January 13, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:01 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 2.6, having to do with Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-315 - East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements - Phase 4 - Oxford Street East, by indicating that Fanshawe College is her employer.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.11 BE APPROVED with the exception of items 2.6 and 2.9

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Argyle Business Improvement Association 2025 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Argyle BIA Levy

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Argyle Business Improvement Association:

a)    the Argyle Business Improvement Association proposed 2025 budget submission in the amount of $444,000 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2025 fiscal year for the purposes of the Argyle Business Improvement Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $330,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law A.-6873-292 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Argyle Business Improvement Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 21, 2025.

Motion Passed

2.2   Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area 2025 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Hamilton Road BIA Levy

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area proposed 2025 budget submission in the amount of $300,500 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2025 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $70,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law C.P.-1528-486 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 21, 2025.

Motion Passed

2.3   Hyde Park Business Improvement Association 2025 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Hyde Park BIA Levy

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association:

a)    the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association proposed 2025 budget submission in the amount of $864,868 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2025 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $706,085;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1519-490 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 21, 2025.

Motion Passed

2.4   London Downtown Business Association 2025 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2025-01-13 Staff Report - LDBA Levy

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Downtown Business Association:

a)    the London Downtown Business Association proposed 2025 budget submission in the amount of $2,408,000 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by the Corporation of the City of London for the 2025 fiscal year for the purposes of the London Downtown Business Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $2,081,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-2 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the London Downtown Business Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 21, 2025.

Motion Passed

2.5   Old East Village Business Improvement Area 2025 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Old East Village BIA Levy

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Old East Village Business Improvement Area proposed 2025 budget submission in the amount of $417,100 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2025 fiscal year for the purposes of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $42,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Old East Village Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 21, 2025.

Motion Passed

2.7   Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund - London Downtown Sewer Capacity Expansion - Transfer Payment Agreement By-law Introduction

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund – London Downtown Sewer Capacity Expansion – Transfer Payment Agreement:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 21, 2025, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement for the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund: Intake 1 between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure (the “Province”) and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Recipient”);

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to approve further Amending Agreements to the Agreement;

iv)   authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any amendments to the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or delegate) to execute any financial reports required under this Agreement;

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

Motion Passed

2.8   SS-2024-296 Single Source Mobility Contract

2025-01-13 Staff Report - SS-2024-296 Single Source Mobility Contract

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

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

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 21, 2025 to:

i)    approve the Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Rogers Communications Canada Inc. through Vendor of Record (Tender # 18677), Province of Ontario Agreement, for a six (6) year term with two (2), two (2) year options for extension;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, or their designate, to approve and execute any further amending agreements to the above-noted Agreement;

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

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to adjust the quantity of devices, related supplies, and services as needed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, to address departmental requirements resulting from changes in staff levels, work locations, or mobility needs, provided such adjustments remain within the approved budget; and

d)    approval BE CONDITIONAL upon the City successfully negotiating satisfactory prices and terms and finalizing a formal contract, agreement or a purchase order related to this approval.

Motion Passed

2.10   Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property Road Widening - Block 180, Plan 33M799

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Declare Surplus and Sale-Block 180 Plan 33M799

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property Block 180, Registered Plan 33M799, designated as Parts 5 and 6, Plan 33R-21184, BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE TRANSFERRED to the developer (abutting property owner) under the Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

2.11   Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property – RP 907 - Block H, G, J, I - Fairhaven Circle

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Declare Surplus and Sale-Fairhaven Circle

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject properties Block H, G, J, I, Registered Plan 907, BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject properties (“Surplus Lands”) BE TRANSFERRED to the abutting property owners under the Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

2.6   Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-315 - East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements - Phase 4 - Oxford Street East

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Contract Award Tender No. RFT-2024-315

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 project;

a)    the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the award of the contract for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 project; it being noted that in accordance with Section 13.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Request for Tender (RFT) contract awards greater than $6,000,000 requires approval of City Council:

i)    the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. at its tendered price of $26,361,119.55 excluding HST, for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of 4 bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

ii)    AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,488,871.00 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

iii)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Appendix “A”;

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

v)    the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure or Director of Construction Infrastructure Services BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within this project;

vi)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2024-315);

vii)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 13, 2025 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 21, 2025 to approve the Transportation Services Licence Agreement between the City of London, London Transit Commission and Fanshawe College regarding the construction, maintenance and operations of a transit facility on Fanshawe College Property and the following actions be taken;

i)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Transportation Services Licence Agreement included in the proposed by-law (Appendix “B”); and

ii)    the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure or written designate BE AUTHORIZED to approve and execute any further amendments to the Transportation Services Licence Agreement if the amendments are substantially in the form of the Agreement.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

2.9   Assessment Growth for 2025, Changes in Taxable Phase-In Values and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments

2025-01-13 Staff Report - Assessment Growth for 2025

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report regarding Assessment Growth for 2025, Changes in Taxable Phase-in Values and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments BE RECEIVED for information purposes; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated January 9, 2025 and heard a verbal delegation from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the delegation request by C. Butler BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee Deferred Matters List

ICSC Deferred Matters List

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the January 6, 2025 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed session to consider the following:

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

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

6.2 Litigation/Potential Litigation/Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation with respect to the expropriation of property located at 1690 Richmond Street North including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, Ontario Land Tribunal Case No.:  OLT-OLT-24-000079; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in connection with the expropriation of property located at 1690 Richmond Street North; and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality regarding settlement negotiations and conduct of litigation or potential litigation in connection with the expropriation of a property located at 1690 Richmond Street North.

6.3 Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Litigation/Potential Litigation/Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A  matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals and advice which is the subject of solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:47 PM to 2:27 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 5 minutes)

Okay, good afternoon everyone. Nice to see you all today. We will look to get started with the agenda for the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee meeting today. Please check the city’s website for additional meeting details.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek. The Haudenosaunee, the Lanopoek and Otto Andrean people. We honor and respect the history, language and culture of the diverse indigenous peoples who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation Métis and Inuit today.

As representatives of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. I’m joined here in chambers by members of the committee, Councilor Perbal, Councilor Hopkins and Vice Chair Frank. Councilor Van Meerbergen is coming soon, I think, not online yet. We’re also joined by visiting members of Council, including Councilor Ferreira.

So we have a number of items to address. I’ll go first to disclosures of pecuniary interest. I will declare my own for item 2.6 and I will, at that point, turn the chair over to Vice Chair Frank. I will look to put on the, well, I’ll look for someone to put on the floor, items 2.1 through 2.5, 2.7, 2.8.

I’ve had a request to pull 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11. Are there any others that people are looking to pull? Okay, so again, I’m looking for a mover to put those items on the floor, so we can be into discussion. Councilor Frank and Councilor Perbal for those items.

I know there are some questions as well. If you’d like, can we start questions, maybe in sequential order with items 2.1 through 2.5, if there are any questions? Okay, so I’ll go to Councilor Perbal first for questions. Do you have any questions for items 2.1 through 2.5 first?

Thank you, Chair. And no, excuse me, not actually a question, but I just want to inform that I have certain questions regarding the London Downtown BIA and all my questions concerned were answered by Ms. Molly and Ms. Smith.

So I know there are an audience here tonight upstairs. Thank you very much and I have no additional questions. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Frank, questions for items 2.1 through 2.5.

Thank you, yes, I did have one question for item 2.1, 2.2 with our ground Hamilton Road. I’m just curious, given I noticed that some of the money that the city gave is being carried over to use for future years and I do notice that security is one of those items. I’m wondering what the long-term strategy is with paying for private security and as the police services increase their compliment if the desires eventually to stop having to pay for private security. So I was hoping perhaps if somebody from the Argyle and Hamilton Road could explain a bit of their plans for private security in the coming years.

Thank you, so first I want to take a moment and recognize and thank members of our BIA’s for being here today with us. Much appreciated and as we have on our agenda the proposed budgets municipal special levy. There are some questions and I know there are a number of BIA leaders in the gallery. I’m not sure who I should address that question to first either to Beth or to Carolyn but if you want to, okay I see someone coming to the mic.

So go ahead. Good afternoon everyone. My name’s Bethany Mahia and I’m the executive director of the Argyle BIA. To answer your question, Councilor Frank, we have always previously paid for private security in the Argyle BIA.

We typically allocated about $20,000 per year to this service. As a long-term strategy we will continue using our levy to pay for these services. And in addition we are working on a strategy right now called the Industrial Friends of Argyle Program. You will see that as a revenue line in our budget we’re actually going to be seeing if there is businesses outside of our BIA who are interested in this kind of work.

And we’re gonna see how we can leverage the security services that we have. Have it as a revenue source using staff to kind of mitigate the issues outside the BIA and continue paying for those services in a private matter. Does that answer your question? Okay, thank you Ms.

Mahia. And Carolyn did you have anything you wanted to add as well? Yes, thank you. My name is Carolyn from the Hamilton Road BIA.

I am the executive director. And to answer your question, Councilor, we are looking at it another year in 2025 to secure. So that split was between from 2023 and then 2024 to 2025. And in mid-year we are gonna be assessing in terms of moving forward what that looks like in terms of the 2026.

Does that answer your question? Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, yes, and I appreciate those answers.

I think again, as we have seen with the increase in the cost of the police services I’d be hopeful that it would decrease your cost in private security. So I’ll keep an eye on that in the next couple of years. Do you have any additional questions? Yes, I do for Hyde Park BIA though.

So I’m not sure if anyone else has any for Argyle and Hamilton Road before we move on. Nope, okay, wonderful. Then through the chair, I was hoping to get a bit of a understanding the increase, it appears to be 17% and that seems significant compared to the other BIA increases. So I was hoping for perhaps a bit of an explanation as to why such a significant increase at this time.

Thank you. We’ll go to Donna who is here from the Hyde Park BIA. Good afternoon and thank you. Thank you for your question.

Yes, we are on paper looking higher than the other BIA’s. Our 17% increase includes roughly $33,000 in a supplemental tax repayment for which we got a bill last year of 155. We made the first payment last year from our surplus and then moving forward at the next four years, we’ll be making further payments of 33,000. So that’s what that in part is due to.

Our actual BIA operational increase is about 70-ish, $74,000. So six, seven to 173, if you took that out, which puts us at about 12%. That also is higher. That covers some things such as a hotel study that our board has decided to conduct, which is about $15,000, an increase to our Hyde Park Dollar program, which is a very popular program that has had a lot of economic positive impact in the area.

The big one is to our events of about $55,000. Between that $55,000 is an amount that you can see from our past budgets where we have raised roughly $70,000, $60,000 to $70,000 a year through events, sponsorships, and some of our programs where we invoice back. Our ability to continue fundraising to that extent, we feel is more sustainable by putting it right inside our levy budget, and while we do that, we would still be doing our fundraising activities in hopes of offsetting other things like levies or unexpected levy payments. But that is what the increases represent is basically we’re right sizing so that we can sustainably continue to run our events in Hyde Park.

Go ahead, Cancer Frank. Thank you, I appreciate that background. And just because I don’t know the average levy amount for a business, what would that 17% increase on average kind of represent is it $10, $100, $1,000, $1,000? I just don’t have a frame of reference for that.

My rough math is about, we have 350 to 400 businesses in our BIA, 350 before the property owners, I believe is the number. So it’s just over 200 a year, I believe is the number. Thank you. And just because, again, to a smaller business, maybe it’s a bit substantial, but to a larger, perhaps not, has your membership kind of been notified of the increase in their aware of it?

I just, it is a bit of a jump in addition with the municipal property tax increase. I can imagine it might be a bit difficult with some of your members. Yes, absolutely they have been through correspondence, but also through our annual AGM where our budget was sent out to all of our members and we had a good crowd for our AGM. We had one member opposed of all others, they were in favor and understanding of where we’re going.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? I know Councillor Hopkins, you had some questions.

Go ahead. Yeah, thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the BIA’s for being here with us. So we had to do a lot of reading here and always interested in knowing what’s up going on in the city and also thank you for being available to answer some of the questions I’ve already had answers to. I do have a question through Madam Chair regarding some of the financial statements that have been delayed.

And I know it is problematic and maybe through you to staff looking at changing our bylaw to sort of address the delays in the financial statements, but also a possibility of withholding those second installments if the financial statements are there. My questions for you to staff, is this going to be across the board for all BIA’s if staff are going to be looking at doing that? Thank you. I’ll go to Ms.

Berbone. Thank you for the chair. So currently there is no requirement that ties what the payments are to the provision of the financial statements, although there is a requirement to provide the financial statements. So one of the things that we have been looking at is other BIA legislation across the province and others that might have that.

There is precedent against in the province where they do have their first time payments tied to the receipt of the audited financial statements. So certainly it is a practice that is employed throughout the province. So that’s certainly something that civic admin is looking at right now. And it would require a bylaw change that we would need to bring forward into the future.

So certainly we were waiting to see the results of the discussion today. And it’s something that is on our radar and possibly, but that would be something that if we were to bring that forward, we would do consistently across the board. It would not be one BIA, would be all of our agency boards and commissions that we’d be looking to do that were at the requirement. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you for that information. I know we have some big BIA’s and some small BIA’s and I know the challenges that can exist, especially with the smaller ones, but I would be very supportive of looking at that bylaw. As well, I don’t know if we need a motion to do that, but I’m really pleased that civic administration has brought that to our attention. To Miss Barbone, do you need direction?

Thank you, so Chair. Certainly if Council wishes to ensure that that happens, providing that direction to modify the BIA’s and bring that forward to have the inclusion of the receipt of the financial statements before first payments are put forward, certainly if you want to ensure that that happens, direction would be great and then we can take that forward. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, I’ll leave it to you for any follow-up comment if you’re interested in moving anything forward, but it would likely be at a future meeting and not right now since we’re on a consent item.

And would that be a little bit at a future meeting? Okay, thank you. Yeah, so your opportunity, you could do that at council as well if you’re looking to do that. So you’re saying at a future committee meeting, I can provide direction or at a council meeting?

Yeah, or so if you wanted to do it as a motion at council out of coming out of the consent on this item, then you could do it at the next council meeting or you could do it. Thank you for that information. Clerk’s happy to help you with that. Okay, looking for others on, we’ve got Councillor Pribble on items 2.1 through 2.5 and then we have the rest of the items that are on the consent agenda that we have not moved away from.

Thank you, actually, I have a question, additional question, sort of a chair to Ms. Pacowski of Hyde Park and my question is, is the proposed potential enlarging the boundary of your BIA really be considering potentially decreasing the levy or the additional amounts you are planning to do for additional initiatives? And I do understand you need this increase now because you have certain financial obligations but I’m looking for the future, thank you. Thank you, thank you.

I’ll go to the gallery, Ms. Pacowski, go ahead. I’m sorry, overall, the budget would increase to account for the enlarged, the expanded BIA, but overall the cost would go down for all of our businesses because we wouldn’t need to double up on resources. So we already have staffing in place and there’s certain programs we already have in place.

So those costs will be realized through reduction in sharing resources throughout the expanded BIA for our businesses. Thank you, no more questions, thank you. Thank you, any additional questions for the BIA before we move on to items 2.7 and two to 11 questions. Councilor Ferreira, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Just, I guess, just comments, you know, like I did here, we have big BIA’s, we have small BIA’s and I see that every BIA has brought, you know, a different proposed budget for the special levy for a case by case. So I just wanted to say, you know, I think you guys are doing good work. I do see the different cases, you know, they’re specific to your areas.

And I just want to say thank you for the work that I see. I’m obviously going to be saying thank you to the downtown BIA. I really appreciate your dedication and hard work and your consistent communication with me and with council. I do want to say to council, we are going to be engaging council more.

We want you to speak with the downtown BIA more and you have your questions answered regularly moving through but I just wanted to say good work that I see coming out from all the BIA’s for the city. And I guess I’ll just leave my comments there because I really just wanted to say I recognize the good work. I know council does too. And looking forward to what this next year brings.

Thank you. Okay, any questions for items 2.7, 2.8, 2.10 or 2.11? Council Frank. Thank you.

I just want to say yay for money for 2.7. Okay, other than an official yay. All right. Well, with no further comments, we will look to open the vote on those items, everything except for 2.6 and 2.9.

Councilor van May I work in closing the vote? Motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. And again, councilor Ferreira said it quite nicely but thank you to our BIA’s for being here today.

Thank you for the good work you continue to do. Much appreciated the engagement and wishing you all the best in 2025. Okay, with that we have no scheduled items or items for direction which takes us back to additional business before we move on to the deferred items list. With that, I will turn the chair over to Vice Chair Frank for item 2.6 of which I’ve declared a conflict of interest as Fanshawe College is my employer.

Thank you, yes. And I have the chair. Any questions for item 2.6 for staff? Yes, Councilor Pribble?

To the providing officer to the staff. All these initiatives, I just want to clarify that all these initiatives are within the budget and also the amounts from all the funding sources, the balances that are available are sufficient to feed our future projects. Thank you. Thank you and to staff?

Yes, Madam Chair, I was a presiding officer. In fact, we are under the reset budget that was provided during the last multi-year budget, our last full multi-year budget process and we remain within our budget balances. Thank you very much, no more questions? Thank you.

And I was reminded I should get a mover and a seconder to get this on the floor for further debate. So do I have a mover? Councilor Hopkins and a seconder, Councilor Pribble? Wonderful.

And Councilor Hopkins, I saw your hand. Yeah, thank you for citing, Chair. Quick question, really pleased that this is coming forward, that we’re going to be doing some communication to those businesses and sending out notices, wondering what are the expected timelines, or are there any? Thank you to staff.

Madam Chair, I’m going to ask Ms. Dan to answer that question. Thank you and through the Chair. The project is started, we’ll start as soon as possible in the spring, so that was one of the reasons why we tendered early or in late years.

We can be awarding now, get everything ready to start as soon as we can. We’ve already had initial communications with walkabouts to all businesses on the property or along the stretch, and we’re on track to keep everybody informed as it goes forward. Thank you, any further? No, just good to know, thank you.

Great, any other questions or comments on this item? I see none, okay, then I will call the vote all in favor. Actually, there we go. Perfect, I forgot, I was going to do a hand vote, but we have a scrub.

All those in the vote, motion carries, three to one. Thank you, and we’re turning the Chair. Thank you, we’ll move on to item 2.9, which is the assessment growth for 2025, changes in taxable phase in values and shifts in taxation as a result of reassessments. Had communication requesting a delegation from Mr.

Butler, I’m looking for a member to move and a member to second the delegation request, Councillor Pribble and Councillor Hopkins, that will open for a vote. Those in the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Okay, thank you, welcome Mr. Butler.

Please go ahead, you can come to the microphone and you have five minutes for your delegation. I’m glad I’m here on time. That really blew through the agenda, so thank you. Chair Rama and the city staff that answered the two prerequisite questions.

I’m all good there and thanks for the feedback. I didn’t know that could be done. I’m here to ask for your help. As the ICSC committee.

I’ve been here for a couple of years looking at this particular, I guess it’s a by-law. And I took a chance or took an opportunity about two, three years ago to look at what other well-run cities are doing with their asset growth management fund. And this is new. And I looked at, you know, places like St.

Thomas, Windsor, anything that wasn’t by level governments ‘cause that’s a little hard to understand the budgets online, everything’s online. And what I found is we’re quite unique in what we do here. And unique is where I need some help. I like help with this committee or with this committee to take forward a recommendation to, I guess, the SPC in mid to late February to open this up.

This by-law looks like it’s maybe 13, 15 years old. We’ve come a long way since then. And I think we need to review its relevance and its taxpayer fairness in comparison to other communities, other well-run cities in terms of what we do with the funds and how we use those funds. So with that said, I’ll talk about the first top five first.

All the other five cities that I looked at and some of those, well, you could turn to our new city manager, Sandra, down below and ask what the third line of St. Thomas’s budget is. His office budget just goes, top line is this. There’s another second line.

And then I think the third line takes asset growth and rewards that back to taxpayers right away. That’s consistent across all five cities I looked at. What do we do? Well, you know it well.

We add that to the ops budget. That carries forward to the following years of starting inventory for the ops budget. And from a taxpayer fairness point of view, that really adds up after a while. It’s quite inflationary.

The other cities have different ways of handling. They’re different, I guess business cases is to look at it because there’s various pressures there. But the all things that are considered there is the things that were consistent. Is they align with their budget process?

The asset management growth piece is pulled into the budget process rather than be a consent report. So it’s got far more visibility, far more opportunity for public engagement, far more opportunity for council to look at it from, I guess, a priority point of view with the other requests we have. The third piece is of the top five. This is very inflationary.

When you look at what’s changed in the last 12, 13, 14 years, we didn’t have a four year budget. We didn’t have a budget that showed up with I, well, what’s the budget folks call it, a baseline? I call it a baseline or a keep the lights on percentage. And our keep the lights on percentage this year 225 is 4.6.

That’s already allocated in the baseline budget. So when you start building budget cases or business cases on top of that to do more, you look at it from a taxpayer fairness point of view with other communities in your state of yourself. That’s quite inflationary. You got the 4.6 to start with, and then the trees group or some other group comes in and says they can’t possibly do whatever they have to do without some sort of increase.

All of a sudden you got a 10% increase. It’s very, very inflationary. The fourth part of this is are we really putting it to the proper places? And I’ll give you an example that just blew my mind in the current budget coming forward into this year.

And that was, we added some very serious people that we needed in the planning department. I think it was seven full time equivalents, and that came as a budget request. And I looked at that and I said, this is exactly where the Ask Growth Fund should go. This is where we want our money to go, to new initiatives, to things that really make a difference in this city, and the fact that they’re continuous, checks all the boxes on this council’s viewpoint.

We’re always looking for something. We don’t want to take it from a reserve fund. We don’t want it to be one time. Well, this fund is always someplace between 1.2%, 1.8%.

It can’t be— - You’ve been 10 seconds to wrap up. Okay, so all I’m really asking for is your support to open this up, let staff have a look at it from a fairness point of view and an allocation point of view. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Butler. This report that’s in front of us today is here to receive for information. Are there any, I’m looking for a mover and a seconder and then any questions? Councilor Frank has mover.

Councilor Perbal for a second, and then I’ll open up for questions. Councilor Perbal and Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and through you to our staff, if I can have some comments and there was certainly mentioned municipalities and I know our city manager is very familiar with it because she came from there. If there’s any comments from either her or from our finance staff, thank you.

Thanks, I’ll look to our finance staff. I know that Mr. Butler had a chance to reach out through these for questions, but is there any additional comments you’d like to make? Thank you, Chair.

The only thing I would suggest is that we know this policy is unique to the city of London as a policy that was put in place to ensure that growth pays for growth. So the assessment growth policy specifically speaks to funding the growth costs of the municipality. We’ve had numerous reports and we’re happy to bring additional information forward again in the future through the policy review, but certainly it ensures that the costs of a growing city are paid for with new revenues from the revenues of a growing city. So that was the intent of the policy.

We’re very, very pure in how we manage that policy in terms of growth specifically being allocated towards that based on how the policy is written. So it’s been tweaked over the years to ensure that it’s very, very pure and is based specifically once upon a time prior to the policy. A lot of the growth was being eroded through the budget process. So levels of service were not being maintained across municipality because through the budget process cuts were made and certainly had long lasting impacts.

So that was intended. So there’s lots of work behind it and really the intent is to ensure that growth does continue to pay for growth and costs are not always equal in a given year. They tend to be very, very lumpy and that’s basically the intent behind the policy. So as you can see in today’s report, growth is very inconsistent from year to year.

And certainly what we are seeing this year, the percentage increase from assessment growth is considerably lower than what we have seen in the last number of years. And as a result, the revenue increases is quite significantly lower than what we’ve seen over the last couple of years. Council approval? Thank you and one follow-up question.

There’s a specific example. There’s the additional hiring of our planning staff. The way the current policy is set up would this potentially qualify as a growth base for growth? And if it would, are there any pluses, minuses, if you were to go that route in this specific example, hiring additional planning staff?

Thank you. Mr. Murray. Thank you and through you.

So, excuse me, the policy does not specifically speak to certain service areas being eligible or ineligible. It is very clear, however, on what the criteria are and what is or is not an eligible request. So, the assessment growth funding bucket or pot of funding is available and open for all service areas across the corporation to submit their requests to access as long as they can submit an appropriate business case that is backed by suitable metrics that demonstrate the linkage to growth. They can certainly put those business cases forward and request funding through the assessment growth process.

Mr. Provost? Thank you. No more questions.

Thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins and Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr.

Butler, for being here. I think it’s an important conversation. So, thank you for starting the conversation. Really appreciate staff’s comments, though, about the flexibility that our bylaw allows.

And my first question was going to be around the weighted assessment growth and why it is lower. And I did hear more or less an answer to my question that it is going to be lower. This year, so just confirming that. And maybe a little bit more reasons why.

Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So, as noted in the report and chart one in the report provides a nice 20 year history, actually, of what assessment growth has been through the years.

For 2025, it’s 1.2% by comparison. The last couple of years have been 1.68, 1.82, 1.4. So, it is slightly lower this year. I think we can attribute that to just generally economic conditions.

And this is likely something that’s attributable to the slowdown that has occurred in the economy as a result of interest rate increases a couple of years ago. Typically, we see a couple of year lag in assessment growth. So, it takes a couple of years for the impacts of any general economic trends to flow through to assessment growth. So, I think that is reflected here in what we’re seeing for 2025 in a slightly lower amount, attributable to those interest rate increases a couple of years ago.

Thank you. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for giving further clarification to what’s going on in our city. I do appreciate it.

My next question was relating to the change in property evaluation from reassessments in 2016. And my question, I guess, is more, how does that relate to where are we, how much do we understand where we are when it comes to that reassessment in the base year of 2016? So, I know representing the city of London at the AMO Board, AMO has been doing a lot of advocating to get these reassessments through MPAC. And it’s really, I think, wearing my municipal hat at AMO, important to know where we are as a city.

So, I just wanna sort of understand a little bit more why that is important as we have this conversation here today. The staff, go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. Yeah, there’s been a great amount of discussion as to, you know, why it’s important to keep the current value assessment up to date, as we see it’s called current value assessment, and it’s now nine years old.

So, it’s no longer current. So, and through the COVID interruption and not resuming that assessment as scheduled, we’re seeing many different economic conditions. So, I guess, if I’m understanding correctly your question, how is it going to impact us when they actually do reassess? And unfortunately, we don’t have any data-driven response to that other than, whenever there’s a reassessment, there’s shifts between different classes, residential, commercial, industrial, et cetera.

And that’s where we use tax policy to adjust ratios as necessary to help mitigate the impact on taxpayers. Thank you, Mr. McMillan. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, really pleased to hear that we’re doing everything possible to mitigate that for the taxpayer. And really appreciate the conversation as well. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity as a visiting member to ask a couple of questions on this. I think though the very first thing I wanna do is through you ask Ms. Berbon or Mr.

Murray, if my understanding is correct, that the assessment growth that we receive comes on completion/occupancy of a property. It’s not when the foundation is poured, it’s not when a shovel goes in the ground, but it is in fact when the project is done, and the property is then, whether it’s commercial, industrial, residential, it’s then being used for the purpose for which the planning application was approved. Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Berbon.

Thank you, that is correct. It is at the completion of the project, and PAC completes the reassessment. They do their final reviews, and then through the assessment role, we receive those supplementary throughout the year, and then the assessment growth is completed the following year with the entire full tax role for the levy, including those new properties that are on there. So that is not only just new properties that are being built, that would be additions and/or other things that have triggered assessment increases.

Notably, that also includes things that may also decrease the assessment that may potentially change the valuation if there are fires, et cetera, that require the properties to be reassessed. So it’s not always, it is a net number, the assessment growth number, there are other things that do come off it as well. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I think that that’s really important to underscore, because I think when we look at this year’s assessment growth being down a little bit, compared to some recent historical numbers, it’s also important for us to all reflect on the fact that in the last calendar year, as a council, we approved over 22,000 units of residential housing development.

Those aren’t built yet. And it takes longer when we are doing high density residential to complete a project than it does for a single family home. I see Mr. Wallace is in the gallery, and I’m sure he would not in agreement that a 35 story apartment building is a little bit longer timeframe than a single family home or a wood frame town home.

So I’m confident that in the future, as some of these projects are developed out and are completed and become occupied, we will see this number bump back up a bit, because we know we’re seeing some significant growth pressures in the city. And of course, with those residents comes the new taxation that supports the services that they need. And I think it’s really important that we continue to keep part of the policy. I know we’re just receiving the numbers today, but a part of the policy that’s really focused on sort of the automatics for growth.

When a new subdivision is built out, Mr. Stanford needs to be able to provide garbage collection and even collection to those residences. And Mr. McCrae and Mr.

Gillard need to be able to provide snow plowing of those streets. So having that money come right out of the assessment growth makes a lot of sense. I do wanna ask though, with respect to, and I appreciate the comments about flexibility, but I reflect back on the multi-year budget process as well. And the frustration that some of us, myself included, expressed about London Transit Ask and it not being partially funded through assessment growth.

And in part because growth is not all about new development. We are seeing an emphasis on HINFILL, and that creates impacts on our local parks or our transit routes when we’ve gone from single family homes. I’m just gonna pick Oxford Street, for example, but we are, we see planning applications right now coming in for high-rise buildings. Replacing those single family homes means more transit users there, more park users there, more users of other city services in the area.

And yet, historically, we have not been recognizing that as a growth associated cost. I know we provided some, we had some significant debate during the multi-year budget, and I know staff was working specifically with London Transit Commission on how some of their growth needs could be met through assessment growth. But I’m just wondering, not looking to make any direction or policy changes right now. Work, like I said, we’re just receiving the number, but if staff can provide maybe some comment or any sort of update they might have on how we are progressing with reviewing the application of assessment growth, not just for green field development and providing services to new areas, but how we are looking at it in terms of increasing services in existing areas due to HINFILL.

Thank you, I will go to Mr. Murray. Thank you, and through the chair. So what I will say is that the current policy as it is currently written is not so prescriptive as to only limit the potential for assessment growth and accessing assessment growth, strictly to green field areas and to new development.

The policy does provide the flexibility or the ability to recognize that growth can also manifest itself through increased demand for services and it may not be as linear as saying this new development or subdivision is specifically driving growth. It may be more indirect in the form of growing demand for particular services. So the assessment growth policy certainly does recognize and allow for that every year. We typically do see cases that are more of that nature and perhaps less direct than others are.

So that is certainly allowed still through the policy. Now, having said that, the challenge, of course, with those is being able to support those requests with, in some cases, suitable metrics that can clearly draw that linkage or tie that linkage to growth ‘cause there still needs to be at least some direct or indirect linkage to growth. So that is sometimes the challenge we see with some services is making that linkage or that case. However, where that case can be made, the policy certainly does allow for an allocation of assessment growth for that purpose.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, and I think that was at the heart of my question is how are we progressing with our, particularly with our boards agencies and commissions because I think our internal divisions do an excellent job and perhaps part of that is maybe having some easier access to data but with our boards and commissions in terms of communicating where the infill is happening and perhaps this is more of a question actually for Mr. Mathers and Ms. McNeely in the long run through the planning department but how we’re communicating with our boards and commissions where the intensification targets are being met or are at least progressing towards being met so that when they’re considering their business cases, whether for the budget or for assessment growth, that they have the ability to access those metrics somewhat more easily.

I mean, I do look at the planning division as one where it’s very easy to say, here’s where we’ve approved units. But do those unit metrics tie directly into, for example, park usage in Mr. Yeoman’s division and how— You have 10 seconds. How we can do a better job or work with our boards and commissions on those metrics.

Okay, that was quite a global question. So I’m not sure but I think I’ll go to Ms. Barbone. If I can perhaps provide maybe one last thought, like is that part of staff to our internal service reviews annually.

And I know there was some training for boards and commissions recently. Is that part of the service review in terms of accessing the metrics? Perhaps if that narrows the question of do a little bit more tightly. Thank you, I think that does help.

So Ms. Barbone, if you wanna address that, thank you. Thank you, Chair. So certainly when we issue our budget guidelines, there’s many, there’s much data that we provide that’s more of a global type metrics in terms of growth population increases, et cetera.

So there’s a level of information there. I think launching off of Mr. Murray’s, it also depends on how those metrics that we have, then link with the metrics and the linkage to the demand, which is typically not the data that the civic administration would normally have. It’s typically there’s a, there’s a how you connect the data that is corporately available with what the data is, that is driving the decisions and the service delivery.

So certainly using transit as an example, we’ve met with Ms. Plutcheney, we’ve gone through some different scenarios and how we might consider doing some of those things in the future so that they might be able to look at how they’re collecting their data in a way to be able to support a future business case. So that is something we will continue to refine. Everyone is a little bit different just based on the nature of the service and what the metrics are that the board agency or commission may also have to support the increase in demand as a result of growth.

So I think that gets to what it is you’re looking for. It’s a bit of a combination, but that’s where we’ve been trying to meet where regularly with the areas to try to look at how we can support them and being able to make those cases. Sometimes it’s very intuitive to be able to say, we have greater population, therefore it’s greater demand, but it’s trying to get what are the actual metrics that prove that on paper to be able to put it into a business case that would actually be put in front of the council. Okay, thank you.

I do not see any other requests for questions for 2.9 with that, I’ll look to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Thank you, we’ll move on to item 5.1, which is the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee Deferred Matters list. This is the item where we have it in front of us to receive and I’m looking for a mover and a seconder.

Councilor Frank, Councilor Hopkins, any discussion with that, I’ll open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Okay, thank you. Next, we have confidential matters.

Item 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, of which those items are outlined in the agenda for the reasons by which we’re going in camera, looking for a motion to go in camera. Councilor Hopkins and Councilor Frank, I’ll look to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Thank you, and we’ll just take a moment to— Recording in progress, recording stopped.

Thank you, we are back from in camera, I’ll go to Councilor Frank to report out. Thank you, I’d like to report that progress was made for all the items that we went in camera for. Thank you, and with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn, Councilor Hopkins, Councilor Frank, and by hand. All in favor, thank you, motion carries.

Thank you, we are adjourned.