agree with almost every single comment I heard, except for one. Thank you.

[2:57:44] Looking for other comments before calling the question. Seeing none, it has been moved and seconded. Call on the question and Mr. Palosa votes yes. Councillor Van Merebergen. Oh yes.

[2:58:21] Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, that takes care of item 3.3. That move us on to 3.4. Councillor Hopkins, is your attention to move this at this time? Yes. Okay, thank you. Councillor Trousa was noted as your seconder, checking with the Councillor to make sure he’s a yes. Yep, as I said earlier, I’ll just preface it, that procedurally it had came through the first report of SWORG, then as PPC, then council in July.

[2:58:55] So the mayor did not put funding for this in the mayor’s table budget. So procedurally to reinstate funding for the community grants, you would have to do as the motion says of to not do that action and reinstate it. And that vote split was 10, five originally at council. Councillor Hopkins, we have your wording. It is being added up into eScribe now with your mover and your seconder noted. Okay, so if you just hit refresh, it should be in your system.

[2:59:31] Yeah, so Councillor, if you would like to just read it out, and then if you wanna be the first speaker, I will go to you first, and if not, I will start a speaker’s list. So this is on the pausing the neighborhood decision-making one. I just wanna make sure I’m on it. It was your community grant one first. Sorry, that’s a frank Hopkins. So Councillor Trousa, you need to set tight. And that’s still your mover and seconder?

[3:00:06] I have set an amendment to the clerks that my seconder is okay with. That we wanna put on the floor as a whole, as opposed to doing the adding amendment and improving amendment separately. Okay, we’re just making sure that it’s the right one in there. It is loading. If you wanna refresh, you can make sure it’s the one that you would like to table. And if it’s correct, let me know. So we’ve noted yourself as the mover. Councillor Hopkins is the seconder.

[3:00:41] Okay, Councillor Hopkins has indicated that it’s correct. It’ll be on the big screen for people online can see. I just can’t turn my head that far. But if you’d like to read it out, and if you wanna be the first speaker, I will go to you, and if not, I will start a speaker’s list. Sure. So the motion is that the mayor’s 2025 annual budget update be amended to remove budget amendment P2, pause current city of London annual community grants program and implement reduced program based on availability of funding for 409-6000 and the annual contribution to the economic development reserve fund be reduced by an equivalent amount of 409-6000 dollars.

[3:01:22] Would you like to be the first speaker? Okay, I will start a new speaker’s list starting with you. Thank you. Yeah, so we’ve had lots of communication both at the budget PPM and via email. I know I have at least regarding the desperate need for the community grants program to continue and to continue based on our annual budget as opposed to based on availability of funding. I’m putting this motion forward because I know of the need from our residents and nonprofits across the city that rely on this funding. As a previous executive director of a nonprofit, I have previously accessed this for London Environmental Network and it launched a program called Green Economy London which supports businesses with their corporate sustainability and continues to this day.

[3:02:07] We heard earlier that nonprofits need somebody to say yes first and some of this grassroots funding and annual one-time funding is the funding that people need to leverage and move forward. I was inspired by the deputy mayor’s motion earlier to allocate it to a reserve fund. So given the communication again, we’ve had from the sector that proves that nonprofits have a very strong economic contribution to our community and employ a lot of Londoners. I see it as a direct link to the economic development reserve fund. This way it’s not in the property tax levy and we are not increasing that for residents.

[3:02:41] And I’d really actually like to avoid going back to the old system which I wasn’t on council for but I had participated in where nonprofits come to us each year at different committees and just ask for money, random amounts and every year we kind of decide based on how much money is available. I’ve already heard nonprofits saying that that’s potentially one of the ways that they’re gonna have to come find funding. So if we don’t have a program like this or people can come annually and ask for money, we’re probably expecting to see that come and show up in our committee meetings. So I’d rather have proper process with criteria for them as well, which is why I’m moving this and appreciate that there’ll be no tax levy impacts if this is supported.

[3:03:21] Thank you. Further councillors on my list? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, so I won’t support this. And unlike Councillor Frank, I’ve heard a lot more opposition to London Community Grants than support. I’ve heard some support from the people who are receiving the money, the organizations who want to continue to come up with new programs and new ideas but I’ve heard a lot of negative feedback as well. And while I appreciate the change in source of funding, I still think that the Community Investment Research Fund when there’s a sufficient balance is a better source of funding.

[3:03:57] And I still think that the program needs to be reduced and that some pausing needs to happen because in addition to some programs that have turned out good and I think it’s really important to underscore ‘cause we heard a lot of misinformation and miscommunication being circulated around. Nobody’s having their funding cut. This funding in the innovation and grassroots stream is essentially, at the end of the day, an annual pitch, very similar to the tech alliance pitch that was run a couple of years ago.

[3:04:36] This is a pitch contest to see who can come up with new ways to spend some money in our community. Some of it has been decent, some of it has not. And in fact, I’m not gonna name the organization because I don’t want to single them out but it came to my attention just over the weekend that although this is supposed to be a one time innovation grant that one organization received the grant twice for the same program. So I’m not really confident in this secret judging panel either, which continues to be an issue.

[3:05:17] I continue to be told we find out after the panel is dissolved who has made the decisions and the new panels constituted but we don’t find out who’s on that panel either. This whole program is a problem to me and if groups want to continue to come and pitch a committee, I’ll say no committee, that’s fine. There’s not a source of funding and it’s not the municipality’s job to be funding grassroots kickstarts. It’s just not our job. And when we talk about nice to haves and needs to have, that to me is a nice to have but it’s not a need to have.

[3:05:53] That doesn’t mean there aren’t some nonprofits doing some great work ‘cause there are. And the annual stream or the stream for the multi-year funding continues untouched. So organizations like Reforce, London, like the London Abuse Women’s Center and others who have come forward and said, “Hey, we want to do this program for a few years.” They have been funded and we’re not touching their funding. This is startup money and we’re not in a position right now to be funding startups. Thank you, further speakers. Councillor Treso.

[3:06:27] Through the chair, I guess I’m going to turn to staff on this ‘cause it’s a little hard to respond to some of the things that have just been said. Serious charges have been made. We’re not talking about who it is or what they did, just how well they were serious charges. Things are being done in secret. Now, when this came initially to the working group, I did spend some time asking staff if they could walk us through the judging process on this, which they did.

[3:07:01] I don’t know if I need to ask that question again just to get it on the record. I also then asked them questions about the auditing and compliance process, whether there was one ‘cause a charge was made that there wasn’t one and they worked through that and they give us answers to that. And then when it came to the SPPC, I went through the exact same process again. So I guess in light of some of the things that have been said, I really do need to turn to staff to ask if they have won a general response to some of the charges that were made, but B and maybe more significantly to just walk us through once again, once again, for this committee, how these applications are vetted and evaluated.

[3:07:51] And I’ll hope I can get that response back from staff. You had stated that those questions were already answered for you at SWORG and at SPPC and at council. Looking to see if you needed new information, Councilor Trossow, that would be Jermaine, just looking for efficiencies of, you did state those questions have been answered multiple times. Yes, so I’ll ask very, very specifically when an application comes in, how is that vetted? Because I think some things were said by the previous speaker that call into question the integrity of that process.

[3:08:27] And I just wanna give staff the opportunity to clear the air so we all understand how this works. Still question if that information hasn’t already been provided to us, I’ll allow some leeway for efficiency of conversation. If staff would like to reply, I’ll start with Ms. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[3:09:04] As per the community grants policy, grant agreements, applications are assessed by a community review panel. Prior to that staff undergo a detailed internal review. We confirm their eligibility is a not-for-profit. We look at their financials and their supporting documents to ensure they’re a viable organization. They have the required insurance. We review with internal subject matter experts at the city of London to ensure we’re not duplicating any services that the city already funds. If they’re then eligible, they go to the community review panel, which is made up of volunteers.

[3:09:39] They consider a number of factors as part of the community grants policy. Council also approved the evaluation process for that. And the questions asked through the evaluation. And after that, grant recipients that are make it through and are allocated funds are required to enter into a council approved grant agreement. The funds are audited to ensure that they align with what they said they would achieve in the grant application.

[3:10:12] So all steps of the community grants program are governed by the council policy on the community grants. Councillor Trousa. So thank you. And I won’t ask you to go into any more detail than that. But there’s one important question for me that I do want to get on the floor. If we didn’t have this process that is undertaken under your supervision and with volunteers, and if people wanted to make an application for funding, they would have to come through a council process.

[3:10:51] Is that correct? Well, Smith, thank you, Madam Chair. I would have to go to the clerks or finance for that. I do know what happened in the past, but I’m not sure if that would still be relevant. And in the past, they would come to the appropriate committee and/or the budget public participation meeting requesting funds. Chair of Finance would like to respond.

[3:11:25] Sorry, just for clarity, can you just confirm that the question is how organizations in the past in previous budgets prior to this program would have requested funding? Thank you. That’s okay. Yes, because yes. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So in the past, what, prior to the community grants program, there would be an opportunity for, or not for profit organizations to submit their request to council directly as part of the municipal budget process. They would often come to the public participation meeting and advocate for their request as well.

[3:12:05] Councillor. So in response to that, I’m just gonna make a comment, and I think it’s fair to say that if we’re really interested in cutting down the time at these meetings, cutting down work that the clerks have to do, cutting, cutting, cutting down the inefficiency of meetings that people seem to wanna be talking about right now, this program really provides a useful service to us. I don’t think it’s possible to quantify in hours for sure how much time this has saved council deliberation and clerks work, but I think it’s fair to say it’s substantial.

[3:12:42] So I’m going to go on to the next point that I want to make. These are not, and I’m making my argument now in favor of this, these are not handouts. These are requests to allow voluntary organizations that are not for profit, some of whom are new, some of whom are, to be able to provide their services, and I certainly don’t want to characterize them as doubts.

[3:13:25] These are hands up, these organizations, not only do they provide valuable services, not only do they, that’s not my time, not only do they provide valuable services to the community when they’re delivering things pursuant to their grant applications, but they’re also building capacity. And I think the whole notion of building capacity in the non-profit section sector is something that’s very important, and it’s hard to put a dollar value on building capacity, but when we build capacity, we do things like train non-profits, how to act in a professional way.

[3:14:10] With 30 seconds. - With money. And I don’t think we really can overlook the value, particularly the value that pillar non-profit adds to this whole mix in terms of capacity building. This capacity building is cumulative, and it stays with the community, and it’s infectious. And I think that we’re doing a very strong disservice if we try to eliminate this. So this is money well spent, and I think that taxpayers will see, and taxpayers have seen, that they’re getting good value for the money that goes into this program, these programs.

[3:14:49] Thank you. - Thank you. Next, I had Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m happy to second this amendment going forward. I wanna thank Councillor Frank for changing the funding formula to the Economic Reserve Fund, and I wanna thank staff for providing some information to us on how much money do we have there. And the current balance is 3.2 million in 2025 and 2024. The contribution is 3.5 million, but that grows to 4.5 million, based on the business plan P46.

[3:15:32] So I think that’s valuable information to have here, as we debate, if we need to have this program or not, I wanna start off, I was around when the gallery was full of people coming to us and asking for money. And it was a very difficult time because everyone had a good reason why they needed the money for their organization, and we had to sit here and vote yes or no.

[3:16:07] And when they came up with a different way of doing it, keeping us out of it and having a different system, and I’ve learned over the years there’s no perfect system out there, we can always update, we can always adjust, but it has been working. And I have great concern when we cause any kind of a program, to me that is the beginning of the end. And so I think one of the things I’ve learned when this was paused, how much I learned about nonprofits and the importance that they provide in our city.

[3:16:49] It’s amazing how organizations work very hard when they are given some money, especially if it comes from the municipal government, that they can work with that and double up with or create better opportunities for funding. A lot of these organizations are in that vulnerable, that support the vulnerable population as well. So I would really hope and encourage you to keep this program going.

[3:17:24] It’s a need in the community, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Roman. Thank you and through you. So again, I’m gonna see clarity here because there’s been some changes to what’s in front of us. So, excuse me, so we’re looking at budget amendment P2, but my understanding from the other conversations that we had from motion that I put forward earlier is that we still have a component of this that is still coming through community investment reserve fund.

[3:18:04] My screen currently reads the economic development reserve fund finance. Thank you through the chair. So the original proposal through this budget amendment was that the program would be paused in its current form and that’s an alternate program up to $250,000 per year would be funded for 2025, 2026 and 2027, assuming the community investment reserve fund has a minimum balance of $1 million each year.

[3:18:48] This amendment that is before you effectively is reinstating the program as a whole and reducing the contribution to the economic development reserve fund in order to offset the tax levy impact of keeping this program or adding this program back into the budget. Councilor Robin. Thank you for that clarification. I guess where I’m a bit confused on this is from the original conversation on the $250,000 reallocation, let’s call it through the community investment reserve fund.

[3:19:30] In that conversation, I thought that we were fulfilling the criteria that’s actually listed in the community investment reserve fund as criteria E which says that this money is dependent on the budget. So my understanding of the language was that we were just changing the budgeted amount to lower the innovation portion and some of the other portions, but that the rest of it was still in compliance with what is in the community investment reserve fund criteria to begin with in section E.

[3:20:20] I will look for finances input and then not right now, but next to my speakers list will be Council McAllister. Thank you through the chair. I’m not sure, Councilor, if this will answer your question. So if need be, please do clarify further, but there are two streams to the community grants program. There is the multi-year stream, which is not at all affected by what we’re discussing here.

[3:20:54] There is the innovation and capital stream that prior to this year’s budget update was included in the tax levy supported budget at $496,000 per year. The mayor’s proposed budget has included budget amendment P2, which effectively pauses the program as it currently exists, reduces the budget, the tax levy funded budget by that $496,000 amount.

[3:21:32] So it removes the program from the tax levy. In place of that, Council directed that a revised program of up to $250,000 per year be implemented if there is a million dollars in the community investment reserve fund at the end of each year. Does that clarify? Councilor? Thank you, yes, that was the intent and that is the clarification that I was looking for. So I’m still comfortable with the council supported at this point, a decision to move forward with the $250,000 at this time as we continue to review the program.

[3:22:11] I do think that this still gives the community an opportunity to look for and bring forward suggestions. I don’t think it’s going to fill our gallery with additional people looking for those additional opportunities. I still think there’s criteria that can be worked through that they can decide on which program should be funded and fit the criteria enough. So for that reason, I won’t be supporting the move back to the 496. I will also say that I am with the number of amendments that are in front of us today that involve the economic development reserve fund.

[3:22:49] I do have some concerns because my understanding of the purpose of what we’ve looked at with that fund is around some really significant work that we need to do in putting the economic development portfolio in this city backward needs to be in my opinion. And that is that we need to be looking at a significant plan that involves a number of partners to really help to revitalize our economy. So that’s what I will look to support going forward. Thank you.

[3:23:24] Looking for more first time speakers before I get back to second time speakers. Sorry, my goodness, you’re on my list too. Councilor McAllister, give your full five minutes. Please proceed. Thank you. I know sometimes I get forgot over here, it’s okay. And through the chair, appreciate the discussion on this. I think everyone will kind of speak to the merits of what they’ve observed with nonprofits they’ve interacted with. And really that’s what I’m making my determination based on. I will be supporting this. I have a lot of nonprofits in my part of the city.

[3:23:58] I’ve seen a lot of good work, especially in the food security realm, whether it’s a food bank, the community resource centers, urban routes, they’ve done a lot of good work and they’ve asked for some innovation grants in the past. And so for me personally, I’ve really seen the value of this. I think at the end of the day, we’re all gonna make our determinations. But for me, I really see the community benefit comes from this and I wanna keep it in place moving forward. So thank you. Thank you and apologies again, Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Chair.

[3:24:32] I remember in the original discussion and I have, I just checked again on the budget update that this pause would also be accompanied with the review. So I just wanted to ask staff what, if you can tell me, what would that review be looking at specifically? Like I did here, Councillor Trosto asked about how the community grant program is distributed and I did hear staff say that it’s distributed through a council approved policy to do so.

[3:25:05] So I wanted to know how do staff interpret the review and what would actually be reviewed and what potential changes if you can speak to that, would we expect? Thank you, I determined if that was the review, we were expecting for the 2027 MYB update. Yeah, okay, to staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through your motion, you directed us to report back prior to the end of Q2, 2027 with options for considering on right sizing and scope of these programs include any alignment, oh, that’s NDM, but you also did both of them for both decision-making and lending community grants.

[3:25:53] You asked us both to look at both the multi-year and the annual granting screen stream and looked into the details on how it aligns with the strategic plan. Councillor Ferra. Okay, thank you for that. So I do know that any type of grants, especially going to nonprofits, that is usually also leveraging additional monies that come in outside of public funding and that usually has a bigger impact. So, and I would also say that, you know, especially since the pandemic and especially the times we’re in, donations are dwindling when it comes to this type of work.

[3:26:38] And I know that, you know, people are hard pressed for cash. So I would expect and I’ve also heard that, you know, the level of donations that we previously has seen have been low. So the impact of pausing this program would be much more substantial with that in mind. And I would also say I was having a conversation with one of my constituents who has been involved with some of the grants that came out of this program. And when I told him that this was paused, you know, I could literally see his, I could literally see it on his face, how disappointed he was.

[3:27:16] So because of that and because I also see that we’re not necessarily bringing it back to the full amount with this amendment, I would be supporting this just because this is something that is, I see this as a need to have. I see this as a need to have in the context that we’re in. I see this as a need to have, considering we still have people out there who want to use these funds and who also have programs that I would see benefit the city very greatly. And I want to see that because I know that the sources of funding that they would have are not as strong as they were when times were better.

[3:27:57] So to hold us over and just to keep that community aspect alive and to keep, you know, certain initiatives that would be dependent on this moving, just to make the city better as a whole, I would be supporting this. So I appreciate the councilors who brought this forward and you’ll see my vote go yes on this. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis was next. We couldn’t list having used half this time. Thank you, Madam Chair. I won’t even need the whole half of my time that I have left. Economic Development Reserve Fund and to Councillor ramen’s point, you know, we have the film London which absolutely has shown that there’s a good economic return there.

[3:28:39] We have some other amendments later in this agenda for some work in the downtown that want to draw on that fund. And at the same time, we also have our partners in LEDC and elsewhere out working to build the economic impact in this community. When we look at this program, first of all, people keep saying it’s cut. It’s not, the funding is reduced to 250,000 and that reduction is coming from a different revenue stream than the tax fund.

[3:29:13] But we’ve had, and I’m going to share just a couple of examples, a Syrian dance program. I don’t think that that qualifies as economic development. We heard Ms. Smith say that they look at redundancies and overlap in the Northwest. There’s a food cupboard from the London chaplaincy and there’s a food cupboard at the Northwest Community Resource Center just a few hundred meters apart from one another. Both organizations have received funding through this grant stream in the past.

[3:29:45] And I’m not sure which years right off the top of my head, but I believe there has been municipal funding through this program and others to both of those organizations. I know the London community chaplaincy received some I think in 2003. I’m not sure if it was for the food cupboard or not, but they’ve made multiple grant requests through this program over the years. But we keep hearing that people are going to have to come and speak before council. That is our job in part to be the decision makers on the public purse.

[3:30:19] And this is the only area where we delegate out spending from our budget to a community volunteer panel that we as counselors don’t even get to know the names of. And if that is not a red flag for you, then I don’t know what else is. But I will not be supporting this. 30 seconds. I was willing to pause the program completely. Councilor ramen got me to the point of mid-ground and cutting the funding in half and going to the community investment reserve fund. And that’s what I’m going to stick with. Thank you.

[3:30:53] Further speakers before calling the question? Seeing none, the vote’s opening in the e-scribe. Councilor Bamirobergen, closing the vote, motion fails five to 10.

[3:31:45] Thank you. Before we transition to the next item, I’ll note that that one was a 10-5 split coming into this vote and a 10-5 split coming out of it. The next item is 3.5. This is that the mayor’s 2025 annual budget to pause NDM, not be paused. I have a note of a mover of a Councilor Hopkins. Councilor Hopkins, do I know your seconder? I think I do have a seconder in Councilor Trissel.

[3:32:22] Councilor, I saw your. Okay, so that’s being added into e-scribe. I’ll note this is when Ms. Smith had kind of went into this and then ran herself back in ‘cause it was also in the same report from the first report of SWORG that went to SPPC and then Council in July. This one was originally a 9-6 split at Council. So Ms. Smith can update us along the way if you need a reminder of where that went for a discussion with them of what’s happening with NDM, but I will turn to Councilor Hopkins.

[3:32:54] If you would like to read out your motion, I’m gonna ask IT to put it up on the screen for people online can follow with us. And then Councilor Hopkins, it would be your choice if you want to speak to it first or not. And it is now up and if you refresh, it will be in your system. Yes, I’d like to bring forward the amendment that the mayor’s 2025 annual budget update be amended to remove the budget amendment P3, pause neighborhood decision-making program with the operating expenditure.

[3:33:30] So 250,000 from 25, 26, 27. Thank you, it’s all on the floor. Would you like to be the first speaker? Yes, again, thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to have this conversation here at budget on, again, a program that we are going to be pausing. I have great concerns because of how successful this program is.

[3:34:04] It’s really simple, it works. I’m not sure if Councillor Hill, your mic might not be muted. I’m assuming it may or may not have been him, but, oh, or Councillor Raimerberg, again, sorry. Someone online, you’re not muted. Okay, Councillor, I apologize for the interruption. Please proceed. Yeah, thank you. It’s a successful program. It increases community engagement. And I’m sure you’re aware of the latest round of decision-making and how the community was engaged and how they make their own decisions for what is needed in their neighbourhood.

[3:34:46] I cannot stress enough the importance of this program. Sure, it’s not perfect. I hear over and over why are we spending money on this and that. The whole point of this program is that it is a decision made in the community. So I would really encourage you to remove this from the Mayor’s budget, keep it going. And I’m hoping to get your support, thanks. Thank you for anyone following along.

[3:35:21] This is on page 110 of the original table budget. If you want to do the details, further speakers on this item, I’m seeing none at the moment. Councillor Trasso. Yes, I’ll keep this really brief through the chair and to everyone. I was just really, I don’t know what word I wanna say, blown away, impressed, wowed by the turnout here. We’re doing something right with this program.

[3:35:55] We’re doing something very right. This program resonates with people. And when I saw those pictures of youth lining up to vote, maybe for the first time they cast the ballot in London and they got to walk up to a voting booth and say something about how we were gonna run this city. That’s gonna carry over, I hope the carry is over. I think for this council to, oh, I shouldn’t say, can I say cut?

[3:36:28] Or should I just say pause, pause, whatever this program, which I have been critical of and I will continue to be critical of, my criticisms of this program is operational in that I think there’s some additional guidelines could be put into place around the edges. But that is very different than stopping the program or pausing it or cutting it or discombobulating it or whatever you wanna say, I just think that very many people, including young people who are looking at what we’re doing are gonna be very disappointed if this council does not restore this program to the budget.

[3:37:16] And I’ll leave it at that. And I think the last thing I wanna say at the point of repeating is 18,000 over 18,000 people voted in this. And we cannot say no to that. Thank you. Councilor Farrah. Chair, Councilor Trussell stole almost all of my points. Yeah, I would just, I guess, to keep it short. Like, you know, when I saw in the news, kids walking up with their ballots, putting it in the exact same ballot boxes that we do during our municipal elections, that makes me feel really good because it shows that participation is there and especially with the youth.

[3:38:04] But to be able to engage our youth and to engage the public in other ways just to get that civic engagement is definitely something that we need. To the people that we had respondents for the budget feedback, what was that? Was that like 48? Was that the number that we heard back from how many people participated in that? I forget the number, but I believe it was like in the tens. And then we look at the participation of the neighborhood decision-making, which is thousands, you know, orders and orders and orders of magnitude higher. That just shows you, you know, how successful it is.

[3:38:38] And this year is another record-breaking year of that success. And I see this and it’s been said already. It’s something that is right at the core of civic engagement and civic pride in getting people’s foot in the door to be involved in city initiatives and to be familiar with it. So because of that, I’m sorry to have to say those things again. I wasn’t expecting the counselor to say all that. But yeah, because of that, it’s just, for me, it’s about people being able to be involved and the different methods on how people can get involved.

[3:39:13] And when it comes to certain initiatives in your area, I know a lot of people ask for parks, playgrounds, and things like that, and that’s a big deal to them. So because of that, I do not want to see this go at all. And I will be in full support of this. So I guess I’ll leave the comments there. Thank you. Anyone else else wants to speak? I have no one on my speakers list right now, Debbie Marlous. I’ll go quickly.

[3:39:45] This was a 9/6 vote last time. I haven’t heard anything that’s changed my mind. I will still be supporting pausing this. I think the one space where Councilor Truss and I agree is operationally, I have some serious, serious challenges with this program. And all we have to do is look at this year’s winners, natural playground at St. Margaret Catholic Elementary, picnic tables at Mother Tree’s the secondary, small playground equipment at Cleardale Public, why are we backfilling for municipal dollars, the school board’s responsibility to manage their spaces in a neighborhood popularity vote.

[3:40:20] We should not be funding school board projects through this program. And then when I look at some of the other ideas, and including some of the ones that were not winners, we created a $4 million parks reserve fund last year. We’re advancing 27 projects. That’s fantastic. But we still have requests for park benches, park tree planting. That should be part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. That shouldn’t be a neighborhood vote to see which neighborhood can mobilize their community more easily than another neighborhood.

[3:40:58] And we know, we’ve heard it time and again, that it’s a struggle for some neighborhoods to mobilize people the way that other neighborhoods who might be in a little bit more privileged situation are able to mobilize their folks. So I’ve heard nothing that’s changed today. And I support what’s in the budget. I’m not putting this back on the property taxes. And when the review is complete, I really hope the review comes back and indicates that school boards are responsible for school board property, not us.

[3:41:34] Thank you. I had myself next in the speakers list, but I’m fine to go to Councillor Frank first. And then I will give my vice chair a notice that he’ll take over for me in a moment. Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’m not gonna speak to it ‘cause I have in the past, but I was just wondering through the chair to staff, haven’t they done an equity evaluation of this program and the results determined that the projects were awarded across socioeconomic income areas and across the city, Ms. Smith? Thank you.

[3:42:05] And you’re correct, through Madam Chair, we did both a value for money audit and a fairness and equity review. And neither found any recommendations with respect to the balance between high social risk and low social risk index neighborhoods. They were basically similar. And in fact, since that review, we’ve put a number of priorities in place to engage neighborhoods of high social risk. And this year it demonstrated that impact by increasing the number of neighborhoods and high social risk over those and low social risk who participated.

[3:42:43] Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I think that speaks for itself. Thank you, Vice Chair, could you take the chair for a moment and then tie me? Okay, I’ll add the chair and I’ll recognize the budget chair. Thank you, everyone’s comments and vote split seems to be along the same. Just before I was on council, I actually volunteered the inaugural year at it. I have followed this throughout it. My concerns still remain. As some of our speakers have said, I’m seeing the projects being asked for as trees in a park.

[3:43:22] I thought we were doing that already for our tree challenge, a park bench. I thought we were, I know we can do better going forward and we’re trying to fix some historical issues of having already built out park space and as the community intensification goes, I will say that this year, as was noted, Cleardale Public School did get a playground enhancement, which is amazing ‘cause it’s only the second project after all these years I ever got done in my ward. And I will say I worked with the school, met with the school, felt terrible telling them, I actually don’t, I’m critical of the program but I’ll help them ‘cause it’s my job.

[3:44:01] They did a mass mobilization of students, kids, reverse, trick or treated, like please vote and help us. And I would say the only reason the school got what they got ‘cause they already had such a base of organized people. It wasn’t just the general community. Like it was an organized group with a wonderful parent who was able to spearhead this, who dedicated our time for two years and going through our staff and school board issues to even get it on the ballot. So I appreciate that just the program, I still have the concerns with it.

[3:44:34] I know that voting numbers were up and they ran out of ballots at some places, which is fantastic. I’ve always had the question of what’s the staff time and marketing dollars we’re putting into this without the full cost analysis coming back of those benefits, realizing it was extending in the hours into evenings and weekends and phone in and online and creating accounts. So I actually do the program costs are more than this and if the staff wasn’t doing this, would they be more frontline services for families? So my concerns still remain and once cleared, I’ll go out and announce for the school and I was doing the social media posts.

[3:45:10] Please vote for the school, please help them. I was getting other parents furious with me of why didn’t you only help that school and not this school ‘cause it’s not your neighborhood ‘cause what about ours and our kids need it more? So then I was just policing those of how they got there. So it compounded as we are, I do believe, backfilling school issues and trying to fill the schools and help them out of just the ones that need help. So those are my comments, I’m still a no, but I do appreciate the staff and the engagement and the parents who are trying to find ways to fill the gaps and the needs in the school board’s budgets.

[3:45:50] Thank you, I’ll return to chair to you. Hey, I have Councillor. I’m gonna go to the mayor first ‘cause he hasn’t spoke yet and then I’ll recognize any other first time speakers that I do recognize Councillor Hopkins on the list. Mayor Morgan. Okay, so this is one of those few times where I wasn’t gonna speak, but now I’m gonna speak because I think it was, one was 10 to five, the other one was nine to six. This one’s nine six. Yeah, that’s ‘cause I was different on that. And so I was gonna say it here, I put it on the budget ‘cause Council directed it, but now ‘cause people are speaking to it, now I’m gonna defend neighborhood decision-making because I continue over the years to see people focus on what I believe in my personal opinion is the wrong part of the success of the program.

[3:46:42] It does not matter as much who the winners and the losers are at the end of the day. I know it’s really easy to get fixated on that, but when you have thousands of kids across the city, going door to door as was described, saying, thinking about how to improve their school or their park or their neighborhood, I don’t even care what the project is. That is good civic engagement that you are never going to change voter turnout or the perception of civic government if you do not create opportunities for youth in this community to go out and try to make a choice, fight for something, win or lose that there is civic value in that process.

[3:47:23] And I don’t disagree, we can tweak a whole bunch of operational aspects of this program and we can probably make it better. But to me, the true value in this program, all the way from the very first day, was the actual democratic and civic activity that it creates in neighborhoods. And I personally have not cared whether that’s a school or whether that’s a community group or whether that’s a neighborhood group. I do see value in this program. I continue to support it. The only reason I put it into the budget is because I wanted to respect the council decision, but now that there’s a vote on the floor and people want to speak to this program, I feel compelled to speak to it as well and continue to defend it as I have since its inception.

[3:48:01] So I don’t suspect that’s going to change the results. And again, I don’t mind losing a vote here or there, but I’m not gonna go home tonight and tell my kids that a program that they like and have voted in that I didn’t speak to try to defend it and I didn’t vote the way that I feel I should on this. So I’ll be supporting the motion before us and I see great value in this type of program for the youth in our community particularly. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins was next on my list and you’d used 120, the remaining is all yours. Thank you again, Madam Chair and many thanks to the mayor for his leadership.

[3:48:42] He said it well, you know, we do set the example here and this program has been an example. It is not up to us to say yes or no, this is a good program and an art. It’s the community decision making that is important. It’s the belief in our community that is encouraging civic engagement. Staff are committed to this program as well. For sure it’s not perfect, we’ll all agree on that, but please support the program. I have Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Robin.

[3:49:22] Thank you, I wasn’t gonna speak to this either and now I feel compelled to. I’m just gonna quickly say for me, the outcomes do matter, like especially when we’re talking about really high property tax rates. I love seeing people get involved too, but if we see it doesn’t matter what happens with the $250,000, I have a problem with that and we get to find out a way to do it better so that we get the involvement and we get the outcomes that the city wants. Councillor Robin. Thank you and through you.

[3:49:53] So during this discussion, I did propose an amendment and that amendment was to pause NDM in its current formation but to look at a program that would support some participatory decision making that could be rolled out for our parks programs and specifically somewhat tied to some of the park’s enhancements that we’re looking at doing already into next year and years continuing into the budget. And the reason for that is it is my belief that these programs should benefit our city parks and our city projects.

[3:50:35] One of my big issues with NDM right now is although it is absolutely wonderful that we are engaging so many school aged children in the democratic process of going out and getting the votes and support for new playground equipment at their schools and benches and things like that, these are on school properties and I will be very clear as a school board trustee, I was really supportive of this because hey, you’re covering portions of the school board’s budget.

[3:51:09] And now as a Councillor, I’ll tell you, I will tell you that I do not appreciate that a discovering part of the school board’s budget. So I know of a number of schools in my ward and across the city where the gates are closed, where the playground equipment is fenced off. And then there’s also the issue of we are funding playground equipment on not just public school board properties, but also Catholic school board properties where students in this city cannot access those schools for enrollment and attend in elementary because of restrictions around religious identity, but we have an equity tool.

[3:51:55] So I’m concerned about that to be quite honest and frank. The issues that I see with this program when we talk about it from the perspective of equity, I do think we have a lot to consider. I met with groups of seniors in my ward who were not English speakers, so we had a younger person translate, there was about 30 of them, and they wanted park benches in Maplewood Park.

[3:52:31] And I said, here’s the process. I went to city staff about the matter and I informed them of the fact that I was told that the best way to get these park benches is the neighborhood decision-making program. They did not participate in the neighborhood decision-making program and put an application through because they could not figure out how to get the message out appropriately to their community to support getting these park benches. So for me, yes, the civic engagement portion of this discussion is really important and key.

[3:53:06] I do think I would support something that was supportive of just our city parks, but I cannot support this continuing in its form within our schools. And I’ll tell you, I feel quite badly about that because I have two new schools that are being built to my ward that will open with no playgrounds. And it’s because they’re not funded from the province. So when people ask me about my decision on neighborhood decision-making, one of the things I will say is a lot of these funded playgrounds that should have been funded by the provincial government.

[3:53:45] Councillor Hopkins, I wasn’t sure if your hand was at one point, but if not, I will recognize Councillor Frank. You’ve only spoke for like 20 seconds, so go ahead. Thank you. I’m not sure, but I did just hear that there’s potential if we amended this, that if it only could apply to city-owned assets, that there would be support for this. So I’m wondering if there’s a possibility to make an amendment regarding that on this item. It wouldn’t be friendly, of course we’d have to vote in it, but if there’s a possibility to do that. I’m told it’s a policy issue by the clerk and wouldn’t, it’s policy of how the program’s implemented versus the monetary tax levy, budget, budget-y stuff.

[3:54:29] Okay, so it sounds like a no. Thanks. Councillor Troso, you’ve used two minutes, go ahead. Okay, my problem with the suggestion of limiting it to the parks is a lot of the programs, including some— Councillor, we just decided it’s a policy issue that isn’t germane to the conversation right now. Okay, I think it’s important for me to point out though that there were many, many public art and music performance things on this ballot. I think a better amendment, if people want to make an amendment, would be to retain the program the way it is with an instruction to the staff to review the criteria for what’s allowed.

[3:55:16] And we don’t even have to do that through the budget program ‘cause we could have, would it be the new civic works committee or would it be caps? Some committee could direct that. But I think that the tweaks that need to be, and I call them tweaks, question of what applications you accept, these can be done within the parameters of the current project without pausing or eliminating or vacating the program. That would be a fine amendment I think, although I think it’s redundant ‘cause I think you already have the authority to do that. But let’s not forget that there was a porch concert, let’s not forget that there was some murals and I think things like that.

[3:55:56] And those things are on private property. So the private public property distinction might not always be available if the benefits of visualizing the art or hearing the music start on private property, but emanate out to the broader community. So I think we should be careful with that. Thank you, Councilor McAllister. See I looked right for you this time. Go ahead. I appreciate you looking over here, thank you. And through the chair, I feel like I’ve had ups and downs with the neighborhood decision making.

[3:56:35] I’ve been listening attentively to what everyone has to say and recognizing there are flaws in this program, but I go back to the mayor’s point because really that’s what struck me the most. I’ve gone to a bunch of community events and I find it really interesting that one of the things when I’ve talked with kids especially is they do know about this, they have engaged, their parents have introduced them to it and really we’ve struggled to figure out ways of doing civic engagement. And so this is my trouble ‘cause I hear the criticism in terms of what it’s been used for.

[3:57:09] And I mean, I’ve had that as well, but the Councilor Troso’s point, I mean, if there’s a way for us to work away on this through the course of the year before it comes up again, I’m more inclined to do that because I don’t want to just throw away the program because I do think there’s some real value here. And I think we can make those changes to make this a better program. I view that, I mean, even the 250 to me, for the value I’ve seen, I think it’s worth it because really getting kids involved is incredibly difficult.

[3:57:41] A lot of my schools or the after school programs where I’ve like talked with kids, like they just don’t have a lot of interaction in this sphere. And for them to be able to cast about it, whether it be for the first time, the second time, they get to have some input. And I know it’s easy for an adult to sit here and kind of dismiss it and be like, wow, I don’t see the value. But I mean, I’m trying to put myself in their shoes and really they don’t get a lot of opportunities to engage. So for me, I’m going to support this because I think we can make tweaks to this program as being discussed today.

[3:58:15] It’s not perfect, but I don’t want to throw it out because I don’t know if we’ll have an opportunity to come back to it. So that’s where I’m at with this right now. Thank you. I’m looking to see if there’s further speakers. There’s nobody looking to speak online. Nobody in chambers. It’s been moved and seconded, calling the question. Sir Perbal, closing the vote, motion fails six to nine.

[3:59:17] Thank you. That was a six, nine vote coming out in a six, nine going in. Moving on to item 3.6. This one has had updated numbers. This one is moved by Councillor Trowsau. Councillor, you’re willing to put that forward at this time? Yes, I would. I believe Councillor Ferrer still remains your second. You will note that the other day prior to the public participation meeting, Mr. Dickens gave us an overview of funding that was just recently coming through.

[3:59:53] I don’t believe, is Kevin, maybe we’ll get Craig? So just let you know, the numbers that are coming forward. Councillor Trowsau, maybe I’ll have you read it out and then staff can say why it’s okay, your mic. I am very agreeable to making a change and the numbers I do want to hear from staff, something more than we think this is going to happen or it’s likely to happen.

[4:00:28] In which case, we could say up to $400,000, but if I could get something a little more solid, I could take that to lower zero. So may I ask staff to, okay. One time, Kevin’s moved all day. I was just going time till he got it. Yeah, that was very kind of you, that’s what it was like. So the Councillor’s question is just on the wording, if it’s just up to or the $400,000 fine.

[4:01:03] Realizing, Kevin will say it more eloquently, but the tax levy impact would be zero as we’ve had other dollars come in and this money’s covered off by another source, which Kevin, Mr. Dickens, will outline. Finance is aware of it. Mr. Dickens has been consulted and we’re procedurally in order there. Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for the wonderful time to catch up. Yes, this is great news. This is very good news that we, as part of the Ontario Works transformation, the program has shifted as Council’s aware, away from a very strictly employment focused program to more of a life stabilization focused program, which has allowed us to have a number of conversations with our ministry representatives to confirm that we now have the opportunity to explore services like this for the folks that are on receipt of social assistance.

[4:02:01] And as we continue to work with the province to fully define what life stabilization is, we understand there’s likely some small opportunity for folks that may become in receipt of social assistance and perhaps this sort of support can prevent that from happening in the first place. So long story short or short story long, yes, the $400,000 for 2025 is confirmed. We would have to continue to see what allocations are beyond 2025 with the province as they continue to go through their program transformation and what impact, if any, there may come to our operating budgets.

[4:02:43] But what we can confirm is that for 2025, we are able to fund this service to that amount. Okay, realizing government programs are always changing, evolving that if any changes were made, Mr. Dickinson and his team would apprise council of changes to funding. Councilor, so it’s on the floor, staff have done a general overview, looking to see Councilor Trust, if you want to be the first speaker or David or just want me to open a speaker’s list. Well, I want to hear what other people think, but right now I’m inclined that the 2025 expenditure of $400,000 sounded exceptionally serious and not subject to any contingency.

[4:03:26] So if that’s what I heard, that’s what I heard and I would be willing to remove that money. I don’t want to undercut the program and since 2026 is still up in the air, realizing that I can come back in the 2026 budget without prejudice, if I take the 2026 and 2027 off, I’m inclined to remove that too. In the interest, I really want a unanimous vote on this ‘cause I think it’s really important for this council, I think it’s really important for this council to send a very strong and united signal that this is an important program that we need and that we are very, very grateful to Lifespin for bringing this forward.

[4:04:22] And I don’t want to stand in the way of that. So I’d like to hear what the Councilor Farrer and others think about this. I also believe that off budget, it would be within the jurisdiction of caps to bring this up anyway as an expenditure, which would be a much more difficult task, but it would not be out of order. So I think what I’m hearing here is there are other ways of doing this, but I do want to hear what other Councillors think.

[4:04:56] Councillor, you kind of just spoke contradictory to your own motion. So to understand that Mr. Dickens has confirmed that 2025 funding is in place, it’s a go, we’ll have to hold tight for 2026 and what not going forward. What I’ve heard from you is you’re okay with that, you’d prefer union of support of this and that you’re really just moving the motion to contain 2025 and not at this time 2026, 27, you’re willing to come back and hold those conversations to the next annual update.

[4:05:29] Yes. Okay. And I would prefer rather than the list 2026 at zero and 2027 at zero, I would prefer to just remove the line. Okay. So there’s no question. The Councillor Ferra has second or nodded that that was your intention, just sorry. Okay, Councillors, Ferra and Troso, anyone can refresh, but just looking, we’ve completely deleted 2026 and 27.

[4:06:05] If you can confirm with that, have one nod. Okay, I have two nods, so it’s just the extreme clean program for 2025 that Mr. Dickens has confirmed that there is complete funding for, so there’s no tax levy impact. Councillor Layton, your hand was up. Thank you to Councillor Troso, ‘cause I can support this now for making that change without concrete funding for 2627.

[4:06:39] I just want to request if we can include the source of funding in the motion. Yep, Mr. Dickens, could you just send that, or do you want it verbal or verbal’s fine as long as you articulate and go slowly. Thank you, Madam Chair. The source of funding will be through the life stabilization operating budget. So add it being noted that the source of funding will be through the, what did you just say?

[4:07:22] I want to get it right, life. So the clerk, so no, the clerk’s clerking it. Then we’ll make sure that Kevin’s fine with Mr. Dickens is fine with the wording that’s creating the right source. So just hold time. Mr. Dickens, it should be up, I have a thumbs up. Okay, so it’s noted the source of funding as per, I don’t consider that amendment. I consider it just clarifying where the money is coming from, as it’s not from the levy.

[4:07:56] Councillor Layton, did that conclude your speaking points? Okay, I had Deputy Mayor Lewis next, and then Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Madam Chair. So pretty close here. I just need, so first of all, I need to understand from our staff that they actually need a motion in the budget, that this isn’t something that they can do under their delegated authority through the life stabilization program and discussions with the ministry, or do they need this direction? Like, I just want to make sure that we’re not over-complicating things, and I have a second question for them, in that regardless of whether you need the motion or not, I’m delighted that through the ministry, this funding would be coming.

[4:08:43] However, my second question is about, ‘cause we’ve had communications, both this program being provided by a specific vendor, and I want to know that in fact, if this is approved, or if you’ve got delegated authority for this, either way, would we then be proceeding through an RFP and procurement process to secure the vendor? Mr. Dickens, to both of those questions, to whatever staff you need to answer them? Thank you, Madam Chair. To answer the first question, we don’t necessarily need this to be in the annual budget, because it is going to be covered under the existing operating budget that we have.

[4:09:28] We will need to answer your first question, and the second one together. Civic administration will need to be coming back to the CAHPS committee, with a funding agreement looking for committee approval at the conclusion of a procurement process. And that we won’t know what that procurement process looks like in terms of single source or RFP. But yes, we will be coming back to committee for council direction and approval to enter into a funding agreement to deliver this service with a service provider.

[4:10:05] Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, so very happy with the second answer. That’s good. My challenge now is that I’m not sure why we’re dealing with this as an amendment. I recognize people want to express their support for it, but I think if staff have to come back through committee process anyway, then they should bring that back when it’s ready, and we should approve it then. What I heard from Mr. Dickens right off the start and his original answer satisfies the criticism I had of us funding this in the first place, which was we were back failing for the province.

[4:10:38] The province says they’re going to fund it through life stabilization. Great. But to me, that actually is not something that should be in the budget. So given that we’ve heard staff don’t need it in the budget, Madam Chair, I’m gonna look, I think, to you for ruling on whether or not this is germane to the budget, because we’ve heard staff say they don’t need it. Like I said, I understand people want to express their support for it, but I think we’ve already heard. A procurement process will happen, and we’ll have our chance to vote in favor of it then. And if the ministry’s funding it, I assure you I will be voting for it when that comes forward after the procurement process.

[4:11:16] Thank you. I’m making a ruling that it is okay in this space as chair, recognizing it could have come through a different way, but we did hear about the public participation, meaning there is a business case for it. If the council or someone moves amendment with the other years of funding back in, then we’re back to the same part. So just for clarity of process of keeping it here, realizing it’s potentially gonna be back in 2026. We can certainly, if we knew the funding was coming, it wouldn’t have been here, but we didn’t know it was coming.

[4:11:52] We might have the same issue in 2026. So just to keep things tight, realizing there seems to be support to deal with it as quickly as possible. I left it here, ‘cause it’s when we was 2026 back in, now it’s a budget case again. Okay, I’m fine with that ruling. I’m not gonna debate it. I see in the updated version that it’s operating expenditure zero, tax levy zero, capital expenditure zero. It’s just confirming through a budget, our support of the ministry funding. So that’s fine, I’ll get there. Thank you.

[4:12:27] And at any point, I will note, if you wanna stand up to stretch your back, you can. Originally, I said to break it too. Are we okay to keep going? And then Councillors can just take a break as they need to. There are refreshments if you know bio break, you do your thing. My next speaker’s on the list. I don’t know if I had any. Councillor Ferris. Thanks, Chair. I do wanna speak to this, but are we still able to maybe take a 15-minute break after this item? Okay, will Council, or part of it seems to be at least a bio break of just 10 minutes to run and do what we need to do?

[4:13:04] Yes, so let’s dispose of this item, 10 minutes and we’ll come back. So, tighter and less we speak, the sooner you get to use the facilities. Councillor Ferris. Thank you, Chair. So I think this is a very good news piece here. I’m very happy with what I’m seeing. I would also say that these services and the need for them won’t stop after 2025. So 2026, we’re gonna be speaking about the same thing. But I’m happy that staff was able to find some money in the existing budget. I would say to Katie and his team, Slam Dog, great job.

[4:13:39] I’m really happy about that. And I’m really happy with, you know, all the work that we’ve seen from Lifespin and just the comments that I’ve heard here as well. You know, I would just kind of just point out that this is something that is assisting us on the front lines of homelessness. I know this has been said before, but you know, keeping people in their homes, especially people who are at risk marginalized being, or at risk of being served M5 simply because they either are not able to do the work that a landlord may be asking them.

[4:14:13] This is just something that we definitely need to do. So I’m happy to see this here. I know that it will come up again next year because that need will not go away. And I’m definitely happy to support this. So thank you. Thank you for their questions or comments before I call the question. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I think you’ve used twoish minutes. That’s okay. I actually just have a point of personal privilege, perhaps in a moment of levity into our proceedings today. I’m just wondering if Councilor Ferra can clarify that the great work qualifies Mr. Dickens as the original Katie or the extra cheesy.

[4:14:51] Okay, no, you’re not clarifying that. We’re getting closer to a biograche, or I will hold this hostage. I see no further speakers online, none in chambers calling the question. Supposing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[4:15:30] Okay, I would need a motion for a 10 minute recess, bringing us back at 12, let’s call it 12-22. Two, oh my goodness, I’m going back in time. 2-22, apparently need a break. Mover, Councilor Hoppen, seconded Councilor Ferra, hand vote all in favor until 2-22. Motion carries recess till 2-22. Okay, if we can take our seats.

[4:29:51] Friends, have our seats, please. 3.7, the amendment, P-16, this is a housing stability bank. One, the mover’s gonna be Councilor Troso. Councilor Ferra, you’re still the seconder. That’s a nod. Councilor, would you like to read out the motion, or do you want us to read out the motion, and then I go to you for a speaker’s list? Yes, someone has to read it. Your, us or you?

[4:30:23] Yes. Your mic? I’m proposing that the mayor’s 2025 annual budget. Be amended to include funding for the Housing Stability Bank expansion. Based on the 2024 multi-year budget business case, P-16, quote, housing stability bank expansion. 2025 operating expenses, 700,000. 2025 tax levy, 700,000. 2025 capital expenditures, zero.

[4:30:56] 2026 operating expenditures, 700,000. 2026 tax levy, 700,000. 2026 capital expenditure, zero. And 2027 operating expenditures, 7,000. 2027 tax levy, 7,000. And 2027 capital expenditures, zero. And with the second, I could proceed to my justification for this at this time. Yeah, you can be the first speaker, please proceed. Thank you and through the chair.

[4:31:34] We’ve spent a lot of time over the last year responding to homelessness. And one of the pieces of responding to homelessness is thinking about how can we lessen future instances of homelessness in our community? And I think that we’ve talked about this on a couple of occasions. We talked about the rental eviction by law. We’ve talked about a number of other services that come through housing stability. But I think that this is an important piece. And while I do appreciate that it was in the budget last year and it was not successful, I wanted to raise it again because I think the issue of homelessness in our community has intensified, it’s increased.

[4:32:23] Certainly it’s front on the mind of our residents as we know from our resident survey. And whenever we seem to be able to make a dent into the problem of homelessness, and I think we’ve had some successes, we still see that there is the perennial problem that just does not go away. People who are on fixed incomes facing homelessness. And this is not about owner occupancy evictions or rental evictions, this is about the full eviction, the full grounds for eviction.

[4:32:59] And that is running late in your rent or not being able to pay the utilities. But if you don’t pay your rent, that’s grounds for eviction. And we have a lot of people in this community who are just on the edge. Food prices are going up, utility prices are going up, transportation, people are really hurting and people are very, very hard pressed to be able to provide all the necessities of life for themselves and their household. So when we have the opportunity to have a program that says essentially, you’ve gotten into financial situation where you may lose your housing.

[4:33:40] If you lose your housing, it’s not just a question of moving someplace a little cheaper. If you lose your housing, you’re gonna join the ranks of the homelessness, of the homeless population here. And that, I would argue, creates an additional burden on the city. So I think that the money that would be spent on the housing stability bank expansion is money well spent. I can speak generally to the fact that I don’t think the situation has gotten better over the last year.

[4:34:13] I would ask Mr. Cooper if he could make a few comments because it was through his department that this business case first came through. Can you just confirm that this agency is still in need of the money? Thank you, Mr. Cooper. That and if anything else you feel is germane to the conversation that might be new information, please disclose that at this time. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, there have been no new funding developments of significance for this program. They have received a one-time grant during the end of last year multi-budget for $100,000, but that was quickly exhausted.

[4:34:50] We have, that program has had to stop in taking applications four times this year. So it is still a well-subscribed program and we are on track to exceed previous years numbers. Council Troso. Thank you, and with that, I think I would yield to other Councillors to speak to this and I’ll just reserve the opportunity to wrap this up at the end if need be. Thank you very much. Thank you, your opportunity to wrap it up at the end and you have two minutes remaining. If you want to plan that, Councilor Ferra.

[4:35:23] Thank you, Chair. So I remember from this business case, I’m pretty sure this business case made reference to about 3,200 households per year that the Housing Stability Bank program in total would support, maybe I got that wrong. Let me go to staff just to clarify. To staff? Thank you, Madam Chair. And I believe it was 2,300 people in 2022 was in the business case. We do know this program is also funded by London Hydro for some utilities or rears.

[4:35:58] So those numbers might be in there as well. Councillor Ferra. Thank you for that. But this program also, for the utility rears, I understand, but this also helps support rental cost to rears as well. And it also helps, just like the through the loans and grants, we’re just looking for stabilization. I also remember that the business case made note that I think it was like 70% of the individuals who were looking towards this program are on a fixed income. And that number is still corrected. Maybe it has a change at all from last year to this year. Mr. Cooper.

[4:36:32] Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, that number is still accurate. It might have changed the percent or two, but we’re still in the 70s for individuals on social assistance who are accessing this program. Just one other point of note, the program is a rental rears and first and last month’s rent program as well, including the utility rears. So it’s really a three-prong program. Councillor. Thank you. And we also lost the Ontario Social Services relief funding as well with that that was partially supporting that. Back in the day, we don’t have that anymore.

[4:37:04] And this is kind of one of the reasons why we had this business case come forward. Can I see some notes? So you don’t have to answer the question. So it goes back to we have individuals on a fixed income. We all know that times are tougher. Cost of everything is very high. Cost of food is especially high. And cost of housing is high as well. So I see kind of all the factors coming together, making the situation where people who are dependent or would be dependent on a program like this, they’re at more risk if this program is not around.

[4:37:38] And it really, it comes back to kind of the conversation we had on the last business case is on the front line. It’s on the front line to keep people in their homes. And it’s a recognition of just the times that we’re in, especially right now. Like there could a couple of years from now if things get better, this program may not be needed as much. But right now it is a critical time of need. So just kind of those considerations, we do want to keep people in their homes. It’s more cost effective to keep people in their homes on the financial side. But it’s also when you think about just the trauma that someone could go through or just the stress that someone could go to that someone could go through knowing that things are at risk and they don’t have programs like this that they can lean on.

[4:38:19] That just doesn’t do very well for individuals. So I see this as that buffer, that support, that relief that people really need. And this is fits right into our strat plan, fits right into our goals and our initiatives. I think that this is a program, especially if it’s 700,000 a year and we can see an impact that the business case, as I read in the multi-year budget is proposing. I think it’s dollars very well spent. It’s got huge value to it, well beyond the cost parts. So I would be supportive of this.

[4:38:52] That’s why I see my name is a seconder on this and I hope that we can get council support as well. Thank you, further speakers. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanna say, I’ve heard great things about housing stability bank. There’s no question it’s a valuable service and there’s a tremendous need for that. My concern is I don’t believe it’s my role as a city councilor to allocate money from people who are just barely getting by who are housed to give it to those who are struggling.

[4:39:29] It needs to come from another source. Property tax is a aggressive tax. It impacts everybody equally. And this needs to come from charity or from a provincial and federal dollars which take from the higher income earners to give to the lower income earners. I’m not gonna support the lighthouse in as an example. I’m not gonna affect some people who are marginalized to help other people who are marginalized. It needs to come from the right source. So I don’t know if there’s any opportunity to use any of the new funding that comes in provincially or federally to allocate to this.

[4:40:11] Let’s ask. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Dickens, if you know if anything would allow us to use it for such an application? Through you Madam Chair, at this time there would not be a sufficient federal surplus or federal funds unallocated to this extent. We just went through some debates on other business cases that are going to gobble up most, if not all of the federal funding. Councillor. Thank you.

[4:40:42] I appreciate that. And I wasn’t clear. I thought I heard an answer that there were other services besides ARCAID being allocated with this new federal funding. And so I don’t know if council has an opportunity to direct whether that comes in January when you guys presented a staff report, I’m not sure, but to potentially do this rather than some of the outreach. Mr. Dickens, I know different dollars, different things we had to do with it. If you know what this time?

[4:41:17] Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, those are very different reports than what we’re discussing today for sure. Some of the services and outreach being one of them are things that are actually requirements under the federal funding envelope, one of the envelopes. So yes, we will be coming back to you in the new year with those funding agreements as per some of the funding envelopes through the federal government and what’s an eligible expense and what they’re looking to see happen. And we can have those discussions and debates at that committee.

[4:41:54] Thank you, Councillor. Thank you and through you. I guess just my last comment is as we look at next year if there is a way that council can focus more money towards prevention, is anything that we can do to prevent people from getting into homelessness is gonna help everybody. Someone said that the other night at the PPM too about how we don’t wanna lose our precious, deeply affordable and affordable housing units that we have out there. So maybe it’s something that we can look at. The province last spring increased our housing prevention funding by 63%.

[4:42:33] We got an extra $8.5 million last year. So we went from 13 million to 21 million. And I know I’m interested in knowing how much of that goes towards prevention. So I’ll be looking into it separately. Take those as comments versus questions. Deputy Mayor Lewis is next to my list. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was in no last year. I’ll be in no again. There will never be enough. We could put any number here, 2.1 million.

[4:43:07] And we would still hear that there’s not enough in the Housing Stability Bank. This is an expansion request. And I’m not supporting expansion of programs in other areas right now, in any areas right now. This is a, for me, this moves it from 7.4 to 7.5. So I’m a no. Yes, the program does some good work, but no matter how much resources we put into it, it won’t be enough.

[4:43:39] And the SSRF, again, was provincial funding. And I’m not backfilling for the province ending funding. It’s just that simple. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And I just want a little bit of clarity, maybe through you to staff. I’ve heard that this is a stabilization request for this amount to stabilize the three-prong approach within the Housing Stability Bank expansion. I just wanna make sure I’ve got that right.

[4:44:15] Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, the request was to reflect the increase in demand we saw during COVID and post COVID. So although it’s identified as an expansion, that expansion actually happened a couple of years ago, and that was with one-time funding. So we’re looking to still meet that current need today, but in a different way. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for that. Further speakers before calling the question? Mayor Morgan.

[4:44:47] Yes, I think we can have a valuable program, but the level to which we funded can be our challenge sometime. When you look at Windsor’s program of supporting first and last month’s rent, they had a $550,000 draw on that in 2022, and a climb to 2.3 million by 2024. And so this is the challenge that we face, is that we can have a program that we see is good and valued, and yet our ability with the municipal tax base to meet an increasing demand in a province where you might see growing and increasing demand with the rise of house prices and affordability, makes it a challenge for us to meet as a council.

[4:45:31] So although I am supportive of what we have done, the expansion to this could be endless, maybe not endless, but significant, based on the pressures of other municipalities. And Windsor has had to consider in their budget process, essentially capping these sorts of programs and rolling them back. And I know the mayor there is concerned about a significant tax increase that their population might face because of some programs that can have a possibly unlimited upside.

[4:46:06] So I’m not gonna support this amendment now. I do recognize the need of the Stability Bank type programs, both here and across the province, but at the end of the day, this is a challenge that needs to be met in partnership with other levels of government and not just by the municipal tax expenditures. Thank you, Councillor Rama. Thank you, and through you, I think Mr. Cooper, he possibly mentioned this, but I just wanna clarify. My understanding is that we don’t have a breakdown of how many people are going coming in for utility arrears versus some rental arrears.

[4:46:45] Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, I anticipated that question. So I do have a breakdown already for January to September of 2024. So for utilities, if I need my glasses, 1,115 applications were for utility arrears and 730 households for rental assistance. Councillor. And from the original business case, there were 1,900, was that the same breakdown? Mr. Cooper.

[4:47:19] I don’t know the exact breakdown from kind of pre-COVID times or during COVID, I should say. It has been fairly consistent. The utilities arrears program has been well-subscribed and the rental arrears program just giving that average benefit is usually significantly higher. Typically it has less households served. Councillor Rama. Thank you. I won’t be supporting this at this time and I’ll build on some of the comments that the mayor provided. So I agree that this is a program that has a lot of benefit in the community and there’s opportunities for people that will essentially run out almost every quarter because it’s oversubscribed.

[4:48:06] The one thing I do think that needs a little bit more clarity is the role of utilities in this conversation because there has been some substantial changes in how the province is funding the utility portion of this and I think that’s why we’re seeing a lot of changes actually in the numbers because there’s more uptake on the utility side. So I think until we better understand how that interplays, I would have challenges funding or increasing the funding at this time as I get more information.

[4:48:49] Thank you. Looking for Councillor Layton. Yeah, thank you. This will follow up with what’s been said. I totally understand where this is coming from and I think we feel the sympathies there, especially from being a preventative aspect, keep people that are currently housed. Challenges is, and we’ve said this many times, we are funded by a regressive tax. It’s not income based and this funding to me is very tied very much to income and that’s why we always talk about other levels of government because they have other revenue tools that we don’t have.

[4:49:34] For example, income tax and sales tax which are based on consumption and income and that’s why I think you’re seeing a need that will never be sufficiently fulfilled from a progressive tax base. I wish it could, but so for this example, $700,000 a year for $2.1 million, as has been said earlier, it could be $5 million. We just don’t have the proper tools for revenue based that are related to people’s ability to pay that tax.

[4:50:12] So unfortunately, I cannot support it. Okay, looking for further comments before I call the question. Okay. Okay. So I will go to Councillor Ferra, first you’ve used three minutes as Councillor Traussau, but I think we have a pretty good understanding where our colleagues thoughts are at. Councillor Ferra. Thank you Chair, I’ll be quick. I heard from Mr. Cooper that this program assisted about 700 participants in their rent or rental arrears in the last year.

[4:50:51] Is that, that’s what I heard? Mr. Cooper. Thank you. Three, Madam Chair, that is from January 2024 to end of September 2024, about 730 households were utilized the rental assistance program, which is first and last month’s rent and rental arrears depending on what somebody applies for. Councillor? Is there risk that we would not be able to, that’s a pretty substantial number. Is there a risk that we would not be able to support individuals in the next year at all if we don’t expand on this?

[4:51:26] Like those 700 participants, what would we see if we didn’t support this? Would we potentially see upwards of 700 participants or 700, I guess, requests and individuals not having that assistance and possibly being at risk of their housing and losing their housing? I know Mr. Cooper always spoke to this being an expansion versus just a reflex in demand, but if you could. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I can’t speculate on what the usage may be next year, but it is a well-subscribed program, as I’ve mentioned.

[4:52:05] It is have an investment currently that we will, the agency will utilize this to the best of their ability. And I have mentioned so far this year out of the 10 months that nine months that we had indicated for those months, they had to pause applications. So that’s typically how the agency is working through when they’re out of running out of funds. They allocate so much per month. And then when those funds are gone, they’re gone and they stop applications until the following month. Councillor? Thank you. It’s very risky. I understand that we would like to see the province or any other level of government step in and help us, but they haven’t.

[4:52:41] They actually remove their funding, which is why we had that business case in the first place. And it’s just too risky to see potentially 700 households lose their housing. It would make things much worse. So I think we need to kind of consider that. 30 seconds. I’m done. Councillor Trausau. Thank you. I’ll just summarize really quickly. I’m looking at this from the point of view, primarily of the 700 people and their families.

[4:53:20] Where are they going to go? Well, let’s face it, they’re going to become homeless or maybe for a while they’ll be staying with the friend. This failing, failing, yes, it’s regressive taxation. And yes, the 2.1 million is probably not enough. And yes, if we really wanted to do this right, there’d be no end to it. This is not an open-ended request. It says exactly what it is. So it’s not an open-ended. I think it’s money well spent because if we don’t spend this money, we’re going to see our homeless population swell, perhaps going into the very same encampments that we’ve been spending so much time talking about how we want to get rid of.

[4:54:08] That is an unreasonable risk. Do we have to do this? No, we don’t have to do this. Should we do this? Well, good point’s been made at its regressive tax system. But I think we might be saving ourselves some money in the long run. May I ask, and I don’t know, this might be difficult to quantify, what does it cost the city if a new person is added to the ranks of homelessness? I’m not sure if staff could guess it. I know it’s contingent upon what that needs of that person are.

[4:54:44] Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, I can quantify it on shelter beds at this point. The average cost of the shelter bed in 2024 is around 33 to $3,400. And if it’s a family, the average cost of a room at one of our family shelter is almost double that. Councillor? Well, in any event, it’s something. So I don’t think you can look at this as the expenditure that’s on this piece of paper without looking at the opportunity costs of not doing this.

[4:55:22] And whether the opportunity costs of not doing this is greater than the cost of doing it— 30 seconds. Can’t really answer that for sure. But we do know that there will be some opportunity costs. Plus, not all costs can be quantified in terms of money. There’s distress and there’s the acuity. There’s the hardship for the families. It’s going to result that this berry program can at least ameliorate some of the suffering and hardship of our lease privilege.

[4:55:57] That’s your five minutes. So please support this. I have no further speakers online. I’m not seeing any in chambers calling the question. Closing the vote, motion fails six to nine.

[4:56:36] Sorry, I’ll note that vote was six to nine going in and six to nine coming out. Our next item is Councillor Ramen. This is business case P-51. You’re ready to move it this time. I’m aware that Mayor, you’re still the seconder. Councillor, so I’d ask you to read it out, make sure it’s right of what’s in an e-scribe. And then if you would like to speak first, I will give you first right refusal. Thank you.

[4:57:07] So I’ll read out the motion that the mayor’s 2025 annual budget update be amended by reducing the London Transit Commission budget for the 2026 budget update to reinstate this funding. LTC must submit an amendment for the 2026 budget update that the online booking system is operational and that a plan for implementing the 10,000 additional service hours for 2025 must be provided to council no later than Q1 2025. The financials are outlined in the 2024 to 2027 multi-year but budget business case P-51 transit service growth. Service hours growth, sorry.

[4:57:41] And then it shows the 2026 minus 500,000. Would you like to be the first speaker? Please proceed. Thank you and through you. So to my colleagues, I first want to apologize for the last minute addition of this. As I was working through some of the conversations to be able to put this forward. So I want to take everyone back. 2020 LTC’s annual report makes a mention of a commitment to an online system for paratransit users.

[4:58:17] At the time people are 2018 to 2022 that are paratransit riders are, sorry. I didn’t know if you’re trying to, sorry, interrupt me. So in 2020 and before that paratransit users are telling us and telling council, I wasn’t on council yet, but we’re telling counselors at that time they could be calling up to 130 plus times a day in order to get a ride. And so at that time the answer is, well, we’re adding more lines.

[4:58:55] And so more phone lines are added and then come into after the 2020 report. Again, the answer is more lines are coming as people continue to paratransit riders continue to deal with these backlogs when they’re calling. Flash forward. And I remember my first weeks on council getting calls from paratransit users and advocates saying, this is an ongoing issue. Can we meet and discuss it?

[4:59:27] January 2023, advocates are again, in front of the media saying, we gotta do better. And we heard this over and over again. Again, these wait times continue to escalate and increase. And here we are in a situation where we’re not being heard. And so October 2023 at CWC, we have a report in front of us on LTC giving themselves a satisfactory grade on paratransit in 2022. And so at that time at CWC, we tried to bring in some accountability measures.

[5:00:05] And unfortunately, because of the relationship in being’s arm’s length, that is a difficult thing for us to do. And for that reason, this is before you because I have grave concerns when I hear a month ago in the media that we are still in the same place where we do not have an online booking service. And that service is, the timeline is not completely known as to when it will be in place, potentially as early as this quarter, first quarter of 2025, I’m being told. But also that there’s not really indication as to how new paratransit hours are coming in.

[5:00:47] So for that reason, I think we need to have a conversation here during the budget around what can we do to hold LTC accountable to ensure these things change, that they get better, that the community understands we’re listening, that we are advocating and that we are working hard to see these results as we can within the current structure. Councillor Ferrera, I saw your hand next.

[5:01:22] And you’re at two minutes and 40 seconds, should you wish to speak later? Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I hear the Councillor working on it last minute. If I was, if I did know this was coming, I would have given some response back. You’re right, the online booking system is scheduled for February 2025 and I can tell you from our last conversation, they’ve already been implementing, they’ve already put in servers and there’s a buildup to wind something like this up. So that online booking system will be coming very soon and we’ve been asking LTC every meeting about it and we’ve been getting regular updates.

[5:02:00] I would also say, I worked really hard at LTC to get that additional 10,000 hours year over year for the specialized transit. I was very happy that it was included in the mayor’s budget and I’m very happy that it was passed. I just put the work and everything that had to go in with that and to the people who depend on that, I’m really hesitant and I’m not gonna say hesitant. I would not support any type of sanction for accountability that holds that specialized transit hours in the balance. I just know specialized transit community would not like that.

[5:02:33] We already have asked for a performance review. We’ve already have some things in the works for that direction but I don’t think this is the way to go. I would also say, like those 10,000 hours, they have been used, I remember the discussion at the LTC at the time was the demand is not there for 10,000 hours but it’s been shown that the demand is there for the 10,000 hours. And the last conversation we had and I’m just kind of relaying the message of what we heard at the commission. Those hours that haven’t been fulfilled for the specialized transit services due to the third party supplier, the boy who go.

[5:03:11] So just kind of considering those things, it goes back to I would not, I just don’t wanna see that specialized service hours held in the balance here. I don’t think that’s the right way to go. So I’m not gonna support this the way it is. Thank you. I had no further speakers at this time. So if you’re interested in speaking, let me know. Mayor Morgan. Yes, so through you to the chair. So specialized transit hours are not being put at risk here. If you look at what the council has put forward and I’ve seconded, there is no way to have this discussion without attaching a budget amount in it in the budget discussion.

[5:03:56] If you look at the small amount that we’ve chosen, it’s actually less than LTC indicated that they could find in savings for 2025. We stuck it in 2026 because they indicated in that 2025, brought your reduction, that they may actually be able to do more in the future given the way that hours are phased in. But there is no way for us to actually have the discussion that we both feel we need to have here about getting some plan. It doesn’t say deliver, but the plan to try to figure it out. And you know what, plans don’t always work out perfectly, but we need to know what is happening.

[5:04:31] When is the online booking coming? What is the plan for the service hours? We get to know that earlier in the year and then we can make adjustments to their budget and restore it later. But this is not even the amount that was allocated to the service hours. This has, the intent here is not to remove the service hours at all. The intent is to attach a small amount to a budget discussion so that we can actually have this discussion ideally. What happens through this is we get some information, we know what’s happening, we see the plan and we restore the budget.

[5:05:03] And that would be the ideal situation, but this discussion could not even happen in the budget discussion without the Council and I putting something on the floor to even entertain this. Because recall back, the transit commission budget was like heavily debated by Council. And we made some significant new investments beyond what was in the table budget, which was supported by a majority of Council. And I did not veto and I support the decision that this Council made. But we need to see the results of that hard fought decision and money that we put forward to the commission.

[5:05:38] And I know that the commission has challenges and I think what we just have to do is we need the opportunity to understand better what those are, when things are happening, what is the plan for the additional hours. And if they wanna come back and say, the service hours are necessary, I hope that they’re engaging with the paratransit community who is loud and clear that they were necessary and that there was demand and that there is, there is a challenge within the service. So I know we have representatives on the commission, I greatly appreciate the work that we do, but the purpose of this in part is for us to really have a better sense on where we’re going with the significant investitures, not not to try to reduce their budget in a permanent way that would hinder their ability to actually deliver on what we’ve all agreed on through the budget process is additional hours in this space, serving a community that has been asking for it for many years.

[5:06:33] Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I’m just gonna say I am uncomfortable with sort of micromanaging our boards and commissions, especially so early. We just approved the multi-year budget six, seven months ago. And all of a sudden we’re like demanding results. We have a lot of things to worry about of our own that I, as far as I understand, the third party contractor has promised delivery of the new system in Q1 to 2025.

[5:07:05] As far as I understand, it’s tracking to that date and the service plans are already published. So unless I don’t feel the need for this, I guess is my point. I will not be supporting. Thank you, I’m going to first speakers before I go back to second speakers, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. So I will say I appreciate the conversations a Councillor Ferris had with me, Councillor Preble has had with me about the work that they’re trying to do at LTC.

[5:07:38] I appreciate that they’ve felt some frustrations along the way with timelines and things too. I’ve had discussions with Ms. Madden and with Mr. Little as well. And they’ve expressed frustrations to me about the speed of things too. I’m absolutely a yes on this. Councillor Ramen outlined. The years that the paratransit ridership community has been waiting for an online booking system, years. Not just the last fall or last spring’s multi-year budget approval.

[5:08:14] They’ve been promised this over and over and over again and every time I see an update from the LTC, it’s another delay. It’s another delay. I hear, and if I’m confusing the smart card reader and the online booking system, I apologize. But we were told some of this was going to be online in June and July of last year. And then we heard, oh, the vendor wouldn’t meet with us to August. The vendor wouldn’t meet with you to August is not an acceptable position. For me, from my perspective, as a management approach to securing contracts and getting things implemented.

[5:08:49] So I’m absolutely going to support this because while I appreciate that the commissioners are trying their best to keep people moving and accountable on the LTC side, with my council head on, this is the only tool we have clearly available to us to insist on some accountability too. As Councillor Ramen referenced, we got a report from 2CWC in 2023 that said it was satisfactory. I say today, still, it’s unsatisfactory. And that was never, I don’t recall that, ever actually coming back to us with a changed grade.

[5:09:28] So this isn’t to me about the LTC commissioners. I appreciate that they’re frustrated with some of the processes as well. This is from an operational perspective. I need to see the LTC management getting this stuff done. And this is the only tool we have to put some sort of pressure on to get it done. So I’m going to absolutely be supporting this. And I think Councillor Ramen for the work that she put into putting this together and bringing it forward. Thank you. I have Councillor Hoffman’s and then Councillor Pribble. I’m getting a glass of water, I’m still timing.

[5:10:02] I’m not leaving the meeting. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, okay, sorry, somebody else’s getting me water. I will not escape at all. And I will start the timing for Councillor Hopkins and then continue my speaker’s list with Councillor Pribble as it builds from there. Please don’t leave us, Madam Chair. Yeah, so I’ve heard, this is a big surprise to me that this is here. I appreciate the Mayor and the Councillor trying to find some savings.

[5:10:36] But I am not sure of what the implications to that is. I agree we need a plan. We can ask for a plan. We don’t need to do this. I agree with the fact that we are just micromanaging is a word that I agree with when we start doing this. My problem is here, we’re looking at 2026. We’ve already approved the growth hours to make this happen in the Specialized Service. What happens to that?

[5:11:10] We know that the implementation of the booking system is going ahead. I’m really struggling to find out what the concern is here and what problem we are solving while creating more problems in delaying, which is what we’re trying to do to fix. So I’m not convinced that this is the way forward. So I won’t be supporting the amendment. Thank you. I had Councillor Pribble and then Councillor Layman. Thank you.

[5:11:43] I certainly will be supporting this. And I’ll tell you, I’ll be the first one if there are certain initiatives or actions to hold someone accountable. But if you hold someone accountable, you don’t punish the funds that are actually the end users. And this is exactly the case. So I don’t see accountability in this at all. I don’t. And even if I truly believe that things will be delayed, and by the way, just so you know, just like when we say that certain things people say that they are not informed and we tell them it’s a public knowledge, it’s on the meetings of the standing committees, the council, this is as well, by the way.

[5:12:19] So if there is certain interest, if someone wants to know the details, the progress, they can take the time. If they are really serious about it, they want to know they can take the time and to read about it. So there were some inaccuracies that were stated here around the horseshoe, but that doesn’t, I’m going to stick to the motion. So bottom line is, I will not be supporting it. And one thing I want to also mention, I do sit regularly on the two accessible committees, one under City of London, one under LTC, not that I make all the meetings, but most I would say yes.

[5:12:53] And I actually talk to the users who are part of these committees, members, or other people, and they actually don’t agree with it either. So bottom line is, I don’t see an accountability tool in this whatsoever. If LTC would take a position that there’s no way or whatever, it’s not fulfilled. LTC is not being punished. We are punishing the ones who are actually the users and need to use it. It doesn’t matter if it’s specialized or if it’s conventional. So I will certainly not be supporting it.

[5:13:28] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I understand the frustration that I share. However, this is an independent outside agency commission that has its own board that has to do the deep dives on operational issues. And I’m not privy to those discussions. Are there reasons why I hear certain things stated from management, et cetera, from board members? But I don’t feel comfortable in getting into management direction.

[5:14:05] This explicitly with an outside commission thing, though, that this is for sure delivered a message of, I think, a shared council perspective and frustration. And I hope the board and management here is pretty loudly and clearly, and I’m counting on them to deliver with the funding that was provided in the multi-year budget.

[5:14:39] Thank you, Councillor Troso. Thank you, through the chair, I wanna start by saying that I’m a very absolute and a very hard no on this. This is not the way to persuade our fellow organizations to deliver services. And again, I’m not looking at this from the point of view of the transit management or board. I’m looking at this from the point of view of the riders. You better improve services or we’re gonna take money away from you that you need to improve services.

[5:15:18] Where does that stop? Do we go to the housing authority and say, you gotta do something about the bugs, but like we’re gonna take the money away from you because we’re still getting complaints? No, it doesn’t make any sense. We’re gonna go to the police, say we’re not really seeing the response times go by, go down, we’re gonna penalize if we could, which we can. But like, really, where does this stop? And I guess my, the question I have for the proponents of this motion, did you give LTC management notice that you were doing this?

[5:15:54] How come they’re not here? I really would like to hear from the executive director or the chair or the deputy chair. Sir, Councillor Trosto, I’m gonna interrupt you for a moment. - Yes. If you do wanna hear from Agency Boarder Commission, I can verify that they are available virtually. Should anyone have questions? I think I would just like to stop my time running and just ask for, if they’re here, I’d like to hear their response to this. They are with us, just you would need a specific question to ask them regarding the motion that’s on the floor.

[5:16:35] And I can certainly do other speakers and come back if you want a moment to compose those questions, that’s okay too. Question is, what do you think of this proposal and is this warranted and are you working? What progress are you making when these complaints, perhaps Councillor Ferrara or Privel, could help me craft this with more specificity, but I really wanna hear from them. So, my takeaway for that was that your question too, Ms. Polinci would be, what are they doing to address the current concerns as laid out in the motion?

[5:17:18] Yes, and to get an update on it and find out what effect that’s gonna have on operations. Yes, that’s what I would like to say. Okay, I think that thing is a, it’s a privilege. Okay, so Ms. Polinci, welcome. It’s your call if you want to turn on your camera and your mic or just your mic, you do as you will. Okay, we can see you, welcome. If you need the question restated, that can certainly be done. I know you’re with us here at the conversation.

[5:17:52] Are you okay to answer something if you’ve heard the question, okay, if not, they can repeat it. I think I’ve got the question, I’ll give it a shot. And if I didn’t get it right, then we can go back. But just perhaps I’ll start with an update and a number of the speakers have alluded to this, but I can confirm that we are well underway with the implementation of the replacement of the booking system. The first phase, which is the backend portion of the system that’s utilized by staff, is anticipated to be fully up and running by the end of January.

[5:18:28] And the second phase, which is the customer facing piece, which will include the online booking, is scheduled to be completed by the end of February. So that process is well underway. It’s been a process that we’ve been working through in 2024 and those dates have been communicated publicly in staff reports to the commission. Sorry, I’m just asking, just to clarify, that was January and February of 2025 that you hope to have those up and going? Okay, thank you. That’s right. And then with respect to the hours, so the 10,000 hours for 2025 are actually scheduled to begin, well, to be implemented effective January 1.

[5:19:08] So we’re looking at adding an additional four vehicles on the road for specialized Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., which are the hours where we’re seeing the most demand and those will take place effective January 1. So the plan has already been communicated, is in place where the contractor has confirmed that they will have the vehicles and the employees to put those service hours in place effective January 1. So those two things are essentially underway and plan to be in place as I just communicated.

[5:19:45] I’m not sure if there’s another part to the question that I missed. You might not have missed it, but there might be another part, Councilor Treso. Thank you, thank you very much for being available to give us that information. Am I happy with the pace of change at LTC? No, everybody knows that. But I don’t think that this is an appropriate motion. I just don’t think this is an appropriate motion. I’m gonna vote no on this. And I really wanna give the management and the staff at LTC the benefit of the doubt here. I think this is a very unusual remedy.

[5:20:22] I’ll just leave it at that. I won’t use the word to describe it. But I just wanna vote no on this. I do wanna, I really would love to follow LTC developments a little bit more because I really, I get a lot of questions about the operations of LTC. And I’m constantly sending people to one of my colleagues or to LTC staff, but this is not the way to make improvements. So I’m voting no. And thank you very much for answering those questions. Thank you.

[5:20:54] Councilor Farah, I don’t know if you wanna go now ‘cause I do have other speakers, okay. Councilor Farah. Thank you, Chair. So yeah, I think Councilor Pribble said it really, really, or Commissioner Pribble, and Councilor Pribble said it really, really well. If we’re looking for accountability, how has the end user who would be the one who may see the result of a possible non-accountability, how does that work? And that’s exactly kind of where I’m stuck up on. I don’t believe that that’s necessarily a fair thing. We gotta remember, specialized transit community has been advocating for more service hours for years.

[5:21:31] They’ve been fighting for years. This term started, Councilor Pribble and I went in, and we answered those calls. And this Council heard us and also answered those calls. Now, I don’t think it’s fair to make them fight again. And I don’t appreciate that. So I don’t think we should do that. Going to the motion itself. Like when I read through this motion or this amendment, I was a little confused because it said the 10,000 additional service hours for 2025. So that’s in my mind. That’s why I started focusing on the specialized transit hours because 10,000 specialized transit hours is what we added year over year.

[5:22:08] It doesn’t have any specificity or between conventional or specialized. So that’s why I take that as specialized transit hours. So this is a motion that I read that does hold the specialized transit hours in the ballots. And I know the specialized community, they wouldn’t like that. Like I understand, we were looking for some type of stick for accountability if that’s what Council seeks, but this is not the way to go to that. So again, I will not be supporting this motion. And I really think we should start thinking about the end users themselves for any type of accountability should not be the specialized transit community.

[5:22:44] Thank you. Councilor Raman, you’d use 240, please proceed. Thank you and three of you. So I’ve heard my colleagues. Let me just say I did provide this ahead of time to LTC as well, before the added agenda. I appreciate the comments from Ms. Palashni and for her verbal commitment to these two initiatives and that they’re partially underway. I will say that my concern remains because in January of last year, we were told that they were aiming to launch the system six months into 2024.

[5:23:27] So again, if we have no ability to put forward accountability measures, yet we are putting forward funding. This is where I struggle. And so I would love to hear that these things are in place as now described for Q1 2025 and that a report will come to provide that update that those things are in place. And that is really all this motion was doing, was asking for that to be done so that we could reinstate the funding.

[5:24:04] And again, I go back to it had to be tied to funding. It had to be tied to funding and it had to be tied to some opportunity to report back in so it could be added back in. So that is when the numbers were there, never to punish users at all. In fact, it’s just a way to try to find a way to get these things delivered, as promised. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Just give me one second to reset my clock, go ahead. Thank you, I’ll just be quick.

[5:24:39] I mean, I love accountability, but I hear from residents, they would love accountability around when road construction ends, around shelters that open, that they have beds, that they have the capacity that they said. I mean, there’s tons of things that this council could start looking at accountability around and I’d be more interested in that rather than try to be doing the work of a commission that’s already been tasked with that. We have a long list here and I might start looking at it because maybe there’s an interest in this council in ensuring that we get the results that we’re paying for and I’d be all for that.

[5:25:19] Thank you, further speakers. Is there anybody online? Okay, there’s nobody online. So just in chambers here, I do see Councillor Hopkins and you’d use 230 so you still have your time remaining. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I hear the mover’s concerns about not knowing what’s going on, but I don’t think this amendment is gonna get it. We could easily ask for a report back in Q1 in a different way. So I would really like to go that way, not doing it this way. Thank you.

[5:25:57] I don’t see any further speakers, but realizing we have Ms. Polonchke with us and two board members that maybe when January comes regardless of the outcome in this vote that they do update us in the current state just as communication through council. There’s no further speakers online. There are no hands and chambers calling the question. Seeing the vote, motion fails, five to 10.

[5:26:42] Thank you, and that resolves that. The next item is a budget case for wastewater treatment. Mayor Morgan’s gonna move it. I’m gonna second it. He can speak to you why this case is was in there, but is no longer relevant as a different way forward has been found. So Mr. Mayor, I’ll just ask that you read it out. And then when you just, for those online, they can see it.

[5:27:18] Sure, it’s that the mayor’s 2045 annual budget be updated to update, be amended to remove budget amendment, WWT-1, the budget increase for the stormwater management facility land acquisition, it removes what is a capital only component of 1.964 million. That’s the amendment. Perfect. And would you like to speak first in the rationale of why just to keep it straightforward? 100% and I don’t anticipate we need to debate this. This was asked to be put in the budget by staff because it was necessary at the time.

[5:27:50] It’s not necessary at this time because the project is able to be constructed a different way without the capital expenditure. My understanding is the developer is taking on a portion of this themselves to expedite, yep, getting the nods. So there’s no need for a municipal expenditure from the budget here and the project will proceed anyways. So this should hopefully be a very quick and easy amendment. Thank you. If anyone has any questions or comments on why this doesn’t need to be covered, I don’t see any. There’s nobody online.

[5:28:26] It’s been moved and seconded, calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Perfect.

[5:29:02] The next item as it’s only just coming onto 3.30. We’ll see how and when we finish this one up if we go any further. As I did state my intentions around at 4.30 and I know others already have their evenings booked with our community events that they are due at. So we would be coming back tomorrow, just let everyone know. If you hadn’t stored that out yet. This one is the amendment to the London Police Services operating budget. This is moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Seconder, yep, that’s confirmed.

[5:29:37] So it is in eScribe if I could just ask for you to make sure we’re on the right one. And then if you want to be the first speaker, I will start with you and if not, I will go elsewhere. Thank you, yes. I will go first and do you want me to read it all? Maybe just the first line, just say it’s like that for the next 20, 25, six and seven. That the mayor’s 20, 25 annual budget update be amended by reducing the London Police Service operating budget by operating expenditures of $1.616,600 dollars and then the equivalent reduction on the tax levy and that carries through to 20, 27.

[5:30:19] And I can speak to it, sure. Just to make you aware that we do have Deputy Chief Guilford with us available online as well. Should there be questions throughout this conversation of that’s the resource available to us. I will start my speaker’s list with Councillor Frank. Thank you, I’ll hop right to it. So as we saw earlier this week with the Residence Satisfaction Survey, public safety is not even within the top five top of issues mined for Londoners. Homelessness remains at number one with high interest rates, traffic roads and mental health and addictions rounding out the five.

[5:30:55] And in fact, as we’ve also seen and heard from the police services, crime severity index in London has been trending down in the last few years. Is drop 14% is now below the national average. So kudos to the police services for meeting those commitments and doing that hard work. At this point, I think we need to be prioritizing our funding and putting a lot of our funding into one budget item. For me, it’s not really what I want to be doing. Again, I’m speaking from my perspective. We’re trying to keep taxes low. We’ve heard a lot about that in the dialogue today. But since the police budget does take up a significant portion of our projected increase in our last year’s increase, in my opinion, I feel like we’re cutting other important services to try and keep that tax-lovely low.

[5:31:36] The police budget this year is 2% of the projected 7.4%. Last year, it was 5% of the 8.7%. Which means over the past two years, the police budget has almost been about half of the increase of our total budget increases. And again, recognizing that affordability is top of mind for us. We heard at the PPM, from residents, I get it in my email inbox. I heard some of my residents at the PPM talking about it. I believe that it’s important for us to address it. And it’s not fair, in my opinion, that all the other agencies and departments have been asked to tighten their belts.

[5:32:10] But I haven’t really noticed the same consideration for the police budget. And I do appreciate the board taking $800,000 out of the reserve fund, or a bit above that. But in my opinion, I don’t think that’s enough of a reduction. And so this number of people are wondering how I arrived at it. It’s a 10% reduction to the increase of this year’s budget. So it’s not 10% of their total operating, which would be millions and millions of dollars. This is 10% of the increase. So to be clear, I’d still give them 90% of the increase they’ve asked for this year. I’m open if other counselors wanted to go more than 10%.

[5:32:44] But I thought I would start here because it would net out to a 0.2% reduction. And that is about $7 per average on household, which I know we are trying to pinch every penny. And moving forward, as I argued last year, I hear strong desire for my residents to address issues like homelessness, mental health, petty crime, open drug use. And in my opinion, sending the police to respond to these issues does not actually solve the problem. We heard from the police chief in October that the police respond to an average of 14 mental health calls a day.

[5:33:16] On average, four of those become apprehensions. Those take about 10 hours each to resolve. So if you just talk about the apprehensions, that’s 40 hours a day on mental health calls, but it’s closer to 60 if you include those 10 visits that they’re doing where they don’t have to do an apprehension. And those, again, are costing thousands and thousands of dollars every single day for police to respond to those. So, and I’ve heard at this committee many times today, we don’t want to be picking up the provincial tab for things. We are, we are in this way because mental health calls that the police are responding to, those are provincial responsibilities.

[5:33:51] And I do know before I get said that the police board can take us to OCPC, but I’m hopeful that was such a marginal amount and an understanding of the tax pressure that councils under and wanting to be a good community partner that that would not be one of their goals. So given I have been supporting other budgetary increases throughout this budget round and recognizing the issues of affordability, I’d like to reallocate and properly prioritize taxpayer monies in a way that I see good use and good money coming out of it. I don’t think sending police officers to calls for mental health and drug addiction are inappropriate use of that.

[5:34:27] And I will add that this is not in my opinion, a defund the police motion. As the move, I’m telling you, that’s not my intention. And so I’d appreciate if people don’t use a type of language in the dialogue right now, I’m just saying that we need to have a little bit of a reprioritization and this is my attempt for that. So I feel that the police budget at this point is unsustainable for our residents and I seek your support in alleviating some of that budgetary pressure. Thank you. So we will be mindful of our language as a counselor or you had stated that’s not their intention. You’ve used three and a half minutes for your information.

[5:35:04] Mr. Murray, I thought this might be one that we want to see the graph of if we make this decision point, what it’s going to do. Mr. Murray, your team’s ready, I believe with that. And then I’ll continue with my speaker’s list. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. So prior to this amendment, the increase for 2025 would be 7.4, should this amendment be supported? That represents and the counselor alluded to it. It’s a 0.2% impact on the tax levy. So that would reduce the increase for 2025 to 7.2%.

[5:35:40] This is an ongoing reduction. So it would not affect the subsequent years to any great extent. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll continue my speaker’s list with Deputy Mayor Lewis. So through you, Madam Chair, since Deputy Chief Guilford is with us, as the counselor alluded to, she’s picked this number based on a percentage. We have no operational authority to direct you on where you would save that. But I’d like to know through the Deputy Chief, how many officers will not be hired this year if you take a 10% reduction in your staffing?

[5:36:19] I mean, I know there are other things that are in your budget, but salaries are the majority of them. So we know you were over 100 officers short of your police to population ratio for a city of our size. Can you give me a ballpark number? I’ll note as you mentioned that we do not direct them over where the money comes from and operational can be more than just frontline officers. So I’ll leave that question of where would you see prioritization going to this 1.6 million not come your way. And it’s Deputy Chief Guilford.

[5:36:55] It’s you’re on, okay, we can see you, perfect. It’s just me that I can’t see you. So we can see you, let’s just make sure we can hear you. Hello, can you hear me there, Madam Mayor? Absolutely, perfectly. The floor is yours, please proceed. Okay, thank you very much Madam Mayor, Chair, through you. Thank you for the question. I think everybody in council understands the pressures that the police service has been under historically. We have finally gotten the support that we need and this city needs in order to make life better and to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our communities.

[5:37:31] We have one good year and that is in large in part to the oversight of our board, the leadership of our chief and because of the hard work of our frontline officers. What is also a great contributor to this is the budget that has been passed by council. We are not even a year into it and we have seen as a member of council has said a drop in our Comm severity index, but it is still not great. We have a momentum here and to stop and give this money back halts that momentum.

[5:38:10] 1.6 million in answer to the deputy mayor’s question worked out to approximately 10 officers that wouldn’t be hired because of that. The chief has been very strategic in understanding what is needed to get this service, where it needs to be for this community and to be able to provide adequate and effective policing. Any delay in that, any pushing of this down the road is only going to hamper our ability to deliver that service.

[5:38:49] Thank you. Follow-up, Deputy Mayor Lewis. No follow-ups for the deputy chief at this time. I’m just gonna speak to this and I’m gonna be really clear. I’m not supporting this. I applaud the police services board for returning the $850,000 to us this year that they were able to from their reserve fund. We heard very loud and clear earlier this week that that leaves them with a balance in their reserve fund of $9,000. They’ve given us back pretty much every penny they had to spare.

[5:39:23] We’ve actually, I’m gonna pause, Madam Chair, just for a moment for another question to the deputy chief. I just wanna make sure I have my number right. Was it 26 officers you’ve been able to bring on this year after the budget allocation we provided in the spring? The deputy chief? I’m sorry, could that question me on the floor towards me again? Yeah, Deputy Mayor, if you wanna replete the question and Deputy Chief, you’re gonna leave your camera on this whole discussion if you want or go off screen.

[5:39:59] I know it creates tech issues, but you do as you like. Deputy Mayor Lewis, three state. Yeah, I just wanted to confirm if I have the number right, the number I had was, I believe it’s 26 new officers through the course of this year. I know most of them only in the last month, but is it 26 new constables this year? Or am I combining other hires in that number? Deputy Chief, if you know? We have approval for 35 this year. So that’ll be 35 new hires.

[5:40:32] And as well, I just wanna point out that at the end of our budget cycle and I believe this is information that Chief Truong has provided in the past, we are still not up to the provincial average for police officers to populations of the city. So any take from that just will just exacerbate the problem that we’re trying to fix with this budget. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you.

[5:41:04] That’s, for me, that’s enough information. Deputy Chief, I do appreciate you being available to us. I already heard from a member of the Police Services Board last night, not a member who’s on this council, that in the event that this was approved, that they’d be looking to bring a motion forward to take us to OCPC to appeal this. Now, whether that motion passed the LPS Board or not, that was one member. However, it’s very clear to me that having approved their budget last year, we would be in very difficult position to defend cutting it this year, having approved a four year budget based on a four year service enhancement plan.

[5:41:48] I hear from my residents all the time, we want more police on the street. We’re tired of the weights for the property crime complaints. We’re tired of the lack of traffic enforcement. They’ve been happy to see a little bit more traffic enforcement becoming visible. That’s been great, but we know we’ve got a long way to go. We’ve seen some increase or some improvements in response times with the officers who’ve come online this year, but we’re still well below the provincial average. We have no way of guaranteeing, even if the police board was to accept this reduction, where the service impacts would be.

[5:42:27] And I am not prepared to put community safety in jeopardy. And the plan to modernize and overhaul our police force into a modern police force in jeopardy over an arbitrary number that a counselor picked out of her intentions of trying to find a budget savings. I agree, the cost of this budget and last year’s budget is tough, but public safety is not one that I’m gonna compromise on. Thank you.

[5:43:02] You’ve used three minutes and 40 seconds. Counselor Travs, how’s my next speaker? Thank you very much, and Deputy Chief, thank you very much for joining us. It’s much appreciated. This motion, as I understand it, leaves a lot of flexibility within the service to decide where that 10% decrease is gonna come. There’s nothing in this motion that says it has to come from officers. And the entire line of questioning that we’ve had so far sort of proceeds from the assumption that it’s gonna be officers.

[5:43:36] There are a lot of other things in the budget, including the training center, from which this 10% can reduce. So I think it’s a mistake for us to assume that it’s necessarily officers. I guess my first question to the Deputy Chief is, you do have other things in your budget that could be used towards satisfying the 10% without affecting the number of officers, is that correct? Thank you, I’ll go with the Chief and I’ll just make sure that it’s noted, sure that it’s coming from the motion reads for the operating budget versus capital, Deputy Chief.

[5:44:14] Yeah, that’s correct. And that’s what I was going to go into. When we talk about the training facility, that’s all capital budget. So that wouldn’t come out of our operating. So this is, the ask is about 10% from our operating budget. When we already have over 95% of our operating budget tied to police officers, to their salaries. So it is not something that we can easily or at all make an effort to undertake. But thank you for clarifying and it’s not necessarily personnel.

[5:44:53] And I will refrain from referring to capital items again. And I’m sorry for that. I also think it’s premature to raise the specter of a trip to the arbitrator with an adverse result. The reading through the case law from the last couple of decades, which I’ve done. It’s very clear to me that most of the council mandated reductions that are objected to by the police services do go through a mediation discussion process.

[5:45:30] First, which I hope would be the case here. And it doesn’t, can I just stop my time just while people are talking and having their— Sorry, the mayor had left for an urgent matter just letting people know that he’s returned. Okay, could you acknowledge his hand just so he could put it down? I’m not gonna stop. The speakers list, every time there’s someone with the hand up, I’m not closing debate until all speakers are heard as always. I know look for Hadley because I’ve missed Councillor McAllister in the past. So I had you and then Councillor McAllister and then Councillor, I didn’t say you were done.

[5:46:07] Just, I recognize Hadley, he’s on the list. We got him, Councillor, please proceed. Okay, I would hope that if we pass this motion for some version of it, and again, we can’t get into the specific item we want reduced. So we are left with what may appear to be arbitrary percentages, but that’s how we have to do it. I’m not sure how the Councillor would put across the intention of her motion without using a percent because we know we can’t say this or that or this or that. Now, what I wanna suggest is I’m gonna support this motion and I wanna see what the police services comes back with in terms of we can’t do 10, but maybe we could do seven.

[5:46:56] I would have that, I would like to see that happen and I don’t think they’re gonna run out tomorrow and of course you have the legal right to do this if you want, but I really don’t think based on my understanding of the historical case law that they’re gonna, they’re gonna run to the arbitrator tomorrow and file a case. I think in all likelihood, there’d be some good faith back and forward and I quite, I would say quite frankly, I think this is the kind of back and forward that we should have had before we passed the budget. So I do think that the Councillor who brought this forward was being responsible in selecting a number.

[5:47:35] We might wanna land on a different number. At the budget time, we talked about 5%. Well, that debate wasn’t even allowed and it didn’t get to the floor. Now we’re discussing 10%. So I think this motion leaves us a lot of room to continue a dialogue with police services without thinking that it’s necessarily something hostile. We have gotten so much pushback from our residents and taxpayers about the intensity of this increase and every time we try adding something, even if it’s minuscule, minuscule, we’re told we can’t do it ‘cause the tax level is too high and this doesn’t bring it down to a level that I think a lot of people are gonna find acceptable but it brings it down at least a little bit and I think we should try this and it might not be so terrible and we’ll have another opportunity to decide whether this is gonna be workable or not.

[5:48:36] I think before it goes to an arbitration. So I wanna encourage my colleagues to have an open mind about this. I believe that if we pass this motion, the deputy and his colleagues will have a very difficult task but maybe they will be able to come up with something. So I am going to support this and again, I do thank you for coming and I hope you do not take my comments as being anti-police shut down the police or being hostile ‘cause I would really like to see this done without having to affect the people we have on the street.

[5:49:12] Thank you. Thank you. So you finished, I was called for 30, I rounded down. I had Councillor McAllister next and then we also have Councillor Ferrer, Mayor and Councillor Stevenson and others. And I’m still doing first round before we go back to second round so people are signing up for second round. Councillor McAllister, please proceed. Thank you through the chair. Apologies for my hand. I just started to get your attention so I didn’t mean to distract from Councillor Troso’s comments. I would like to thank Councillor Frank for the way she presented this.

[5:49:48] I was kind of thinking along the same lines and I do also want to echo a lot of what’s already been said in terms of this is not in any way to disparage the police. They do good work but I really do think that this is a conversation we need to have as priorities for the city. And this is something I’ve heard loud and clear. I know crime as the Deputy Mayor said. Yeah, that is an issue that I hear from my residents but even from the survey like 55% like homelessness is top of mind and we are not going to police our way out of homelessness.

[5:50:20] And I’ve talked with police officers and a lot of the time like they don’t want to be doing these mental health calls, dealing with addiction. That’s not what they view as their job and rightly so they should be dealing with other things, right? And we do need the province to step up on that front. And so personally for me, every dollar as a municipality that we can be allocating to what I would say are preventative measures. We’re trying to prevent the police from being put in positions where they’re dealing with this and keeping people housed, putting our services into what I view as homelessness issue is keeping people housed, getting them housed.

[5:50:57] That’s where we need to be allocating some money. And I wish years ago we had seen better investment in the police and we weren’t in this position but this is the position we’re in now and we do have to make those tough calls. And I know the police have their plan. As a city, I think we have to take a hard look at this. I’m supporting this because I think everyone had to, as has been said, tighten the belt. But it’s not fair in the current environment we’re in to tell everyone else that they have to give something up and then the police aren’t.

[5:51:34] And I know, yes, they return money but when you look at it as a whole, it’s still a massive portion of our budget and we have to take serious consideration of this. And we’ve heard this time and time again, public do not understand in terms of these decisions. They think, well, we just gave the police everything we wanted and I know from the board’s perspective that was not necessarily true but they have to also be willing participants in this budget and give up something. I know they’ll have to make tough decisions. We’ve had to make those tough calls but at this very point in time, I want to be allocating money to address homelessness and I just don’t see policing our way out of homelessness is a viable option.

[5:52:15] They’re partners but they’re not the solution to that problem. Thank you, that was two minutes and 45 seconds. Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Chair. I also am gonna say to Councillor Frank, I do appreciate the comments that she made. We are not anti-police or trying to defund the police. I am definitely not. The only disparaging comment I heard was some, I guess from the London Police Service Board member and I see that as disparaging because that kind of makes it seem as though the police are putting council under some type of language that is a little bit more forceful than should be.

[5:52:53] I would make the distinction that the London Police Service Board and the London Police are not the same. We should not be hearing those comments and getting upset at the London Police. We need to ensure that the reputation of the police ‘cause we do need them is a good reputation. So I just wanna make that distinction between the two. Now, I’m hearing what Councillors have said here and we’ve heard pretty loud and clear from residents of the city that yeah, they seem a little unhappy with the amount of money that we allocated to the police.

[5:53:26] And I have said, I guess previously, there’s some nice to have and some need to have and I do see there are some items in the police budget that are nice to have as far as I’m concerned. Now, I did hear from the deputy chief that this motion or this amendment because it’s specifically pertaining to the operating budget doesn’t touch on the training facility which I think is where the more nice to have are. So just to confirm that, that’s true, right? This, you have, I think you said 95% of the operating budget is allocated and the training facility is not able to, like we’re not able, this doesn’t come from the training facility monies, right?

[5:54:08] Okay. Yeah, that’s correct. That’s capital budget. We’re talking here about our operating budget which over 95% is for personnel costs. Okay. I was just going through the business case. I was just kind of, I know for the capital is more on the, is for training facility like capital side we’re building stuff but I would be pretty amenable to looking at towards a capital expenditures for the training facility ‘cause I do see that as a nice to have. I don’t want to see any operational services from the police get wound down. I do want to see the police pick up what they’ve been promising us.

[5:54:42] I don’t want to hold that back. So this motion, I would not be supporting but training facility motion with a nice to house. How I see it would be something that I would be willing to look at. I don’t want to see any type of delay in police getting more offices online ‘cause we do need that. But like I said, the nice to have seem to be on the training facility side. So if we were to see a motion like that I would definitely be considering something like that. Thank you.

[5:55:14] That was two minutes and 40 seconds just for your records. I have Deputy Morgan, sorry, Deputy just fuck. Sorry, the day goes long. ‘Cause I’m thinking Councillor Stevenson’s next. So I was like, which ones who? And then Sean’s over there also waiting for a second. Second, if congratulations this year before again. Thanks. My kids have put out the fire at home. I can jury join the meeting. Small problem with the microwave that I had to deal with. So I appreciate colleagues letting me go. My mom is there now.

[5:55:46] It’s great to have a grandma who lives a couple of minutes away. But we’re talking about police not fire. So I don’t, and I apologize that I missed some of the discussion and debate. So I’m going to keep this at a fairly high level. I’m not going to support the motion for a couple of reasons. One, I know that the board debated and then returned $850,000. And they actually have not completed the work to find all of that money yet. They used a reserve fund to backstop the service review work that they’re going to do to find those particular savings.

[5:56:20] And the board and the service is fully committed to the city’s service review opportunity to receive some training and engage in service review process. And so they’re committed in partnership with the city to not only find a way to return some money, not only participate in the service review process and send some representatives for training. Not only did they commit to as well as they found savings to say we’re going to continue to try to find savings and return them to taxpayers in the future, but also when the budget chair and the deputy mayor came and at council’s request said, could you take a look at the reserve fund target balance?

[5:57:02] The board didn’t say no. They said, sure, that’s a very reasonable thing to do. We’ll have our staff look into it and we’ll get a report back and we’ll see if we adjust those balances. Now I will say the reserve fund balance is pretty much zero at the moment. But it is important to set that cap because as it gets filled back up, there’s an opportunity to potentially return additional savings and taxpayers once they’ve met whatever that new reserve target is. And the chief came before council to answer lots of questions of our colleagues. So I think the proper way to bring the police budget down is to continue on the path that we’re on.

[5:57:37] Like let the board continue to try to find savings. Partnership with them, partner with them on service review. Continue to dialogue with them and take delegations to the board, which was well received on ideas that they might have. And continue to have the chief come before us annually, which he’s committed to do to talk about the results of the work that they’re doing and in partnership. So I actually feel like there’s a very collaborative and positive relationship between the London Police Services Board and the Municipal Council and the police service right now. And so I’m not gonna support this motion because I don’t think the board is uninterested in finding and returning savings.

[5:58:14] I think they’ve got a pathway and a plan to continue to do that. But I am of the mind to let’s let them complete that work and then see what they can find and return it back in a way that still allows them to achieve the operating expenditures and operational goals of the service that we’re committed to in the budget process. And so that’s the approach that I’m gonna take. I’ll make a small comment based on and through the chair on what Councillor Ferrer said. I know this isn’t a capital expenditure. I would just note that if you’re gonna think about tossing a motion around, or I shouldn’t say tossing a motion around, my apologies, it’s late in the day.

[5:58:46] If you’re gonna think about putting a motion on the floor related to the training center, it is a joint fire and police training center. There are specific fire needs related to that facility as well, which are outlined in the original business case. So I would just take a thoughtful look through that to see the different components of it before making any sort of suggestions to that. And also as we’ve outlined, this is also a facility that is an advocacy priority for us as well to ask the provincial government to potentially partner on for some funding relief at the municipal level as well.

[5:59:20] So I would like to see in my opinion that play it a little further before we consider our motion on that, but I certainly understand the Councillor’s desire to find the right way to find savings. And I support everybody who wants to try to find ways to bring the budget down. I just don’t think this particular motion is one that I can get behind. And I think that I have some confidence in the board that they’ll continue to do the work that led to an $850,000 reduction this year. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Councillor Stevenson, then Councillor Layman. Thank you.

[5:59:53] As no surprise that I will absolutely not be supporting this motion, I hear from the vast majority of the residents in my ward that they have had enough with the illegal activity that is ongoing in their neighborhoods all the time. They do not want to see illegal public drug use. They do not want to be the victims of the crimes that come along with that. They want the drug houses and the drug dealing dealt with in their neighborhood. They want the traffic management done.

[6:00:27] They are tired of seeing speeding and accidents. They want proactive traffic management. They want a response when they call the police. This is important. And so I absolutely won’t be supporting it. And there’s an expression when I was a kid, it was always said be careful when you point fingers ‘cause there’s four pointing back. And so I find it really interesting that we keep looking at the other boards and commissions. I so appreciate my colleagues really wanting to reduce the tax burden on our residents.

[6:01:04] But I haven’t seen a motion to say let’s ask our civic administration to take a little cut. Can they not take, is there not any nice to have in a $1.3 billion a year budget? What? Point of order, there was already the reduction that staff were asked to undertake. So I would say that that’s out of order that that has already actually occurred. Yeah. That was included the staff’s serial based budgeting.

[6:01:38] If you would like to hear from that they did do that. It is appearing as its own standalone item in the mayor’s budget. He put it in assuming we’d want those savings. If you wanna hear from council civic administration what they’ve done, we can do that separately. Just not as per this item in regards to the operating for the police. Thank you. No, I appreciate that. All of our boards and commissions have done the same thing. Tried to bring forward as lean a budget as is possible. And this motion here specifically says, we know you said this is what you need but we’re gonna make you do with less, which is fine.

[6:02:16] But what I’m saying is if the goal is to relieve the tax burden on the residents in this city and it’s not directed at the police. If it’s really about reducing the tax burden then we could ask civic administration to take a point one, two percent and we can save two. Sorry, sorry, just time up your time has paused. Councilor Treso, your point of order.

[6:02:49] My point of order is similar to the one that we just heard. We really should be sticking to the merits of this motion. And I think when we start saying but if we wanna tax decrease we could do it over there. We’re straying from that and we should really try to keep this tight. Okay, thank you. I’ve heard that. I think the Councilor is tying it back to the item on the floor that a person could look anywhere to any ABC or internally and why they’re not supporting item on the floor.

[6:03:26] But I think that point’s been made of me’ve heard it. So just keep— Thank you. Carry on, just stay on point. Okay, thank you. Yeah, no, my point is if the, I heard that the intention of the motion was to reduce the tax burden. So I’m saying although I can’t support this one, I would support the same motion asking our civic administration to find $1,616,600 in tax savings. That would still get the 2% or 0.2, I’m sorry, 0.2% tax reduction and it’s less of an impact ‘cause it’s only 0.12% of our budget and it would meet what I heard was the objective of the motion.

[6:04:12] Thank you, get that open. So that was two and a half minutes for Councillor Stevenson. I got Councillor Lehman next and then Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Chair. The basis of our city and the operations is public safety. Police chief was brought in to assess the public safety in London. We knew there’s many concerns about that and to develop a strategy to address that.

[6:04:51] He is charged by the police act of Ontario to provide safety for the city. So extensive planning was done with the chief including extensive consultation. He presented a plan to the board. It was thoroughly debated and then we had extensive consultation throughout the city through chief at Town House, a debate here. And eight months ago, we agreed, the council agreed to support the chief’s plan and to make London safe.

[6:05:28] It reminded folks that our officers per population was lowest in the province. At the end of this four-year plan, despite the increased budget, we will still be a little bit below the average of the province. As I did eight months ago, I will continue to support the chief’s multi-year plan to provide safety with his dedicated staff of women and men and our protective services and the police, London police services.

[6:06:04] There has been talk about, well, this should go to, you know, they’re spending a lot of time with mental health issues and homelessness, well, yes, they are. And we hope that that is alleviated some point through actions taken by this council and other levels of government. That’s how you, that the first call they get is from healthcare workers that are out in the community providing that much needed service. They’re calling our police because they do not feel safe. Please provide safety to those that are living rough.

[6:06:42] Please provide safety to those social workers that are trying to desperately address that situation. Provide safety to the public that are living and working in all areas of the city. We had a situation where we had 911 calls being answered in weeks, not hours. We had police officers coming in every day facing a board of 200 unanswered 911 calls. We had a traffic enforcement unit that was basically nonexistent with traffic fatalities on an outward trend.

[6:07:25] We’ve increased gun crimes. Other crimes are associated with big cities as we increase in size. We were the highest in the crimes severity index. Now, police did come here and address the council and yes, we’re starting to make headway. We can’t say, well, you’re making headway. So therefore, we’re gonna cut the funding. It’s times have changed. Times have not changed, but I believe the police chief and in the great work that his men and women are doing the services are starting to affect the change that was envisioned by him in the four-year strategy plan that he had.

[6:08:03] So I encourage council to stick with the program, stick with the plan. As Mayor said, of course, the board and the chief are determined to find efficiencies as we go along. Absolutely, and we realize the burden it is on the taxpayer. This is a necessary responsibility of this council to provide safety to the city. What’s without safety? Nothing else is working. Thank you. Thank you, that was four minutes for you. Councilor Hawkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

[6:08:42] And I wanna start off with really thanking all of us for being allowed to have this conversation. I agree, Councilor Layman, we did approve it in February. There was really no conversation about the police budget where the increase was half going to the police budget over the four years, over 30%. And those are the concerns that I have continued to hear from the community of these increases.

[6:09:23] So I wanna thank Deputy Chief Guilford for being here. I think I’ve heard a lot here, and I wanna sort of try to address some of the questions that still need to be answered. So number one, I would like to go to staff just to get that percentage of savings that were found to bring down the 2025 budget. I just wanna just refresh my memory.

[6:10:04] Councilor Hopkins, just to be clear, the motion that’s on the floor and how are you relating that question back to staff of a bit better. Because it was suggested that maybe we should be doing more and I just wanna know what we’ve done. Does relate to the budget, saving schools? Yeah, it does relate to the budget, just not the item that’s on the floor with the police budget. Okay, I’ll follow up with staff about that. I can send them an email.

[6:10:47] Believe it be, budget amendment P12, the zero base review and right sizing found within page 155 of our budget document, finance is nodding, that is the one. 155, of the do a tang binder thing. 6.7 million, thank you. So, yeah, I just needed to remind myself that staff have done a great job finding savings, so thank you, want to make that comment. I do have a question through you, though, and a related to growth assessment and how that works and how many officers the police can get from that assessment to help with their hiring of police officers.

[6:11:42] To finance how growth assessments helps with the police? Thank you, through the chair. So, the one of police have been frequent submitters as part of our annual assessment growth process. There are no specific limitations on the number of officers that they can request through that process, however, you know, that they must be able to justify the overall request in the context of the growth metrics that they are using to support that ask. So, that is a case that we tend to see from police every year, and I would anticipate that we will see an assessment growth request from police again this year.

[6:12:24] Thank you for that, Mr. Deputy Chief. Do you know if we’re expecting assessment growth again this year as we had in the past? Yes, we are. The ask is, should be 23 sworn and believe two civilian positions. Councillor Hopkins, hopefully that helps. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that. I’m glad that you’re able to take advantage of the assessment growth to deal with the police officers that you need to put on the street.

[6:12:59] The 10% decrease. I have confidence in the police board that they could deal with that 10% decrease and find it. I’m not concerned about that. I’m not concerned about the arbitration that also may happen. I’ve been on a council that we were taking to arbitration. It’s part of our process, we were able to resolve it and come to an agreement. And part of the process, it shouldn’t stop us from making the decisions that we hear from the public.

[6:13:33] And we have heard it loud and clear that the increase is too high with heard it through surveys, with heard it through the public participation meeting and not to try to decrease that amount to the taxpayer. I think it’s not right. We should be able to do that. Without fear, without feeling our neighborhoods aren’t safe, they’re getting a substantial amount of money here.

[6:14:08] I have confidence that the board can figure that out. And even with this slight reduction, I don’t think it’s gonna create such a challenge, but it is creating a challenge in the community and that is why I’m supporting this amendment. Thank you. So that was three minutes for Councillor Hopkins. You have two minutes remaining. If you should want it later. Councillor Pribbles, next on my list.

[6:14:42] And then if I look to see if there’s any amounts for first remaining before I, as Deputy Mayor Lewis has been waiting for another opportunity, Councillor Perks. Thank you, Chair. When we received the budget, multi-year budget proposal from the police over a year ago, it was a big increase and I was very, I was surprised I was shocked. But then first thing, while the things I did, I was looking and doing the benchmarking and doing the comparison analysis with the other municipalities. And then I wasn’t surprised as much anymore.

[6:15:15] Then we have the police chief with his team that they put a strategic plan because we were, it was an organization that was for numerous years, undefunded, if you are undefunded by so much, you really have to make big changes in your organization. It’s kind of more within an organization, doesn’t matter if it’s police or any other organization. It’s a mode of a survival. It’s always a catch-up game. It’s a catch-up game. It’s a catch-up game because the funds are not there. The police chief with his team, they came up with a strategic plan.

[6:15:48] And we are into eight months of this strategic plan. I will not support this motion. And the reason why is to do a strategic plan and within eight months start cutting that, in my opinion, is not right way to go. It doesn’t matter if it’s service organization, if it’s business, if it’s any kind of a corporation. And I will not support it. I will support current strategic plan. Do I think that if there are no results, certainly with a multi-year budget that certain things shouldn’t be adjusted or looked at?

[6:16:24] I’m not saying that. But currently after eight months, it’s way too early. Let’s stick to the strategic plan. Let’s support the police services. And let’s have them deliver and be committed to what they have promised. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis, would you like seconds? Usually for a dessert, but it’s on this debate. You’re right, I’m asking 40 seconds and I have no sticky toffee pudding. Okay, so I was going to be short and only have about 10 seconds or so common.

[6:17:01] But I’ve heard a few other things while colleagues were talking that I think I have to address as well. I don’t know and I’m not asking people to stick up their hands or anything. But I’ve done a police ride along and I hear people saying, you know, police don’t want to be responding to mental health calls. Well, no, they don’t. But they’re actually required to under Ontario legislation and Councilor Lehman alluded to a social worker and the coast programs a great example. The social worker with the police can’t go to a call alone. The officer has to go and clear and make sure that the site is safe before that person can engage.

[6:17:39] It’s actually required right now that they respond to these calls as they come through 911. It’s not their choice, but it’s required provincially for them to do so. You know, I’m really pleased in this budget process that we really haven’t had our ABCs coming back this year asking for more increases. 30 seconds. We had the library came back with their capital assets. That’s in there, that’s good. We’ve got one item tomorrow. I’m going to guess with the Middlesex Health Unit that we’ll have to discuss. But they haven’t been asking for more, but I’m not looking to start cutting.

[6:18:15] You know, we heard 95% of their operating is personnel. And if you think we can cut 10% and not impact personnel on the streets, you know, I’m going to respectfully say, and I’m going to upset some people with this, but I’m going to say it, just asked Olivia Chow last year how that went for her. She had to reverse course in two weeks time. That’s your five minutes. Councilor Trousa, your hand was up, you have 30 seconds remaining. Yes, let’s not conflate the personnel budget, which if I understand it includes all sorts of people who are not uniform officers with officers on the street.

[6:18:56] And I think we’ve been doing that throughout. So let’s be real careful not to do that. Thank you. Sir Franika, thank you have a couple of minutes left. I will start timing and please proceed. Great, I’ll be quick. I just wanted to comment, ‘cause I again heard some discussion that I also agree that we are responsible for public safety of the community.

[6:19:32] I completely agree in this motion in my opinion is not count for that. I just think that we all have different perspectives, which we talk about all the time. I think that’s fine on how we achieve different outcomes. And so for me, again, I want to ensure the public safety community. I don’t see this counter to that. In my opinion, a slight reduction does not result in less public safety. I think a lot of the other decisions we have made today result in less public safety. But again, all different opinions on how we achieve the same outcomes. And in regards to benchmarking with other agencies, if you ask most of our other agencies, most of them get the lowest municipal contribution compared to their Ontario municipal peers across the board.

[6:20:12] I think that’s symptomatic of how we do budgeting in London. And I don’t necessarily think that that is, if we’re not, if we’re gonna start using that as an indicator of why we should give some more money, we should look at some of our other agencies that we give the lowest contribution to as well. Thank you, you had 30 seconds remaining. I don’t see any hands up online. Look, can you see if there’s any more comments and chambers? And Deputy Chief, I’m not sure if I saw your hand up at one point or not. Okay, I did. In response to, go ahead.

[6:20:48] Thank you very much, Chair, through you. This budget was carefully dropped and planned. And each year of it was looked at and mulled over and focused on to ensure that we address these concerns. Just one second. Thank you, just wondering, is that in response to anyone? I think it was up a couple of speakers. So before you, the clerk made me aware of it, but I already went to you and didn’t want to interrupt. Okay, ‘cause I didn’t hear any question to the chief. So I’m just confused ‘cause I don’t think we usually allow.

[6:21:22] Yeah, no, we don’t. I thought it was in response to something that Councillor Peril had mentioned. Councillor Peril, if you want to restate. Actually, do you know what? I didn’t ask this, but if I have this opportunity, I would like to ask that, if you’re the chief, there was a statement he made still below our reach in a number of officers in the province, that is not due to the budget restrictions, that is due to the hiring restrictions or availability of the officers. Could you please clarify this for me? Thank you very much, Councillor and Chair, after you. Yeah, that is, there are definitely restrictions there.

[6:22:01] As I was just stating, that is kept in mind when we are deliberating this budget, and when the chief, when the board was working, doing their excellent work with this budget, we are engaged to making this city safe and to meeting our legislative requirements, to provide adequate and effective police services. As far as our spots for that we can add to our service, we have to look at attrition, we have to look at trying to get those growth positions in to be in mind with the growth that this city is seeing.

[6:22:40] Right now we only have 60 spots available at the police college to be able to get new officers through. So any reduction in that just means that this problem that we have seen is, and I’ve said it earlier before, is just pushed further down the road, which has happened for a lot of years in this city, for a lot of different reasons. We are trying to catch up right now. We have had support from council, from our board.

[6:23:15] We have a chief who understands these issues and has worked in his artist to make this community safe. It is my belief that any reduction to the police budget right now will impact our ability to make this community safer. As has been mentioned by some other counselors, we are seeing a difference. We are starting to turn the tide, but we’re nowhere near where we need to be. We do not want to see us fall back into our crime severity index increasing. We have done a great job in dropping the gun violence that’s going on in this city and dropping the number of fatal motor vehicle collisions and reducing our response times for the first time in five years in reducing the number of calls in our queue and being able to respond in a more efficient manner to the citizens of this community.

[6:24:13] I believe we are starting to increase public trust and that is all because of the vision that is there with our board and with our chief. Thank you. I don’t want to see that upset. Councilor Pribble, that satisfies your question. Thank you, no more questions. Councilor Raman, you’re on my speakers list and I don’t believe you’ve spoken yet. Okay, so my list is right and you have five minutes, go ahead. Thank you and through you, I wanted to thank the deputy chief for his comments just now because he summed up and addressed a lot of the questions that I had remaining, or not questions, sorry, the information that I wanted to be public in this conversation.

[6:24:52] I want to start by saying I appreciate the work that the police service board is doing. I appreciate the fact that they returned funds to us this year with this budget update and I appreciate the ongoing conversations that they had about the reserve fund. I do think that we’re heading in a direction that’s collegial that shows that we’re all working towards the same goals. And I’ll continue to share that what I’m hearing is that yes, response times are getting better, but for my ward, they do want to see more officers, they want to see more traffic enforcement particularly, and that’s something I hear on almost a daily basis.

[6:25:35] So I won’t be supporting the amendment. Thank you, looking for further speakers, either online. I see none online in chambers looking left, right? Okay, call on the question. Councilor Van Murenbergen?

[6:26:17] No. Closing the vote, motion fails, four to 11. Thank you, at this point, we are at 4.22. The advance notice I’ve given you as chair was my intention to wrap up the day’s proceedings at 4.30. I would need a motion to recess, not adjourn. So we will come back tomorrow morning at 9.30. This date was on hold in your calendars.

[6:26:50] If something’s happened in your schedule and you will not be making it, we need to know. So I have a mover and Councillor Ferra, a seconder and Councillor Stevenson, and this could be a handboat, you scribe? It could be a handboat. All in favor of recessing until tomorrow morning at 9.30. They need to stay, okay. Sam, sorry, Councillor Treso. No, you can’t leave, you gotta be in your seat for this, and I’m gonna need to call opposed and in favor.

[6:27:26] Okay, e-scribe it is. Yup, sorry, if people are, so we’ll vote in e-scribe and those who’ve already logged out will take you verbally in a moment. I vote yes, vote yes. Councillor van Merebergen.

[6:28:07] Councillor van Merebergen, marking you absent. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to two. Thank you, I’ll see you here at 9.30 to continue with item 3.11.