Open Council

1st Meeting of the Budget Committee

Open Council

1st Meeting of the Budget Committee

March 19, 2025, at 10:00 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 10:02 AM; it being noted that Councillors S. Hillier and P. Van Meerbergen were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That consent items 2.3 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.3   Alcohol in City Facilities

2025-03-19 Staff Report - Alcohol in City Facilities

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the Alcohol in City Facilities report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.4   Engagement with Agencies, Boards and Commissions on Budget Consideration

2025-03-19 Submission - ABC

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the communication dated March 7, 2025 with respect to engagement with Agencies, Boards and Commissions from Councillor E. Peloza and Mayor J. Morgan BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.1   2026 Annual Budget Update Process

2025-03-19 Staff Report - 2026 Annual Budget Update Overview

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

a)    the report providing an overview of the 2026 Annual Budget Update process BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit budget reduction amendments for the 2026 Budget Update totaling a minimum of 1.5% of the net property tax budget for civic service areas, with priority to options resulting in permanent budget reductions, it being noted that a preliminary list of options will be presented at the May 22, 2025 Budget Committee meeting;

c)    Agencies, Boards and Commissions BE REQUESTED to submit budget amendments for the 2026 Budget Update totaling a minimum reduction of 1.5% of each entity’s net property tax-funded budget, with priority to options resulting in permanent budget reductions;

d)   the Mayor and the London Police Services Board BE REQUESTED to advocate to the Provincial government with regards to the London Police Services budget on the following items:

i)    contribute Provincial funding to the Emergency Services training centre;

ii)   contribute Provincial funding to integrated mental health workers (COAST); and

iii)  the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate to the Provincial government to provide funding to help offset the London Police Service’s operating budget, not dissimilar to financial supports provided in 2024 to 330 small and rural municipalities to help offset costs of police services provided by the Ontario Provincial Police;

it being noted that any cost recovery would be directed to lowering the property tax rate for 2026

e)    the Mayor and the Budget Chair BE REQUESTED to meet with the Agencies, Boards and Commissions to discuss 2026 budget expectations; and

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to convene a special meeting of the Budget Committee on October 28, 2025 for the formal budget release presentation for the 2026 Budget Update.

Additional votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

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

a)    the report providing an overview of the 2026 Annual Budget Update process BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit budget reduction amendments for the 2026 Budget Update totaling a minimum of 1.5% of the net property tax budget for civic service areas, with priority to options resulting in permanent budget reductions, it being noted that a preliminary list of options will be presented at the May 22, 2025 Budget Committee meeting;

c)    Agencies, Boards and Commissions BE REQUESTED to submit budget amendments for the 2026 Budget Update totaling a minimum reduction of 1.5% of each entity’s net property tax-funded budget, with priority to options resulting in permanent budget reductions;

d)    the Mayor and the Budget Chair BE REQUESTED to meet with the Agencies, Boards and Commissions to discuss 2026 budget expectations; and

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to convene a special meeting of the Budget Committee on October 28, 2025 for the formal budget release presentation for the 2026 Budget Update.

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion be amended to include a new part to read as follows:

the Mayor and the London Police Services Board BE REQUESTED to advocate to the Provincial government with regards to the London Police Services budget on the following items:

i)    contribute Provincial funding to the Emergency Services training centre; and

ii)   contribute Provincial funding to integrated mental health workers (COAST);

it being noted that any cost recovery would be directed to lowering the property tax rate for 2026.

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the amendment be amended to include a new part iii) to read as follows:

iii)  the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate to the Provincial government to provide funding to help offset the London Police Service’s operating budget, not dissimilar to financial supports provided in 2024 to 330 small and rural municipalities to help offset costs of police services provided by the Ontario Provincial Police.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

the Mayor and the London Police Services Board BE REQUESTED to advocate to the Provincial government with regards to the London Police Services budget on the following items:

i)    contribute Provincial funding to the Emergency Services training centre;

ii)   contribute Provincial funding to integrated mental health workers (COAST); and

iii)  the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate to the Provincial government to provide funding to help offset the London Police Service’s operating budget, not dissimilar to financial supports provided in 2024 to 330 small and rural municipalities to help offset costs of police services provided by the Ontario Provincial Police;

it being noted that any cost recovery would be directed to lowering the property tax rate for 2026

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.2   Surplus/Deficit Policy Update

2025-03-19 Staff Report - Surplus Deficit Policy

2025-03-19 Staff Report - (2.2) Surplus Deficit Policy-REVISED By-law

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed revised by-law, attached as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to amend By-law No. CPOL.-46-242 being “Surplus/Deficit Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” to the by-law and by reducing the contribution to the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund to 17% and dedicating 3% to the Community Investment Reserve Fund; it being noted that the Budget Committee heard a delegation and received a communication dated March 16, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Additional votes:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to amend By-law No. CPOL.-46-242 being “Surplus/Deficit Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” to the by-law; it being noted that the Budget Committee heard a delegation and received a communication dated March 16, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

The motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows:

That the proposed By-law No. CPOL.-46-242 being “Surplus/Deficit Policy” BE FURTHER AMENDED to reduce the contribution to the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund to 17% and dedicate 3% to the Community Investment Reserve Fund

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group Deferred Matters List

2025-03-19 Submission - SORWG Deferred Matters List 2025

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the March 10, 2025 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Confidential 

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 12:06 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 (2 hours, 17 minutes)

[13:54] Good morning, everyone. We’re getting started. City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Nashvac, Haudenosaunee, Lenapuok, and Adwondron. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to the opportunity to work and live in this territory. This is the first meeting of the Budget Committee. I’m joined in chambers with everyone, except for Councillor Hillyer, who’s joined us online, and Councillor Van Mergen is joining online as well.

[14:32] The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports and meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact 519-661-2489, extension 2425. We have four items on the consent list. I’ve been asked to pull 2.1. In regards to 2.2, there is a delegation request and the committee can choose to hear the individual today or put this forward to a future public participation meeting. So if we’re gonna hear the delegate today, we would need to pull the consent item.

[15:05] Councillor Stevenson? Yes, I’d like to pull that in here, the delegation. Okay, so 2.1 and 2.2 has been pulled. That leaves 2.3 and 2.4 for consent, looking for a mover and seconder to put 2.3 and 2.4 on the floor. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconder by Councillor Ferrer, taking questions and comments on 2.3 and 2.4. I will start my speakers list with Deputy Mayor Lewis and as always, I am timing today.

[15:42] Thank you, Madam Chair, I’m gonna be very brief. I just wanna thank staff for the report on 2.3, the alcohol and city facilities. This came up during SWORG. It was an opportunity, I thought, to look at options, but the report has provided me the answers I need about the barriers that would exist to doing this and even if there is a revenue opportunity, the long term in terms of getting to a revenue producing situation given the cost outlay that would be required is very, very significant.

[16:16] So I’m happy to receive this and not go any further with this item, but I know the staff put some work into it. I like when we ask questions and we get some answers and that’s what we got here, so happy with where this is and I don’t need to see anything further on this item. Thank you, further speakers on 2.3 or 2.4. Hey, I see no one online, I see no one in chambers. The vote will be opening in eScribe.

[16:59] I’m having difficulty in logging in, so I’ll vote verbally, yes. Vote yes. Pass the votes, yes. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you, this brings us to point one. As we have no schedule items, I’ll just go through consent numerically. This is the 2026 annual, but update, but my goodness. 2026 annual budget update process. Looking for a mover and seconder to get this one on the floor, moved by Councillor Cuddy.

[17:36] Seconded by Councillor Frank. If we wanted an overview of staff, Mr. Murray is prepared. There’s no formal presentation, though there is excellent information in the package. Would we prefer that? Okay, I see some nods, Mr. Murray. The floor is yours to do an overview of 2.1. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this report in front of you today basically serves a bit of a dual purpose. So first and foremost kicks off the 2026 budget process and outlines the timelines associated with the upcoming process for this year.

[18:15] It also fulfills direction to report back on a process to achieve a 2026 tax levy increase of less than 5%, which was outlined in mayoral direction from earlier this year. I’ll start by highlighting section 2.3 of the report, which outlines the timelines associated with this year’s process. They are very, very similar to the timelines that we went through for the 2025 budget update. In fact, I think in terms of the actual dates themselves, the committee dates and maybe they’re one day different.

[18:50] So they’re very, very similar to those that you saw last year. We are though, of course, getting a much earlier start than we normally would on the budget process. And that is in large part to work through the process to achieve a tax levy increase of less than 5%. So the starting point for the 2026 budget update is a 6.4% tax levy increase. To get below five, then we’re looking at a reduction of at least one and a half percent to that number. And one and a half percent translates into roughly in the ballpark of about $13 million of reductions that will be required.

[19:31] As we were reflecting on the approach to get there, it became apparent and very imperative that both agencies, boards and commissions as well as civic service areas contribute to identifying budget reduction opportunities. And I think section 2.1 of the reports provides some good graphics to illustrate that point. So we looked at multiple ways of potentially achieving that one and a half percent reduction. And we ultimately landed on requiring each entity, so the city, as well as each agency board and commission, to identify reductions totaling a minimum of one and a half percent of their respective net property tax funded budgets.

[20:13] In our view, this is a very simple, very straightforward and very transparent way of setting expectations as far as what will be required for the 2026 budget process. As we work to achieve this direction, we will of course focus on those opportunities that are more right sizing in nature. So of course, those with no program or service level impacts would be preferred to those that might have program or service impacts. However, it’s unlikely I would say that the full amount of the reduction would be identified through right sizing only.

[20:51] So we will also place emphasis as well on those reduction opportunities that are ongoing or permanent in nature. We don’t want to just push the tax levy pressure to 2026. So the preference would be for ongoing budgetary reductions. So this report basically seeks to formalize the strategy and direction that we’ve outlined in the report. And I’ll just conclude maybe by saying that work is already underway to achieve the direction that’s identified. We have our next budget committee meeting after today scheduled for May the 22nd.

[21:28] And it is our intention to at least bring forward a preliminary list of opportunities that we’ve identified to date at that meeting. So with that, happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murray. I’ll also highlight that our next main date is the 22nd and civic administration will have some things brought forward for us. That is also an excellent opportunity for counselors who are working on things or have ideas to bring it forward as this work will continue and ideally everything’s wrapped up for the fall for the mayor’s consideration.

[22:00] So that’s just the earlier we can get our ideas in to be part of this process the more time people have to work on reports and bring them back for fully informed conversations. Okay, starting my speakers list, I will start with Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Troso and then Councillor Peril. Thank you, just a quick question. Is there any thought to getting public input on maybe what services or programs or advocacy efforts that they might see as something that would be worth considering stopping as we look to make cuts to our programs and services to maybe have that initial input right from the start?

[22:39] Mr. Murray, if civic administration is doing any get involved stuff at this time, realizing counselors can always do things in their own meetings throughout the process. Thank you, Madam Chair and the point you made is exactly the point I was just going to make as well in that our intention is of course to launch the official budget, public engagement activities in the fall when we have something concrete and an actual budget that we can get out there and consult with Londoners about. Having said that of course, there is still the opportunity and I would encourage all of you as you’re engaging with your constituents on potential ideas that either you might be considering putting forward or ideas that we as civic administration align in subsequent reports.

[23:23] I’d certainly encourage you to obtain that feedback from your constituents and use that to inform your decision making in your direction through this year’s budget process. Councillor? - Okay. Councillor Trostav. That was the answer, thank you. Councillor Per bevel. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. When we started our term, 1% was about $7 million then end of last year we moved up to eight. Now when I’m hearing 13 million is one and a half, so we are moving to $8.67 million.

[23:59] I just want to make sure if that’s accurate, thank you. Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you. 1% is about $8.8 million now, thank you. No other questions right now? Further speakers? If anyone on the line would like to chime in, just raise your hand and the clerk will keep an eye out for it, Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair, through you. So just looking through the list and the civic service areas and kind of with the report details, a lot of right sizing, a lot of savings we already found in the civic service areas.

[24:32] So I just wanted to know the likelihood of that 1.5% cut and I think it’s coming out to like $8.1 million. Like how likely is it to be able to find those savings with already the amount of right sizing and savings that we’ve already done? Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you. So absolutely we’ve already incorporated a lot of right sizing into the multi-year budget to begin with. I believe the figure was referenced in the report and it was a fairly significant number. It’s a scheme, I think it was $40 million of incremental reductions that we’ve already baked into the multi-year budget.

[25:11] So that work has been done previously. However, we will continue to do that work. We do that work every year. And so we will continue to look for any and all opportunities for right sizing. I envision that there will be right sizing opportunities for 2026 as well. How much those total is still to be determined and whether that totals the full $8 million or $8.1 million that you referenced, Councillor. I can’t say at this point, but certainly we will, we will do that work, we will look for those right sizing opportunities.

[25:42] And as I noted in my opening comments, we will certainly prioritize those right sizing opportunities where they exist given that they would not have program or service impacts. Councillor Ferri. Thank you, through you. So I guess like the right sizing would be the best option, but I’m worried about other cuts and savings that we would have and how that would impact the service areas. But I guess we don’t know that information right now, but I would be interested to see kind of where that lands with an item like this. Going to the ABCs, I guess it’s the same concerns that I have with the ABCs as well.

[26:19] And I do know that the report spoke to some areas that are legislated to the point where it might be hard or difficult to have those budget cuts or any type of cuts or right sizing in there. So I just wanted to know the likelihood of kind of where those areas that are legislatively required to have that funding, do we know what those areas are, what those items are both on the civic services side and what areas are not necessarily constrained by those legislative requirements just to kind of get an idea of where we might see those impacts, where we might see savings kind of drawn out.

[26:55] Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you. So certainly we can say with some certainty that a pretty significant portion of the city’s budget, both civic service areas as well as agencies, boards and commissions have legislative elements to them. Now, having said that, there may be some discretion even within the legislative requirement to deliver certain programs or services to adjust service levels within that. So just because something is legislated does not necessarily mean that there is no discretion in terms of how much is being spent on it and what the investment is in that.

[27:37] So that is the work that will have to be done by civic services areas as well as each respective agency board or commission to make that assessment and to look at whether there are any opportunities, A, for right sizing, but then B, within their programs and services, including those that are legislative, whether there’s any flexibility to make adjustments to service levels within that. Councilor Ferra. Thank you, and I guess my last question. So I do see some of the ABCs, like the Middlesex London Health Unit, who I know is struggling already with a lot of the funding and the services that they can provide and just kind of the constraints they’re in.

[28:13] And I know, like just conversations in the past with Museum London or anything like, or agencies like that, I do know that, you know, a 1.5% cut for them might be pretty difficult to do. So if they come back and show that there’s, it’s very hard or there’s no real way or significant services would be cut, what would we do in that situation? Are we able to allow them not to be able to find the 1.5% cut? Are we able to do that tomorrow? Thank you, and through you.

[28:47] So the direction that we’re requesting through this report is that all entities be requested to put forward options that, if approved, would be resulting in a tax levy increase of less than 5%. So the work needs to be done to assess what those options and opportunities are. Once those come forward and we envision aligning some of those opportunities in subsequent reports to the Budget Committee, either in May or June. But once that work has been done, then it will then be up to the mayor as part of the mayor’s process of putting forward his proposed budget, as well as counsel, in your work in reviewing and potentially amending the mayor’s budget to assess which of those opportunities you might be willing to pursue or not, given the information and the associated implications that go along with those potential reductions.

[29:41] Second, thank you, Chair. I know I said that was the last one, but I’m just gonna ask one more. And this is my last one, I promise. For, and I know that the ABCs all had training, just kind of giving them the tools of what they need to kind of be able to look at their budgets to bring back what we’re asking for. But my question would be did you, have you had any feedback from the ABCs so far with the 1.5% request that we’re doing? Have you had any feedback on kind of what kind of services or what really is the capacity for the ABCs to actually be able to meet those goals?

[30:17] Thank you, I can go to staff also highlight this is the first time committees discussed it, so it hasn’t gone to council and it hasn’t actually been sent out to the ABCs yet. They might have, or may not have seen it in the news, but they’ve gotten no formal communication from council, nor the mayor, are I. Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you, I’m Chair. Yes, any communication that we’ve received to date from the agencies, boards and commissions has been more about clarifying what the expectations are in this report that we’re putting forward today and more around the mechanics of what the calculation and the expectations are. We have not received at this point any feedback around the viability or feasibility of any achievement of that 1.5% direction.

[30:57] Thank you, I’ll highlight this budget chair. Only one ABC has reached out that they actually might need help with some provincial advocacy and look to council for that, but they are waiting for the process to come forward. Okay, I’ve thumbs up from council for error. He will hold onto any other questions that might come up throughout the process. I did, I will go to councilors for first questions before I circle back for second questions. I had the mayor next if you wishes to, but then I also had councilor Hopkins in Frank. I just had more of a comment than questions. Are you doing questions at this point?

[31:30] It’s fine, just make your comment. Okay, so I appreciate the questions so far. I wanna thank staff for the report based on the direction that was provided and I think that’s a nice outline of the process that we can follow. I certainly appreciate the questions that are being asked. I will know for colleagues though, you see that in the table where it says, civic administration, if they were to find 1.5% is about 8 million boards and commissions 5.1. It’s not broken down to say, kind of what through the chair, councilor for error was articulating that’s, every board is going to do an arbitrary 1.5%.

[32:04] It’s meant to say, this is what the boards and commissions collectively would need to find if they were going to meet that 1.5%. There may be boards and commissions through the service review process that have greater capacity than others to do that given their operational constraints and their needs during this time. So the idea here isn’t to put an arbitrary set number across the board on each and every boarding commission but be very transparent about the level that we’re looking for. And also at this stage in the process, bring forward ideas for consideration with the implications of them. There will be a discussion of this committee and I think when those ideas are put forward, I wouldn’t do through the charity councilor Stevenson’s point.

[32:41] I think the public will obviously give some feedback on how they feel about those discussions to councilors and council as well. But we certainly have the capacity at any point to say, yes, that’s an implication that we’re willing to take or not on the service review process. I think, and I wanna commend our staff as I usually do, over the past decade, the service review process that the city has been exceptional, right? They have dug into different service areas. They found ways to write size budgets. They’ve done so predominantly without significant changes to our operational plans or our service levels or even our staffing levels, which we know we’ve seen upward pressure of in a number of divisions giving the growing city.

[33:21] So this work is possible with the right training. I appreciate that almost every, if not every boarding commission on this list did participate in the service review process. I don’t know how that’s translated operationally into their processes or what they’ve done yet. But that’s why this piece about Councilor Palose and I going out and having a conversation with the boards and commissions is I think important because this need not be a combative process. We certainly can say we’d like to bring the budget down. We recognize that both boards and commissions and civic administration have a role to play. And we’re here to engage with you about the needs that you have.

[33:54] As Councilor Palose mentioned, there’s some boards who are going to say, we’d really like to bring our budget down. We could use some provincial advocacy on some stuff, some legislative changes or even some funding changes that the province have made. With the swearing in of a new provincial ministry and a new mandate for the provincial government, this is a great time for us to have a sense of where their advocacy positions are because advocating to the new ministers at a time when they come in is a great opportunity that I and our GR team can engage in. And with the suite of meetings coming up through the spring and the summer about new engagements with the new ministers and ministries, this is a good time for us to say, you could really help out the municipal budget if you made these operational or policy changes that impact these boards and commissions.

[34:38] So to me at this point, very collaborative process, we’re gonna go out and have some conversations. We know kind of what the general target looks like. We know that we need some support for both civic administration and boards and commissions. And we know that there’s gonna be operational savings that are found that don’t have service impacts, but that there’s probably some that are going to be tied to changes of service levels or other needs. So I think at this point in the process, I appreciate what the staff has outlined and I appreciate the questions that counselors have brought so far to the process. And I think that we’re setting the stage for what is a first phase of collaboration with our boards and commissions as well as our civic areas to see what’s possible and what the consequences of those possibilities are.

[35:20] Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I just wanna thank the mayor for those comments and I wanna give my thanks to staff for outlining the process. I really appreciate that we are doing this now ‘cause there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. I just wanna make a comment and it is about our strong mayor powers and how we as a council can only make amendments. And I found the process in the past being very, very tight. Need a lot of time to first of all collaborate, understand the amendment and then reach out to the different agencies and boards and commissions and then get back on time to make a decision.

[36:05] And maybe just a comment as we start this process, we need a little bit more time. So we’re not really just reacting and putting something forward without having, it had its due diligence. And I think that is really important ‘cause that’s the only way we as a council can really do anything in the budget and I think it is an important process. So I’ll just leave it at that. I think it’s, I’d like to see a little bit more time with these amendments and discussions at council.

[36:40] Thank you. Thank you, not doing cross debate, but as council are having us dimension, the strong mayor’s budget and the process we’re going through. Mayor Morgan, you wish me a comment? Yeah, and I’ll keep it to just factual information to assist the council with our question and our staff can jump in. One of the challenges we have, which is not a decision that I’m making or council’s making is that when the budget is actually tabled, like the formal tabling of the budget, it triggers a provincial statutory deadlines, which basically puts an end date to the process, which compresses the time that council would have to make formal amendments and then get public feedback on them and then make a decision on them.

[37:20] Those are not decisions that we’re making. It’s not anything that I or staff have flexibility on. It’s basically once the budget is tabled, when we get that tabling point, which is the trigger point of which council can actually make formal amendments, we only have a set amount of time under the legislation to do that in. Otherwise, the mayor’s budget simply becomes the budget and council waves its right. So it may have felt compressed in the past. That is a function of the provincial legislation. This process is not a tabling of the budget and the reason why there isn’t a tabling of the budget is if I were to table a budget today, we’d have to be done within 30 days, I think. So we don’t want to do that.

[37:54] We want to engage in a lot of discussion. We want to have some ideas on the table. We want to make recommendations to me into the budget process. But once I table that document formally, it triggers statutory timelines that were obligated to follow by the province. So, and I appreciate that those can feel tight, but we have absolutely no control over those. Thank you. And that’s the process. We’ve come adjusted to the last couple of cycles. As you would have noted on page eight, all those line dates are already worked out working backwards from the tabling. And the media can book their vacation accordingly if they want to be with us or not.

[38:28] Councillor Frank, you were next. Thank you, yes. I have one question and then an amendment put on the floor. So I’m wondering through the chair to staff how moving forward with this framework when we get a report back later on when it comes to council for further deliberation. Given that the 1.5% is kind of the ballpark figure as we heard from the mayor, maybe not everyone will be able to make it. Maybe people will be able to do more. But given that various ABCs have already made significant reductions from their original table budgeted asks, I’m wondering how will we be able to see that information.

[39:02] So for example, LTC has already made reductions to their budget for 2026. They’ve been required to reduce their original budget asked by 5.4% for next year. So this additional 1.5 would take it to 6.9. The library’s already been reduced over the last three years to reduce their budget asked by 14%. So this would take it to 15.5% from their original ask for 2026. So I’m just wondering will staff have any way to flag which ABCs have already made a reduction to their original budgeted asks beyond the 1.5% that we’re going to be asking for them to do now?

[39:36] Thank you, Mr. Murray or Ms. Burbone. Thank you and through you Madam Chair. I think the challenge that we are faced with is that there’s been, and this was referred to in the mayor’s comments a couple minutes ago is that there’s been multiple iterations, multiple versions of the budget since late 2023. As we worked through first, the draft civic administration draft multi-year budget and then you’ll recall that there was the mayor’s proposed budget after that.

[40:16] There was then the adopted multi-year budget and then we flip forward to the 2025 budget process within the mayor’s proposed budget and then council’s amendments to that. Within those processes, there have been multiple decision points. There’s been base budgets and adjustments to those base budgets. There have been business cases that were considered at various points and included at various points in whole or in part in the numbers. So I guess what I’m driving at here is that there are multiple sets of numbers, multiple figures that have evolved since the first multi-year budget was released back in late 2023.

[41:02] So I think the challenge that we would have is we would have to effectively reverse engineer our way into what the original asks were and it’s not something that systematically we have the ability to pull easily. Certainly in general terms, as all of council knows, there were adjustments made to the base budgets for various entities as well as business cases that were either approved in whole or in part. So the challenge is actually pulling those numbers in a succinct way.

[41:39] What I can refer you to is appendix B of the report which outlines the average annual increases by service in the far right-hand column. That effectively gives you a sense, approximate relative sense of where those increases are for each of those entities and perhaps where the pressures are more focused. So I hope that answers the question, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I think it does.

[42:12] And I think perhaps then a guy was originally hoping for the original number that were submitted by ABCs. So I would have one static point instead of the various iterations and then comparing it to what will be asked of them for 2026. But I do think that I could probably do that by asking the ABCs themselves as well, which is where I got those two numbers. So I appreciate the answer. And then in addition, there was an amendment circulated by Councilor McAllister and myself. So I would like to put that on the floor. And if Councilor McAllister is still in to a second and I’d be happy to read that into the record if needed.

[42:53] Yeah, I’m gonna ask that the clerks put it up on the screen and just, it is the same one that you sent. So just you can even read it out there if you want. If you just read it out for people following along online, who can’t see the screen? Sure, that the motion be amended to include a new part to read as follows, that the Mayor and London Police Services Board be requested to advocate to the provincial government with regards to London Police Services budget on the following items. I contribute provincial funding to the Emergency Services Training Center and I contribute provincial funding to Integrated Mental Health Workers Coast.

[43:33] It being noted that any cost recovery would be directed to lowering the property tax rate for 2026. Hey, Councilor Frank, ‘cause maybe that Councilor McAllister is a seconder. I have a nod. Okay, that items on the floor are opening it up for questions and comments. We’ll start with Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. So I think having this added in, I think it’s a reflection of some opportunities that are available in terms of getting some costs recovery. The police do, they are one of the largest in terms of our budget.

[44:11] But I do think through the conversations we’ve had with the province, there’s some opportunities to get some money back. And ideally, as is noted in this amendment, we would put that cost recovery towards lowering the property tax for 2026. I think we need to take every opportunity we can at this juncture. And I think the police, there’s many opportunities that have been expressed by the province that we can actually capitalize on getting some funding for this. Thank you, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, and similar Councilor McAllister, I was looking for ways that we could try to reduce the property tax rate as well as try to receive adequate funding from the provincial government for various services.

[44:55] We talk about a lot how much the municipality is covering and provincial services. And this to me is an example of that. So for example, I had been asking the police services for statistics related to mental health calls. And in 2024, there were over 5,000 reported incidents where mental health was a factor, which created 16,774 hours of related to mental health calls for police officers. So based on my math, which is a back of the napkin math, so I’m sure that the police services would be willing to validate it.

[45:29] But if an officer makes around 100,000 a year and works a full work week, that would be about $900,000 a year or about nine officers. And that’s just in police officer time alone, let alone their admin and the cost of the car and gas and all of those things. So there to me is right off the bat an opportunity for us to seek provincial funding for mental health calls, which are healthcare related and have the right level of government paying for that service. Additionally, I do think that the mayor will hopefully be successful.

[46:02] I attended the police gallery where the premier spoke about how much he supported the police services and how much he appreciated their service. So I have a lot of confidence in the mayor’s ability to go in and lobby the provincial government for more funding. So I hope we can receive support on this so that we can reduce the property tax rate and have proper jurisdictional payments for this service. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Thank you. So I’m gonna make some comments in support of this motion. I have an additional amendment that I’d like to add into if that’s to the chairs.

[46:34] But first, and I’ll just speak now. So I don’t have to speak later to the motion that the two colleagues have put on the floor. I’m very supportive of this for a couple of reasons. One, before the provincial election, we outlined a pre-budget submission for the provincial government, which obviously never made it to budget because an election was called that outlined a couple of asks. One of which being the joint police fire training center and asking the province to take a stake in that. We know with the closing of the fire college that there is a need for proper training services within the province, including Southwestern Ontario, specifically, there is a significant opportunity for this to be a regional training center and to partner with the province on a facility.

[47:17] They’ve already allocated within their framework a billion dollars for improvements and upgrades to the police college in Elmer. And there is probably an opportunity to re-profile some of that dollars should the province be willing to other regional facilities that could serve similar purposes that are geographically dispersed and can combine with other emergency service opportunities like fire services. I can tell you I have had initial conversations with the Premier’s office about this. They’re open to the discussion. This is also a position that is supported by the London Police Services Board through their pre-budget submission as well.

[47:53] And so this puts us in alignment with the board and their advocacy on the training center. And I think a good opportunity to partner with the province on a significant capital project that could have very significant regional benefits from a wider emergency services perspective. And there’s also great potential for that to be expanded. We know that airports need fire suppression training too. And we know that they actually now travel a great distance to do that. So a properly formatted facility in partnership with the province might actually cover a range of opportunities and meet a range of needs for both the city of London as well as the region. The part that I wanna amend and add in is another piece that aligns with our pre-budget submission and also a position of the London Police Services Board.

[48:35] And that is support for the operational costs of policing. The amendment that I’d like to make, and then I can speak to it after the chair would like to see if there’s a seconder, is to add a C that says that the mayor be requested to advocate to the provincial government to provide funding to help offset the London Police Services operational budget, not dissimilar to the financial supports provided in 2024 to 330 small and row municipalities to help offset the cost of police services provided by the Ontario Provincial Police. And I’ve submitted that to the clerk. The clerk has it, Councillor Lehman and Kay that he’ll second, it’s just going up on the screen.

[49:11] You’ve read it out, so looking to see if you’d like to speak. Yeah, I’ll speak to the amendment now. This recognizes that the province recognizes that the operational costs of policing across the province are going up in every municipal jurisdiction, including cities, including those who contract with OPP services. To assist in November of 2024, the Ontario government announced over $77 million in funding support for those 330 smaller row municipalities that rely on the OPP to help them offset the costs of the increase in costs of policing, which the province sees as a need across the province.

[49:45] The position of myself and other mayors and the city of London and the police services board has been just because we’re running municipal police services and not contracting OPP services doesn’t mean we don’t also need provincial operational support for that increase in costs of policing, much like the other row municipalities have been recognized to do, I think this is a very fair equity argument to be made here with the province to say, we’d like some help with operational costs of policing, especially the ones that are escalating across the province, just like you’ve done with them. We’ve gathered a lot of data on this again. It was part of our pre-budget submission.

[50:18] And the reason why I think the timing of these motions are good in the budget process, even though for the most part, we’ve got a lot of runway, is as I said in my other introductory comments, the new provincial ministry is about to be sworn in. This was a pre-budget submission that we had before. They’re going to engage very soon in a budget process at the provincial level. Now is the time for council to throw its support behind and reinforce our support for our current advocacy positions in consultation and support with the police services board and other municipalities across the province to say, in this budget, we need you to make these supports, whether that’s the police training center or the amendment on the floor, the operational costs of policing.

[50:58] If we can get this in the next budget, it will absolutely help us in our 2026 budget discussions because we should have that information within the next provincial budget to know what they’re doing or at least the directionality and how they would do that. So I’m happy to go out and lobby this. The reason why I wanted to add this into such a motion here is because I think the timing is really good for us to reinforce our pre-budget advocacy positions to align with the police services board and to say we want to go and actually ask the province for all of these things together, because I think the reasonable asks, I think they were aligned with provincial priorities and I think with the new ministry being sworn and now is a good time to put this on the new ministers desk with the full support and direction of council as well.

[51:40] Thank you. So just we’re on the amendment of the amendment. So just looking for questions or comments in regards to the mayor’s motion. That’s the amendment that’s on the floor. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m happy to support all of this and I wonder as we ask them to support us operationally with policing, if there might be from the province and ask that we support them in their addiction recovery focus. So the province last year said that they were moving into the Alberta model of recovery oriented systems of care.

[52:17] That’s different than what the Chief Medical Officer of Health Ontario said. The premier has been very clear in his position on safer supply in terms of promoting drugs or supporting drugs in our cities. And so that might be an interesting conversation to see if there’s something we could offer them in terms of support in conjunction with more funds. I took that as a comment. Councillor Ferrer, just on the mayor’s amendment. That’s on the floor.

[52:49] Thank you, Chair, through you. I don’t see why I can’t support this. I think it’s a great idea. And if we see this as transpire with the province, this would be a very significant assistance for our operating budget in our overall tax levy that we impose. I do want to ask with that kind of following the model for the 330 small and rural municipalities, is there a time frame that funding was actually allocated for? Is that in perpetuity? Or is there a zero amount of time that funding was actually blocked off for?

[53:22] I can’t remember from the news sources that I read in the past on that one. To staff, if you know the answer. Nope, I have had shakes, Mayor Morgan. I don’t know if that’s no one yet. We can certainly look into the media reports to see if anything’s out there. Any further questions? Yeah. Any chance that we could maybe put a little friendly amendment on this to kind of outline that this funding request from what I heard from the mayor would be something that would be in perpetuity, would be something that would be a permanent budget assistance coming from the province?

[54:08] I can’t take any more amendments. There’s already an amendment of the main motion. Other than the Americans say that clarify? Yes, that would be the advocacy position we would go for. We very rarely would go after operational dollars that we don’t see as permanent. Now that being said, I certainly wouldn’t say no to operating dollars for four or five years, but I certainly wouldn’t tend to go for permanent operating dollars when it’s on the operating side of the budget as per our financial principles. Councillor Houghlin.

[54:42] Yeah, I’d like to just speak to the amendment, the amendment, the amendment and on the main motion, all at once really appreciate these amendments going forward. Pre-submission though, I do have a question now that we have a new government to are we submitting the same pre-budget submission? And do we have to submit it to this government again? It’s my first question. To staff. Thank you through you, Chair.

[55:13] At this point in time, we do have it prepared to go and we have not seen a specific submission request on the province, but should there be one we would send it or we can also decide whether or not we would send it without that request. So we do have it ready to go. Councillor Houghlin. Good to know. I know we’re having these conversations at AMO too and it aligns with AMO’s pre-submissions as well. So appreciate the answer. I do have another question through you, Madam Chair on this amendment. Does this amendment stop us from requesting the police service board to cut back on there or help us out with the $13 million that we need as well?

[55:55] ‘Cause I know this is probably gonna take us a little time. I’m in favor of these amendments, but wanna make sure it does not prohibit us from reaching out to police services and asking them to see if they can trim their budget down a bit. Thank you. Two things running parallel but to staff. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. I would have the same interpretation that the ask of all agencies, boards and commissions as well as civic service areas to find one and a half percent reductions would still stand regardless of this amendment.

[56:29] That’s happy to support it. Thank you, Councillor Ferri, apologies. You were at 30 seconds, so please continue. Thank you, Budget Chair. I was only gonna make some comments fully in support of this amendment. Like I said, if this transpires into what the language here says it could, I think that would be very significant for us. So I do appreciate the mayor bringing this forward and I will be in support of it. So thank you. Okay, before calling the question, looking to see if there’s any comments just on the mayor’s amendment to the amendment of the main motion? Seeing none, calling the question and he’s closing the vote.

[57:19] Motion carries, 15 to zero. Okay, it’s the amendment as amended now prior to getting back to the main motion. So that would be, so I was just gonna use the original mover as in seconders, seeing no opposition to that. So further speakers on the amendments that were put forward. Councillor Layman, Councillor Frayer and then I’ll keep adding to my speakers list. Thank you, Chair.

[57:53] I’m speaking to the main amendment here as amended, or the main motion as amended. I wanna thank Councillor Frank and Councillor McAllister for bringing this forward. I just wanna go through the three items here. Sorry, I got it interrupt, posture time. I haven’t even started all over. It’s still the amendments, which we need to take care of before we get back to the main motion as amended. We’re still on the second level of fun. I’ll speak to the main motion as amended, as amended as amended as amended. Okay, I look forward to that when we get there.

[58:25] So we’re still on the amendments on the floor, or we can always just vote and then have added for the main motion as amended. Councillor Frayer, you were next on the list, not sure if you don’t wanna wait ‘til everything is wrapped up to speak to everything, your call. Okay, I seem to have everyone hold on the line to speak to everything once we’re all on the floor. Okay, so calling the question on that, then I’ll do my speaker’s list on the main motion. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero.

[59:21] I’m still gonna use cutting and frank as the main movers and seconders to everything all wrapped up. So everything is back on the floor. All the amendments are in, so you can speak to anything on 2.1 at this time. I will start with Councillor Layman, then Councillor Frayer, and Councillor ramen and build up my list from there. Thank you, Chair. Now to go back to the beginning, thank you to the Councillors that brought this forward. This ties into, I think, the work that Chief Truong has envisioned in his four-year plan with regards to the training center.

[59:58] I think there’s always, envisioned as more than just a police training center. This was envisioned as a multi-service training center, for sure, with fire. I think there’s no reason why we can’t add paramedics in there. And also, as a regional center, and as it’s been put forward, people have had time to kind of see how this is gonna be used. I think the timing for this request is great. Regarding the coast program, integrating mental health workers, I know this is very much a priority for the Chief, and of course, the board.

[1:00:42] I think this acknowledges that policing is a tough business, and it’s changed dramatically in the last five years or so, and has put pressure on resources. So I think that, again, acknowledging that this council, which has supported the police direction, going to the province saying, we need to more support for the direction that we’re headed is, again, great.

[1:01:16] And thank you to the mayor for that amendment. You know, that’s the first thing I thought of when I read about OPP service areas. I thought, well, that’s terrific for those towns and cities. What about London? So I’m glad to see that that’s being included. The big thing here is that this gives way to, more weight than just if the board came to the province. This is a city of London saying, you know what, province, we are willing to do our part in the heavy lifting here to bring safety to our city.

[1:02:00] And yeah, we need some help here as well. We’re not just going hand without us doing our part first, but we need some help out for sure. From the board’s perspective, and I’ll just put on my board hat here, the board is fully aware of the pressures that this has brought onto property taxpayers in the city and have been diligent and will continue to be diligent, despite the amount of budget that’s been allocated to continue to find efficiencies.

[1:02:41] And also to listen to the concerns of council, we responded with $850,000 of reserve to help out in 2025. We welcomed the board chair and the deputy mayor addressing the board regarding our reserves funding. See if there’s a room there and the board is having those discussions and for me personally in a way that I’d like to see to assist us in our goals here of finding savings to get this tax rate down.

[1:03:18] So thank you again to councilors that brought this forward and thank you to council for your continued support of the direction that the board wants to go and for sure the chief in his mandated role of bringing safety to London. Thank you, councilor Ferra. Thank you chair, through you. So with the two amendments that we saw adding to this, I do appreciate the work from the councilors and the mayor, you know, we’re kind of hitting the big items that we talk about a lot this, you know, the operating costs for the LPS budget, the trading facilities and other big one.

[1:03:59] I do appreciate those amendments in there. I really think that just this advocacy and the potential of getting a provincial support for that would be really, really great for us. Similar to, I guess, councilor Layman’s comments, like I’m not open to be making any actual cuts to the operating budget for the police. I do feel like we need that operating budget to be just established the way it is and just to bring offices on board because I know that the residents of my ward are calling for it and we do need it. But at the same time, just kind of finding ways to depress the pressure on our tax levy is kind of the big question here and to really find a way to not necessarily have that impact our other areas.

[1:04:42] Our other areas on the ABCs and our others for the civic service areas. So I do like the way this motion is looking. I am gonna be in full support of the motion as amended. I guess I just have one question that I just would like to confirm before moving forward on that. And that would be, you know, if we do find that provincial funding to offset our expenditures, you know, with respect to operating, with respect to the coast and with the training center, if we do find that, will that mean that we have, with that less pressure? Will that mean that the target for the ABCs or the civic service areas to hit that 1.5% reduction?

[1:05:16] Will that be relieved? Like, will we not have to be able to find those 1.5% depending on how much funds we may be able to get from the province? Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you. I would suggest that what we’ve put forward here is a quest that we look for all entities to identify 1 1/2% of reductions to achieve the target that we’re striving for. There are many ways to get there. There, I’m sure, will be many options put forward.

[1:05:51] Again, as discussed earlier in the meeting, some are gonna be right sizing with no service impacts. Some may be programming service changes or service level adjustments, and perhaps there may be other funding opportunities that are realized such as, perhaps, hopefully from the province. So I think what we’re putting forward here is a broad general direction today of a minimum of 1 1/2% that does not speak specifically to how that is achieved. There are multiple paths and we have multiple options in front of the mayor and council to ultimately achieve that.

[1:06:29] Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Chair. Okay, so my last comments with these amendments is why I’m gonna be supporting the motion. I would be under the impression, and I would be under the understanding that when we do find, when we, hopefully, when we do get that support from the province, I would be of the position to see that that pressure be relieved from the 1.5% for the ABCs and the civic service areas. So I’m hoping that we do get that support from the province because that’s what I would ultimately like to see. Thank you, Councillor Rama. Thank you and through you.

[1:07:03] So I’m very supportive of what’s in front of us today for discussion. I’m just wondering, though, if we can use this for an opportunity for some broader ideation around how we go about advocating and how we go about seeking grants and funding opportunities. So in this discussion today, and I’ll just use the police as an example, we’re talking about cost funding, which has, under the community safety initiatives, funding provided by the province, there has been a grant program available for this funding for a number of years.

[1:07:37] And so one of the things we’re not aware of as Councillors is when different boards are applying for funding opportunities. But I do think there’s, of course, obviously some overlap, but there’s also, there also could be room for new ways forward on how we apply for different funding opportunities, both provincially and federally. Right now, we’re talking about this from the Provincial Funding Framework, but there was also money on the table under the Crime Prevention Action Fund at the federal level for different supports for policing over the last few years.

[1:08:19] And as we, again, look at election cycles and things like that, I’m wondering if there’s also opportunity for us to look at requests to the federal government for some additional supports under the public safety ministry, and if those conversations could be had as well. Overall, though, I do think we have to look at how do we coordinate our asks to the province and the federal government amongst ABCs as well. Sometimes I’ve had conversations with ABCs where there has been a funding opportunity and perhaps whether it’s through FCM or somewhere else, and those may not be as clearly known to them.

[1:08:58] So I do think there’s an opportunity here for a broader conversation, not sure how we want to do that, but since right now this is only scoped to Provincial, I’m just wondering if we need to also scope it to federal or if that’s assumed. Okay, just a few madam chairing, sorry. I just wanted to confer with my colleagues about this.

[1:09:34] Certainly appreciate the recommendation around coordination of request for funding, and we do as much as we can to, from the city’s perspective, access grants, either federally or provincially, but a suggestion around the coordination with other boards and agencies is a good one, and certainly something we can take back through my area with our government relations team as well. Councillor ramen. Just to follow up, do I need to amend any language to include federal? Just again, saying that there was some money, and I’ll give the example of there was some money that Mississauga was able to access for auto theft last year from the federal government under the public safety ministry.

[1:10:14] I know that we also had many conversations about that. I spoke to the chief about it and to the mayor. So I do think that positioning ourselves for asks at the federal level, asking for delegations with the public safety minister, being able to have some of those conversations. I know I just received some crime statistics data yesterday that’s concerning for London. So I do want to see us also position that conversation at the federal level. And just wondering if you can’t amend amend again. So I’m not sure what to do there. I’ll mention that as we’re back to the main motion amended, we can start the amendment of the amendment and amendment and stuff again.

[1:10:54] That is procedurally in order. But let’s see if we need to go there first. City manager. Through you Madam Chair, I think based on the discussion here, it’s clear that council’s direction or council’s desire would be for us to look at all levels of government. We’re funding might be available. So we’re comfortable with that. Councillor Robin. Thank you. Okay, next I had Councillor Stevenson, and then I’m not sure Councillor Pribble wanted back on ‘cause he was on the original one back in the day. And then I’d have the mayor. Thank you.

[1:11:26] I support this, you know, one of the benefits that comes from challenging financial times is you have an opportunity to look at where you can find tax savings and become leaner and more efficient. It also gives us an opportunity to, I think look at some of the bigger picture things. So one of them is the debt. And I brought it up earlier and it’s here showing that debt is the second beneath policing, 16% of our budget. And when you look at the 2025 budget update, our debt financing costs, which is the annual costs to pay the payments and the interest on that debt, is going up 50% from 2025 to 2026.

[1:12:13] So an increase of $18 million. And by the end of the next term of council, the annual amount is up $100 million. So although I like looking for the little things, I just wonder if as we, and I know I’ve asked about information on debt and there’s more things coming so that we more understand. This council agreed to increasing the debt by a very large amounts. And I don’t remember having any deliberations around it. And so it might be a good time to just explain to the public why we made the choices that we did.

[1:12:47] And are there any off ramps that this term of council can consider prior to us wrapping up? The other thing is, again, from a bigger picture standpoint is I hear from the public that there was some sort of social justice activism, or that’s the way it’s perceived. Decisions that were made by a previous council that may have seemed appropriate at the time, that given the extreme financial challenges and the very high property tax rate increases, I don’t know if they have the general public relevance now that they did then.

[1:13:23] And so it might be worth considering. And under that is the drug policies. So the whole community response has taken an advocacy stance around decriminalization of drugs and the public members believe an over emphasis on harm reduction. And so maybe, is that something to consider? Like what are the financial costs of that decision in terms of our park streets and building maintenance, our by-law and our CIR, security costs for the city, for our shelters and for the ABCs?

[1:14:00] And also the cost, the incremental costs that are being faced by our frontline personnel, our fire, our police and our paramedics. Is there a way that making a substantial shift that would align with the province, and what, well, it’s hard to say where the federal government is going, but it does seem to be the new way forward, is to make a shift that increases public safety and potentially is a substantial cost saver. And I’d like to explore that, or I wonder, maybe if city’s civic administration is gonna be looking at any of those bigger picture paths to cost savings, or whether that’s something that should be done at the councilor level.

[1:14:45] Thank you, I’ll go to staff for a reply. I realized that was over three minutes of I wonder, and should we? So I’m not sure if those were just public ponderings for us all to ponder versus direct questions, but we’ll see what civic administration has for reply. Then I’ll go back to you, councilor. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you, the members of committee. And you certainly appreciate the suggestions about what civic administration can look at in terms of bringing back cuts or any opportunities for savings.

[1:15:18] I think Mr. Kyle Murray has clearly identified those areas that we’re already looking at in terms of right sizing. As it relates to how our services or the services that we provide in the community align with either provincial changes, I would note that things like, example like the hard hub where we’re looking to see how we’re implementing the hard hub in this community, as that hard hub activity continues to roll out with the lead organization, you can be clear, and I guess from my perspective, understand that we’ll be connecting with that agency, supporting that work and determining how that impacts any changes to the services that we provide or support in this community.

[1:15:56] I also want to clarify though, that many of the organizations in this community are not funded by us, they are funded by the provincial government, so they take their direction through their transfer payment agreements with them as well. Thank you, Councillor, you’re at three minutes and 20 seconds. That’s fine, thanks. It’s something that I’m gonna be speaking with the residents in ward for a lot about and doing some research, and I’ll bring some things to the budget meeting in May. Thank you, and as always, city staff remain available to all Councillors between now and then to help you draft things in poll numbers.

[1:16:32] I have a long speakers list, so I do see hands and I am out of moving you to it. Next, I have Councillor Perble, then the Mayor, then Councillor Vamehirberg, then Councillor Trove said, then Councillor Frank, and then Councillor McAllister. So Councillor Perble. Thank you, and so the chair to the staff and this goes actually right to the beginning, and to the graph of the tax levy increase and in the United States, 8.7, when we had the meeting and the last year, the average tax increase per residential home was according to the last graph, 7.7, and that was because of the impact of the tax policy decision and educational tax.

[1:17:09] If you can please confirm that to me. And also, if we have any indication that this number would be influenced for 2025 as well, either lower or higher, thank you. Mr. Mary. Thank you and through you. So the average annual tax levy increase coming out of the 2025 budget update is 7.3%, which coincidentally actually aligns with the 2025 increase. So having said that though, as you have rightly noted, Councillor, the impacts of education tax, provincially and tax policy decisions need to be also layered on to determine what the ultimate eventual impact is to the tax bill that any given residential property owner would receive.

[1:17:58] I do not have that specific percentage increase immediately in front of me for 2024. I recall that it was in the mid-7s. So the budget increase for 2024 was 8.7%, but layering on provincial education tax and tax policy decisions, it was down in the mid-7% range. So the tax policy work for 2025 is still to come and that will ultimately affect what the eventual tax bills that Londoners receive is. Thank you.

[1:18:31] Councillor. Thank you for the answer. Excuse me, any approximate timing when to 2025, we wouldn’t be able to know the answer. Mr. Murray. Thank you, Chair. That will be coming forward in April at the April meeting. It typically needs to be done early April so that we can have all the decisions made by council by the end of April so that we can send the tax bills out in May. So that should be, I don’t have the exact date in front of me, but it will be in April meeting at the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. Councillor Provel.

[1:19:03] Thank you, no more questions. Mr. Mayor. And then Councillor Van Merberg and we’ll be next. Thanks, I’ll make a couple comments based on what the colleague said. So I appreciate the overall motion. I will say, although we passed a piece related to some advocacy on LPS or related to going after provincial dollars, that does not mean that we are not actively and myself is not actively working with boards and commissions on other provincial advocacy related to their budgets related to other pieces with the police budget. So not just the coast program, which needs some increased investment and already has some provincial funding, but also the forthcoming integration of health nurses on LPS teams, the mental health worker who’s been embedded in the Com Center.

[1:19:49] You know, these are all healthcare related costs that there’s conversations with the province about. The feds, in regards to your perspective of how the election goes and who wins, certainly crime and federal investment in crime is going to be a topic of discussion. And actually what that looks like, I think will be a function of the party platforms. And I know FCM is actively engaging with them. I can tell you, crime and public safety with municipalities has elevated within the FCM’s policy framework to one of the top items in conjunction with investments in transit, housing and homelessness. So we recognize that there is a significant federal role to play in both legislatively as well as funding supports for that and how that translates down to the city of London, where I’ll be actively engaged in, but until the finalization of some of the federal policy platforms, you know, we won’t know exactly what direction they’re going and we won’t know exactly how to engage, but we are already advocating there’s a significant federal role to play.

[1:20:46] With the library, for example, there’s advocacy to be done on the provincial share of funding for libraries, which has not changed in many years. And that’s a position that can be worked on in conjunction with GR and the board. We know health units and land ambulance, the way the province flows the money into that, even though they contribute a set share. There is a delay in some of those funding flows that creates upward pressure on both us and the county and the way that we fund them. There’s ways to engage with discussions with the new ministers on, are they interested in correcting that? We know that housing and transit, both levels of government have significant investments and directions on the debt piece.

[1:21:23] Yes, debt has been going up. I mean, the two most significant components of the police training center and the hybrid transit facility, the hybrid transit facility has significant federal dollars attached to them that we’re leveraging. And we just talked about advocacy on the police training center if that comes through and there’s a significant capital ask. We’re gonna, in that instant, change our debt outlook with provincial support. And so I think not only is it our policies that can impact debt and our decisions, but also how we partner with other levels of government on significant capital facilities that are multi-generational impacts our debt load and our debt assessment as well.

[1:21:57] I’ll say two, and I know we haven’t said this yet, but I have to say it, the impact of the current situation on international trade is very urgent and does potentially impact our budget processes both this year and moving forward. We do not know how tariffs and counter tariffs will play out yet. We don’t know the impacts on the municipal capital plan, but I can tell you, and I’ve just called an urgent meeting of BCMC to continue our discussions on the current Canadian-US relations that we’ll be discussing. We’re actively engaged and involved in both how tariffs are evolving, the federal government’s conversations on counter tariffs, and where they may intersect with municipal costs, particularly on the capital side of municipal plans.

[1:22:41] If we have a $200 million plus capital plan, and that’s gonna get 20 to 25% more expensive, we’re gonna have to decide are we gonna delay things? Are we gonna spread out our capital plan? Are we gonna put in more money? Or are we gonna talk to the federal and provincial governments to say this is an economic injection, and if these costs go up, can we partner and maintain that economic injection that municipalities can put into building sewers and roads and all the things that we have to do without putting the costs on property taxpayers? All of that will be layered into this process as we move forward through the year, so I just wanted to know that those discussions are happening, and I will continue to bring transparent and timely information to council, so you know how that’s proceeding with that advocacy at a higher level as well throughout the budget process.

[1:23:24] Thank you. Councillor Mayeron’s next, and then Councillor Traussell. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mayor, for those comments on tariffs. There are so many companies here in London that are just waiting with bated breath on what’s going to happen on April the 2nd, so thank you for that. Chair, my statement and my question is basically regarding this particular motion. Clearly this motion complete with its amendments helps towards our goal of a stronger police service, and therefore a safer city of London, so that is an excellent direction to be focused on, but that being said, as stated earlier, there’s no reason to confine ourselves with just the province, and as stated, the federal government clearly has a role, and my question to Ms. Dater’s bearer is simply with regard to our government relations department, is it continually being vigilant to what’s available to us so that we can take advantage of those opportunities when they come forward?

[1:24:45] Ms. Dater’s bearer. Thank you, through you, Chair, to the question, absolutely. We have a very robust process by which we continue to monitor all the different types of information that come through to us from different levels of government and from other stakeholders, whether that be sector organizations or otherwise, so I can assure Councillor or committee, and certainly the Councillor that we do that as best as we can. Having said that, we also work closely with the mayor’s office on the work that’s done with FCM and OBCM as well. Councillor Vamerebera. Thank you very much.

[1:25:17] That completes my inquiry, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Truffsau. Nothing, it’s been said, I don’t need to repeat. Thank you, that’s amazing. Councillor Frank, and then Councillor McAllister, and then I will continue on the speaker’s list from there. Sure, just a quick comment, and I want to echo, I agree, actually, with comments made by Councillor Stevenson, regarding looking at some of the systemic roots of the issues and decisions being made at the provincial and federal government levels that put pressure on our services, like police, ambulance, food security, and small businesses.

[1:25:54] I think if we did a deep dive into some of these policy decisions, for example, like closing the psychiatric facilities in the 90s, moving rent control and buildings built after 2018, the underfunding of healthcare and education, underfunding of housing services, just to name a few, I think we’d realize that the bulk of the issues we have, provincial and federal policy, are poverty related, and some solutions might be, like doubling the social assistance rates, asking the federal government to cover universal basic income programs, because I think if people could afford to live in our communities, we wouldn’t need to offer so many services, just to help them stay housed and to make the ends meet.

[1:26:32] So I welcome a discussion about poor public policy decisions made at the provincial and federal levels, that’s up for debate here at council. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. I don’t know if I need an amendment for this, but I just noticed in terms of the wording that one of them got missed. So in II, for the new addition, it was meant to say contribute increased provincial funding, recognizing that COAS does receive some funding, as Councillor ramen said, just to make sure our message to the province isn’t that they’re not funding it, but that we need those added supports.

[1:27:14] Okay, the clerks are just seeing, which was submitted versus what’s in eScribe, so we’ll hold tight there. Did you have other comments besides that or? Yes. - Yeah, okay. So continue with your comments and then we’ll circle back once they’ve had a chance to look clerically. Okay, so another one, as the mayor mentioned, which I think is an important call out. So in the discussions that both the mayor and the budget chair have, recognizing that other ABCs have been impacted by a lot of the things we’re discussing today, we did call out in terms of mental health workers for the police, but recognizing, for instance, the library have also had to employ a mental health worker that some of our ABCs are incurring costs, which I do believe that the province should cover.

[1:27:55] So just a recognition that some of these added costs when looking through our ABCs budgets, if there’s any opportunity for further advocacy, for the mayor and the budget chair to bring those back for us to consider. Another consideration, which I think is important to put out at the front of this process, as has been mentioned, obviously we have economic headwinds on the horizon, and one of my concerns is, in terms of where we’re putting our money and one of the priorities that we have identified, putting on my other hat in terms of London community housing. In terms of the investments we’ve seen in affordable housing, I want council to be aware just in terms of the commitment to the 3,000 affordable housing units that we not cut too deep into housing, which I think is absolutely going to be needed in the future.

[1:28:43] I think we’re going to see a lot more people struggling through financial times again. And so just a recognition when we’re looking at some of our ABCs and maybe some prioritization that goes in in terms of our strategic plans. I think housing is one of them, and I’d also like to call out some of the services, something like the rent stability bank. I think we might see an increase in Londoners accessing services like that. So I just want to, before we start the budget process in terms of caution for some other cuts, that some of these services are vitally important for Londoners to stay housed and have places to go in terms of affordability.

[1:29:18] Thank you. Thank you. In response to your question about wording, the mayor said it is okay without that change in there. Okay, so I see two nods on that. My speaker’s list is currently exhausted. So looking for those who would like seconds or a last call, I will go back to Councillor Stevenson, who’s used three and a half minutes. Thank you. Yeah, I just had a quick comment because I was referenced there in a comment by a colleague around poverty.

[1:29:52] And I just, this is something that I’m hearing a lot in the public as well, that we are lumping people who have financial challenges with housing and who are suffering from poverty with those who are mentally ill and severely addicted. And so I just want to be clear, because I hear from a lot of low income people that don’t like to be lumped in with that group. They are not causing increases in park maintenance, streets or building maintenance.

[1:30:24] They aren’t needing security and they’re not a drain on our, or not a drain, an increasing pressure financially on our fire police and paramedics. So I just want to be really clear, all of my comments were not related to poverty. And I definitely is a great deal of financial challenges for people. And getting by is getting harder and harder. And we have many people on the edge, but I think we need to start addressing, like splitting homelessness into two different things.

[1:30:58] Those who need housing and those who need medical care. Okay, Councillor Ferri, you were next in the list and you would use two minutes and 20 seconds. Thank you, Chair. Just from the discussion, a couple of questions, I guess came up for me. So I just wanted to go back on one. If, for instance, if we were to take all the budget amounts for all the ABCs and we were to take the sum of all those, and then we were to find 1.5% of that, does that come out to the 5,148,000?

[1:31:33] Or is that a different number? Mr. Mary. Through you, Madam Chair, 1.5% of all of the ABCs net budgets. Again, to be clear, net property tax funded budgets is the 5.1 million figure referenced in the report. Councillor Ferri. Thank you, Chair. Through you. And that’s, I’m assuming the same with civic areas and the capital financing as well for the 1.5. Mr. Mary. Thank you, through you. We have longed capital financing in with civic service areas. In reality, there is a portion of capital financing that does relate to agencies, boards, and commissions.

[1:32:09] So if anything, the proportion that you see in the report, the 5.1 million dollars related to agencies, boards, and commissions, if anything is understated, because the full capital financing piece has been grouped with civic service areas. Councillor Ferri. Thank you, through you. Okay, so if we were to find, I do see the report says that whoever can meet a higher threshold of the 1.5’s encouraged to do so. So, but if we were to want to see some agencies or commissions or boards that we feel might be really critical to the services that they provide, and we know that they’re kind of tight for funding or civic service areas, the only way that they would be able to go below that 1.5 is if some other ABCs or some other areas in the civic service areas are finding greater reductions in the 1.5.

[1:32:59] Is that a correct assumption? Mr. Mary. Thank you, through you. Ultimately, we need approximately $13.2 million if we were to achieve a tax levy increase of less than 5%. So, if one area does not contribute the 1.5%, another area would have to pick up that gap. Councillor Ferri. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. So, that puts, I guess, more hope on the advocacy from the mayor, both to the provincial government and the federal government, I guess, from this discussion, just to make sure, ‘cause I do know, I foresee that some of these civic service areas or the ABCs won’t be able to make those cuts, so I’m really hoping that we do get that extra money to depress the pressure on the property tax so we can meet that threshold.

[1:33:48] Councillor Frank, you’ve used one minute. Please proceed. Thank you, yes. I was also hoping to make some clarifications, and I just wanted to reiterate that the desire I shared in common was to debate public policy, so the provincial and federal policy ideas they listed. I never equated poverty with crime, as was kind of alluded to. I was simply listing bad policy decisions that I think have been made, and saying I’d like to debate them, but I would never equate poverty with crime. Thank you. I have no speakers online looking for proverbial last call of questions or comments before we proceed to the next item.

[1:34:28] Okay, seeing none, calling the question, everything’s amended and good to go. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you, moving on to 2.2, it’s a surplus deficit policy update, looking for someone to put it on the floor, and then we can go to our speaker in the gallery. I have a mover and Councillor Ferreira, a seconder and Councillor Pribble.

[1:35:00] Our speaker is with us today, who requested delegation status, it’s Mr. Butler. Okay, I’m gonna need a vote on the delegation to have them today. Moved by Councillor Travsau, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Butler in the gallery, so I’ll have IT put on this lower mic.

[1:35:37] I will note that they’re in your added package, is a communication already submitted by Mr. Butler, in which they lay out some things. So you have five minutes, and just as a reminder, it’s a delegation we’re receiving and hearing information, and it’s not a back and forth Q&A with the individual. So welcome and thank you for your patience and waiting in for us today. Welcome as well for the welcome app for the committee here. I submitted a couple of questions, and it’s a little different from committee to committee. I haven’t received a response yet from finance.

[1:36:11] So for the first question, I asked, for somebody to have a look at the last 10-year period, and see before the OBCR in this process, before that says, what’s the number of years that it’s been less than 1%? This is more of you speaking to us today, Staph, a lot. I submitted two questions in my delegation note. Yes, you did.

[1:36:43] This is not a time for staff to respond to you. If a counselor has those same questions, we can go to staff once this is fine. I apologize. No, no, it’s fine. No, it’s a different process. It’s been different every committee that I attend. Okay, well, I’ll get ready to it. I want to put a stake in the ground, and suggest to you that the chances of that 1% being before any adjustments at the top of this chart, before we start the process, is 100%. There’s always 1%. So I’d like to put a stake in the ground for myself and other taxpayers and a taxpayer fairness point of view to say that 1% should flow to taxpayers.

[1:37:21] It should go directly into the next budget. Nobody’s asking for a repayment on it. And I feel that we’re obliged to get that. We’ve missed it. We don’t match any other community in Ontario in terms of the ass growth and how it’s allocated. Every other community in Ontario, the ass growth goes directly to the taxpayer. Here, it’s unique. It’s totally consumed. So I would like that to go directly to taxpayer through this process, essentially, that 1%. It’s always there.

[1:37:56] And I’ll bet if you ask the question, what’s the chances of 2% even after the OBC? It’s 75%. So I’ll hold on to the second question, but size matters and proportions matter. What’s pissing a lot of taxpayers off is that we’re being taxed at 8.5% or 7% or whatever. And of those new taxes, pretty much every time we turn around, 40% of it, 35% to 40% of that proportion, is left over to flow into this.

[1:38:32] And taxpayers I’ve talked to and have breakfast with and myself, we have a lot more use for it than you do right now. So I’m asking for a motion that if we’re going to reset this process, the first 1% goes as a call to dividend, not a special dividend. It ticks all the boxes that you folks want. It’s consistent. It’s 100% there all the time. And I got a lot more use for it in my pocket than you do popping it into here. And that’s a fairness issue.

[1:39:06] OK, the second point. Before we start over the top of this process, I’ll go back to a few things that you’re all familiar with. You’re familiar with when a capital budget shows up. It gets reset every year because that’s what capital projects do. The schedules change on roads, sewers, everything on the way through. So I want to take this council back to last year and this process of what happened with green bins. We reset the capital for a bunch of green bin— I guess they’re collection trucks, you would call them— to first quarter, 2024.

[1:39:47] And instead of moving the work package, which is what happens with any project manager for that three months, that last part of 2023, with that capital, it ended up in the surplus bucket. And it got put into all these accounts. So essentially, what happened is taxpayers paid $2 to $3 million more for that first quarter of service because that package didn’t get moved. And I’m asking for a more robust process in terms of what’s called urban value is really what it is in terms of us getting ready for this report.

[1:40:27] And that report be submitted as part of this process. You could talk to, gosh, there’s four or five people in town that do this all the time. There’s general dynamics that I work for. They do it all the time. National Research Council up the road. Alice Dawn, anybody that does projects knows that projects have no respect for a financial year again, they slide around. We have to slide around the ops budget with that associated with the project. And then you have a fair thing for taxpayers.

[1:41:01] And it gets what gets dropped in the surplus bucket. It’s truly a surplus, not an unspent ops budget that’s still planned to be spent. And that could be the police department. That could be LTR, could be service areas, whatever. And it’s fairly easy to do. I also ask council not to rescind the oversight on this until we get a lot of things fixed. And also with respect to Mayor Morgan’s comments earlier, is we need a lot of flexibility over the next four years. We can’t put a COVID shot into a tariff.

[1:41:35] And we’re going to have a lot of challenges. And we need flexibility with this project or with this process on how to allocate. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Betner for being here in person with us today. The report is on the floor as it’s been moved and seconded. We’ve had our delegation. It is now turning the floor over to members of committee for questions and answers on the surplus deficit policy update. Okay, I will commence my speakers list with Councilor Troso.

[1:42:14] Thank you very much. I’ll keep this very short through the chair to finance staff. Can this suggestion, particularly number one, that the speaker may be incorporated into the motion for council consideration? Or is that something we just cannot do? Sorry, Councilor Troso, can you just reiterate what you mean by account, point number one? A portion of the surplus being offset against future taxes. If I understand what Mr. Betner was saying.

[1:42:49] Mr. Murray? Yeah, well that’s the staff, yeah. Mr. Murray? Thank you and through you Madam Chair. So just to clarify, there is not absolute certainty that we will have a 1% surplus in every year. In fact, going back few years, we did not have 1% and we certainly did not have 2% either. So I do want to clarify that to begin with. I think ultimately, if the objective is to reduce the burden on taxpayers and to ultimately achieve savings for taxpayers, that is absolutely achieved through not only our existing surplus deficit policy, but also the amendments that we’ve put forward in front of you today.

[1:43:39] You can see a very strong and increased emphasis on addressing debt reduction and debt servicing costs. And that emphasis leads directly to savings for taxpayers into the future. Just to kind of give you a sense, let’s say every $10 million that we’re able to avoid in debt translates in rough math and based on current interest rates and a 10 year issue. If that translates into about 1.2 million of annual debt servicing cost savings that we don’t need to add to the tax levy.

[1:44:18] So that is direct savings to the taxpayer. Over the 10 year course of that debt, of the 10 year term of that debt, that translates into about $2 million of interest costs that we are avoiding. So I would argue and suggest very strongly that the policy does have a strong emphasis on achieving taxpayers’ savings. And the emphasis on debt also serves the purpose of maintaining our financial stability, our credit rating, and also ensuring that we have capacity to fund initiatives that come up in the future if and when we need to utilize debt for that purpose.

[1:44:58] Thank you. Councillor Troso, anything else at this time? Okay, I do have a speakers list growing. Councillor Ferra is next and then Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Proville. Thank you, Chair. I was just gonna ask some clarifying questions, just kind of reading through the report. The report’s coming out of finance, very clear. I always love them. I just, one little sentence that I just wanted to clarify. For the new proposed deficit surplus policy, so from what I understand, the city treasurer, any type of surplus city treasurer can allocate to the operating budget contingency reserve fund and any remaining funds after that allocation goes 20 to the unfunded liability reserve, 20 to the new budget deficit, budget, debt substitution reserve fund, and then, or sorry, 60 to the debt substitution reserve fund and then 20 to the capital infrastructure gap reserve fund.

[1:45:49] Is that correct? Did I interpret that correct? Thank you. I believe Councillor Ferra is on page 22 and are remaining surplus allocation, Ms. Barboon. Thank you, I’ll take this one. So the Councillor is correct. I will refer you actually to Appendix C of the report, which I think is a good, a nice graphical, visual representation of current policy and what is before you today as the recommended policies. So yes, the first checkpoint in the process is the opportunity for the treasurer to assess whether a portion of the surplus is required to be retained in OVCR, and then after that checkpoint, the remaining surplus is then allocated 60% to the debt substitution reserve fund, 20% of the unfunded liability reserve fund, and 20% to the capital infrastructure gap reserve fund.

[1:46:37] As we put this forward and formulated this approach, as financial stewards of the organization, our emphasis here is on addressing the debt, liabilities and financial obligations of the corporation, and that focus I think is what you see translated into the proposal here in front of you today. Councillor Ferra. Okay, thank you for that. I may have some more comments or questions later, but that’s really the clarification that I just wanted to get. So I see that any surplus goes to the city’s treasurer first with the operating budget contingency reserve, and then it cascades down according to the policy.

[1:47:12] So that’s really what I wanted to clarify. I’ll just, I may have more comments in the future, but I’m done for now. Okay, well, you’ve used a minute to hang onto as we move on to Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Perbell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, I want to follow up on Councillor Truss’ question, because I appreciate what staff were saying about the surplus, and that number is unpredictable. It changes from year to year. Some years it’s threadbare, and other years, it’s a little more generous, and we have a little more flexibility in it.

[1:47:45] However, I do also appreciate Mr. Butler’s comments about the opportunity to utilize some funds to keep some tax pressures off. So if I wanted to sort of, for lack of a better way of saying it, have my cake and eat it too and away, rather than looking at the surplus policy, which is what we’re looking at today, and I know we’re not talking about other policies at the moment, but we annually year over year, and I know this number changes too, but we always have assessment growth, and would a more sustainable way of reducing tax pressure be looking at allocating like 1% of assessment growth each year to a tax relief rather than a surplus, because we may have years where there is no surplus, but at least with assessment growth, that’s based on new housing coming online.

[1:48:40] So I’m just wondering if there’s, and I know that we would have to change the assessment growth policy to do that, but I’m just asking from a financial perspective, if that would be a more predictable and sustainable method rather than relying on surplus. Mr. Murray. Three, Madam Chair. So certainly that is an approach. I will note the exact same caution, though, on assessment growth, as I did for the surplus. We have had years where we have not had 1% of assessment growth, for example.

[1:49:15] So you would not be able to utilize 1% of assessment growth ‘cause it’s simply not there. The other risk you run with hiving off a portion of assessment growth out the top is that you then do not have enough funding to fund the growth needs that are eligible through the policy and have been put forward by civic service areas or agencies, boards and commissions as legitimate growth pressures that they need to fund. So that is the very real risk of using the assessment growth avenue to do this approach. Deputy Mayor.

[1:49:47] Okay, thank you for that. I appreciate that. I was thinking more of 1%. Like I was, and believe me, I haven’t done math on this. I’m not even back of napkin math, so I’m not, but I was thinking more of whatever the assessment growth is, 1% of that, not a flat, like 1% contribution, but I understand how, I appreciate how complicated and how that just moves pressure around to another space. So I appreciate that answer. I’m gonna give that some more thought. I’m not talking about assessment growth policy today anyway. So, but I recognize that that makes it complicated.

[1:50:22] My other question/concern here is that the new policy, well, I appreciate the need to start addressing the unfunded liability. We are basically taking one reserve fund that doesn’t have a predictable source of contributions and contributing to it, but then another reserve fund that has solely been allocated by surplus and removing it entirely, leaving no source of funding for the community investment reserve fund, which has had value in different projects from time to time.

[1:51:00] And I recognize that there is a four-year limit to a drawdown on that, which I completely support because I don’t think it should be a source of continuing funding for any particular project. But I do think that there’s a need for some funding to be flowing into that. And so I’m wondering if staff could comment on, perhaps if we were looking at wanting to fund both, if we were to say fund the unfunded liability reserve at 17% and 3% be dedicated to the community investment reserve, just so that there is an amount going in there, because otherwise we’re just gonna look for a property tax contribution to the community investment reserve fund to keep filling it up.

[1:51:47] And I don’t wanna go that route. I would prefer that that fund be limited to money available when there’s money available, i.e. a surplus, versus putting a permanent funding source in on property taxes on a fund that is basically there for one off spending allocation. So I’m just wondering if staff can comment on what sort of impact there would be to what they’ve put forward to reducing the unfunded liability contribution to say 17% and dedicating 3% still to community investment reserve.

[1:52:22] Mr. Murray. Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So just to clarify first and foremost on the unfunded liability reserve fund, that was a component of the current policy. It remains in the proposed policy. Effectively how I would categorize it as shifting it from above the line to below the line. So it remains historically the only funding source for the unfunded liability reserve fund as well has been through any year and surplus that we are able to generate and contribute in the same way that the community investment reserve fund has been funded in that respect as well.

[1:52:56] What the deputy mayor has proposed is certainly an option. I would caution though that if there is a desire to have sustainable and predictable funding in the community investment reserve fund, you’re probably best able to achieve that through a regular tax-supported contribution if that is the desire. Otherwise you’re kind of subject to whatever surplus may materialize. Deputy Mayor, I’ll return the floor to you and you have one minute remaining. Thank you.

[1:53:28] So I appreciate that answer. I’m not actually looking for a regular reliable contribution to the community investment reserve. I think that that does need to fluctuate up and down. As I said, it’s one-time funding. So when there’s no funding available, then there’s no funding available. But when there’s a surplus, I would like to put a little away for those special projects. So I’m going to move, Madam Chair, an amendment to the staff recommendation. And just as I’ve said, to reduce the unfunded liability contribution as recommended to a 17% level and dedicate 3% to the community investment reserve fund.

[1:54:11] Okay, looking to see if there’s a seconder. Seconder and Councillor Robin. We’re just clerking the wording, so just hold tight. Hey, if you want to refresh in eScribe, it should be there.

[1:55:11] Just looking to see the wording is correct before we put on the screen and commence to be. Hey, if finance can look at it too, to make sure that the wording is finance approved, third clarity is adequate.

[1:55:49] The seconder is good. Hey, so the item is moved and seconded on the floor. I will start a speaker’s list to it. Hey, I see no one online. I see no one in chambers. Can call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries 13 to two.

[1:56:41] As long as no one has objects using the same mover and seconder being for a mover and a seconder for the motion as amended. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. The main motion as amended is on the floor, gently speaking, it’s a new speaker’s list, but if you’ve already spoken, please be concise. Chair, just chime in and sorry. I was okay to be the original mover and seconder. It’s okay, I didn’t understand the facial gestures. No, I wasn’t objecting. That’s okay. So it’s back on the floor. On the original list, Councillor Pribble was my next speaker.

[1:57:14] So I will go there, cordially. Thank you, I did vote yes on this amendment, just in case it does go through or the entire motion. Right from the beginning, I was very clear that I’m against this policy. I believe every year is totally different. As we now talk the last 10, 15 minutes, we are talking a lot of hypothetically how it’s gonna end up the year and we are tying ourselves. I was never in favor of it in the past, even more so now. Throughout the world, all the organizations are going exactly away from this because they don’t know what’s gonna be tomorrow.

[1:57:49] I don’t believe, I believe we are minimizing our opportunity instead of maximizing every year’s different, their production, their services, I do agree tremendously important. Every year, the tax rates, interest rates are different. I really don’t see advantage whatsoever to do it now. I don’t believe we should have the policy. I believe that by the way, we will have different council in a year to years and every council should have the opportunity to decide if there is a surplus, the staff should be coming forward, just like they did with the two scenarios, potentially with more and every council should have the opportunity to say what they believe is the best for the municipality, for the taxpayer, for the corporation.

[1:58:39] We are tying ourselves to a lot of hypotheticals. We heard it from the staff. We heard it from around the horseshoe. If we have 2%, if we don’t have anything, why are we doing this? Why are we locking to ourselves and limiting our opportunity? I really don’t believe in it. I don’t believe it makes sense. And again, if we look at throughout right now, worldwide, no organization is doing this and why it’s going away from locking themselves into anything. Thank you. I took those as comments.

[1:59:13] Mayor Morgan’s next on my speaker’s list. Yes, so through the chair, I respectfully disagree with everything councilor Pribble said about the policy. I actually think that this is a very responsible way to deal with the surplus. And I actually like the increase percentage related to debt reduction. I will tell you why. The components of the recommended policy, if we have excess money at the end of the year, all go towards obligations that the taxpayer is either authorized or is obligated to pay with the exception of the Community Investment Reserve Fund small change that was made.

[1:59:46] We don’t have a choice but to fund the unfunded liability reserve fund in some way. It’s a bill that’s coming due at certain points and we have to pay it. The debt we have as councilor Stevens has said, we’ve authorized a lot of debt. You don’t want to do that. You don’t actually want to save on the operating budget. You use the surplus at the end of the year to cancel authorized but unissued debt and never have to issue that debt. So you never have to do a principal or interest payment on it. And then we save that capacity in the operating budget. So if we do not spend the whole municipal budget, two of the very responsible things that we can do is don’t issue more debt that we know we need to do for capital projects and save the interest payments and principal payments on it or cover off liabilities that we know we have to pay and that will come due at some point and knowing that we have to balance our operating budget, the only place we could go for if those obligations come due and we don’t have properly allocated funds and the reserve fund for it is raised property taxes.

[2:00:46] So putting it towards those things is of great benefit to the property taxpayer. And the capital infrastructure gap fund, we know we have deteriorating assets. We know we have not put enough money aside to improve those assets. That is also a bill coming due and putting money aside towards that is responsible. Now in an extreme situation, let’s say this year, there is a problem and in this past year, we had a problem. We had to cover statutory provincial obligations for the DC fund where we had no legal choice but to put money in and we could put those money in by raising property taxes this year or using the surplus.

[2:01:27] So notwithstanding our policy and before it got to those components of the policy, the treasurer recommended rather than go to the property taxpayers to fund this provincial policy that says we have to waive development charges for certain categories, let’s actually use the excess money at the end of the year to cover that off. So we don’t have that problem in this budget discussion in the way that we would have otherwise. So there is a level of flexibility built in to the policy that the treasurer can recommend to us. We can always, and I would not recommend this regularly, but we can always notwithstanding a policy and make a different decision at a point in time that we believe we need to.

[2:02:05] But I don’t have a problem with a structured policy that says we’re going to put more towards debt reduction and avoid issuing that debt on behalf of taxpayers in the first place and avoid issuing those, or paying those interest in principal payments. And we’re going to put money towards bills that we know are coming due. I think that’s a pretty responsible way to go. I will tell you this policy in particular, this policy in particular, particularly the debt reduction portion of it comes up every time I meet with our credit rating agency Moody’s as something that they like and something that helps contribute to our AAA credit rating and the maintenance of it.

[2:02:38] It’s not the only thing that contributes to it, but it is something that they like to see because the debt issuances of the organization and how it is tackled through multiple policy arms is something that they are very interested in for the stability of our credit rating. And so I can tell you if we were to change this or cancel this policy, I would need a very clear explanation to Moody’s on why we would do that and how come we’re not going to start to, why we’re moving away from trying to tackle a responsible way through policies, different avenues of tackling debt for future debt obligations for the municipality.

[2:03:10] So I’m supportive of this policy. I’m supportive of the shift towards debt reduction. I think that that is a growing pressure that we can offset with this. I recognize that we don’t know how much that is going to be in any given year, but that’s also why I think this is a good thing to put towards these components, which we know our bills do. Any amount we can pay on those bills that are coming due in any level, I think is a responsible thing to do. So I’m supportive of the changes. I supported the small amendment because I think the Community Investment Reserve Fund is a bit of an outlet for council when it receives pressure from time to time, but a majority of the policy shifting towards those bills being due, I think is a pretty responsible thing to do.

[2:03:47] And I’m supportive of, I was supportive of the existing policy. I’m supportive of the tweaks to it, to shift in this direction. So I’ll be supporting the motion on the floor. Thank you. I know there are speakers, so I’m doing seconds. Councilor Pribble, you’d use one minute and 50 seconds if you want back on the speakers list. I just want to make a comment that it’s not that my comments that it would be irresponsible. I just don’t understand why we are doing now 50, 25, 25, which was still now, or let’s say changes to 60, 20, 20.

[2:04:23] And that’s why I said, I think the servicing the debt and debt reduction is very important. But again, it potentially could be that we need 3, 4% for something else, and we have an urgency. And again, we don’t know what’s going to happen after April 1st, we don’t know what’s going to happen even tomorrow. And I just don’t see a benefit of locking ourselves into now, it’s not being irresponsible. If there might be that the staff is going to come back to us in a year or a few months when there is a surplus, hopefully there will be a surplus, and they will do certain recommendations, and the council will act on that.

[2:04:59] So it has nothing to do with the responsibility. I don’t see right now locking ourselves 60, 20, 20, 50, 25, 25, really giving us a flexibility to potentially change certain things. And I say potentially certain things. I’m not going to say that we are going to put 1% to the reduction of the debt, and 99% we are going to spend on whatever are the initiatives. No, not at all. We do have the responsibility. But I don’t see a benefit of us locking into ourselves, and yes, we need to be responsible. I just wanted to mention that it had nothing to do with going totally, you know, as I said, the debt rate actually 1%, and 99% spending on other stuff, no.

[2:05:39] But let’s give us the flexibility, and let’s address the issues as they arise. None of us know what’s going to happen. None of us. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Just the issue of the AAA credit rating keeps coming up, and it keeps coming up over things that for me are like seem really small, like a surplus deficit policy, which we’re all talking about could be nothing each year, how we allocate that being some scary thing about our credit rating is something I’ll try to understand in the future.

[2:06:20] One of the things in here is the unfunded liability reserve fund, which is the one that I brought up at the last budget meeting to temporarily take $26 million from to give a 2% tax reduction for 2025, and then commit to finding the savings, which, you know, at the time it was raised that we have $176 million in that fund, and if I recall the actual amount that we owe was closer to $300 million, I wondered if we could get an update on how much is owing in that, because again, we talk about its reliability that we must pay, and we must pay at some point in the future.

[2:07:03] And given that the only way we are paying that amount that we owe is through a portion of a surplus that, as we know, may or may not exist. So I’m just wondering if I could get through you to staff, just an update on that fund, how much is owing, when is it going to be due, do we see that this being the only payment is going to satisfy that debt and over approximately what timeframe? Mr. Murray. Thank you. So the current balance in the unfunded liability reserve fund is, as the Councilor noted, approximately $176 million.

[2:07:41] That is used against total liabilities that at this point are in the range of approximately 313 million, give or take. So, and to be clear, that is our unfunded portion of those liabilities, so that subtracts off any other smaller reserve funds that we might have to address certain specific liabilities. For example, WSIB, we have a separate WSIB reserve fund. So those balances in those separate reserve funds are deducted off.

[2:08:15] So the unfunded liability at this point is 313 million. The target balance on the unfunded liability reserve fund is 85% of that unfunded liability amount. Unfortunately, I can’t give you a good answer in terms of the timing of these liabilities. They are future liabilities. The timing of which is uncertain at this point in time. So it is cost that we will eventually occur, but when and how and at what pace is subject to change and subject to be determined in the coming years.

[2:08:49] Councilor? Thank you, that’s helpful. Just for public awareness and my own, what would be the top three things that impact our credit rating? Mr. Murray. Top three things. And again, don’t quote this as coming from Moody’s, but from what I’ve been able to derive from reading their reports and their credit opinions of us. Levels of debt is a big one. Liquidity and financial wherewithal.

[2:09:25] So in terms of our investments and reserve funds and assets to be able to service our obligations. And then third, I would say is our governance frameworks and governance structure that Moody’s consistently points to such as the policies that we have in place that allow us to achieve strong financial results and have proven financial principles in place. Councilor? Thank you, I appreciate that. Councilor Troso. Through the chair, very quick question.

[2:10:00] The way I understand this policy is in front of us. And please correct me if I’m wrong. Is we’re setting up a the purposes to establish a priority framework. My understanding is also every year the council is obligated to pass through a by-law, the budget. And this is directly relevant to Councilor Pribbles’ concern. In any given year, depending on what the circumstances are, we would be able to depart from this general framework and do something different, right?

[2:10:41] This doesn’t bind a future council to do something particular, does it? Mr. Murray. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. So the budget process and the disposition of the year-end surplus or deficit are separate processes. However, your point around the policy being a framework is certainly correct in the sense that this would be the standard process or the standard practice. However, there is the ability for Council to by majority vote to deviate from that if the circumstances so require that.

[2:11:17] So again, though, it’s a framework for the general approach that we would take in most years. Thank you, that’s very helpful. And with that, I feel comfortable agreeing with the mayor and supporting this, recognizing Councilor Pribbles’ concerns. So I think there is built in flexibility. So I’m okay with this. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Further speakers before calling the question? Hey, Councilor Ferra.

[2:11:52] Thank you, Chair. And just kind of, you know, I see kind of the questions that are going back and forth. And I see that, you know, what’s our priorities? We’re trying to reduce the debt. And I see that just the way this surplus policy deficit surplus policy is reframed it really kind of goes towards that. I would also make note that, you know, if we do reach our target allocations for the unfunded liability reserve funding capital investment reserve fund, we do have a little more flexibility at that point ‘cause we won’t be funding those funds in when we have a surplus. I guess I would just want to ask the question.

[2:12:26] Like, how often do we see a deficit here at the city? I don’t believe I’ve seen it since my term. Mr. Mary. Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So I do not recall a deficit now. Of course, as a municipality, we’re not able to run a deficit in the same way that provincial and/or federal governments can. So it would be unusual to see a deficit. I will say in the early days of COVID back in 2020, there was very real concern of that occurring in 2020 until we received exceptional support from our federal and provincial partners.

[2:13:06] But yeah, I don’t recall a year of a deficit. Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Chair. And yeah, so I haven’t seen a deficit for a while so I asked the question. But I do see that we do have our levels of debt at the moment and I understand we can’t operate debt as you typically would. We’re very constricted with that. But as our debt levels right now, I think what are we at like 140-ish million or something like that? What’s the actual number? Mr. Mary. Okay, as staff digs for that number, I’m just gonna caution committee that in about 20 minutes, I’d be calling a break if we’re not done by then.

[2:13:48] Okay, I’ll just finish ‘cause I’m almost done. So I believe the debt is, you know, around that number. But if I guess if you can come back and tell me what that is, but as far as what I’m saying is, you know, with kind of the repositioning of the way the deficit surplus policy is going, it is going to be paying off that debt. I’ve heard these comments already from counselors and the mayor in the end, you know, who’s gonna pay for that debt? It will either be the taxpayer in the future or it could be, you know, the way we kind of coordinate any surpluses right now. So this is going to mitigate future pressures on the tax base in the future.

[2:14:21] So, you know, this is why I see the way this policy is. I see kind of how things have been just rejigged around but we are focusing on paying off our debt more with this policy. So I feel like this is a good way to go and I will be supportive of that. But if Mr. Murray does have that full debt amount, I guess I’ll go to you. Okay, Mr. Murray. Thank you through you. The current level of debt is in the ballpark of around $200 million. Okay, Councilor, you’re satisfied? Very, thank you. Councilor Pribble, you’re maxing the speaker’s list. You would use three and a half minutes.

[2:14:54] I think you’ll try to be brief. I will not be voting against four. I will be voting against. And if I look at last year, we had surplus 28 plus three, which was $31 million. And what we received from the staff is virtually, we had no opportunity. It just said based on the policy that’s where 31 million is gonna go 50, 25, 25. I’m not, it has nothing to. I do think we need to be responsible. Debt is very important.

[2:15:27] But if you don’t have the policy, it doesn’t prevent us from it. Again, the reason why I’m voting against it is because I don’t believe we are maximizing our opportunity because potentially there could be in the surplus that it could be one, two, three, four percent that we need to spend some somewhere else. It could be potentially to the taxpayer. It could be potentially for our growth. Money makes money and potentially we need to spend some money. And if you look at the interest rate on the debt, potentially 5% spending into the growth will be better potentially than 5%. 27. - Paying off the debt.

[2:16:00] So that’s the reason why I’m doing it based on my last year experience, 31 million dollars surplus and I had no opportunity to do anything, except just accepting it. Thank you. Okay, further questions or comments? I have no one online. I’m seeing no one in chambers. Calling the question. Dr. Chaucer, closing the vote.

[2:16:41] Motion carries 14 to one. Thank you. That concludes our consent items. We’ve already moved through schedule items. I have no direction, items for direction. We have a deferred matters and additional business. I would need a mover and a seconder for the working group deferred matters list as it got automatically forwarded here. Mover and Councillor Cudi. Seconder and Councillor D’Rara. Can you see there’s discussion? Seeing none, calling the question. Closing the vote.

[2:17:16] Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. We have no confidential items today. You’re aware that the next meeting is May 22nd and finance remains available to assist you with anything that you’re working on or contemplating to help you pull information as does the clerk’s team to help with wording and submission and circulation. As chair, I always appreciate a heads up. If you don’t think I’ll be in support, helps me connect each of you. If I know other people working on something similar for expediency, that move us on to adjournment. Motion to adjourn moved by Councillor Trausau. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. A hand vote of all in favor.

[2:17:51] Motion carries. Thank you. We are adjourned.