Open Council

6th Meeting of the Budget Committee - CONTINUATION

Open Council

6th Meeting of the Budget Committee - CONTINUATION

November 22, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:31 AM; it being noted that Councillors S. Hillier, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, and D. Ferreira (at 12:40 PM) were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor S. Lehman discloses a pecuniary interest in item 3.2 having to do with the Amendment - Grant - Economic Development Reserve Fund - Councillor D. Ferreira - LDBA for Improving Safety/Security, Property Damage Grants, by indicating that it relates to grants for Downtown London Business Association and the Councillor indicates they are member of the association.

2.   Consent

None.

3.   Scheduled Items

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

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to adjust 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 from $827,000 of Parks Operating Expenditures to $808,000, with an equal adjustment to the contribution to the Climate Change Reserve Fund, and to adjust Parks Capital Expenditures from $560,000 to $221,000:

 

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0          2025 Tax Levy:  $0           2025 Capital Expenditures:  -$339,000

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 (13 to 2)

3.2   (ADDED) Amendment - Grant - Economic Development Reserve Fund -Councillor D. Ferreira - LDBA for Improving Safety/Security, Property Damage Grants and Crime Prevention

2024-11-21 Submission - (3.11) Grant-Economic Dev. Reserve Fund-D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update related to a Grant - Economic Development Reserve Fund -Councillor D. Ferreira - LDBA for Improving Safety/Security, Property Damage Grants and Crime Prevention.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by increasing the budget to provide a grant, funded from the Economic Development Reserve Fund, to the London Downtown Business Association for the purpose of supporting businesses, such as improving safety/security, property damage grants, and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) audits:

2025 Operating Expenditures: $265,000      2025 Tax Levy: $0     2025 Capital Expenditures: $0

2026 Operating Expenditures: $265,000      2026 Tax Levy: $0     2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $265,000      2027 Tax Levy: $0     2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

3.3   (ADDED) Amendment - Grant - Economic Development Reserve Fund -Councillor D. Ferreira - LDBA for Graffiti Removal, Power Washing, Expanded Street Cleaning and Beautification and Maintenance

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by increasing the budget to provide a grant, funded from the Economic Development Reserve Fund, to the London Downtown Business Association for the purpose of additional cleaning and maintenance, such as graffiti removal, power washing, expanded street cleaning (garbage and sharps removal), and beautification and maintenance:

2025 Operating Expenditures: $300,000     2025 Tax Levy: $0    2025 Capital Expenditures: $0

2026 Operating Expenditures: $300,000     2026 Tax Levy: $0    2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended, to read as follows:

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by increasing the budget to provide a grant, funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, to the London Downtown Business Association for the purpose of additional cleaning and maintenance, such as graffiti removal, power washing, expanded street cleaning (garbage and sharps removal), and beautification and maintenance:

2025 Operating Expenditures: $300,000     2025 Tax Levy: $0    2025 Capital Expenditures: $0

2026 Operating Expenditures: $300,000     2026 Tax Levy: $0    2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion be further amended, to read as follows:

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by increasing the budget to provide a grant, funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, to the London Downtown Business Association for the purpose of additional cleaning and maintenance, such as graffiti removal, power washing, expanded street cleaning (garbage and sharps removal), and beautification and maintenance:

2025 Operating Expenditures: $300,000     2025 Tax Levy: $0    2025 Capital Expenditures: $0

Motion Failed (2 to 12)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

3.4   (ADDED) Amendment - Grant - Economic Development Reserve Fund - Councillor D. Ferreira - LDBA for Marketing and Promotion Initiatives

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee did not consider an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update related to an Amendment - Grant - Economic Development Reserve Fund - Councillor D. Ferreira - LDBA for Marketing and Promotion Initiatives.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Middlesex-London Health Unit 2025 Funding Request

2024-11-21 Staff Report - (4.1) MLHU 2025 Funding Request

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

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

a)    the report regarding the Middlesex-London Health Unit’s (MLHU) 2025 additional one-time funding request BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to fund the City of London’s increased share of $226,954 for 2025 from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

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

a)    the report regarding the Middlesex-London Health Unit’s (MLHU) 2025 additional one-time funding request BE RECEIVED for information; and

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to fund the City of London’s increased share of $226,954 for 2025 from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the Budget Committee recess at this time for 30 minutes

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Budget Committee recesses at 12:08 PM and reconvenes at 12:43 PM.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   VHA Home HealthCare and Extreme Clean Program

2024-11-21 Submission - VHA Home HealthCare-Resolution

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the request for funding the VHA Home HealthCare and its Extreme Clean Program, as referred to the Budget Committee on November 5, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

5.2   Amendment – Business Case P-46 - Councillor S. Stevenson

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by reducing by $500,000 the additional annual contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund included in 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-46 – Economic and Partnerships Initiatives in the adopted 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget and that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer one million dollars from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Economic Development Reserve Fund in 2025 only.

2025 Operating Expenditures:  -$500,000                2025 Tax Levy:  -$500,000             2025 Capital Expenditures:  $0

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

2027 Operating Expenditures:  -$500,000                2027 Tax Levy:  -$500,000             2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by reducing by $500,000 the additional annual contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund included in 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-46 – Economic and Partnerships Initiatives in the adopted 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget and that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer one million dollars from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Economic Development Reserve Fund in 2025 only.

2025 Operating Expenditures:  -$500,000                2025 Tax Levy:  -$500,000             2025 Capital Expenditures:  $0

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

2027 Operating Expenditures:  -$500,000                2027 Tax Levy:  -$500,000             2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by reducing by $500,000 the additional annual contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund included in 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Business Case P-46 – Economic and Partnerships Initiatives in the adopted 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget and that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer one million dollars from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Economic Development Reserve Fund in 2025 only.

2025 Operating Expenditures:  -$500,000                2025 Tax Levy:  -$500,000             2025 Capital Expenditures:  $0

That it BE NOTED at the consensus of the committee, the motion was withdrawn.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

5.3   Amendment - Rapid Transit - East London Link - Councillor S. Stevenson

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update related to Rapid Transit - East London Link.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to remove the future capital budgets for the Rapid Transit - East London Link project from the 2025 and 2026 capital budgets, it being noted that the capital funding for this project primarily includes Federal and Provincial PTIS and Development Charges supported funding:

 

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0               2025 Tax Levy:  $0                2025 Capital Expenditures: $975,000

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $0               2026 Tax Levy:  $0                2026 Capital Expenditures:  $4,325,000

2027 Operating Expenditures:  -$11,280     2027 Tax Levy:  -$11,280      2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

Motion Failed (1 to 13)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 35.10 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Committee decision with respect to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Amendment - Rapid Transit - East London Link project BE RECONSIDERED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to remove the future capital budgets for the Rapid Transit - East London Link project from the 2025 and 2026 capital budgets, it being noted that the capital funding for this project primarily includes Federal and Provincial PTIS and Development Charges supported funding:

 

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0               2025 Tax Levy:  $0                2025 Capital Expenditures: $975,000

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $0               2026 Tax Levy:  $0                2026 Capital Expenditures:  $4,325,000

2027 Operating Expenditures:  -$11,280     2027 Tax Levy:  -$11,280      2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

Motion Failed (2 to 12)

5.4   Amendment - Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund - Councillor S. Stevenson

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update related to a drawdown from the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2025 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to include a drawdown from the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund, notwithstanding the Council approved by-law that directs the fund to provide for employee benefits payable excluding WSIB claims in excess of $250,000.00, landfill closure and post-closure liabilities, and other liabilities for which there is no identified source of financing as reported in the annual consolidated financial statements, in order to reduce the property tax levy in 2025, it being noted that the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund has a minimum target balance of $266.3 million and its 2025 uncommitted balance is approximately $175.0 million:

2025 Operating Expenditures:  $0                2025 Tax Levy:  -$16,255,000              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 (1 to 13)

6.   Confidential 

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The meeting adjourned at 2:04 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 49 minutes)

[13:39] Two minute warning, and there is some light reference in the Councillors lounge. Okay, good morning, everyone.

[16:58] Just, sorry, just take our spots, please. For everyone’s information, this is continuation of yesterday. And online, we have Councillor Frank, Councillor Hillyer, and Councillor Van Mirbergen. All our Councillors are in chamber and present. For anyone just log into E-Scribe, and there’s actually the Budget Committee, November 22nd, is our agenda for today. Just to keep us online of where we’re at. Our scheduled items, I will continue through the list.

[17:33] As discussed yesterday, staff have finalized the updated park numbers from that business case that, so we’re gonna start there just administratively. Deputy Mayor Lewis is indicated he’s the mover of it. I’m the seconder, just administratively, cleaning up the numbers and staff finalized what we were looking at. Discussion’s always in order, but hopefully not as it was just cleaning up the numbers. So it’s on the floor. Are we ready to call the question? Okay, Councillor ramen, a question?

[18:07] Yes, thank you, and through you. So I just, I went back to this last night, ‘cause I just wanna make sure that I fully understand what we agreed to in terms of the cost. So we agreed to seven full-time staff, five of which were for parks maintenance, things like grass cutting and snow removal, as well as some other heavy equipment type work for parks. And then there were two positions and it said, I believe one for the north and one for the south that were for parks maintenance, but they were for parks maintenance in public washrooms.

[18:44] And I’m just wondering if staff can take us through the breakdown of those two sets of numbers, because when I ran the numbers yesterday, I have some questions on the staffing cost. Okay, staff, my share. Thank you, Madam Chair. The numbers that I have available for my team reflect the combination of the two business cases, and that’s what’s been provided, I believe back to committee. If we need to break that down and back into additional detail for the two, the five plus the two, I can get that information again, but I believe what we have is the net change from the original business case based on the approval of both the, we call them one and two, so the five and the two permanent staff, which is $808,000.

[19:31] Councillor. Thank you. So when it was broken out for us on screen yesterday, it was around $200,000 for the two additional park staff to clean washrooms, is that correct? I apologize, I don’t have what was on the screen yesterday in front of me. We were doing some math on the fly, unfortunately, so we have now gone back, looked at our spreadsheets and the allocations for the staff for the five and the two, as well as their required equipment, and that is the $808,000 total for the staff, plus the associated equipment, which we had overestimated on the floor yesterday, so that number has come down.

[20:09] I believe Mr. Murray has told me it was 2.14 yesterday on the screen, but as I said, I apologize, those numbers were being developed quite quickly at our desks and we were confident in what was provided in terms of this delta from the original business case. Councillor Ramen. Thank you. I did not support the two additional staff for washroom maintenance because the budget was 214,000 and I couldn’t put together those numbers at this time around staffing costs for two staff to clean bathrooms at $214,000 for two parts of the city, so I just wanna get some more clarification or if possible get updated numbers because I think it’s important that the public also understand that perhaps these are not the salary that we’re talking about, we’re talking salary plus benefits, but again, that they may not be the true cost associated with those two roles.

[21:12] Madam Chair, yes, when we provide the operating costs of staff, it is salary plus fringe, so that would be benefits and all of the associated costs with in addition to their salary. As the number probably is quite close to the 200,000, I don’t have that breakdown in the final numbers that Mr. Yeoman provided yesterday afternoon, but we are confident that the total for the seven staff permanent is the $808,000 or the deltas that were shown in the motion that was provided today.

[21:46] Further comments before calling the question? Seeing none online, none in chambers, calling the question. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Pibble, closing the vote, motion carries 13 to 2. Thank you, I’m just gonna highlight today that since the administration’s piece has been cleaned out, I’m gonna finish going through the scheduled items, numerically in order, then we’ll do items for direction, we will have Dr. Summers available from the health unit for any questions you might have when we get there.

[22:39] Deferred matters additional business is just gonna be received that communication for the home clean program, and then under additional business would be any new motions that colleagues would like to make. I am aware of at least two, and I do intend to take our lunch break at the noon-ish time when we get there. Any questions on procedure of the day? Seeing none, item 311, this is an amendment for the economic development reserve. Fine, that’s a Councillor Ferreira. Looking to the Councillor, just introduce your item, and then we’ll look for your seconder.

[23:15] Thanks, Chair. Should I put all three items, or just— One at a time. - One at a time, okay. Well, the first item I’ll put down will be a grant for improving safety, security, and property damage grants for downtown. You all read the note, so I’m putting this amendment down out of necessity. It’s definitely not a nice to have it set up. You would need looking to see a seconder. Okay, we have a seconder and Councillor Hopkins. If you look into your e-scribe, it’ll be there. I’ll ask for IT to put it up on the screen, and then Councillor, if you wanna be the first to speak to it, I’ll start your speaker’s time.

[23:50] Thanks, Chair. So the way I see it is the downtown is in the ICU, and we have life support to it, but it will end at the end of this year. And I fear as that ends, and we don’t fill those gaps that are gonna open up at the end of the year, we are not gonna like what we see. So I guess I’ll keep this short because I was trying to be as descriptive as I could on the situation in the note. So I’m looking for your support for this motion and the other two motions after this. Okay, next on the list is Mayor Morgan.

[24:27] Yes, I just wanna seek some clarification from the Councillor or staff on how the funding for this works. Is it meant to be a permanent draw on the Economic Development Reserve Fund? Is it meant to lower the contributions and replace it with this? Or is it just for the next three years only, for the next three years only, that this amount will be just drawn down from the actual Reserve Fund balance? So I just wanna understand the actual financing of it. Mr. Murray.

[25:00] Thank you through the Chair. Our understanding of the Councillor’s intention here is that this is a program that would be funded for three years through one-time drawdowns from the Economic Development Reserve Fund for each of those years. So this is not intended, as I understand it, to be a permanent program, nor is it intended to be a reduction in the contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund. Rather, it is a one-time draw of $265,000 for each of these three years. And just Mr. Murray, do you know what the current balance of that fund is?

[25:34] Just to make sure that I had quite findings there. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. The current balance is a low point of about $3.2 million in 2025, thank you. Thank you, follow-up Mayor Morgan. I’ll make some comments on this. So I appreciate the Councillor’s concerns. I mean, I’ve done events with the Councillor. I attended the BIA’s AGM. I’ve done my own foot patrols with police officers and I’ve walked extensively through the downtown and I’ve met with a good number of business owners.

[26:09] So I would agree with the Councillor that there is something that we need to do in the interim as we develop the downtown master plan and the wider economic development plan within the city. My caution is that both of those plans are gonna be funded from likely the economic development reserve fund balance. So if we spend it here, the expectation will be later when those plans are developed, we’re probably going to have already spent this money and we’ll have upward pressure on making new contributions.

[26:48] So I think that there’s a balance here with the ultimate respect to the Councillor. I think we can do some of what he’s proposed. I’m not sure I can support all of it because the value starts to get up to the point where I think we compromise our ability to actually fulfill some of the plans that are coming forward and being developed, which I think will be really important for the downtown from both the master plan and the economic development perspective. So I’m trying to determine myself which combination of the Councillors’ motions I’m willing to support from the economic development reserve fund within mind, the fact that this will be the source for some really important injections for the downtown and the future.

[27:28] So I just wanted to, I’m gonna think through it, I wanna hear the debate and any thoughts that the Councillor has about the importance of the, I know that we’re only on one motion, but for me, if I say yes to this, I might be nose on some of the other ones. So if the Councillor and if the Chair will allow it, can articulate any sort of prioritization in his mind of these, recognizing that you want all of them. But for me, I’ll be clear. I’m probably not gonna support each of these. I might support one or two depending on the value, but that’s where I am and I just wanted to be transparent with the debate so that I can make the best decisions and listen to the ward Councillor’s needs who I know has been on the ground and out there as well.

[28:08] Thank you, I have other speakers on the list, but I will go back to Councillor Frara by no means, do you need to reply, but you’re welcome to, if there’s a prioritization here of what you’ve heard from residents or businesses. Thank you Chair and thanks to the Mayor. I’ll start with the three years part. The reason that you have it at the length that it is is because I’m trying to tie it in with the implementation of the downtown master plan. I’m just trying to keep stabilization or be as stable as we can so that when we do bring in the downtown master plan and implement that, we have the highest likelihood of success because it’s the landscape and how it’s been changing. It’s been very dynamic in the last couple of years and I feel like if we don’t give any extra supports right now it’ll be so it will change so much that any type of development work we do with the downtown master plan may not fit very well when we come to implementation stage.

[28:55] So that’s the reasoning for the three years. For the prioritization, I wrote them in priority. The two first are high, high, high priority. The third one is also priority, but I had a whole bunch of other ones that I wanted to bring forward, but understanding that we do have financial constraints. I didn’t throw everything that I feel like the downtown has. So these are the most basic, minimal, critical, vital supports that I see that we need to implement just to make sure that we can have some type of semblance of stabilization. So I would say if the mayor is looking for what items are most priority, it would be this motion and the one coming at this amendment and the one coming next.

[29:34] Those are the two highest priorities for me. Thank you, I’ll leave that there. I recognize councilor cutting X and then councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. A question to staff, if I may. Mr. Murray, could you tell us, Mr. Murray, what’s the remaining balance in the economic fund? Mr. Murray, I believe that was the 3.2 currently. That is correct, thank you. I don’t have any question, but I will say that I agree completely with the mayor.

[30:08] We have got, there’s lots of great projects we could be doing downtown. It’s a matter of prioritizing them. I do appreciate councilor Fer bringing this forward. I think it’s really important that we prioritize our downtown development in core. He’s got a couple of good projects here that I’d like to see go forward, but I’m not sure that we can fund all of them. But I thank you, sir, for bringing these forward. And I’ll be looking to see the next one coming. Thank you, councilor Hopkins. Madam Chair, happy to second this. I hear that there’s lots of projects out there. But this amendment is needed now.

[30:50] And if any of these amendments are gonna pass, this is the one that needs to pass. I’m not sure, this is what I hear quite often. The need to do something downtown. It’s gotta be done, it’s gotta be, we’ve gotta be able to support the businesses. We’ve gotta be able to build on the work that the BIA has already been doing and they’ve been quite successful. But as we heard from the councilor, the money is going to come to an end.

[31:23] So moving forward, this money is needed supporting businesses. And we’ve heard a lot of that conversation around the horseshoe here, the importance of supporting businesses, keeping our streets safe. And it is needed now, it’s great to have projects. But to me, those are future projects, have no idea what that’s gonna look like. There is money, 3.2 million in the fund, please, if you’re gonna support any of these amendments, support this one.

[31:58] Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So again, I appreciate the councilor bringing this forward. I’ve had a couple of discussions with him already. I will share that I’m certainly leaning towards being supportive of the next amendment with regard to some cleaning, power washing, maintaining the public spaces on this one, though, I think I have to be a no. And I look at the language, the improving security and safety, the property damage grants, the crime prevention.

[32:40] We have a downtown patrol office there now. We talked about the police budget yesterday and the need to have officers on the street and we heard from the Deputy Chief about where they are in their hiring, which is great because we need to bring those new officers on board sooner than later. So we are doing things on crime prevention. We are doing things on safety. But I recognize that there are pressures on other BIA’s as well. And the R. Allen Hamilton Road BIA are sharing a security grant that we got last time.

[33:18] And when that grant runs out next year, that will be the end of that. The LDBA did get a grant as well from us. And while I recognize that they are a bigger area, there comes a point where I feel that things like property damage, repairs, septeds, there is an onus, there has to be an onus in here, on the property owners as well, to make their own investments in their buildings, to make their own investments in security.

[33:53] These are private sector businesses at the end of the day. The public space piece in the next amendment, the public space piece, I’m much more open and willing to spend public dollars on the public space. I’m less supportive and I can’t be supportive of spending the public dollars on these private property improvements. I think that those building owners need to put some of their own skin in the game as well and make those investments. So for me, this one will be a no. The next one, I’m much more open to supporting.

[34:29] I might have a suggestion of a different way of funding it perhaps, but I’m much more supportive of funding the second one. But this first one, I just can’t support. Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair. I feel like I’m out of BIA meeting now ‘cause I talk about this stuff a lot with them as well. And I think the deputy mayor spoke to a lot of the points I was going to as well. I would like to just confirm ‘cause I do know downtown got some money, OAV got money, Arco Hamilton Road and just to confirm through staff for the security that was provided, that was for two years, right?

[35:06] And that would come to an end end of 25. Mr. Murray or anybody on staff? Through the chair. So this was the funding that’s being referenced was provided in October 2023 is when it was approved and it was a total value of funding. We believe it’s going to be used by the end of this year. Councillor McAllister. Okay, so recognizing that so there would be a gap then if it comes to an end end of 24 or so it was a 24 or 25 ‘cause you did say October of 23.

[35:48] Mr. Mathers. Through the chairs. So it was our understanding is the end of 2024. They’re provided with lump sum amounts and then they’ll be using that funding. And my understanding is that they’re almost at the end of using that funding. That’s the basis of what the downtown BIA’s brought for is that they have a gap because they don’t have that funding available for 2025. Councillor McAllister. Okay, recognizing that. I guess we stretched our dollars. Different situation, I guess, for us. So recognizing that, and I won’t speak well OEV, I’ll leave that for Councillor Stevens and if she wants to speak to that, but recognizing that gap.

[36:28] The septed thing, I’m not 100% on just because I’ve done that through the police. So I think there are alternative ways of funding that. So I honestly think you might want to take that out. I do think in terms of the property damage grants, I’ve seen a lot of value in that, especially when it comes to damaged doors, windows. We definitely burned through money on that. And that is a huge hit for businesses. So I can understand where the downtown’s coming from that. I think the first two, to what Councillor Ferris said, I’m in agreement with you on that, that those are high priority ones.

[37:05] The third one, I’m not inclined to support. I just find marketing promotions. I just feel like the BIA might have other alternatives that they can work with. I’ve been very impressed in terms of what the downtown BIA does for promoting events. I see it all the time, so good job on that front. But I really do think in terms of the value I’m seeing, I think the first two is where I’m at, but I’m gonna think a bit more and listen to what everyone else has to say. But the first two, I definitely think there’s a lot more value to them. Thank you, I saw staff conferring.

[37:38] Was there anything to add from staff before we continue on? No, we’re good. Councillor Raman is next. Thank you and through you. I just had some questions about the current program for septed downtown. So my understanding is 84 businesses completed this year to date so far? Through the chair. So all of the information related to these grants would be with the BIA. I can confirm because we do participate in the septed grants that 84 were completed this year. That’s correct. Thank you and through you.

[38:11] And that was at no cost to those businesses from the city doing the septed through MLE. Through the chair, there’s two components that the septed so there’s the actual audit piece and then there’s a grant piece to do work that’s highlighted in the septed. So we were on a trial basis. We had, we’re doing some in-house work providing free septed audits for some of the business, for these businesses. I’m not sure if that’s going to continue into the future because we have been asked to look at some one time quick start actions in the course.

[38:49] So we need to really very much review how we’re using our resources, especially in the bylaw and compliance area. However, we were able to provide that service. The grant portion, which was a $5,000 grant that was provided by the BIA, was completely funded by the BIA. Councillor, I’m just pausing you from it. I’m sorry, your time is obviously paused. We currently do not have a representative from the BIA. Realize we have three items this morning. Would anyone want to see if we could find a representative from the BIA?

[39:26] Okay. Councillor Ferris messaged them. So if someone joins the meeting, I will let you know, but as of right now, there is nobody, Councillor. Thank you. Were they invited to be part of this conversation since it involves their business association? Yes. I’m not sure if they knew where we got to on the agenda when we were going to get to them, Mr. Murray. Through you, Madam Chair, I can advise that I have provided the link to the executive director of the downtown BIA for today’s meeting.

[40:06] There you have it. Councillor Ferris, you had something relevant to say about the BIA being invited. Yep. I have queued up the BIA, ‘cause I did say that there may be some councils who want to ask some questions. I just messaged the executive director now. I would also make note that this is my motion, not the BIA’s motion, but I— That’s fine, obviously. Yeah, but I did give a message, so I’m hoping that they’ll be on the line. Okay, so staff invited them. Councillor Ferris has queued them up. No one is here yet, but if and should someone join, I will make sure that they are available and let Councillors know.

[40:44] Councillor Ramen, you’re only at 30 seconds. I’ll return the floor to you. Thank you and through you. So on the actual septeds themselves, we’ve been providing this service at no cost to the BIA. The only cost has been the grants. So I feel like we haven’t quantified the actual service that we’ve been providing. And in a way, we’ve actually been funding this in a way through staff time and resources. And that’s not accounted for in this letter, nor is it accounted for in the expense.

[41:18] The only thing we’re talking about is the grant. And I find that challenging because I do not feel like we are giving all business owners in the city the same ability to access services in the city. And that’s a really important component of the work that we do across the city. So I wanna understand, is this a service that is offered to all businesses in the city of London? Mr. Mathers.

[41:51] Through the chair, it is not. Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. So I will not be supporting the request that’s in front of us today for SEPTED funding. I’ll be speaking to the others. One, other parts of the Councillors proposals that are in front of us for the BIA. I do hope that there is somebody to speak to them. I understand that this is an issue, but I will tell you that I have received calls from many folks in my ward, business owners in the BIA, outside of the BIA, but also from across the city around property damage.

[42:28] So I do think that it is helpful to provide this service across the city. So if we were doing anything, I would be supportive of expanding the opportunity for our staff to be engaged in SEPTED across the city, but I will not be supporting the grants. Thank you. I’ll let you know that the BIA has joined the meeting and they are available. I can circle back to any Councillor who has spoken. Councillor Ramen, you’re only at two minutes and 30 seconds. I don’t know if you want to go now as they now joined.

[43:03] So Ms. Malay, welcome. We are, if you have our agenda on the grant economic, from the economic development reserve fund. And this is currently just one on the floor for improving safety, security, property damage, grants and crime prevention being the 3.11. It is up to you if you want to put your camera on and mic or just mic when it’s time. But Councillor Ramen currently has the floor and I believe has a question. So I will start with them. Yes, thank you for being here.

[43:36] My question just pertains to the number of SEPTED audits that have been completed. And so far, how much in terms of cost has the grant program given out? So the SEPTED audit, it was just over 80. I think it was 84 audits that were conducted. And as far as the grants, we’re sitting at about $620,000 worth of grants for the purposes of improving safety, as well as repairs.

[44:15] We do not offer a grant, a safety and security grant until SEPTED audit is completed and recommendations from that audit need to be implemented. So with that, there have been, as I mentioned, over 80 SEPTED audits completed. And with that, we’ve had over $600,000 provided in grants. And I should mention that those grants are not only for the safety and security, it’s also for improvements to their services.

[45:02] For the store front, for beautifying, to improving their storefront as with COVID, of course, there’s been a lot of issues with some of our merchants. And these are for occupied storefronts, of course. And so anyway, so yeah, so it’s certainly for those items as far as improving safety and security, as well as the appearance and enhancing facades and so forth.

[45:38] Thank you, Councilor Raman. Thank you, and three, would it be possible to get a breakdown of what is a facade grant, what is a property damage grant, and what is the SEPTED grant? Yeah, sorry, and I’m just coming from another meeting. So I’m just trying to pull all this up right now. But here, let me just… So Councilor, you just wanted a verbal breakdown and could just repeat it with a storefront. Thank you. So I’m looking for from what I understand to be the three pathways for grants.

[46:13] There’s facade grants, which can involve beautification. There’s property damage grants, and then there’s the SEPTED component. And I’m just wondering if I could get a breakdown of that 600 plus that you just shared as the number, which one fits into each of the categories. Yeah, okay, just… If you can just bear with me for one moment. And let’s see. So with regards to… Sorry, it’s 657,700.

[46:51] And I’m just trying to pull… Chair, I would call a point of order ‘cause we don’t have any facade grants on these motions. I’m not calling for that. Noted. It’s still property damage and the SEPTED ones, which I think would also outline the difference in value would be the facade, would be inherently there.

[47:35] So I think all three numbers, even though the facade isn’t in the motion that inherently will be part of the value. But we’re just gonna allow Ms. Malay to finish pulling up those numbers. I do have a speakers list currently still going. Councilor Almond will still have the floor, but I have seen Councillor Stevenson indicate and Councillor Ferrer. Okay. Oh, sorry, just one second. What’s your… I’m going to go to Councillor Layman for a point of personal privilege to declare a declaration. Thank you, Chair.

[48:11] Seeing where this conversation is going, I am a member of the downtown BIA and reviewing what’s included here. I should have done it earlier and I apologize, but I’m gonna declare a conflict because of that. So I won’t be abstaining from this. From all three for the downtown BIA funding? No. Do you want me to address all three right now? I might as well because… Floor is yours. I see the grant portion of this as very specific to a business that is part of it. However, I see the other two as more broad and public spaces.

[48:49] So I will just declare a conflict on three, two. 3.11, the one that we’re… No, it’s 3.2. Okay. Yeah. So when we get to that… It’s what we’re discussing right now. Sorry, yes, I was going by the… So when it comes time to vote, just abstain, and then you’re welcome to abstain from this conversation and remove your… Thank you. Okay, to stay here. You can stay here. Okay. You can find somewhere. I’ll still just stay here. But you’re welcome. Okay. I’m home.

[49:20] I’ll try not to make any facial. Thank you. ‘Cause if you can, I will have to ask you to find a different corner. Okay. So looking to see that making sure there’s no other pecuniary interests, okay. Councilor Pribble. I’m a business, downtown business owner. I’m a member as well, but I will not be declaring conflict of interest. Okay. So that puts us back to where we were. Ms. Malay, do you have those numbers, as the councilor had asked, if you had them for the grant money?

[49:56] Yeah, and I’m sorry, I don’t have access to all my online files right now. So yeah, I am going to have to say I don’t have it at the time. It’s not the most up to date. So the one that I have is from August. So I’m sorry, and I don’t have access to all my files here right now. Okay, Councilor Rama. Thank you, and through you.

[50:28] So thanks, I appreciate that. And if you can send that in the, and whenever you’re able to, that would be very helpful. Yeah. So I understand the councilor’s point of order. I will deal with it in 3.3, but there is a mention of beautification, which in my understanding of facade grants could fit in with beautification. So I will be asking again for that information to come to us. In this case, when it comes to SEPTED, my understanding is that London police also do this because I do know a number of businesses across the city have access London police services for SEPTED, and it’s a free service provided.

[51:05] So I’m just wondering, is this a duplication of something that’s already provided through the police? No, this is certainly if there are reoccurring incidences. What I have been told is certainly our London foot patrol will actually go out if there have been reoccurring incidences and it is requested. However, with the number of SEPTED audits that we were requiring, we were told there were not enough resources for all these SEPTED audits to be completed.

[51:44] Councilor? Thank you, and through you. So my understanding is then to fill that gap, we provided the service at the cost of the city. So again, I’ll just state that right now, those are costs that we are putting forward both through police resources and through city resources and for that reason. I won’t be supporting this operating expenditure at this time. Okay, thank you. I had Councilor Stevenson next. Thank you.

[52:20] I’m a little surprised to see this, honestly, because when we talked about our strategic plan, we had a lot of discussion at the time. And outcome four says London’s core area in brackets, downtown, midtown, Old East Village, is a vibrant neighborhood and attractive destination. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, I just read them all. They all say core area. They don’t say downtown.

[52:53] And when we look at the downtown and when we look at midtown and when we look at Old East Village, Old East Village by far is worse off than, in fact, it’s the reversing order. Old East Village is suffering the most. Then we’ve got midtown, then we’ve got downtown. So I don’t know why we would fund one of the three when our clear priority was all three. I also, we get to recognize that Old East Village has been and is deteriorating based on decisions of this council because if you look at downtown London, we put in a police station.

[53:36] Sorry, Councilor, I’m gonna have to pause for a second. I have a point of order from Council. Yeah, I’ve just been sitting here just waiting. I think that there is something very specific as a budget item in front of us and an amendment could be made but in terms of what’s on the floor in front of us, I think the Councilor is getting a little far afield and I’d like to ask that she keep to the specific budget request that’s in Councilor Ferrara’s motion. Councilor, okay, I’m gonna deal with that as heard. Just preface it with perhaps this is why you’re not supporting it because you feel these other areas actually and then proceed.

[54:16] Yeah, happy to state the obvious. I am not supporting this without some kind of amendment or something to include the whole core area. I mean, I just, I know I keep saying this, but. Okay, hold tight. This is a point of personal privilege from Councilor Ferrara. I am calling that point of personal privilege ‘cause the old East Village BIA did get the same type of grant as downtown and you have over, I think, almost 70% not spent.

[54:51] So if the issues are as critical as the Councilor is saying in old East Village, I would assume that money would have been spent. Councilor, the point of personal privilege was more of how you felt personally attacked versus numerical values of budget cases. In fact, because that is not the truth. Okay, I would do that not to be a point of personal privilege that you felt that numbers didn’t speak for themselves of why someone may or may not have spent money in their budget, only the BIA can speak to that. Councilor Stevenson, you’re at one minute and 20 seconds, the floor is still yours.

[55:30] Thank you very much. This Council has a strategic plan that is committed to the entire core area. I would like to see if this were to go forward. I would like to see it focus on the core area, which is our strategic plan objective. And I do think we get to look at what we’ve done as a Council, there’s been a police, oh my goodness. Hold up, hold up, time has paused. That was a point of personal privilege by Councilor Ferra, please state it.

[56:04] This Council has departed many times from the strategic plan. And so I’m just wondering what’s different about this one. Are you looking for an actual, I would just say that I don’t deem that to be a point of personal privilege, that our shop plan is implemented and changed it. And I’m just gonna deem that that’s not a point of personal privilege.

[56:44] Councilor Stevenson, you’re at one minute and 45 seconds. Please proceed. Thank you. During this, my term a council, we’ve put a police station in the downtown on Dundas police, which is great. We have either created or expanded three shelters on the main street of the Old East Village BIA. So it does have an impact, you can see the impact. And if we were going to go ahead with this, I think it’s prudent to open it to any court area business because they’re all being affected by this.

[57:20] And it was our part of our strategic plan. The downtown BIA has an annual budget of $2 million. The Old East Village BIA has 180,000. And 140 of that is gratefully provided by the city of London because the property tax levy is only $40,000 a year, which is declining as shelters— Councilor, I’m just gonna ask you to keep it really tight to why not the downtown? Okay. Councilor Trousa, I’m gonna have to ask that you, I know, just keep it.

[57:54] This is all my reasons why I’m not supporting this. But it is something to look at, $2 million in the downtown London, and they are asking for money, or the Councilor is asking on behalf of the BIA. And the Old East Village has 40,000 in levy, and it’s declining because as we expand shelter services, those do no longer pay property tax. So what I would like to do is move an amendment to this motion that says that it increases the budget to provide grants to core area businesses funded from the economic development reserve fund.

[58:32] So it would be a grant program operated by the city rather than through London Downtown Business Association. Hey, while the clerks are trying to record wording, is there a seconder for that? I do not see a seconder, but you are at a procedural question, Councilor Roman. Sorry, I’ll wait to see if there’s a seconder before asking my procedure. There is no seconder. Okay, yeah, there’s no amendment on the floor, or amendment to amendment, ‘cause these are all amendments to the mayor’s budget.

[59:14] There was no seconder, but Councilor Stevenson, you are at three and a half minutes, and the floor is still yours. Okay, thank you. I don’t have a seconder to the amendment, that’s fine. I will not be supporting this. I think that we get to address what is needed to achieve our core area strategic plan, where we have a vibrant neighborhood and attractive destination in our entire core area. What we need to do is address the homeless and addiction crisis. That is what is needed. That’s what our businesses need in order to thrive.

[59:47] They know how to do the rest of it. And to spend money without addressing the actual issue, I don’t see the point. And if we are concerned about our downtown, then we should be concerned about our core area. So I’m a big note. Thank you. My speaker’s list is Councilor Perbal, and then Councilor Travisau. Thank you, Chair. And through the Chair to the staff, as this is coming or the proposal is coming from the Reserve Fund, we can make, we don’t have to make a decision kind of from now, if it’s coming from the Economic Reserve Fund, we could make it potentially junior February next year, as well as the Council agrees, is that correct?

[1:00:30] Mr. Murray. Thank you throughout the Chair, through the Chair. The Economic Reserve Fund can be accessed at any time during the year. It would require the approval of Council, but it does not necessarily need to be done today. Okay. Councilor Perbal. Thank you for that answer. So I’m good to tell you what we see in front of us is, I don’t know if I can even call it a Band-Aid. There’s no, when we talk a couple of months ago about a master downtown plan, I did say that it’s gonna take some years, but before I’m hoping that we are gonna take some actions before.

[1:01:08] This, honestly, is not in my Band-Aid for me. This is, it has no concept behind whatsoever. There’s no vision at all. If you approve, I’m against all of them. I’m against all of them, and I’m a business owner downtown, because this is embarrassing. And I’m gonna tell you what we need. We really need to come up with a concept, true concept that’s gonna take us ‘til we come up with the master plan, point one, point two. If we do approve this public, and potentially even some of my colleagues, they’ll be saying, oh, we spent again $700,000 this year for not even a Band-Aid.

[1:01:47] So I’m gonna tell you, I’m no for all three of them, and this is not the way we should be approaching the areas of London in crisis. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trossau. Thank you, first the question to the chair. I just wanted to clarify that the master plan exercise that we went through was the downtown master plan. Is that correct? To Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, yes, that’s the item that was an action within the strategic plan was to undertake a downtown master plan.

[1:02:22] Yes, that’s what I thought, but thank you. I’m thinking about somebody who is trying to escape from a flood or mudslide or something, and they’re trying to climb up a rope. And somebody else is like, I don’t want you to get to the top, so I’m gonna try dragging you down unless you sort of carry me. And I think it’s fine for the downtown and the downtown business association and the downtown Councillor to put things forward for the downtown. And now, as the Councillor knows, I have always had some reservations about this, but I’m gonna support this.

[1:03:03] And the reason I’m gonna support this is I think that what the Councillor is trying to do here is very consistent with the downtown master plan. And the vision that a lot of downtown residents and merchants are trying to create for the downtown. And I think it’s counterproductive to say, well, you know, there’s some stuff that should be in here that’s not in here. I’ll give you an example. I mean, I think we should be doing something about property owners, large property owners, who are sitting on vacant properties.

[1:03:38] And yes, we’re trying to help, we’re trying to get that along. But I think there are a lot of things that need to be done that aren’t in this motion. This is a very targeted motion. I wanna commend the ward Councillor for bringing this forward. And I have to tell you, this doesn’t stop at Oxford. I get a lot of comments from people in my ward who either want to shop downtown or many of them actually own small, small, small, businesses downtown. So I feel somewhat of a stake in this.

[1:04:12] And I just went to, once again, say thank you Councillor for bringing this forward. And let’s not, this is sort of like, I don’t wanna give somebody a sandwich unless we can give everybody a sandwich. Let’s just try to deal with what’s on the table and be progressive about this, especially in light of the goals that we’ve agreed to in terms of the master plan. We have to move that forward. Thank you. We are going back around, just let you know what the speaker’s list is at.

[1:04:45] We’re starting seconds. I have Councillor Ferrera. I’ve seen Councillor Hopkins and I’ve seen Councillor McAllister. I’m commencing with Councillor Ferrera. You’ve used one minute and 30 seconds. You can proceed. Thank you, Chair. Yes, we all have a stake in this, you know, and that is a big point that we need to kind of focus on. Every single Councillor here has a stake. I would also say if that letter was read, you would see that 75% of the businesses have closed, a higher, 75% more businesses closed in the last year than the year prior.

[1:05:20] That’s an alarming number. I would wonder if Mary and Bad would be the next business. Sorry, Councillor, you have to pause, just— All right, I’ll remove that. My apologies. Sorry, I have to recognize the point of personal privilege and then you can hear it and thank you. I take personal privilege on the point that the Councillor has implied that we have not read the material that is in front of us and I’d like him to retract the statement and be very careful about the statements that he’s making while bringing this issue to our attention for consideration.

[1:06:04] Okay, you’ve heard Councillor’s ramen’s concerns implying that we have not read the report that you’ve provided us. She’s looking for a retraction and then you could proceed from there. Our track both statements, the not being read and the restaurant statement. You can proceed, you’ve used two minutes, the floor is still yours. I would also say that the downtown B.A. has 1400 members over 84 blocks, it’s much bigger. So that $2 million amount needs to be put into context. Also, the economic development reserve fund gets an influx of about 4.5 million a year as it stands right now, I believe.

[1:06:40] Actually, if I’d like to go to Mr. Murray just to confirm. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So the current contribution for 2024 is 3.5 million, it increases to 4.5 million starting in 2025. Councillor, please proceed. Thank you. So about the septab audits, like I understand that those septab audits are covered. However, the conversation that we had in the background before I brought this motion was is the fact that, and the B.I.A, the executive director, the B.I.A. said it. We have been asking for so many septab audits, we’ve been getting a response back saying, we don’t have enough resources, and there is a possibility that we might be invoiced for those septab audits.

[1:07:20] So the reason that I didn’t pull that out, ‘cause I know exactly, I knew that this was gonna come, was there is a concern that we may be built, and if this is not put into the language, we may not be able to use these funds to pay those bills. So it was basically like covering ourselves in that situation. I would say that, you know, this is a necessity. This is something that I’m bringing not to develop things and make them, you know, bigger from what they are. This is just to maintain where we’re at.

[1:07:52] This is just to ensure that we have some stabilization downtown. You know, if we don’t, this motion, this amendment right here is extremely important, because if we don’t fund this, I fear the visuals downtown are gonna go worse, are gonna get worse. I’m fearful that businesses will not be able to afford window breakings, and then you’re just gonna see plywood on windows, just start popping up all over downtown. These are the issues that I’m worried about, and this is why I bring this particular amendment forward. In priority, it’s this one, the next one, and then the third one, just to try to see if we can get any kind of semblance of bringing more visitors to the businesses downtown.

[1:08:34] But the main thing is, is like in recognition that we have 75% more closures year over year compared to last year, and 20% less new business openings. If we continue down that trend for one more year, we’re not gonna have any businesses, and that’s my fear. So this is what I’m talking about. You know, when I said the downtown is in the ICU, I am not joking. We need to give support now, and the supports I’m asking for are not, are not anything that would be something that would be more than what we need.

[1:09:07] The supports I’m asking for are the minimal vital supports I’m asking for. My next speaker was Councillor Hawkins, who’s at one and a half minutes. The floor is yours. Thank you. I just appreciate being able to speak to this again, ‘cause I found the conversation quite interesting here. I really didn’t read all the details in this amendment until this morning.

[1:09:45] So I can say, I have read it now, and I did go to the AGM for the downtown BIA, and I can confirm that there is a concern with the vacancies of office space. That’s one thing I came out of, really understanding the vacancy rate is huge. There’s a lot of work the BIA has done throughout the year as well, and that is positive, and there is optimism for the downtown, with the buildings, with eyes on the street, and opportunities.

[1:10:28] So building on that, and going forward, we had a conversation. I was so surprised that people want to come downtown, but they want us to fix it. This is another opportunity to do that. So the strategic plan, we now call it the core. Downtown is part of the core, and I would like to encourage all of this just because you may support the downtown, does not mean that you are not supporting other areas of the city.

[1:11:04] So please, let’s do something now, and continue the work that is being done. As we move forward, we know we need to do things now, not wait for the master plan, which is also important, but that is what this amendment brings to the downtown. Thank you, have Councillor McAllister next. And Councillor, your view is two minutes. The rest is yours.

[1:11:38] Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to speak again, and through the chair. Just kind of want to extend a bit of an olive branch right now. I’ve definitely fallen into this trap before, where we start going at each other, especially with the BIA’s. I know it can be very competitive. Again, I’m guilty of it. So I mean, I hear the frustration from Councillor Ferrer. I understand where he’s coming from, but being in the same position. And so I think one of the things I’ve realized with this conversation though, is I think it would be beneficial for those of us with the BIA’s, maybe in the pre-budget session to kind of sit down and talk through priorities, do a bit of bridge building, because I think we’re kind of unfortunately moving away from each other.

[1:12:19] I know there’s comments in terms of OAV versus core. I mean, I hear that a lot too, but really I think there can be some relationship building that goes on in the interim to try to calm the waters a little bit, ‘cause I just see where it’s going, and I’ve gone down that road, and I just don’t think it’s gonna serve us any benefit. So I think in the future, definitely good to get all the BIA’s to sit down and chat through some of this stuff. I would like to ask through staff in terms of the master plan, when we do anticipate that coming back for downtown. To staff, Mr. I always wanna say everyone’s first names, to slope the staff.

[1:12:57] Through the chair. So just the last council meeting, we have a approval of proceeding with the procurement to hire consultants. So we’re gonna be beginning that, and we’ve already started that process. We are coming back in Q1 of 2024 with some quick start actions. Those actions will all be things that we need defined within our existing resources to be able to bring forward existing funding. If there’s anything that’s further approved, we can of course incorporate that into these quick start actions, but our intentions to come back in Q1 2024. Councilor. - 25, sorry.

[1:13:31] Sorry. - Yeah. Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through you. So I do wonder, I guess it’s more a comment through to staff, but is there a possibility, because it is coming back so soon in Q1 of 25, to work with the councilor to have these things incorporated, recognizing, obviously we’re in November, but would there be a possibility to have conversations with the BIA in terms of property grants, that there’s a lot of stuff in the second one I like, but those quick actions, would there be a possibility to have more included in that, or would the councilor have the ability to put amendments through that process?

[1:14:10] I would note that we can’t direct staff, unless it’s a vote of council to include them, but they can certainly hear this conversation and consider them, and noting that, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, there was an opportunity to do that as part of the last report that came forward, and there wasn’t any items that were introduced, but we would be looking for some council direction. If there are specific items that you would like us to consider, that would be actually very helpful. We have worked very closely with the downtown London BIA on this over the last several years. We incorporated a lot of those elements into the core area business case that was brought forward, so, and we know what was not approved, so we’re not going to likely bring forward items that we know weren’t approved in the past, so if there is a direction coming out of this work to consider some of these items, and we’d be happy to do that.

[1:15:00] Councilor McAllister. Thank you, and through the chair. So, yeah, I mean, my suggestion would then be, and I’m happy to have this conversation offline, and then going into the next meeting to ask the councilor, that would probably be a really good spot for the direction. I think that’s probably the best spot. We can have the conversation again as a full council, but I think those amendments being tied to the master plan with those outcomes would actually be much more impactful for the downtown. We would need that direction, obviously. Is that comment to staff, or just a drone comment at the end?

[1:15:33] Well, if that was just sorry, it’s all comment, but that’s where I’m at with it. Sorry, I shouldn’t have just trailed off there again. You spoke, and then you looked at staff, and I was like, did I miss that it was, so you’re good, you’re good, councilor. Sorry, I’m still dragging on from yesterday. But yeah, I just, I’ll end it with that, but just to say, I think that that’s probably a better spot for this. I totally understand where the councilor’s coming from, but I would think the master plan with further amendments to councilor has these that he wants to put back in. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

[1:16:06] Wait, did I say date? Point passes, David spoke. No, Mayor Morgan is next. Councilor Ferris already spoke in twice. Sure, I’ll be brief. In the debate on this item, there’s things that were brought up that I just want to correct a little bit, ‘cause I was at the downtown BIA meeting, and I know the councilors brought forward some statistics, and those statistics are true, but the downtown is not going to have no businesses in it if the trend continues.

[1:16:42] The BIA was clear in their presentation that although they used to have a net gain of businesses in the downtown, it has now deteriorated to a one-for-one ratio. That was my understanding of what was said at the meeting. It needs some assistance to be stabilized. I would agree with that, but I think we have to be careful about talking down a situation that, or articulating in a way that is perhaps worse off than it was. I felt the downtown BIA meeting was very productive, very illuminating, outlines some challenges, but also outlines some positive trends that were starting to occur in parts of the downtown area.

[1:17:19] And so that being said, I think that there is some support. I do think that there is a bit of a challenge with these discussions, with the quick start actions coming forward, and I think councilors are trying to figure out where is the best way to land some of this. So I’m not sure where colleagues are going with this, because I hear some support for some of them. I hear some support, less support for components of them. And I hear the perspective of a wider perspective, but I also think that there are some actions coming forward.

[1:17:54] These may be some of the actions. And I think that some of what the council has brought forward should be supported today. But like I said at the start, I’m not gonna be supporting all of it, and I’m really appreciating the dialogue that’s happening here today. But I just wanted to inject into the debate that my experience at the downtown BIA meeting was not as being articulated at this particular meeting here. Councilor Pervall, you have used a minute and a half. Please proceed.

[1:18:29] Thank you, so I agree with what Mayor said. I attended the same meeting as he did. So I agree with that. I agree also with fellow councilor Farrah that their situation is not easy downtown. And again, construction of the BRT didn’t help it either, because it was for a very long time. And let’s hope it’s gonna bring fruition for our entire city. But it was tough people didn’t wanna come downtown and they virtually came for the special events only. But my point is this, if we are committing to any money now again, it’s without a concept.

[1:19:01] And when we came back and as Mr. Mayor said Q1 2024, I know that I’m gonna come with a downtown plan by Q1 2024, but I’m at least hoping for some concept. For some concept that potentially, what we are gonna approve now certain amounts and we are talking about, let’s say, I don’t know, three, four months difference. And again, it’s a band-aid and all we are gonna say, oh, we are gonna be relieved. We put some money downtown and the life goes on. And we’ll be able to say, oh, we help downtown. We help you businesses. Don’t cry, don’t yell.

[1:19:34] That’s not what it’s about. We cannot really do this anymore. We really, I would like us. And again, I’m not saying that some of this, this might be implemented. It might be, but again, come it now for three years, something now, and even for one year, if we are three, four months away, I would love if the council for downtown ward 13, and potentially add ones who are interested to work with our staff, to work on the concept and not these fly band-aids. It honestly, the businesses, the business owners, the building owners, property owners, they deserve better.

[1:20:10] And again, I’m just, whatever we approve, I just think we are gonna commit to potentially that we might regret, or we can use, we can use the money for potentially something else. But that’s why I have not changed my mind. I do want actions fast. We do need them. But again, I’m willing to wait to three months and to come up with at least a certain concept. So even the downtown business owners and property owners, they say, okay, there is some vision to get us to the master downtown plan. So I encourage, let’s, or sorry, I’m gonna say this, I’m not supporting any one of these, I will not.

[1:20:49] And I’m looking for true visionary concept that’s gonna take us to the master downtown plan. Thank you. Yeah, just one second. Councilor Treso, you’ve used just over two and a half minutes, please proceed. I’ll be very brief. I don’t think improving safety, security, property damage, prime prevention, band-aids.

[1:21:30] I really have to take issue with that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Ferra, you have 30 seconds remaining if you’re looking to use it. If you wanna contemplate, I can see there’s other speakers first. Okay, you got 30 seconds. I would say that I’ve had a lot of conversation with staff.

[1:22:04] I did wanna bring this with the quick start actions, but because these issues wouldn’t fit in with the quick start actions, I wasn’t able to. Also, the quick start actions are gonna be base budget or within existing budgets. So we’re pretty limited on that. So I wouldn’t expect things like this for the quick start actions. This is actually very directed to the 75% of closures year over year. If you look at it. And second, I do have Councilor Frank online. We do see you, Councilor Frank, you’ve not spoken to this.

[1:22:35] Five minutes is yours and the floor, please proceed. Thank you. Yes, I just have one question. So we heard that the police were unable to fulfill all the requests for septide on it. So I’m just wondering this funding, does it go to the police then to pay them to do it? Or is it through a separate agency that completes the septide audits on behalf of the business association? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, I’m not aware of London police completing any of the audits in the downtown. All of the audits have been done on a trial basis by city of London, by law enforcement staff who have some of the skills to be able to provide these.

[1:23:11] This work initially when the work was scoped and budgeted by the BIA they came up with a value of approximately $50,000 to do 50 audits. So it’s about $84,000 worth of work. We’re able to do on their behalf at a very much at no cost. So all of the work today has been done by city of London staff. Councillor Frank. Thank you. So just to follow up that for clarity. So that’s more of a transferring some money from one budget area within the city to the Bila budget area if our staff is the one doing it. Mr. Mathers, if you’d speak to that and if not, if you know how that, if staff is compensated or not.

[1:23:54] Through the chair, we were able to do that for a limited time using existing resources. So there was no cost to the BIA to do that. It was done by our own by-law staff using some existing capacity. Councillor Frank. Thank you. So then moving forward is the plan to pay our by-law staff from this budgeted amount. Like I understand, I appreciate the historical information but I just see that septed audits are being listed as an expense. And I’m just wondering who we are paying to do them moving forward.

[1:24:28] Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So there’s two, so it hasn’t been decided when we, whether we’ll be continuing that program because we have our quick start actions and we’re trying to figure out the best utilization of some of that staff time. So we’re working on that internally right now, having gotten the approval a couple of weeks ago to be able to move forward with that. My understanding is, and this could also be a question for the BIA who provided these numbers is that the majority of this, the value is in actual, the funding to do the work that comes out of the audit. So there’s the audit itself and then it will make recommendations for environmental design changes and then there’s the actual work that needs to be done.

[1:25:06] So I think the bulk of the funding is for that work. Yeah, I know Ms. Malay did speak to that. The audit has to be done in order for them to access the grants after the improvements have been made. Councillor Frank, would you like to hear from the BIA as I believe they are still with us? Yeah, if they’re able to just indicate who they plan on doing the audits, I am curious on that information who are going to pay to do the audits. Thank you. I’ll return the floor to Ms. Malay. Yeah, and as Mr. Mathers had indicated, we will be continuing to work with the city, to determine how we move forward, but that has been part of the budget of funds because we do not want to assume that this will continue to be a service offered at no charge, although we’re very appreciative of the city.

[1:25:56] We recognize we needed to put that into the budget ‘cause that is something, again, as Mr. Mather said, whether that’s part of quick start actions or whether those dollars go towards something else as it relates to the Q1 quick start actions. We’ve had some brief discussions, but that all has to be worked out. So we have factored it into the 2025 budget because we recognize we shouldn’t make that assumption. Councillor Frank.

[1:26:33] Thank you, yes. I think my preference would have been for more of this information to come, I guess in early of next year with more background, just because I don’t not see the value in some of these items, but it feels like we’re doing a placeholder now for something that we’re going to get more details on the future. So I’ll continue to ponder it, but I appreciate everyone’s information. Thank you. Thank you. Looking to those further comments online from colleagues. I have not seen any checking in chambers. Councillor McAllister, you have 30 seconds.

[1:27:06] Okay, thank you and I’ll be quick. Just because I think Councillor Ferri rightly said something that speak my interest, but just to confirm, if something was approved here, anything that would have been a quick start action would be adjusted accordingly based on what’s approved. To the staff. Through the chair. So any of the quick start actions would come from existing resources. So this would compliment those if this is approved. So we would add this to the list of items that we’d have and allow for more flexibility and what we might be providing as part of the quick start actions. Councillor McAllister.

[1:27:39] Okay, thank you. I just wanted to confirm because I don’t want a duplication of efforts and if they’re complimenting each other, that makes more sense to me. So thank you. Thank you. Looking for further speakers. Seeing none, call on the question. Closing the vote.

[1:28:13] Motion fails six to eight with one abstain. Okay, thank you. The next item is for the downtown graffiti removal, power washing, expanded street cleaning, beautification and maintenance. Councillor Ferri, you’re looking to move it and a seconder. I’ll second it.

[1:28:48] So the items on the floor, I’ll have the item put up onto the screens for anyone on Zoom can see exactly what we’re speaking of. I will start my speakers list. I’m not sure if Councillor Ferri wants to go first. I give you first right a few years old, but before we get into speaking comments, I would just ask that we’ve already had a long conversation on the first. All three are related to, so if your comments are we just repeating them, perhaps keep them and just specific to the item, that would be new information to remain to the conversation.

[1:29:22] Okay, my last speaker’s list is actually gonna start with Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So as I indicated in my earlier comments, I’m somewhat more supportive of this one because it’s specific to public spaces. Given that it is specific to public spaces though, I’m going to move an amendment. And I would like to amend this motion to provide funding for two years. So for 2025 and 2026, remove the 2027 funding at this point in time.

[1:30:01] And I would also like to change the source of funding from the economic development reserve fund to the community investment reserve fund. And if I have a seconder for that, I will then speak to my reasons why. Okay, you do have a seconder and Councillor Cudi procedurally first, if I can just ask staff to make sure that there are funds in that account, just for we have that basis to start our conversation for the 2025, 2026 that aren’t already committed.

[1:30:38] Thank you, and through you Madam Chair, the current low point in the community investment reserve fund is approximately $2.8 million. Thank you, so there are funds available. It’s noted in the system of a mover and a seconder. Just give us a second to make sure that the words right, and then we’ll start just to make sure that we’re good before we go. Councillor, just to make sure that you’re still with 300,000, but just 2025, 2026, that is a nod. Just if you refresh, make sure it’s right, and we’ll have it put up onto the screen.

[1:31:37] I have a nod that it’s correct. I will start my speakers list with the deputy mayor. Thank you, Madam Chair. So first of all, I think that when we’re talking about community space, the cleaning, those sorts of things, the beautification pieces, I do think that speaks more to a community investment than to economic development. And I think that that is a better source of funding for this particular item. I also hear about all of the other things that are going on, the downtown master plan work, the consultant coming on board some quick start actions. I see the cranes in the sky downtown.

[1:32:12] I hear the mayor’s comments on the earlier item about the one-to-one ratio at the moment. I think that we are turning a corner, and I think that committing to three years at this point is maybe getting a little further ahead than we need to get. That said, I also recognize the cleanliness issues. I’m going to preface this right now and say with the community investment reserve fund, that is a fund that’s available for council’s choice. I’ve heard what some other councilor said in the prior debate, while we are not here today entertaining that, and we also heard what Mr. Marie said about reserve funds being an appropriate source of funding throughout the year.

[1:32:52] Should there be a requirement for, and I will put this out there, it should the OEV BIA come forward at some point in the new year with an ask for some sort of cleaning program, I would entertain that from the same source of funding, because I think that there are good arguments to be made, that there are some challenges there as well, but the motion we have before us today is specific to the downtown. And I do move around the downtown, I do do some shopping downtown, I do attend some events downtown, I do think that having this cleaning program in place in prior years has been helpful, with the funding ending at the end of this year, I think continuing that in the short term is a reasonable ask, and because it is a public space, I can get behind that, because it’s not just a benefit to the business, it’s a benefit to the residents, it’s a benefit to the city as a whole, and so for that reason, that’s why I’m suggesting the change of funding and moving this amendment, because I do think there’s some value to it, just not for the full three year period.

[1:33:57] Thank you, I have Councillor for our next, and then Councillor Stevenson. I have no issues with changing the source of funding, obviously I’d like to three years, so the downtown will take whatever it can get, we’re in serious need, so we can’t be picky or choosy, we just need what this council is willing to give. I will not be supporting this amendment, ‘cause obviously I do want it to be extended with the three years, but anything the downtown can get would be very appreciated.

[1:34:52] Councillor Stevenson, so just on the amendment of a few years, saw another hand, and I don’t know who’s it was, ‘cause Councillor Stevenson’s waiting till it’s amended, Councillor Trossau.

[1:35:28] Yes, I’m inclined to support the amendment, but I think it would be clearer if, instead of saying funding for 2025 and 2026, if we use the same format, and had a line for 2025, and had a line for 2026, and then just did not have a line. It’ll be cleaned up too. But my question is, do you want a zero in 2027, or do you just want to leave 2027 off as this? I would be more comfortable if we just left 2027 off of this amendment.

[1:36:26] Madam Chair, I can provide some clarity. If you hit refresh, we’ll start with that. I’ll pause later between advancing the business to make sure all the formatting is correct. So the original language has now changed in E-Scribe, and to Councillor Trossau’s point, it was actually my intent to simply strike 2027, not to have zero there.

[1:37:00] I don’t want to preclude perhaps funding something in 2027. So if we could just, the language that’s in E-Scribe, if we can just strike that last line. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So I am aware that we did something similar yesterday. I will, however, remind committee that we do have a multi-year budget and a four-year plan. So I think our personal preference would be to include the final year. We do not feel that that precludes necessarily any funding from happening in 2027.

[1:37:35] It’s just a recognition of the fact that we do have a four-year plan. Deputy Mayor Lewis, with that feedback, objections, realizing council directions can be overridden and it just stands for a year anyways, and we’re not to 2027. Would you object to finances prep? Well, I appreciate from a record-keeping perspective why finance would like that. I would prefer just to not have 2027 listed at this time. So if you’ve refreshed an e-Scribe, it’s visually laid out as we have been.

[1:38:14] 2027 is not there. Mr. Trous, I was the last speaker having used 30 seconds. Sorry, I just needed a rub for a second. I just do want to inform the committee that I do have to leave at 11. So I just want to— Councilor McMaster, is it leaving and returning or leaving leaving? No, I’ll be leaving at that point. Thank you. The clerks will make note when you leave at 11 that you will not be returning nor joining us virtually. Though you’re a welcome to come back at any time. Councilor Trous, are you still looking to continue? No, I can support this amendment like that.

[1:38:51] And thank you for your flexibility. Councilor Hawkins. Yeah, quick question through you, Madam Chair, to staff around the quick start. And it’s the money that we’re putting aside here for the cleaning and maintenance is that part of the quick start and is there budgeting there for this? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, I know there would be no budget for that because that’s not an existing funding that we have. So we’re looking at only using existing resources. So if this is something that council would like to proceed with, then it would be require this amendment.

[1:39:31] Councilor, you’re good. Councilor Raman, thank you and through you. I’m just, again, I’m trying to understand what’s the intent of the language here because it’s worded as a grant where there is a grant provided by the BIA, but it’s specific to property owners or tenants and specific to some of these items. Or are we just talking about main street or well, BIA maintenance generally?

[1:40:08] Because like I said, there’s a grant that exists with the London Downtown Business Association. That grant is specific to property owners and tenants to assist with cleanup on their properties for these items, but this reads, in my opinion, as we’re talking about general maintenance of the downtown. So can I get clarification on which one it is? I can answer that if you would like.

[1:40:44] Okay, we can start there. Okay, this is for the BIA. This year we’ve had to double our resources for graffiti removal, for picking up litter, picking up sharps. So this is for enhanced services that has been funded this year through the 1.16 million related to the impacts of health and homelessness. So anyways, in order for us to maintain that level of service, yeah, this is what the request would be is the 300,000.

[1:41:23] If not, we have to go back to just our one clean team, which is what we’ve funded in the past and going back to power washing at a couple of days a week. This past year and our hope for next year would be we still maintain the five day a week power washing and having a double clean team working throughout our boundaries. Thank you for that clarification, Councillor Raman. Thank you, so the 1.6 million, I’m just wondering if staff can provide any feedback on that 1.6 million in terms of the term length that that money was for.

[1:42:02] Because I wasn’t sure exactly, again, which of these pots of money that have been given to the BIA, this is coming from, so I just want to clarify. Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so we have been able to confirm that that funding that was approved in October 2023 is to be spent by the end of 2024. So we have been able to confirm that. So my understanding is also that the bulk of that funding has been utilized, but that’s we’ve been able to find.

[1:42:35] Sorry, thank you. Councillor Troso, are you leaving the meeting or just stretching? Okay, I’m okay, I appreciate it. Just for the clerk, I need to know if we go sideways and call a vote. Councillor Raman, please continue. Thank you and through you. Okay, so the 1.6, 1.16 story that was for October 2023 to end of 2024. So this 300,000 is the BIA confident this is enough to augment their existing beautification budget of which is paid by their special tax levy as well.

[1:43:23] Yes, it is. We have increased and reallocated our tax levy, or sorry for our LDBA tax levy to be able to provide some of that service, but this will actually allow us to get to the same capacity of service that we have had this year. But yeah, otherwise we’re kind of going back to where we were a couple of years ago. Councillor Raman, thank you.

[1:43:57] I appreciate that and so this is kind of matching or does your special tax levy and what you set aside for beautification cover a larger portion than this amount? Ms. Malay. So this is actually, we’ve increased it from last year and actually we’re covering more than half of this amount for 2025. Councillor Raman.

[1:44:33] Sorry, so just to confirm, are you saying you’re covering 600,000, we’re covering 300,000 Ms. Malay? Sorry, you were asking about matching. So, no, we would be covering just over 300,000. Councillor, okay, thank you. I appreciate the answers. I’m inclined to support this at this amount as a continuation. I agree, I’m not, I’m hoping that we’ll have more actions related to the quick start initiatives, although they do not cover cleaning.

[1:45:10] I do think that hopefully just covering 2025 and 2026 will have a chance to revisit and hopefully this number will come down and the BIA will be able to cover this in their beautification budget. And from my own, I think a 2022 report from the BIA membership was really interested in this type of cleaning action versus some of the other beautification actions that the BIA’s tend to participate in. So I’m glad to hear that they’re using their resources in the amount of 300,000 of their own money for the same purpose and not for other beautification projects.

[1:45:50] Thank you, Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. For so I want to thank Councillor Ferrer for bringing this motion forward. I think this has got real teeth and we can see real action on it in a very short period of time. I also want to thank Deputy Mayor Lewis for the amendment because I think the change of funding is important in this one. I will say that many of my residents, Madam Chair, won’t come downtown because they don’t find a clean because of the graffiti. And I think this is going to change a lot of their minds.

[1:46:23] It’ll get them to use a Canada place, a Canada life place, the downtown market and many of our restaurants. So I think this is a great opportunity. And again, Councillor Ferrer, thank you very much for bringing this in forward. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, and I’m very glad that it was brought up by the Deputy Mayor and Community Reserve Fund because I do believe from the Economic Development Reserve Fund we will need 3.2 million every penny of it and just for downtown, for economic growth, for City of London.

[1:46:58] So I do agree with it. I would just, I would support this. The only thing is that if we are already scratching 27, I would like to make an amendment to amendment if I have a seconder just for one year. If we are going doing it anyways, that it’s not going to be three years, I would like to do it for one year. And the reason why I want to do it only for one year, because again, this very well might be hard. Okay, hold, sorry, just pause. You want to make an amendment and you’re looking to amend the amendment that would be only for 2025, not 2025 and 26, is that correct?

[1:47:35] Okay, and a seconder and Councillor Stevenson. So it’s the amendment of the amendment on the floor. We’re going to load the verbiage into e-scribes to hold tight and then I will start our new speakers list. Thank you, refresh e-scribe.

[1:48:17] Looking to see if the wording is correct before we proceed with the speaker’s list. Point of order, nothing’s on the so mover. Is it fine?

[1:48:50] Seconder, is it fine? Point of order question from Councillor Stevenson. This is something that we could do at SBPC or another committee meeting. I’ve got amendments that can only be done at budget committee and I’m just wondering, we’re spending a lot of time on something we could do at the next SBPC. Is there a way to refer some of these? Potentially, I would also say the way we get through these expeditiously is to be class and move less amendments. Mr. Murray, realizing it’s the budget tax levy time, looking to see, I would caution that if we get into changing source of finance of tax based versus reserve funds, it’s going to limit conversations as PPC but looking for your guidance.

[1:49:40] Thank you through the chair. From finance’s perspective, as I indicated earlier, if the proposed funding for this initiative or others is through one-time funding sources, there is the opportunity to do that at any point throughout the year and through the normal course of committee and council business. Beyond that, I will defer to clerks on any other procedural considerations. So you’ve heard from finance. Clerks is procedurally, they’re fine with how are we proceed ‘cause we’re following the council procedural by-law, but the motion’s moved and seconded on the floor.

[1:50:21] There’s a speakers list. I would say once it’s kind of moved and introduced, maybe just so we can speak for up to five minutes, as many times as you want as that takes, but maybe if you already know where you’re going to fall on it and what your preference is, we just get to the question quicker than not. But I will look to see which one of you would like to speak first. I will start with Councilor Perbal, I believe Councilor Stevenson, Councilor. Okay, so we’re going to start there and then we’ll see if anyone else wants to chime in. So the reason why I wanted only for one year, again, this initiative to be part of a concept and for example yesterday when we talked about the parks and when we talked about if we accept all four, it’s potentially cost savings and if we just select two, it’s going to be more expensive.

[1:51:09] And this is the thing that I’m good to support it for the one year, but again, I think that again, we need the big concept, the big picture. We are buying time in terms of 25, but let’s make sure 26 is included in the concept. So that’s the reason why I want only one year for now. Thank you. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions for staff because do we have in our regular city budget cleaning for our downtown streets? Is that something that’s already included in the budget? Yes, sure.

[1:51:43] Thank you very much. Yes, the downtown, actually the entire core area is defined in the old core area action plan, receives the highest level cleaning services we provide. So that is daily cleaning, sidewalk sweeping, graffiti removal and litter collection on public property only. And that’s daily from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m., or 9 p.m., pardon me, year round. The downtown clean teams will provide more of a complimentary service with a focus on public property along with their beautification mandate and additional litter collection on public streets. Councilor. Okay, thank you.

[1:52:14] That’s great to hear. And the YU program that we fund for cleaning as well is that something that is an ongoing thing or has that come to an end? And what do we spend on that? Ms. Smith. Thank you and through Madam Chair. Currently we fund YU for the clean state program, $200,000 in an annual grant. And this is the employment focus program that’s focused on cleaning private property in the downtown and old East Village. Councilor.

[1:52:46] Thank you and through the chair and how often is that cleaning done? Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair. They help keep things clean in the downtown. They operate on a limited schedule as they try and create a flexible working environment for young people. They attempt to go out daily, but I would have to confirm that. Follow up, Councilor. Thank you, that’s good enough for me. So our city services, we already in our budget, have a high level of cleaning.

[1:53:21] Then we’ve got the YU program. I also see in the downtown London budget, they spent, the budget was $215,000 for cleaning last year and it’s $343,000 for cleaning this year. So if I understand it, like the downtown London budget is 343,000 for cleaning, this 300,000 would be adding another 300. So we’re talking about 650,000 a year for cleaning on top of the 200,000 to YU and the cleaning that we already pay for it in our city budget.

[1:53:56] So I’m looking to spend less money on this. You know, I love the idea that spending this will improve the downtown core, but there’s been lots of money spent. This is just trying to keep what we have this year. So I’m looking to limit these costs as much as possible. Okay, Councilor Ferra. I just hope that Council does not support this amendment. I said no to the last amendment from the deputy mayor, but I will be supporting that amendment.

[1:54:29] And I hope that we get what we have with the two years and the other source of funding through, but I would not be supporting this amendment. Further speakers, I see none online. Is there anything on chambers before we call the question on the amendment to the amendment, which is only one year of funding for 2025. Seeing none, calling the question. On survey, Mayor Bergen, closing the vote, motion fails two to 12.

[1:55:22] Okay, we’re back to the amendment. I have my speakers list looking to see, this is the 2025 and 2026 funding that was amended for the community investment reserve fund, looking to see I saw Councilor Ferra and then I’ll rest. Can I ask Councilor Raman? Thank you, Chair. I appreciate Council’s support on that last one.

[1:55:55] I hope I will be supporting this one. If it’s two years, so be it. We’ll talk about it again, but two years, anything we can get. So the source of funding, if that makes more sense for Council, perfect. Anything the downtown can get for some type of level of assistance is great. So I appreciate everybody who has spoke on this debate. I thank everybody who will support this amendment. Thank the Mayor too, thank you. And let’s just get this through, appreciate it. Thank you, if you allow me to go to Councilor Frank online, who hasn’t spoken yet, I will go there.

[1:56:28] And then I will come back in chambers. Councilor Frank, you have not spoken on this one. Please proceed. Thank you. A couple of questions through you to staff or maybe just one. I do agree with Councilor Stevenson, that has quite a lot of money for cleaning up this area, but I noticed in the motion, it’s also listed beautification maintenance. And my recollection was we discontinued about $200,000 a year of greenery beautification, like kind of hanging baskets and that kind of thing, as well as I think we discontinued planting street trees outside of construction projects.

[1:57:04] So could I get confirmation from the chair through staff that those funding pools have been cut for the downtown area? Just looking to see if there would also be any differential of the money that the BIA would put into this versus staff. So just looking to Mr. Mathers or Ms. Chair. Madam Chair, I can speak to the discontinuation of the downtown street tree fund, which was specifically discontinued at the request of staff. And the rationale for that was actually because there are no more locations for us to plant street trees in the downtown. We do have adequate budget to continue with intensification of our tree canopies on larger parcels, but the street tree specific program simply was untenable at this point in terms of spaces remaining to plant.

[1:57:46] With respect to the beautification reductions, I have to admit I don’t recall a $200,000 exact budget change. I don’t know if my friends in finance recall anything from multi-year budget. We’d have to do a bit of additional research. Council Frank, finance is pondering, but has nothing immediately for you. Thank you. I believe for some reason is in Cheryl Smith’s portfolio, but perhaps I’m wrong. No, I don’t know why. I think he’s coming out of there either. No, okay. There’s a couple of o’s.

[1:58:19] I will go to staff to see what those are. (all laughing) Suppose Canada. Thank you. And through Madam Chair, I believe through the London Community Recovery Network by post COVID funding, there was one time additional money to support enhanced greening in the downtown. Council Frank, maybe that was it. Thank you, perhaps. Yeah, my memory is foggy. And then I have one for the question. I believe for downtown London. To Councillor Stevenson’s point, if there is, if the downtown area is very clean because we’re spending so much money cleaning it, with this allocation, would the plan be then to spend it on other things like enhancements and beautification?

[1:59:01] I just want to get understanding of how the downtown B.A. would choose to spend this given that it does seem like there’s quite a lot of money being spent on cleaning. So they’re perfect. Yeah, certainly it is. Some of it is to bring it up to part, like for instance, our planters, our street planters, we used to have close to 90 planters on the street. There have been so much vandalism with individuals using these planters as fire pits. So they’ve been damaged. Again, there’s a number of unmentionables that they’re using these planters for to the point where we have not been able to completely replace the planters that we’ve had.

[1:59:46] We’re also looking at other means to try and minimize any vandalism or damage to our greenery. We’re looking at hanging baskets. And again, we just started that program this year and we’re looking to expand that next year, as well as just maintaining like our murals. Quite often there’s graffiti that needs to be removed from those and we need to enhance those. And downtown for the holidays, we would love to be able to, again, have more greenery than just on, you know, kind of the core areas around the Kevin Garden Market and Bud Gardens and down Dundas, we would like to make sure that that spread throughout the entire downtown, during downtown for the holidays.

[2:00:38] Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, that provides more context for me. So I’m inclined to support this because I see the value in as well as coming from a reserve fund. So I will be supporting this, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Roman. You’ve used three minutes and 30 seconds, please proceed. Thank you and through you. So I appreciate the questions from my colleagues because now I feel like I have contradictory information. So I asked the question whether or not the BIA was using this money for beautification versus maintenance and cleanup. And now the conversation has veered into this being now used as beautification.

[2:01:13] And they, as far as I understand, membership as long ago as 2022 or as recent as 2022, I should say, said that they wanted more cleaning services that were not beautification related, that that was their preference because of the fact that there was ongoing damage to the beautification, et cetera. So I would be supportive of if there was a need for additional cleanup, but now we’re veering into this is about beautification.

[2:01:51] And so, and what I mean by the differentiation of that is when we’re talking about now more— 30 seconds. More baskets, more cleaning of murals, et cetera, et cetera. I think that we’re veering into a different type of cleaning and for that reason I won’t be supporting this. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. I don’t think you’ve spoken to this one yet. I don’t think so, but I’ll keep it short. I believe like when we talk about the housing stability bank, there’ll be not enough money to keep our downtown clean given the situation that it’s in or the core area.

[2:02:29] So how much money are we gonna spend chasing our tail, trying to remove graffiti, replant planters, clean the streets, rather than if we’re gonna use taxpayer dollars, which is this, regardless of whether it comes from the reserve fund or the levy, we’re using property taxpayer dollars. At $25,000 a month, which is what this is, we could shelter more than five people. And I would much rather spend the money addressing the actual issue rather than try to, you know, we’re getting nowhere, but we’re spending a lot of money going nowhere in our downtown.

[2:03:09] So I would rather look at things like, do we need to start looking at the outreach, which is handing out foil and needles and everything to the people on the streets? And then we’re spending money cleaning it up. It’s another issue, but I’m just saying, I will not be supporting this because there is almost $54,000 a month going to cleaning between the downtown London and this. And I just think that’s far too much money to have the results that we have, because it’s not gonna improve the situation as it is right now.

[2:03:43] I’ve paused your time there, Councillor Ferreira. I would note that we’ve heard from most people on this. We do have a long day and my intention is to finish this and the next one before we get to lunch, just to make sure that we could wrap up downtown BIA stuff coherently. You’d spoke for a minute, I’m going back to you and then I’ll recognize Councillor Hopkins. You can go to Councillor Hopkins.

[2:04:16] I was gonna respond, but I’m not, I don’t think I need to. Actually, let’s go to the executive director of the BIA, because I do know that she has some, she can articulate the beautification of the public property of the BIA, tries to maintain a different, sorry, a point of order recognizing the mayor. We’re on the amendment, which the only change is striking 2027 and changing the source of funding and everyone is debating the main motion and I think we can smooth this along if we just decide, do you want two years instead of three and do you want the change in the source of funding and then we can have a debate on the main motion?

[2:05:04] Otherwise everybody’s gonna speak again. Sorry, yes, that’s on me, absolutely. So if we’re good with that, I do believe that was a point of order that save your comments back to the beginning of main motion. Sorry, I forgot that we were on an amendment. That’s okay, it was the amendment on the amendment of the amendment to the mayor’s budget, which was really just the, yeah. So looking to call the question that strictly the two years versus the original three that was put forward and then either it passes or not, then we go back to the main motion to discuss it.

[2:05:59] Councillor Frank? Yes, sorry. Sorry, just looking to say that was your yes. Someone asked, yes, is your vote. Thank you. Thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to two. Okay, so this has now been amended that it’s no longer the three years that Councillor Faire and I put forward. It is not the one, it is the two, as the amendment was moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Cuddy, which passed.

[2:06:35] It’s the discussion on the main motion as amended, having seen that it was a point of order that was correct, that if I find you’re repeating yourself, I will interrupt ‘cause we’ve already had a long discussion and essentially it’s just the one year that’s changed. So it’s the main motion as amended so it’s two years instead of the three, I will start with Councillor Layman. Sorry, Councillor Hopkins was last on the last one. Do you want first dibs on this one or Councillor Layman first?

[2:07:10] Okay, so when you want to let me know otherwise, I’m starting with Councillor Layman’s. Okay, I haven’t spoken to this. I was waiting for all the amendments to go through before we get to the main motion. And thank you, Mayor, for getting us back here. The challenges with downtown is it’s kind of a two parts. One part, it is a business area with shops and retail and employers, but the other part, and this is the big part, it’s a city’s core in a very public space.

[2:07:47] We have the arena down there, the grand common garden market. We have post-secondary institutions down there, Fanshawe, UWO as a property that they will be using. Major employers like Canada Life, Victoria Park, high density, high powers being planned. It’s a unique part of the city, and I believe, quite honestly, it’s the heartbeat of the city. And a healthy heartbeat is needed for a healthy city. Because of this public space, this type of thing is important to me, to keep it clean, to get graffiti off, make sure the garbage is cleaned up, make sure the murals are in good shape, do our part because it’s not just for the business down there.

[2:08:43] It’s for everybody across London that surveys. It’s different, and this is the challenge. It might not seem fair for a certain BIA, say, High Park BIA, that the LDBA gets this, but I would argue that this is more for the core as opposed to the BIA. The BIA has its part for sure in doing what BIA’s do, and that’s why I’ll not be supporting the following one, ‘cause that’s a BIA responsibility. But this thing goes beyond the BIA. So I encourage, as we move forward with improvement, I drive down Dundas Street every day in my way to work, and it is a beautiful street, and it’s improving, I see it happening.

[2:09:28] Again, let’s keep on this path. We’re in more people living and working downtown, more people visiting downtown into a virtuous cycle. We’re starting to climb up, let’s keep it going. So I would encourage people and my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Councillor Ferriero, you’d spoke from one minute. Prior, you still have time remaining, please proceed. Thank you Chair, I’ll be quick. I just got inspired by Councillor Layman. I think he spoke very eloquently about the truth of the matter.

[2:09:59] This is the heart of the city, and it’s the beating heart of the city, and we need to continue beating it. When I said that the downtown is in the ICU, I didn’t say that it turns out that the doctor, the resident doctor in the ICU is the BIA, it seems. So it is not for the BIA, just like as Councillor Layman has pointed out, this is for the core and the heart of the city to maintain and make sure that we are still here, and we can make it until we get to the downtown master plan. So those are my comments. I hope for your support on this. Thank you.

[2:10:31] I’m gonna go to Councillor Hopkins next, and then just let everyone know that I don’t see my online or inchames after that. So if you would like to speak before I call the question, just indicate. Yeah, thank you. I’ve been spoken to this amendment. So I find myself in a very awkward situation because I strongly believe that downtown is the heart of our city, and strongly believe in the downtown BIA and the work that it is doing. I also know and have heard that Londoners want our downtown safe and secure. And we said no to amendment, but I thought is much more important to the downtown than this one.

[2:11:11] I do think that it’s a lot of money. I think there’s gonna be support, but I do wanna stand by the principle of supporting the BIA and the work that needs to be downtown. Londoners wanna go there. Yes, it is that centralized beautification of the area that Londoners wanna see, but I think they wanna see more than that. It is that a lot of money and I will not be supporting it. Thank you.

[2:11:42] Further speakers, Councilor Pribble. Thank you, just a quick comment. I will be supporting it even though I would have preferred one year only, but because of the change of the funding, I will be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you, further speakers? Not online, not in chambers. Call on the question, closing the vote. Motion carries, 11 to three.

[2:12:21] Thank you. The next item on the published agenda was what’s 3.4. It’s the downtown business association for marketing and promotion initiatives. It was put forward for the amount of $95,000. Councilor Faire is the mover. Looking to see if you’re looking to move it. Okay, that’s a nod. Looking to see if there’s a seconder. Looking in chambers, looking online, I’m seeing none. So that one will not be moving forward at the time.

[2:12:57] There’s no way, no one’s putting it on the floor. And just give me one second. Okay, the request is just that, so that concludes the items for the scheduled items.

[2:14:01] That move is on to items for direction. There is one, it’s the Middlesex London Health Unit 2025 funding request. Biobrake is not ready for us. I’m gonna suggest that we continue on for the next bit. Dr. Summers is with us online and is available for any questions. And this one is that the report in our package be received for information and that civic administration be directed to fund the state of London’s increased share for to 226,954 for the 2025 operating budget contingency reserve. So I’m gonna ask you to look at that one quickly and then see if there’s a mover and a seconder to get it on the floor.

[2:14:54] Dr. Summers, welcome, we can see you and we’re just getting things in order procedurally. Looking to see if there’s a mover and a seconder to put this on the floor for discussion. Councilor Trousao is moving it. Councilor Frank is seconding it. So the report is now on the floor. As I said, Dr. Summers is available for questions or comments and I will start with Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[2:15:33] Thank you, Madam Chair. And three, you welcome to Dr. Summers ‘cause I am going to ask a very specific question for him ‘cause at the moment, I am not inclined to support this. And so through you, I would like to ask Dr. Summers, we now have a federal dental care program. According to the best information I could get reaching out through our local MP offices, between 80 and 85,000 is about the number of Londoners who have enrolled to take advantage of that program.

[2:16:17] My understanding is that the London Middlesex Health Unit used to have a client list of about 800 for your dental program. You’re now down to 200, but I’ve seen no adjustment in your budget to right size your dental program. And so I’d like to know what, when we’ve got an extra $200,000 ask in front of us, what is the Middlesex London Health Unit prepared to do to right size its dental program? Thank you, Dr. Summers. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you Deputy Mayor for the question.

[2:16:56] The seniors dental program at the Middlesex London Health Unit is funded independently and separately from the cost shared programming, which receives municipal contributions. So the funding that we receive to fund the seniors dental program and our majority of our dental service programs that you were referring to are funded exclusively for that service. So we’re not able to actually utilize those funds for anything else other than the dental service programs to which they are allocated.

[2:17:30] So for that reason, we are not able to adjust the allocation within that window. The other thing I would note is that even with the expansion of the federal program, we are continuing to get expanded demand even for our program as well. I think adjustments over time, given it is a newer program still in Ontario, we may see some adjustments to actually adapt to the mix of federal and provincial funding and opportunities that are available. But for the purposes of this budget ask, that funding stream is separate and it cannot and is not available to be redirected to other services within the agency.

[2:18:09] Thank you. Deputy Mayor. That’s my only question at this time. I’ll let others go ahead. Councilor Roman. Thank you and through you and thank you to Dr. Summers for being here as well. Just thank you. I appreciate the correspondence that we’ve received from MLHU and specifically, there’s a bullet that mentions meeting with local federal MPs as well as P-HAC to review the impacts of newcomers on the demands for services from the MLHU and advocate for the associated increasing costs to be recognized.

[2:18:45] I’m just wondering if you did receive any of those additional costs recovered? Dr. Summers. Through you, Madam Chair. At this time, we have not received additional funds to account for the increasing population growth in Middlesex, London, nor the increasing number of newcomers that are requiring additional public health services. We continue to highlight the significant growth in our community and the need for services at both the federal and provincial level and every opportunity that we can.

[2:19:20] And we are also partnering with other municipal groups and other agencies across the province to raise that as well. Councilor. Thank you. Would you be able to give us an indication of how much additional provincial or federal funding that you’re requesting in order to be able to provide the services that are needed? Dr. Summers. Broadly speaking, one of the things that we’re highlighting for our provincial colleagues and counterparts is the relative per capita funding that the Middlesex, London receives.

[2:19:56] So as an example, our total per capita funding for our mandatory programs, the programs which are cost shared between the province and the municipality is $69 per person for Middlesex, London Health Unit. The provincial average is $87 per person. There are some health units in southwestern Ontario that are funded as much as $100 per person. So we are highlighting that difference. At this point, we don’t have any indication of a specific value that we would be able to anticipate to address these gaps. We’re really trying to highlight that there is a gap and that anything at this point could help.

[2:20:32] Councilor. Thank you. Do you have a quantified number of, if let’s say the gap is that $80 or whatnot and we’re paying 69, do you have that difference? Dr. Summers. Regrettably through you Madam Chair, I don’t have that at my fingertips apologies. Councilor. And through you, do you think this is part of the dollars that are in front of us to backfill? Dr. Summers. I may ask for clarification, Madam Chair, in what’s referenced by backfill.

[2:21:08] Councilor Robin. Thank you. So in through you, so in referencing that there is a shortfall in funding, do you see this as part of what’s in front of us to fill with the additional increase? Dr. Summers. Regrett, Madam Chair, certainly this increase will somewhat shift that, but will not cover the full discrepancy. The amount that municipalities contribute to public health unit operations varies widely across the province.

[2:21:48] Our, so as you are aware, public health in Ontario receives funding, both from the province and from the municipalities. Our total per capita is that $69 per person. The municipal contribution to the Middlesex London Health Unit is $18 per person. And at $18 per person, that ties us for the second lowest municipal contribution in the province, the average municipal per capita contribution is $30 per person. And this increase in 2025 will still not move us up to that provincial average, but it will certainly help us to continue with the service level provisions that we have.

[2:22:27] We may have made significant efforts as outlined in our submission to assess all of our services. We have seen a reduction in services over the last number of years as a result of our funding gap. And we will continue to look for ways to be more efficient in how we do our work, but regrettably, there has had to have been a service reduction in the past. Councilor Rama. Thank you and through you. So just, I appreciate the conversation and the statistics you’ve provided. I’m just wondering if we can go back to the question of dental services.

[2:23:04] My understanding is that through the municipal contribution, we do provide support to the dental clinics. Is that correct, Dr. Summers? There, a majority of our oral services programs are exclusively funded by the province. So for example, the entire seniors dental program is exclusively funded by the province. The program in which we see children who otherwise don’t have access to dental services is exclusively funded by the province.

[2:23:39] There are some small aspects of our dental health service program, including the screening that we do in schools in order to assess whether or not children require additional dental care, which would receive some of our cost shared support. However, it’s very little and relative to the majority of our oral services program, which receives exclusive funding from the province. Councilor. Thank you. But the cost of the clinics that you operate, those are shared costs that are covered through the municipal contribution, I believe that’s correct.

[2:24:17] Yeah, Dr. Summers, and if you want to answer from finance too, just let me know. Okay, Dr. Summers. Through you, Madam Chair, from a physical space perspective, we use a harmonized clinic space. So for example, at our city plaza location, we have a harmonized clinic that has a common waiting room for people that are being seen for sexual health services, vaccine services and oral health. So a component of the physical space is shared. And some of the services that are received in that shared space, yes, are part of a cost shared funding model, but a significant portion of the provincially funded costs that we get for our oral health programs also cover what we would describe as the overhead costs of that shared clinical space.

[2:25:11] Councilor. Thank you. So I would entertain an amendment to the amount that’s here, but I am a bit concerned about the federal contribution that is underfunded in terms of newcomer spending, and then as well as some of the provincial offsets that are here as well. I’m just wondering if you might be able to comment on some of the services that are provided to newcomers in our city and what the increase year over year is in terms of service provided to newcomers based on growth, population growth in the city.

[2:25:51] Dr. Summers. Thank you for the question through you, Madam Chair. I cannot provide specificity on the totality of services delivered to newcomers in the city, of course. What I can say specifically is that we have seen an increased demand and services for vaccination and assessment of vaccine records. We’ve seen increasing demands for some of our home visiting programs for young families, for some of our prenatal programs, which are focused on newcomer families as well.

[2:26:26] We have also seen a significant increase in communicable disease cases, particularly tuberculosis as an example. We’ve seen nearly a doubling of tuberculosis cases in the last five years, which at this point are predominantly amongst people who are newer to Canada, given the endomicity of that infection in other parts of the world. So it’s those types of factors that are driving demands on us as a local public health agency in addition to the broader population growth of our city and our region more broadly. Councillor.

[2:26:59] Thank you, that’s really helpful. So what I see in front of us in the letter, and I know I’m probably close to my time, what I see in the letter is there’s a reduction in service because of cost pressures, and I understand that. But what I see is that we are taking out some of the more generalized population supports, and we’re now being more specific on what population supports we’re providing, that in my opinion are related to cost pressures from the federal government. So for that reason, I will entertain an amendment, but I won’t support this in an entirety.

[2:27:35] Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m happy to hear some of the comments from my colleagues because I am not gonna be supportive of this either. I did not support the last year when we were asked to let the Middlesex London Health Unit keep their surplus, I voted no, because we knew there was a deficit coming, and there were decisions made by the board regarding financing that we’re having implications that I don’t know that we’re obligated to provide the budget, but I’m not sure that we’re obligated to provide any cost overruns on that budget, especially if they are for reasons that maybe the board is more responsible to than this council.

[2:28:28] So I’m interested to see what others say. I did not get the correspondence from Ms. Williamson, and I’ve checked with a few colleagues, and they didn’t either, so I’ve sent an email to see if we can find that and get it to us. I’ll pause the time there. I believe you’re referencing for all colleagues. We recently had an audit meeting as the health unit statements, audited statements came in past our normal dates. Ms. Williamson did appear before us, spoke, we had questions, the answers weren’t to come to this meeting ‘cause it’s not an audit meeting.

[2:29:05] They had promised those in advance of our budget next week, but certainly that’s part of their finances, but the answer was promised for next week, and I’ve not seen it as chair. Mr. Marie, do you have information on that? Three, Madam Chair. I believe what the counselor may be referring to is the communication from MLHU appended to the staff report that is on the agenda for this committee. It’s page 30 of the agenda package appendix A to our staff report. Okay, thank you, that clarifies things.

[2:29:39] So I guess my confusion is there’s a lot of obligated, there’s the word obligated through a lot of this, and yet when the motion from Middlesex County is very clearly that council is approving it. So I guess what I’m wanting to know is, my understanding is we’re obligated to fund the budget, but if why have us approve this if we don’t have a choice? So if I could get clarity on what our options are as a council.

[2:30:15] To Mr. Marie, recognize there might be some statutory obligations in there as well, or Ms. Barbone. I thank you through the chair. So as included in the Middlesex London Health Unit, given the legislation under the health and promotion Protection Act, the way the legislation reads is that the obligated municipalities shall pay. So based on what the actual expenditures are, the municipality is obligated to pay its share in accordance with the cost sharing, which is between London and Middlesex County. So if the council were not to approve the funding source, the municipality will ultimately have to pay what the amount is at the Board of Health ultimately incurs during the year.

[2:30:58] So this report is to identify a funding source for that overrun that is anticipated. Should the council not approve that, then there would not be a funding source anticipated to support the additional expenditures that they will be submitting as part of their budget. Councillor Stephens. Thank you through the chair. Thank you for that clarity, ‘cause now I understand that. Although not related, or not directly, but I would like to know, I’m trying to word this carefully, but I’m wondering, knowing that there was a deficit coming at the time that there was a surplus last year, could there have been a recommendation that that surplus be applied to this, knowing that it was coming?

[2:31:52] I’m really still very confused as to how that, knowing that this was coming and knowing that we had no option. I pause for one second, I paused your time. I have a point or in the floor from Councillor Troso. So now we’re being asked to speculate on what we could have done last year, and I don’t think it’s germane to what’s on the floor. Thank you. To address the point of order, I would say I think the council is trying to understand if that surplus could have been used in a different way to address this business case that’s before us, but I would say it was a historical decision and doesn’t help us now.

[2:32:31] So it’s how to dispose of the item on the floor before us. Thank you, yeah, I’m just trying to understand and to be able to explain to taxpayers why we spent $472,000 of their money last year and now another $227,000. And I’m also wondering, as a council and as an oversight body, when a board takes on 20-year debt and makes huge long-term commitments in terms of lease or debt obligations, is there any, I guess my question is, I guess the question before us is how do we fund this?

[2:33:09] But I do think maybe at a future meeting, we get to talk about what we can do to ensure that our boards aren’t making decisions that we’re liable for. Thank you. I’ll also note that the health units, isn’t one of our boards. It’s one that we’re just obligated to fund like the same governance model as upper Thames, police, health unit, and land ambulance. Councilor Trossa, I didn’t know, just to check that your hand was up to speak and the point of order or not, ‘cause I also will recognize Councilor Hopkins.

[2:33:53] Okay, Councilor Hopkins, it’s you. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Dr. Summers, for being here with us to answer some questions. I just appreciate knowing where we stand when it comes to the municipalities’ responsibility and how much we pay per person. And it’s 18 dollars in understanding where the second lowest in Ontario. And it just brings me back always to the challenges of municipalities having to bear more healthcare costs.

[2:34:31] So that’s just a comment. I do have a question through you, Madam Chair, probably to Dr. Summers. It is around the federal dental program. My understanding is that the dental program is only for under 18 and over 65. So there’s a big gap there. If you can kind of confirm that, I’m not exactly sure, but give me a little bit more of an understanding of that program and how that, you did say there’s a demand there as well in the dent of clinics and how that all works.

[2:35:05] Dr. Summers. Thank you for the question and through you, Madam Chair. The federal dental program is rolling out incrementally and providing funding so that those who are young and who are older will have access to oral health services. We may see an additional expansion of eligibility as the years unfold. And it is seen at the moment as a compliment to the previously introduced Ontario seniors dental program, which was for low income seniors over the age of 65.

[2:35:48] We are still trying to fully appreciate as our every single province at the moment, trying to appreciate how the federal program will intersect with existing provincial programs. But regardless for us, we continue to see folks that previously had no oral health care service who are now receiving it, which is a good thing. Oral health is health and we’re encouraged by that. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

[2:36:20] And I appreciate the conversation from my colleagues on council. I will be supporting this budgetary ask. I believe that the health unit board and staff have done an exceptional job of finding savings wherever they can. As we saw last year, we’ve unfortunately had to restructure and cut about 20 positions in the organization. We’ve had to realign services and reduce services to try and make this budgetary gap work. I think we heard from the officer of health that we already provide the lowest subsidy, tied for the lowest subsidy with other municipalities, as well as our provincial contribution is some of the lowest.

[2:36:59] So I think it comes as no shock to folks that in order to be able to provide services to the community, we actually have to be able to allocate properly. This slight increase is due to a variety of factors as we’ve heard. And we’ve also heard that the health unit board and staff remain committed to working with provincial and federal partners to try to address some of those increases, but is not only from those residents. And I’ll also add that newcomers in our city are residents in our city. And in the same way they can go and pick out a library book, they can hop on a bus, they can call the police, they use services.

[2:37:35] And again, they’re residents and we are responsible to providing these services to residents. So I will be very supportive of this because I think that this organization has done an incredible job of doing what they can with what they’ve been given. And again, this is a small increase to not even come close to putting us with our peers with funding our health unit. So appreciate the work of the health unit and appreciate the medical officer of health for being here. Thank you. I’d like to make a comment.

[2:38:06] I will turn the chair over to my vice chair. Thank you. And I’ll recognize a budget chair proposal. Thank you. Dr. Summers and I had had some conversations before and just always thinking for service of our healthcare professionals had also been on the health unit board myself last time a council for a few years. Referencing in Appendix A, it also speaks to, I know a lot of conversations have been around dental, but infectious disease control and vaccine services.

[2:38:44] Dr. Summers had spoke about looking to find efficiencies internally. I believe there’s great opportunity there. As a parent whose child’s been misgendered while using their clinic downtown, which makes using public health more of a barrier. Got a school suspension letter for lack of vaccinations. I consider myself quite privileged in my ability to navigate systems, but calling to book a vaccine with my doctor being told the health unit needs to do it, call on the health unit to say you have a doctor, call them back, call on the doctor and the doctor saying you just can’t administratively govern the program for vaccines ‘cause we have to book it per child, it’s too hard.

[2:39:33] And then calling the health unit back will try not to get my kids suspended from school while trying to comply with regulations. Found it quite frustrating. When my other child did go in, it was a two-dose vaccine. Got one dose from the health unit downtown at City Plaza, tried to book the second follow-up dose where I wouldn’t forget when we left. Was told they couldn’t ‘cause they just didn’t know what they’d be working a couple months out. I never did take my kid back for that vaccine, so I will publicly disclose that. We recently received the Public SaaS Faction Survey. Their day, the health unit was listed at 61% for resident satisfaction in that.

[2:40:11] I believe there’s great opportunity and value of revamping some of their disservice delivery models and definitely their booking system. As people try to comply, I’m also gonna request that these votes for part A and B be called separate in the system to allow colleagues to have heard varying conversations from. I will recognize that we are to cover health based on the Health Protection and Promotion Act and that the costs are shared between the County and Middlesex.

[2:40:43] If staff just would like to say, if we vote no, what would happen if the health unit comes back and does request those funds that we may or may not have said no to. Thank you and I’ll return to chair. Thank you through the chair. That’s, yeah, you can’t not quite yet. My apologies, chair. I was, okay, I’ll go to staff. Thank you and through the chair.

[2:41:16] So in the event that this does not pass, there would not be a dedicated identified funding source for this. Ultimately, the health unit will build a city for our share of their budget and that would potentially result in a variance that would flow through our monitoring process, our budget monitoring process and show up as perhaps a negative variance at the end of the year. I’ll go to the budget chair. Thank you, that concludes my questions and comments. If you want to get the chair back, you can’t figure out it’s all yours.

[2:41:49] Thank you, now I’ll return to chair. Thank you, I’m looking for new speakers before I go to second speakers. Second speaking time would be Councillor Stevenson, you’ve used two and a half minutes, please proceed. Thank you, just a question through you to whoever can answer this question. There’s been a lot of talk about increased costs due to newcomers and I just want to know, is any of that impacted by our sanctuary city designation or would that, does that have no impact on this at all? Thank you, I believe that designation actually a free from fear, our definition, versus not actually being a sanctuary of staff just want to state what that means and how it impacts anything, I believe it just misdators bear.

[2:42:37] Thank you, chair. We do support services to those through the fear from, what did you just say, the word free from fear, free from fear, thank you. We are not designated as a sanctuary city, but we do provide services to those in our community who are residents of our community who would need supports to services and they’re not required to show documentation of registration, they’re allowed to use things like libraries and other services as well. Yes, I do know when I was on the library board, it was just do you live here versus proof?

[2:43:11] Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just a follow up. So there wasn’t an answer to my question though. So the free from fear policy, does it, if we didn’t have that, would there be less costs at the Middlesex Health when the health deal, like I’m just wondering, did that policy change what is happening at the Middlesex Son and Health Unit or does it not apply there? I will go to both parties, I don’t believe so, but misdators bear first. Thank you. That’s a question as it relates to the cost for the Middlesex Health Unit, that’s a question referred to you, okay?

[2:43:44] Dr. Summers. Okay, Dr. Summers. I have a reply. Madam Chair, I do not, I would not allocate change in the pressures that we’re receiving as a result of the free for fear. We’ve not, I would not say that side of direct impact for us. Okay, Councillor Stevenson’s okay with that. Looking in chambers for further questions or comments. Councillor Layman, you have not spoken yet, please proceed. Thank you. First of all, I have to say I’m fairly impressed and happy with the actions that your management yourself, Dr. Summers and the Board have taken to realign expenses with as we come out of COVID, which I understand things are ramped up during that time.

[2:44:38] I guess my question is being that we’re, you know, this is part of a multi-year budget amendment. Yeah, this is a, I asked for 2025. How does this apply for the remaining years on her multi-year budget? We’ll go to Dr. Summers first. Through you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. At this point in time, this is indicated as a one-time change.

[2:45:15] It is a significant amount of our funding as an agency, of course, comes through the province. And so we often base, you know, the municipal reality is based off of what we understand from the province and that can shift year by year. What we know at this point in time is that the Ontario Public Health Standards, which describe and direct what we do, as well as the provincial funding model for public health are actively under review. So 2025 is really being viewed as a bridging year for the health unit while some of that information still remains unknown to us.

[2:45:52] We are committed to sharing information as quickly and fulsomely as we can with city staff and with yourselves so that we can anticipate any additional changes. And we are committed in the meantime to becoming as streamlined and as efficient as we can so that we can continue to price services without incurring significant additional costs as we try to serve the community ongoing. So certainly this speaks to 2025. 2026 and beyond, there are still unknowns as a result of some uncertainties through the review process at the province, but we are committed to keeping city staff and yourselves as up to date as we can given those uncertainties.

[2:46:37] Councilor Lehman. - Thank you. Further speakers, looking online, looking in chambers. Okay, this is gonna be called in two parts. The first one up is that the health unit, that the report for the one-time funding be received for information.

[2:47:09] That vote is opening now. Councillor Van Merbergen. Councillor Van Merbergen. Yes. - Opposed in the vote. Opposed in the vote, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[2:47:45] Thank you, part B’s, that’s the administration, be directed to fund the city of London’s increased share to the of 226,954 dollars for the 2025 from the operating budget contingency reserve. There’s one question before we open the vote from Councillor Rotman. Thank you, just to clarify.

[2:48:19] So if we were not to support this, it would, you said it would be a variant, so can you just provide more clarification? Ms. Barbell. Thank you, through the chairs. So under the Health Protection Act, the city’s obligated to pay it. Certainly there are penalties if the city does not, as outlined in the report and in the legislation. So the city would pay the amount, we would be short the budget to do so, and it would basically roll up as part of our surplus deficit at the end of the day, given that we have certain pressures that could potentially decrease the surplus that we’re anticipated to have at this point in time for the next year.

[2:49:01] Councillor’s okay now, okay. So you know, further clarification questions, calling the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, eight to six. Thank you, Dr. Summers, for being with us. That concludes the Health Unit item for today, and I wish you, it’s Friday. So I wish you a great weekend ahead.

[2:49:34] For us friends, we are stopping for lunch. When we return from lunch, it’s additional business. It’s gonna be a motion to receive the extreme clean program update. I have also been made aware in the clerks have received wording for three additional amendments to be considered after lunch. So if you have anything else, please get it in before lunch. Is this a procedural question or a move for lunch time as ideally it’s 30 minutes again?

[2:50:12] This procedural, not knowing what the added is and we’ve only got one item, it is Friday. I wonder if we could just proceed and then have lunch after? I suspect you’ll be sitting here for a few hours before you get too lunch. Also, your chair will need a break to use the washroom. Councillor Trousa, a procedural question? Yes, as much as I’d love surprises, we’ve been sitting here all morning and clearly there’s something big coming up and I haven’t seen anything come into my email and I’m just wondering why we’re operating when such a need to know basis.

[2:50:55] Couldn’t we have seen what this was? Councillor, it’s always someone’s opportunity to circulate or not. I did say that they are into the clerks. There is a seconder. I can ask that they’re circulated on break. I did discuss with the person this morning that I don’t know how much you’d have an opportunity to read those motions while sitting here debating in this space and to be focused on the task at hand. So I’m still recommending lunch for 30 minutes. It is ready.

[2:51:27] And then as always, when we come back and as we commence discussions, it is up to you how much you would like to discuss an item or speak to it versus just moving forward with a vote if there’s no speakers. Deputy Mayor Lewis? I guess this is a point of personal privilege then based on what you just told us. But like Councillor Trozzell, I’m concerned that if we have things clerked and submitted to the clerk that we haven’t seen them yet, I would ask the individual movers and seconders of those amendments to please consider at least asking the clerk to circulate them so we can at least read them at lunch.

[2:52:12] That doesn’t give us a lot of time to think about them but I would rather have the 30 minutes while I’m having my lunch to think about them than not. So I mean, we can’t, I’m not asking you, Madam Chair, to single out any individual to ask them if they wanna do it or not. I’m just asking for consideration to circulate them over lunch, please. Okay, I’ll discuss that. So if anyone else has anything else on mind, do let me know ‘cause you get the sense of colleagues of how they’re feeling. At this time, I would need a motion to have lunch. So I’m looking for 30 minutes.

[2:52:49] It’s gonna be moved by Councillor Hoppen seconded by the Mayor looking for 30 minutes. So 12, 37-ish, we’re gonna be back in chambers. Don’t, sorry, just one second. Okay, the clerks are just reminding us, so we’re gonna call it 1240 being back since I know you wanna read some stuff that when you do get it and read it, do not discuss it ‘cause it’s still a business of the day and they already have a mover and a seconder, so no one’s looking to find those. E-Scribe, lunch, yes or no?

[2:53:42] Sir Ramen, closing the vote. Motion carries, 14 to zero. 1240, I’ll see you back here, please. Okay, if you can take care of seats, we’re about to begin.

[3:28:28] Colleagues online, please turn your cameras on so we can verify your presence. Okay, I’ll note that Councillor Van Reibergen, Hillier, and Frank are online. Councillor McAllister is still absent. The Mayor and Councillor Layman’s not in chambers. Everyone else is here, we have quorum, we will proceed. For deferred miles, additional business.

[3:29:01] Looking for a motion to receive the communication from the VHA home health care and extreme clean program. Motion to receive by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Discussion? Seeing none online or in chambers, call on the question to receive that communication. For rare votes, yes. Councillor Layman, Mayor Morrigan, closing the vote, motion carries, 14 to zero.

[3:29:59] Thank you, motions were circulated during break. Looking to Councillor Stevenson, just told if you refresh E-Scribe, the amendments will come in. Business case P-46 was your intention to move first. I will note that all three have movers and seconders indicated. Councillor Layman, you’re still looking to be the seconder on this at the time. Thumbs up, Councillor Stevenson, you’re ready to put this on the floor of the, and then if you wanna read it out, and then if you want me the first speaker, we can certainly go from there.

[3:30:46] Thank you. I just wanna say too, it wasn’t my intention to hold on to them until now. I know one of them was sent Wednesday night, the others were this morning. But this one says that the Mayor’s 2025 annual budget update be amended by reducing 500,000 by 500,000, the additional annual contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund, included in 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget business case, P-46 economic and partnerships initiatives in the adopted 2024, 2027 multi-year budget. I don’t think I need to read through the rest of area.

[3:31:20] No, in each year’s the same reduction. I will start my speaker’s list. I will look to see if Councillor Stevenson would like to, if not, I just get first by refusal ‘cause you’re the mover. Yeah, ‘cause I’ll just say that this is just a way to reduce the tax levy by hopefully 0.1%. I don’t know if that’ll be pulled up, but it was just an effort to reduce the tax burden. Thank you. Just a staff, I believe 0.1 is 800,000, so it’s slightly less if you do. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair.

[3:31:55] So you are correct, 0.1, a full 0.1% is 800,000. However, with rounding, this amendment, if supported, would be enough to reduce the 2025 tax levy increase from 7.4% to 7.3% rounded. Thank you. Further speakers? If Councillor Brahman, thank you, I’m supportive. Anything else before calling the question? Yes, there is. Councillor Troso and then Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[3:32:29] Yes, if I could ask through the chair to staff, what is the actual effect on this? What is being reduced? Can’t tell back from this motion. Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. What is being reduced by this motion is the annual contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund. Before the lunch break, it was noted that for 2024, the contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund is $3.5 million.

[3:33:03] Based on the adopted multi-year budget, business case P46, included an increase in the annual contribution by a million dollars every year starting in 2025. So the contribution starting in 2025 is 4.5 million. So this amendment is proposing to reduce that annual contribution by $500,000. Councillor. And what are the, if you can, and I’m not asking you to speculate through the chair, what are the potential implications of this, if this goes through?

[3:33:41] Mr. Murray. Thank you, through the chair. The Economic Development Reserve Fund is intended broadly for initiatives that support economic development in the city. The implications of this would be a reduced amount of balance in the future to support any initiatives that may come forward that have that economic development relationship. Councillor. Just to assist my memory, and perhaps case anybody still watching the public, could you just give me two or three examples of projects that we’ve funded in the last year or so that have drawn on this account, just so we know what type of items we’re talking about?

[3:34:21] Mr. Murray. Thank you, through the chair. Examples in the past would include support that we’ve provided to Fanshawe College for the downtown campus. We’ve supported initiatives or requests for funding support from the Covent Garden Market in the past from this as well. Industrial land development has also drawn on this in the past as well. Councillor. I know that it’s inconsistent with good business practices, good budgeting practices through the chair to leave excessive amount of money in reserve accounts.

[3:35:00] In your opinion, and this is your opinion, is there an excessive amount of funds sitting in these accounts now? To staff, I’m not sure if you want to tie some of it back into Muni’s credit ratings or whatnot, but go ahead. Thank you through the chair. So the current balance, I can say Councillor is $3.2 million that does grow over the coming years to some extent. That would be outlined in the reserve fund section of your of your budget document.

[3:35:33] What I will say though, is that specific increased contribution that was included in P-46. Last year was tied specifically to the forthcoming economic development roadmap and any initiatives that may resolve from that. So that was the intention behind the increased contribution going forward. Councillor. Have any through the chair, have any of the agencies that work on economic development been given the opportunity to comment on this in terms of how it might impact their work? And you might also want to say which agencies those are.

[3:36:11] I’m realizing it’s the city’s economic development plan versus ABCs and a plan that’s forthcoming. I’m going to ask for you to rephrase that question. I’m not going to take it. Well, maybe the word agency with a capital A as an agency’s boards and commissions was the wrong way to phrase it. But what departments or other entities like LEDC, for example, would be would be working in this area.

[3:36:47] And I guess my question is where the interested parties ask to come and comment on this. And I guess I want to find out who the interested parties are. I think I can guess, but let’s make it explicit. Realizing LEDC is contracted by the city, looking to see Mr. Mathers, if you want to speak with that one specifically. Through the chair, just to provide the partners that we work with, so that is LEDC, learning development, corporation, tech alliance and the small business center.

[3:37:24] Councillor. Thank you. Have any of them been contacted about this proposed amendment? Through you, Madam Chair, no, they have not. This amendment was just recently circulated, so they would not have had the opportunity to comment. Also, this is the city’s reserve fund that has a balance. Though they would have been part of the discussion in the other plans and the plans forthcoming as they’re contracted. Councillor. In which case, unless any of the makers of this motion or seconder or anybody else can provide a rationale, I’m going to be voting no on this just because I don’t understand why this has come to us at the very end of the budget process.

[3:38:10] Councillor, I’m gonna flag that respectfully, Councillor Stevenson did note that it was, and I will verify it was sent to the committee email address. It had missed the added deadline. It did not get circulated. I will highlight for any colleagues that Councillors and chairs don’t have access to those email addresses, and specific instructions do need to come in with it to circulate, but it was in, it came with a seconder, it was circulated. So respectfully, I know the hour grows long, but it was in and procedurally, this is in order.

[3:38:46] In which case, albeit the fact that it’s procedurally within, in order, I haven’t seen it until just now. And I don’t think many of my colleagues, well, I’ll just speak for myself. I haven’t seen it until just now. And I really would like to have the opportunity of asking some questions to groups like, and I know they’re contractors, but they’re still a very important part of a economic development strategy. And I guess I’ll be voting no on this, but what I’d like to know, is it necessary to do it for 2026, 2027?

[3:39:28] And also, if we don’t do this now, can we come back off budget and make this further reduction? Or does it have to come at this time? Procedural questions, Mr. Murray, about when opportunities to bring this forward are, as everything’s always up to the council’s instructions, and nothing does or does not have to be done. Through you, Madam Chair. This is the 2025 budget process. If there’s a desire to impact the 2025 budget and the 2025 tax levy, this is the time to make that change. If council wish to defer the decision on this and reconsider it as part of the, say, the 2026 annual update or the 2027 annual update, there would be an opportunity to do so at that point in time.

[3:40:16] Councilor Trussa. So may I ask the question then, is there any exingency? Is there any reason why we have to have the 2026 and 2027 portion of this now? I would say no, the motion mover and seconder wondered it in there now. So that’s what’s on the floor, move by council. That’s what it is. Okay, well then, based on the information that I have, I don’t feel as if I have a lot of options based on the information that I have other than to vote no on this, which is what I’ll do.

[3:40:52] Thank you. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next and then Mayor Morgan. Thank you, so I’ve heard it said in multiple times in multiple budget cycles that reserve funds are one of the levers we have. Like a gas pedal, you can take your foot off or put your foot on the rate of contributions to adjust to economic conditions. So I’m generally supportive of recognizing right now, we have a high tax rate and taking our foot off the gas on the economic reserve fund contributions to me is a fair way to do that.

[3:41:23] However, through you, Chair, do you have a couple of very specific questions? Earlier, well, in the mayor’s table budget, we have another reduction to offset the film London expense, which I’m supportive of, and I think film London’s done a great job. Factoring in what we’re taking out for film London, if this were to pass, can our finance team provide us with the projected balances for 2025, 2026 and 2027, recognizing that those are projections and that they could change, but can you provide us what the projected balances would be unallocated balances?

[3:42:14] Would staff need a moment with that? Okay, so the staff is gonna need a moment. Is your second question along the same lines or to different people? Well, the second question, and maybe this one doesn’t require as much time, but what is our target balance for this reserve fund? What is our recommended target balance? Okay, Mr. Murray. The target balance on that reserve fund is approximately $22 million. Deputy Mayor.

[3:42:48] Okay, so I just need to hear the projections then, because that may— Yeah, I think they’re ready, Mr. Murray. Thank you, 33, Madam Chair. The projected balances are $2.7 million for 2025, $5.3 million for 2026 and $7.9 million for 2027. And you said the target balance was 22 million that we’re trying to get to? Correct. Okay, numbers are in line, Deputy Mayor. Okay, so that looks very like we’re trending in the right direction, even with this reduction.

[3:43:24] We’re trending back up towards our target. I know in the past term of council during COVID, there was also changes made to adapt to some things, and there were some draw downs there. I don’t need to rehash all of that. I know we changed an amount earlier with respect to the source of funding for one of the downtown proposals that Councilor Ferreira had brought forward. With that factored in, and I am going somewhere with this Madam Chair, so it is relevant with that factored in, can staff provide me with the unallocated balance for the Community Investment Reserve Fund just for 2025 after the amendment we had earlier?

[3:44:18] I’ll last half a moment. Through you Madam Chair, the balance is approximately 3 million for 2025. Deputy Mayor. Okay, so with that, I will say my primary concern with this is that the balance for 2025 dips below three. And so I think, and I don’t know if the finance team will tell me this is in order or not, so bear with me, Madam Chair, but I think I would like to top up because we’re gonna reduce the overall annual contributions.

[3:44:54] I think I’d like to make a one-time top up to the Economic Development Reserve Fund. If we’ve got three million in community investment, I would like to suggest that perhaps an amendment that we transfer as a one-time top up to economic development, one million dollars from the balance of the Community Investment Reserve Fund, which would still leave two million there, and bring that to 2025 target value back up over the three million, approaching the four million mark. And I recognize that that’s one time, but hearing how the number trends up over time, I just don’t wanna leave us short of being able to capitalize on an economic opportunity.

[3:45:34] So I’m asking a pause there. I’m looking to see how that would be. I understand where you’re trying to go, take from one stick in the other, but that doesn’t, I’m having problems of how that would be an amendment to this as it sounds like a separate issue to come through SBPC or another committee. So— Wonder where you’re trying to get? Just, it’s not changing the way that’s on the floor. Well, it is, I’m going to, I was getting to that, as I said, bear with me while I get to it.

[3:46:08] For me, it’s, I am supportive of this, but I need to feel comfortable with the 2025 balance in the community or in the active reserve fund. So that’s why I’d like to add an amendment that the annual allocations reduction be partially offset by a one time top up from the community investment reserve. And so I’d like to add that as an amendment. Mayor Morgan might have some wording suggestion.

[3:46:47] I will take some leeway. I suggest it’s only because I’ve served as budget chair for many years and also served on the corporate services committee. I understand that the chair and I would agree with her, it’s not really related to this particular piece. It sounds like what you actually want to do is fund the first two years of this with the community investment reserve fund, which would be a million dollars. And then start the drawdown on the, so you basically could just backfill it for the first two years with this.

[3:47:19] You can’t do it that way because you want to hit, you want to take the hit in 2025 downward, right? All right, then it is, I agree with the chair, it’s kind of tricky to word because essentially you want the, if you want the reduction in 2025, you got to actually take it off the fund and then you could basically just top up the reserve fund at any time with community investment reserve fund. Mr. Murray or Ms. Barbara? Thank you through the chair. Our suggestion, if the deputy mayor is interested in doing this would be to simply add to the end of the wording that is currently as part of this motion to the effect that civic and civic administration be directed to transfer one million dollars from the community investment reserve fund to the economic development reserve fund on a one-time basis.

[3:48:11] Done, sold, I like that wording. That’s what I want to amend the motion to read. Okay, clerks are trying to clerk this verbiage at this point, is there, there’s a fight for seconders. Okay, I’ll just keep Councillor Stevenson ‘cause it was the original motion out of respect. If you hit refresh, I’ll look to finance first to make sure that the words appear and that maybe not.

[3:49:07] I’ll also look for finance first. So go ahead when you, with the yay, nay or suggestions. Through you Madam Chair, the only suggestion would be perhaps to add in 2025 after economic development reserve fund. Mover’s fine, seconder, nods. Okay, the amendment to the main motion is on the floor. Deputy Mayor was speaking at the time.

[3:49:42] Yeah, and I, but now it’s new list. So I will still recognize the mayor after this, but it’s new list, but please, everyone just still keep your comments short ‘cause you were very clear before break that you were done and some speakers are already at three minutes. So Deputy Mayor. I really don’t have anything more to add. I’ve already sort of provided my rationale. I just want to keep that economic development reserve. In that three, three and a half million dollar range for 2025 so that there’s opportunity and room for things that come up. So that’s all I’m going to say. Madam Morgan.

[3:50:15] Yeah, so I was not keen on the original version of this motion. I’m a little better with it given the top up to the act of reserve fund. I want to explain why I would support this amendment and it probably covers off my main motion comments too ‘cause it’s related. The economic development reserve fund, when I tabled the multi-year budget, the intent was to actually start to increase the allocations going into it because we have two outstanding plans that will come forward that we’re going to need funding for.

[3:50:48] One is the economic development plan that is under, that is going forward. And then the downtown master plan which will probably have some components of it from an economic development nature. This may be a good source for that. So any investments in the core from an economic development perspective or related to our economic development plan is going to need a source of funding unless we’re going to raise taxes to do that. And so the idea was let’s start to build up some capacity within these funds. That’s why the original multi-year budget table balance was 1.5 million. Council reduced that through the last year’s discussions to 1 million.

[3:51:20] Reducing it further is still a net new increase of a half a million dollars. But with the top up, it kind of gives us a bit of a head start on some of that runway. I will say once we know those plans, colleagues should not be surprised that we will probably be in a situation to say, do we want to do less? Do we want to add more to the fund on an ongoing basis? ‘Cause I anticipate any programs that we come up with, there may be some ongoing costs too. But it is 100% true that these funds need to be, the inflows into these funds can be adjusted over time as long as we’re not creating an instability and our ability to achieve our goals.

[3:51:58] And as long as we’re still tracking towards targeted balances, which are there for a purpose, I can be comfortable with the changes if a majority of council wants to go that way. So I think given this change, if it passes, I’ll support the overall piece. But I won’t hesitate in future multi-year budgets. If I feel like we can’t achieve our goals for council’s initiatives under economic development or core revitalization or downtown, whatever we’re gonna end up calling it, then you may see a budget amendment to restore this in the future. But for now, I think it’s appropriate because it gives us a couple of years of runway with the Community Investment Reserve Fund, and it allows us to provide some tax relief, which I know people are looking for.

[3:52:38] So I’ll support this in the main. Councillor Perot. Thank you, completely, I agree with what Mary just said, and there was actually a reason also why I didn’t want to support one of the downtown initiatives. I was the deputamator until the deputamator made a change to funding. In addition, what I want to say is that if I really look at our areas of focus, this is the only one that we actually can generate truly revenue, and I honestly hope that besides the two plants that the mayor stated, I hope we already come up very, very soon with our economic growth strategy, and we are gonna be very aggressive, and we are actually be spending this money in a very smart way that our return on investment increases, but as I said, if I look at our areas of focus, this is the only one that we can really be what I call the aggressive tigers and go after it, and to become an economic center in southwestern Ontario, Ontario, Canada, and the world.

[3:53:40] Thank you. Councillor Ferra, I believe you were indicated at one point. Are you looking to speak to this? Yes, go ahead. Yes, can you hear me? We can. Okay, well, I wasn’t gonna support the main motion, but with the amendments, it’s a little more, I can easily support it now. And I was just gonna say, we have unknown impacts, and if we don’t have all the information of where, or what kind of areas that we would be using, the economic development reserve fund, if we don’t know what those areas are, I would just be a little risky on that.

[3:54:20] So the way the motion is crafted now, as long as we don’t lose that, we don’t lose that funding, especially for unknown things that could come up. And also, I did hear, I think it was a mirror, or maybe even the treasurer speak about the economic development roadmap. That too is something big that we need to make sure we have funding for. So I will support the amendment as it is right now. And if that passes, I will be supporting it, the motion as amended. Councillor Trauss, how? I can certainly support the amendment. With respect to 2025, the clarity I’m looking for here is, could you confirm that this doesn’t do anything for the 2026 or 2027 numbers?

[3:55:05] And this is just for 2025. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair, just for complete clarity. What is proposed here is a permanent ongoing reduction in the contributions, the annual contributions to the economic development reserve fund. So instead of the planned contributions of $4.5 million per year, starting in 2025, the new contributions would be $4 million per year now. With the additional amendment here, there will be an additional backfill on a one-time basis of a million dollars, but going forward instead of $4.5 million annual contribution, it would be $4 million per year going in.

[3:55:48] Councillor? Yes, so that creates more confusion in my mind because the motion says transfer $1 million, it doesn’t say transfer $1 million every year. And if you fix that, I’ll drop my, well, if you fix that, I’d be happy. Deputy Mayor, is the mover? Yeah, just for clarification, the transfer is a one-time 2025-only transfer. It’s the annual contributions that decrease every year, but the backfill transfer is a one-time this year only. So well, I’ll be asking for, well, we’re not on the main motion, so I won’t get to that.

[3:56:30] I’ll support this amendment with respect to what you’re doing, but it doesn’t, based on what I just heard, it doesn’t solve all my problems, but it solves some of them. So thank you at least for part of that. Hey, I have no further speakers to doing on the amendment before we go back to the main motion. Chair, I do have one question. Yes. Thank you. I did have one question before I go back regarding, I know that we have things coming out of the Community Investment Reserve Fund that are kind of triggered at the end of the year.

[3:57:05] I’m just wondering, does this money come out at the beginning or the end? Because I know we’ve tied, I believe it was some of the community grant money to being like, you can have it if there’s a million dollars left at the end of the year. So I’m just wondering when this money comes out. Mr. Murray? Through you, Madam Chair. So the one time transfer in 2025 would happen very early. In 2025, what that would mean is that would bring down the balance in the Community Investment Reserve Fund in 2025 to approximately $2 million. What I will also flag for committee is that that reserve fund, the balance is on somewhat of a downward trajectory.

[3:57:44] So by the time we get to 2027, the remaining balance in that reserve fund is currently at approximately 1.1 million. I will also remind committee that the Community Grants Program or the revised program of $250,000 per year is contingent upon the Community Investment Reserve Fund having at least a million dollars balance as of the end of the previous year. So as we trend later in this multi-year budget period, we are getting closer to that million dollar threshold.

[3:58:21] Councilor, thank you. And through the chair, I just, I forget, is that the only thing that is contingent, the community grants or are there any other funds that we’ve allocated to the Community Investment Reserve Fund that have that million dollar trigger? Mr. Murray? To my knowledge, that is the only item that is contingent that is impacting the Community Investment Reserve Fund. Thank you. I suppose that if we, again, at the end of next year then, see that the Community Investment Reserve Fund might be below a million, we could top it up by shuffling some money around from a different reserve fund.

[3:58:58] So I’m okay with this for now. And if that comes to pass, I will later on try to resolve it. But for now, this is fine. Thank you. I would like to make a comment if Councilor Layman could take the chair. I’ll take chair and I’ll go to the budget chair, Plaza. Thank you. I’m a no on this one. I’m going to be a no on the main as well. Finance is amazing. Keeping track in whatever magic spreadsheet and programs, they have of what reserve fund we’re taking money and I would have to put into a different pocket to redirect to another pocket.

[3:59:32] As I would say, if colleagues, another reserve funds, another up to our discretion, but if we’re just going to essentially keep defunding Community Investment pieces, I would suggest perhaps we just eliminate that fund altogether ‘cause it seems to be used for backfilling of everything. And I’m not sure if it’s some colleagues’ intention or not that when the S wording is now written that if it falls below a certain amount, it stops other things that we had written into verbiage of if it falls behind this, we can’t do this.

[4:00:10] So I’m not sure if some are intentionally trying to defund programs we’ve decided to find by eliminating balances or redirecting balances and reserve funds. But it’s going to be a complicated conversation that I think is just going to get worse than we’ve already seen that today with Councillor Frank’s questions as we move forward. So I appreciate trying to lower the tax rate, but quite concerned that we just, we’re now into one reserve fund and backing up within different reserve funds. And that’s why for public clarity and process amongst our own, I’m not okay with this.

[4:00:47] I’ll return the chair to the budget chair noting that Councillor Hopkins is on the speaker’s list. Perfect, ‘cause she was next on my list too. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I really do appreciate your comments there because I’m finding this is just a creative accounting somehow. And I appreciate the Councillor trying to reduce the tax levy. I appreciate the amendment from the deputy mayor. I appreciate all that we’re trying to do here. It boils down to we’ve also made some decisions here through this budgets process that have implicated this fund, the Community Fund, the Economic Development Fund for something that we didn’t wanna touch.

[4:01:38] And I can see the support there and the need, but I really don’t think we know what we’re doing is we’re mixing and moving numbers, especially when I hear from staff that when we move these numbers around, there is a consequence to that. And I do not know what that is right now. And so I won’t be supporting it. Thank you. I thought I saw a hand on this side of the room. Maybe not. Nobody online, known to the left, known to the right. Call on the question. And this is on the that Deputy Mayor Lewis had put forward.

[4:02:23] Closing the vote, motion passes, 10 to 4, okay. On the floor is the main motion. As amended, I think we’ve already had robust discussion. Both ways, looking to see if there’s any final comments before calling the question. Councillor Trafsell. I don’t wanna prolong this discussion with another amendment, but I’m wondering if there might be any point in removing 2026 and 2027 in terms of making this a little clearer. If there’s not a taste for that finalist vote, no one the whole thing.

[4:03:02] But I’m just wondering, I’m just trying to guess. That would be an amendment by you. Would you like me to see if there’s a second or what you just said? Chair, I would second that. So just, I’ll hold a pause here as I think the Councillor was partly through with moving on with statements that you can vote. Sorry, Corinna. No one the whole thing.

[4:03:35] Or. I feel like you are. Okay, time out, your mic’s on, Councillor. I know, but I just don’t appreciate being left. The Councillor, for those who can’t see it, I think a point of personal privilege has been called. Someone felt that someone was laughing at something. They said a Councillor behind the scenes that it wasn’t at them. If you wanna comment, it could be at a multitude of things. If you would like to provide clarity or just say you weren’t.

[4:04:08] So right, I’ll withdraw. Okay, so the point of personal privilege had been dealt with. Yes, I will move the 20. Come out, it’s been seconded, so they’re right. Okay, so there’s amendment on the floor again to the already amended May motion that is removing the 2026 and 2027 lines. You’d saw that process. Earlier done today, the clerks are just clerking. The mover and seconder would like to refresh.

[4:05:11] It should be. Could I just make a point of order? Yep. For the chair’s consideration. The intent of this motion specifically worded to reduce the annual contribution, which means when the annual contribution is reduced in 2025, staff have to have it carry forward and show in future years because that annual contribution is recognized in each and every year of the budget. So this would fundamentally change this to a one time reduction down in 2025 and a tax increase in 2026, which I would ask the chair if she wants to assess whether that’s contrary to the intent of the motion or not.

[4:05:58] I would deem the mayor’s point of order to be accurate that the verbiage provided in the preamble does say annual and the counselor’s motion on the floor would make it a one time. Yes, yes. I will say that you could, you’ve seen the 10-4 vote, but a person could still move to defeat this and if it is defeated, then put on the alternate motion on what you’re thinking would be the way forward.

[4:06:41] Is anyone challenging me that it’s not in order before it’s removed from the system and we go back to the main motion as amended? Okay, I don’t see a challenge by them. Okay, that’s okay, I just, I don’t want to look for actual challenges, but before it’s deleted, okay, so we’re back to the main motion as amended. There’s, so if you would like to put something alternate on the floor, you would have to defeat this, looking to see if there’s further speakers before on the question on this one, the main motion, Councilor Pribble.

[4:07:20] Thank you, quick question through the chair to the staff. So we are decreasing it from four and a half to four million over next three years, one million coming transferring, so it would be minus half a million. And then what happens during the next multi-air budget? Is this going to be revisited or is it going to be automatically going staying at the four million level? Thank you. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So as part of the development of every multi-year budget, we reassess at that point in time the reserve fund contributions in the context of the target balances of those respective reserve funds.

[4:07:57] And so we would make the determination at that point in time as to what the appropriate contribution would be going forward. Councilor? Thank you, no more questions. But Mayor Morin. Yes, I’ll just make a quick clarification for colleagues. This multi-year budget will, even with this amendment, be a net increase of a half a million dollars in the contributions to the economic development reserve funds. So remember, this budget actually increased it by one million. So this is just reducing the increase. But for colleagues who think, we’re not actually, we’re still net increasing the amount that we’re putting into the economic development reserve fund through this four year multi-year budget with this, even with this motion passed.

[4:08:40] Further comments? Seeing none online? Seeing none? Chair, I do have— Councilor Ferra. Okay, so looking at the motion. So we’re not on that amended motion that Councilor Troso and I put on. We’re on the main motion now. The main motion as amended, yes. Okay, ‘cause I was gonna suggest, ‘cause I understand from the comments from the amendment, I just wanted, I didn’t get a chance to speak there, but I just wanted to know, I see that it says an annual contribution. Is there a way that we could change that to one time?

[4:09:16] The clerk’s advice procedurally in order to defeat this and then an alternate could be put forward should someone want to, or it’s just dealt with and we move forward. And that’s to the amendment that Councilor Troso and I have. Any further questions or comments before we call the question?

[4:09:50] Okay, call on the question. So, Ferra, closing the vote. Motion carries, 11 to three. Thank you. Councilor Stephen Hanson, there is another motion. This is, you as a mover, Councilor Perbal, if you want to read it out.

[4:10:36] Yes, and thank you to colleagues, the 0.1% down is great. This motion says that the Mayors 2025 Annual Budget Update be amended to remove the future capital budgets for the Rapid Transit East London Link Project from the 2025 and 2026 capital budgets. It being noted that the capital funding for this project primarily includes federal and provincial PTIS and development charges supported funding. Councilor Perbal, you’re the seconder. That’s a nod.

[4:11:09] I will start by going to staff just to understand as I know some of this contains provincial money, federal money, municipal money, and some contracts have already been issued of your feedback on this. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can certainly start and my colleagues in finance can provide some additional information. So the RT projects are funded as a network of dedicated bus lanes. And based on our funding agreements, we believe that we would have to repay claims of works to date because we are not completing the projects as per the agreements. There are two projects that are not committed on the East London Link that is four, which is Oxford Fanshawe College, sorry, Oxford to Fanshawe College.

[4:11:51] That is out to tender, but it has not closed. And then three A East, which is along Dundas, and that is McCormick to the hybrid intersection, which has not been tendered. I will note that there would be a requirement for us to do any additional outstanding work to clean up those projects at fully city cost. And we’re also in a position where the fairly significant upgrades to underground infrastructure along these routes would not proceed. This would include the major sewer upgrades on Dundas, which are needed for life cycle renewal purposes, as well as to support infill development, including some of the councilor.

[4:12:25] My apologies, and my apologies to everybody. I did not take a look at this wording when it came. This was not my intention at all. My intention was to take away the annual tax levy impact. In business case, P3, the East London Link were labor expenses, vehicle maintenance costs, energy costs, and line maintenance and platform costs. And that is on page 367 of the multi budget. So my apologies. So what’s moved and seconded is, and you’ve, this was the wording, is not your wording or intention?

[4:13:00] No. So, okay. So to dispose of this item, that’s not the intended intent. You would have to ask for us to withdraw it. I would look to see if anyone has an objection with you withdrawing it, ‘cause it— Okay.

[4:13:36] Or we vote. May I speak to this? And I apologize for the interruption, but can I— Is this the motion that’s currently been moved? Is this what you want us to vote on in state? ‘Cause if debate starts, I’m gonna have to go through all the debate, we vote it down, and then we move into— I’m gonna say yes, because I may just use this even though it wasn’t my intention, okay? If I can just speak to it. So yes, is we’re gonna proceed that this— We’re gonna proceed. Okay. When you’re looking to speak, you did call a point of order that it wasn’t to be what it is. So staff is in the middle of giving, so I will return to staff as, and just a little to your seconder, you’re still fine being the seconder?

[4:14:19] Okay, so I’ll return to Ms. Chair, who’s in the middle of speaking, so please proceed. Thank you Madam Chair, I’ll try to be concise and just summarize where I was. So we do have commitments with respect to the funding agreements, and we believe that those commitments under the agreements would require repayment of amounts claim to date. The other piece that is of concern for us is we would not be providing an operational system, we would not have contiguous sections between the work that’s currently tendered without particularly the Dundas project proceeding. And these projects are upgrading major underground infrastructure, much of which is quite old, and much of which requires upgrades to support infill projects along these corridors.

[4:14:56] So proposals for development along these corridors would likely not be able to proceed unless we independently proceed with sewer upgrades, particularly along Dundas. So my advice would be that we only have two projects left, one is currently out to tender, the other one is next year, and this work is needed as per our agreements with the province and feds and the growth of our city. Okay, and I saw, I believe, finance had indicated, nope, okay. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, colleagues, and I appreciate your patience on this one.

[4:15:31] I’m bringing forward a piece of the East London bus rapid transit in order to have the discussion around the financing. So I gave everybody a copy of the debt table that’s in the 2025 budget update, and in it, you can see that in the bottom section, the total tax supported debt in 2024 is 121,828,000. By the time we pass this to the next council, it is projected to be 395,395,000, and by 2023, it’s 800,879,000.

[4:16:15] And then in the top section, it’s debt servicing, so this impacts the tax levy. Total supported amount is 27 million currently. By the time we hand this to the next council, it’s projected to be 66 million per year in debt servicing, and at the end of 2033, it’s projected to be 144 million per year in debt servicing. So going from 27 million to 144 million per year, and we know that 8 million is 1%. So in our multi-year budget, we approved a bunch of capital projects with a very large expenses.

[4:16:57] 200 million was, 205 million was the training center, 247 million. Our council are specifically to the east London. Okay, sorry. So 247 million for the bus rapid transit, and that was gonna be debt financing that we are taking on, and we just never talked about it. But I feel the accountant in me seeing this table has to bring up to this council to debate or, and be sure, I just need awareness around the impact of taking on this level of debt and what it’s gonna do to future budgets.

[4:17:36] And so I was using this motion. I’ve been voting against the bus rapid transit since I was elected, but we haven’t actually debated it. So as much as I would like to do what I intended, which was discussed taking out the operating expenses for the bus rapid transit rather than the capital, I wasn’t sure that there was actually the will of council to do that. So I don’t wanna spend a lot of staff’s time creating a whole ‘nother motion when really my intention was to bring awareness to this council, the debt and the debt impact on future budgets, but from this bus rapid transit debt.

[4:18:16] So we are talking about, even in 2026, there’s an additional $15 million, sorry, an additional $16 million a year in debt servicing. So I’m just gonna introduce it that way, whether we’re talking about capital or operating on the bus rapid transit, my bigger point was around what I distributed in terms of the impacts on future council, and I don’t want it to land on them and have them say this council didn’t even discuss it. So that’s what I’m putting forward.

[4:18:52] So councilor, just, yeah. So your comments seem to be more around debt financing versus the actual project itself that states capital and you’d mentioned operational in your general comments. I will tie it in. So this one says capital expenditures in 2026 of 400, 325,000 and 975,000 next year. So in 2025, we’re spending an extra 975,000 in 2026 we’re spending 4,325 and it is being debt financed to which we are handing to future councils and to future taxpayers.

[4:19:34] Mayor Morgan. Yeah, so I’ll speak to the motion on the floor. So I’m absolutely against the motion on the floor as was identified by the deputy city manager. This would lead to us being in a situation where we would be out of alignment with contracts and commitments for federal and provincial funding. It would lead to a discontinuous transit system where we have parts of a line completed and no parts completed in the middle. It would lead to the cancellation of necessary and underground sewer work.

[4:20:10] It would lead to, so if we canceled contracts to meet the obligations here, still beyond the hook for repairing and changing the laneways that have not been completed yet. And to me, and this is my opinion only, it would make zero sense for anybody to think that this is something that we should do because we affect your perspective of what people might want to debate. The motion on the floor is not functional from a municipal perspective if we’re going to actually meet our commitments and finish and already committed to transit line.

[4:20:46] We have had discussions about the increasing costs when those were put in the multi-year budget. We can continue to have those discussions, but to table a motion that essentially would cause the impacts that would be caused by passing this. I honestly don’t think we should even consider, well, councilor’s going to debate if they want. I won’t be saying anything else. I’ll be voting this down. Thank you, and as the mayor said, you’re always welcome not to speak to and just vote it down. If you’re for experience, you have time.

[4:21:22] I have Councillor Francon line and then I’ll recognize Deputy Mayor Lewis if people still want us to be. Yes, I’ll be voting against this. And if the desire was to make us aware of this spending, I’d encourage an email next time. Thank you. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, so I will likewise be voting against it for the reasons the mayor outlined. I will say, well, I will say I do appreciate the concern about the forecasted levels of debt we’re carrying, but I think that that’s also reflective of some major capital works that we’re undertaking, that the city hasn’t undertaken in quite a number of years, and so in many ways we’re behind on those.

[4:22:07] I will say though, that if the annual debt servicing costs and the forecasted debt levels are of a concern, I would suggest that an appropriate place to move that discussion to be a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee, where perhaps a review of the surplus policy might consider the merit of increasing the surplus allocation to debt financing from a 50% level to perhaps a 60% level from the annual surpluses, and that may be a better way of chipping away at that forecast debt in the future.

[4:22:40] So I will be voting against that, but should emotion come forward on surplus allocation and debt financing, I would be very interested in having that discussion. Which is in a discussion for today, just to be clear before someone starts crafting something. Councilor Ferra. Thanks, Chair, yeah, I will be voting against this too. I didn’t see the table that was distributed and I just got the, you know, minutes ago, right before we are right into when we went into break. Councilor Ferra, just please keep your comments to not when you saw it, but what’s on the table, please?

[4:23:16] Yeah, well, we just need more information on stuff like this, and I did hear the mover said that this motion wasn’t the intent of her motion. So with the comments that I heard from the Mayor and other Councillors, I would not be supporting this either. Okay, further speakers online, I have none, further in chambers, I’m not seeing any, calling the question. Servant closing the vote, motion fails, two to 12.

[4:24:05] I’ve been motion to reconsider, someone misvoted. Okay, so move, reconsideration has been moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Hawkins, we’re just gonna have to reopen that, someone misvoted. Oh, sorry, first it’s the motion to reconsider, and then it’s gonna be the motion again. So first is the motion to reconsider, simple majority. This is just a motion to reconsider the last vote, is the colleague had misvoted, I’d like to correct it for the record, that vote is opening in the e-scribe.

[4:25:23] Closing the vote, motion carries, 14 to zero. So we’re gonna, that vote is reopening, as we’re reconsidering it, ‘cause someone misvoted, you have to cast your vote again. Closing the vote, motion carries, one to third, sorry, motion fails, one to 13.

[4:26:12] Okay, that disposes that item, aware of one more, would you like to move it, or this is also a Councillor Stevenson, Councillor, are you, Councillor Pribble’s still the seconder? You were given the verbiage at lunch, it is in the system, and I see just to put it up. Okay, so if you refresh your e-scribes, it’ll be on the screen in e-scribe. I’ll just give a minute to make sure that the wording is right, then I’ll ask the Councillor to read it out, and then I can start a speaker’s list, or go to staff for information.

[4:26:51] Thank you all, read it out, and then if I could speak to it first, that’d be great. That the Mayors 2025 annual budget update be amended, to include a drawdown from the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund, notwithstanding the Council approved by-law, that directs the fund to provide for employee benefits payable, excluding WSIB claims in excess of 250,000, landfill closure and post-closure liabilities, and other liabilities for which there is no identified source of financing, as reported in the annual consolidated financial statements. In order to reduce the property tax levy in 2025, it being noted that the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund has a minimum target balance of 266.3 million, and its 2025 uncommitted balance is approximately 175.0 million, and it said 2025 tax levy reduction of 16,000, 255,000.

[4:27:45] Hey, I’ll start my speaker’s list with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, colleagues. I wanted to bring this motion forward in an effort to reduce the tax levy. So this 16,255,000 would result in a 2% decrease, reducing it down from 7.3 to 5.3, and part of what has prompted me to do this, in addition to wanting to relieve the tax burden, is the increase in the transfers to reserve funds.

[4:28:21] So in the multi-year budget, 20 to 2023, the annual transfers to reserve funds was 66 million to 71 million, and in the 24 to 27 multi-year budget, the annual transfers are 171 million to 190 million. So we’re looking at about $100 million a year, more going into the reserve funds. So, and in addition, if you look at those multi-year budgets, the projected Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund was, has increased dramatically from what was expected four years ago to now.

[4:29:01] So maybe to staff, if they could, I’ve got some questions regarding why those large changes. Mr. Murray, why the large changes? Or if there’s ramifications, I’m not having those large changes, so why they’re there? Thank you, through the chair. I need to clarify the figures that the counselor has cited. The figures themselves, the numbers themselves are accurate. However, the figures that the counselor is referencing for 2024 to 2027, the much larger figures reflect the total of property tax, water and wastewater contributions to reserve funds.

[4:29:43] The figures that were cited for 2020 through 2023 are the property tax budget supported figures only. So not an apples-to-apples comparison, if you will, of the figures between the two budgets. Okay, thank you. It isn’t delineated in the multi-year budget. The line numbers are the same, but I appreciate the clarity there. So ideally, what I would like to say is we’ll find the 2% somewhere, as counselors mentioned yesterday, look for those nice to have.

[4:30:20] Staff has already done the service reviews to ensure that we’re as efficient as possible in what we are doing. But maybe this council has an opportunity to take a look at what previous council directions were, and maybe they’re not considered need to have now that we’re looking at the property tax increases that we’re looking at. And given that I’ve provided the graphs on the increases that we are going to be facing in the very near future, I think it behooves me to move a motion that says we’re gonna take the 16 million from a reserve fund and then we will do the work necessary next year to try to find the service programs that we can stop or find those savings so that we can prepare for the future to ensure that we’re doing the best that we can for taxpayers.

[4:31:11] So knowing that we don’t have the time to look at the cost savings now, I’m suggesting that we take it from the reserve fund and then make those efforts next year to bring the expenditures down. Thank you. I was gonna go to finance as a few comments were made about just the implication of this decision making and saving taxpayers money. And I’m not sure if this would potentially affect our AAA credit rating. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[4:31:48] I’ll draw some caution for a committee on a few different fronts with this particular motion. The first being that it is a one-time reduction, a one-time draw from reserves for 2025 only. So while that would provide relief in the amount of approximately 2% or 2% exactly in 2025, you would see a corresponding pressure in 2026, assuming other reductions weren’t identified at that point in time.

[4:32:23] So it is a one-time reduction only. I will also note that this is a fairly significant draw from our unfunded liability reserve fund. And I’ve mentioned many times before that when we meet with Moody’s every year, the two primary factors that they look at or two of the more primary factors that they look at are the amount of debt that we’re carrying and projected to have and our reserves and reserve fund balances and our liquid resources that we have at our disposal as well.

[4:33:01] And as was mentioned, we certainly are projecting debt to increase and Moody’s is aware of that and has not expressed concern about our credit rating being in jeopardy just based on that alone. I would be concerned however that if they see a material reduction or at least a trend in that direction in our reserve funds, they may express concern about that in combination with the increase in debt. So I would just provide those cautions to committees you’re considering this amendment.

[4:33:40] Thank you and I do believe that they monitor meetings and procedures throughout the year. I stand out from the Ms. Burbell. My next speaker on the list was Mayor Morgan. Yes, I’ll provide some comments on this. I’ll be speaking to both our colleagues as well as our those who do our credit rating who I know I’ve actively met with and I know watch our budget debates closely. I will tell you I am absolutely and fundamentally against this motion. Not only do the benefits only occur in 2025 and then basically just kicks a tax increase to 2026, but a reduction in the unfunded liability fund first off.

[4:34:20] These are unfunded known liabilities. These are not things we can change by policy. They’re not things we can get out of. There are costs that the municipality will incur and we have to fund them. If we don’t fund them today, we’ve got to fund them eventually. We only have limited number of sources where we actually put money into unfunded liability. In fact, I think there’s only one and that’s through the surplus deficit policy. So we tackle off this unfunded must be paid liability through the slow accumulation of additional funds through surplus deficit policy to make a substantial reduction from it.

[4:34:57] Even on a one time basis, in my opinion, is going to be looked at very negatively by our credit rating agency. And all you have to do to know that is look at the most recent report that they produced. Our credit strengths, high levels of cash and investments, strong liquidity. By doing this, it reduces our liquidity, our access to available money if we need to do it for short-term borrowing. Low debt levels supported by conservative debt management policies, mature institutional framework governing the municipality, are credit risks. The factors that could lead to a downgrade.

[4:35:30] There’s one, downward pressure could arise if the city were to experience a sustained loss in fiscal discipline leading to a material increase in debt or substantial reduction in accessible financial reserves. The reason why Moody’s is comfortable with the amount of debt that’s increasing is because it is under a specific plan over a period of time with contributions to reserve funds that we know give us the liquidity through that debt process to actually manage through the fiscal situation. They are comfortable with the financial policies and planning of this council.

[4:36:05] Unless we stray from it, which in my opinion, this motion would absolutely do. Like taking for a one-time tax benefit, money from a reserve fund that we know we absolutely have to pay, and there’s only one source to fill that up, it would be a very strong deviation from the fiscal discipline that this council and multiple councils before us have engaged in over multiple periods of time that has led to a sustained AAA credit rating. And why do we care about that credit rating? Because as was just discussed, we got a whole bunch of debt that’s in our plan.

[4:36:41] And guess what makes that debt cheaper? A AAA credit rating where our debt subscriptions, our debentures are fully subscribed and we get great rates. This one time benefit in 2025 will cost us way more in the long run if our credit rating gets downgraded for all of that debt that we’re gonna accumulate. We’re gonna pay more for it. We’re probably gonna have less competitors for that municipal debt because of the rating downgrade. And it will put us in a worse fiscal situation of all of the things that we could debate in the budget process. This is probably the last one that we should consider because we cannot stray from strong fiscal management policies that councils before us have set the stage on.

[4:37:21] Multiple treasurers, multiple deputy city managers have helped us steward through a strong process of ensuring that we manage significant debt when we have it with robust reserve fund contributions that give us liquidity, which is exceptionally important through challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic. Guess what? London did not have a credit rating downgrade through that because we had reserve funds that gave us liquidity to be able to manage a temporary situation and reducing reserve funds substantially like this on a one-time basis for a one-time benefit in a one-time tax year is not a responsible decision, is not a riskily responsible decision in my opinion.

[4:38:06] So I will absolutely oppose this and I encourage every counselor, even the movers and seconders to oppose this and show our credit rating agency that we will not even go down this path. Thank you, Councilor Ferris, next to the speakers list. Yeah, well, I think the risks in the last comments were pretty highlighted, pretty strongly there. I’m a no on this one as well. And I hear from staff, you know, the figures that produce the motion don’t align with staff figures. This is gonna hurt our credit rating, this moves pressures to follow in years.

[4:38:40] So to keep it concise, I agree with the previous comments and I will not be supporting this. Thank you, Councilor Pribble. Thank you. And I do agree with the comments that Mayor said. The only thing is there would have to be a really commitment from the Council and the senior leadership team that we will find within the 12 months, the 16 million plus dollars. So I completely agree with that. The question would be, are we committed to deliver that result? But sir, the Chair, I do have a question.

[4:39:14] And I’m sorry, I didn’t say, I didn’t do this in advance, but in the last multi-year budget, if I look, when it was said 19 to 2023, there were certain amounts, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88. And then within first update, didn’t the figures work? Sorry, Councilor, you’re back into 2019 MYB at this point. Just if there’s gonna be a specific question, just if there’s a page number or something, just if you want an answer from staff comparing things, they’ll need an opportunity to actually go back and look. Anyways, there’s an increase within first update to over 10%.

[4:39:51] And I was just wondering, I know within a few months, the 10% is quite high as well. If you would remember, what was the reasoning behind it? Thank you. Mr. Murray. Thank you through you, Madam Chair. So what I can advise committee is that this reserve fund, the specifically the unfunded liability reserve fund, has gone from a balance of approximately 116 million in 2020 to a current balance in the $170 million range. However, concurrently, the liabilities that this fund is intended to ultimately go to support have grown from $211 million in 2020 to 313 million in 2023.

[4:40:42] So there’s been a more than $100 million increase in the liability with a far less increase in the reserve fund. And to, I believe it was the mayor’s previous comment, he is quite correct that the only source of funding that goes to this reserve fund is personnel savings that we realize in our budget in any given year. It’s outlined in the surplus deficit policy that those are to be contributed to the unfunded liability reserve fund. For clarity, this reserve fund does not receive any other tax-supported contributions.

[4:41:16] Thank you. Councillor Pribble. Thank you for no. Councillor Troso. Thank you through the chair. I’d like to ask Ms. Pollard a question. Not in your capacity as solicitor, ‘cause I’m not gonna get into it. So you’re too far from your mic. But in your capacity as a risk management expert, what happens if the unfunded liability reserve fund gets too close to what would be a high year in terms of our liabilities?

[4:41:52] What’s the risk? What’s the downside of that? I know he directed this question specific to one staff, not sure if there’s other staff, that’s actually more appropriate. Whoever wants to answer. Thank you. Someone would love to answer and I believe that’s Ms. Barbo. Thank you to the chair. I’m happy to answer that one. So these liabilities are actually on our financial statements. Their liabilities that the corporation ultimately is obligated to pay. So unlike other reserve funds where council is saving for a particular project, this reserve fund is specifically for the purpose of saving to offset the liabilities that the corporation is legally obligated to pay.

[4:42:39] So if that funding is not available, we would need to seek another source to extinguish those liabilities, which would ultimately very likely if there were not other funds available, create a tax levy increase so that the corporation would be able to pay its future liabilities. Councilor Trossa. And it could also result in us having to take out unanticipated debt, which would be at a very, very high level. Ms. Barbo. Thank you to the chair. So municipal act precludes us from being able to issue debt for an operating expenditure.

[4:43:13] So this would be absolutely tax levy where it would need to be funded if it was not, where municipalities are only able to incur debt to fund capital projects. So if we are short and it was not available through a reserve fund and reduced funding, it would automatically require a tax levy increase to raise those funds to be able to extinguish the liabilities. Councilor Trossa. Thanks so much, I’m gonna stop there. Thank you so much to Mayor Morgan for really writing a very, very great paper on why this is a dangerous thing to do. I agree with everything you said.

[4:43:48] I’m a hard no on this. And I think it’s, I think I could read the writing here. So let’s, I can’t do a motion to put, but let’s get on with it. That is correct. There is no motion to put currently at committee, but I see no further kinds online. Councilor Stevenson, looking, you’re at two and a half minutes. Go ahead. Thank you, just a question to staff. I just heard, you know, 220 million to 313 million is the current liability. And I know you had said that in an email previously.

[4:44:20] So I said, I just heard, but I had seen it earlier. So we’re currently not fully funded that liability. Is that what you’re saying? Mr. Murray. That is correct. The liability is 313 million. The reserve fund balance is in the 170-ish range. Thank you for that clarity. So in the last multi-year budget, the projected out to 2029 with the unfunded liability was only projected to be 108 million. The current one has it at 231, but we’re hearing it should really be 313.

[4:44:58] I’m just wondering, is there any, what’s the biggest part of that large, large increase? Mr. Murray. Through you, Madam Chair, again, the only contributions, the only inflows to that reserve fund are personnel savings that are realized in the city budget and contributed to that reserve fund at the end of every year, as well as any interest or investment earnings on that specific fund. Councillor? Thank you and through you. No, I mean the liability. What is it that’s causing us to owe so much more money than we planned last multi-year budget?

[4:45:32] What are we saving for, I guess? Ms. Burbell. Thank you through the chairs. So one of the largest components relates to our post-employment retirement benefits and one of the most significant changes that occurred for the 2023 year end is the additional asset retirement obligations, which have now come in through our accounting standards, which required us to formally recognize on our financial statements, all of the additional liabilities that legally a city is responsible for. So that alone accounted for a $54 million increase in 2023 alone, but those are solid waste, landfill, post-closure, most of it is primarily related to post-employment related benefits.

[4:46:20] And there is a note on our financial statements, note 12 that clearly outlines all of those balances and what the future obligations are for the city. Councillor? Thank you, I appreciate this. But if I understand correctly, currently, we have a liability of 313 million of which we have set aside 177 million, is that correct? Mr. Mary, I believe you stated this twice. For you, Madam Chair, that is approximately correct. Okay, thank you.

[4:46:51] So similar to the target on our other funds, we were far short of fully funding that. What I’m suggesting is reducing it by 20 million. So we’re already short, approximately 137 million. I’m saying just make it 157 million and have a commitment. It’s really just about whether this council wants to commit to finding the $20 million in savings or not. If we’re not, it’s a no. If we would like to do that over the next year and reduce the tax levy and the expenditures, especially knowing we’ve got a lot of interest pressure and debt pressure, then we can say yes.

[4:47:30] And really, I’m just putting it before council to say, are you interested in taking that challenge on or not? And I’m open to whatever council decides. Thank you, I know some questions for councilors were ready to call the question. Councilor Frank, I see you online. Are you looking to speak? Yes, very quickly. Go ahead. Yes, I’m very interested in finding savings for taxpayers and this is a very fiscally irresponsible way of doing it, so I won’t support it. Thank you, see no further speakers online, not in chambers, calling the question.

[4:48:24] Closing the vote, motion fails, 1 to 13. Colleagues, that’s all I’m aware of at the moment of the motions that were made aware of to the clerk. We have no, is this you with a motion, Deputy Mayor Lewis? Besides? It is, Madam Chair, I’d like to move a motion to adjourn. I’m not quite there. We have no confidential motions. Anything in closed session, that’d be a motion to adjourn. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. This is gonna be a vote in E-Scribe.

[4:49:08] Councillor Provel, Councillor Ferra. Thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15, 14 to zero. Thank you, we’re adjourned.