March 24, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.13 BE APPROVED with the exception of items 2.10 and 2.12.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   2025 Debenture Issuance

2025-03-24 Staff Report - 2025 Debenture Issuances

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

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

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to proceed with the issuance of debentures in the capital markets upon suitable market conditions to provide permanent financing for capital works in an amount not to exceed $47,871,000; it being noted that two separate issuances are planned for 2025’s debenture issuance program; an

b)    the Civic Administration BE INSTRUCTED to schedule and convene appropriately timed special Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee meetings, if needed, upon successful placement of the City’s debt in the capital markets to ensure adequate time for Council approval while adhering to the necessary financial settlement requirements.

Motion Passed

2.2   Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Trunk Watermain Installation Program

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Trunk Watermain Installation

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Trunk Watermain Installation Program:

a)     the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Trunk Watermain Installation Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 2 – Wonderland Road North from Gainsborough Road to Oxford Street West, in the total amount of $718,063.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

ii)    AECOM Canada ULC BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 4 – Commissioners Road from Pond Mills Road to Deveron Crescent, Pond Mills Road from Burlington Crescent to Deveron Cresent, and Deveron Crescent from Pond Mills Road to Glenroy Road in the total amount of $711,020.00 (including contingency), excluding HST; and

iii)    AECOM Canada ULC. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 6 – Wonderland Road South, from Hamlyn Road to Dingman Drive, and Dingman Drive from Wonderland Road South to White Oak Road, in the total amount of $302,122.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and

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

Motion Passed

2.3   Supply of Membrane Bioreactor Equipment for the Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant - Irregular Results

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Supply of Membrane Bioreactor Equipment

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Supply of Membrane Bioreactor Equipment for the Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)    the supply of Membrane Bioreactor Equipment BE AWARDED to Veolia Water Technologies & Solutions Canada GP for the total price of $5,484,080.00 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 19.4 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the revised Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the added agenda as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

Motion Passed

2.3.a   (ADDED) Revised Sources of Financing

2025-03-24 Staff Report - (2.3) Supply of Membrane Bioreactor Equipment-Appendix A-REVISED

2.4   2025 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Contract Award

2025-03-24 Staff Report - 2025 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Tender

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contract for Watermain Cleaning and Lining Services:

a)    the bid submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Ltd at its tendered price of $6,328,764.99, excluding HST, for Watermain Cleaning and Lining Services be accepted; it being noted that this is the third year of a five-year contract submitted by Fer Pal Construction Ltd. and where unit prices were carried over from the original tendered contract plus an increase in line with the Consumer Price Index;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix “A”;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project; and

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

Motion Passed

2.5   Appointment of Consulting Engineer: Bostwick Road Improvements RFP-2024-334

2025-03-24 Staff Report - (2.5) Appointment of Consulting Engineer-Bostwick

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment &  Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for the detailed design and tendering of Bostwick Road Improvements from Southdale Road West to Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposal submitted by Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design and tendering for the Bostwick Road Improvements at an upset amount of $910,374.30 excluding HST, as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

d)    the approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and

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

Motion Passed

2.6   Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-345 Sunningdale Road and Richmond Street Intersection Improvements

2025-03-24 Staff Report - 345 Sunningdale Rd and Richmond St Intersection

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contracts for the Sunningdale Road and Richmond Street Intersection Improvements (Tender No. RFT-2024-345):

a)    the bid for project construction submitted by L82 Construction Ltd at its tendered price of $7,552,917.50, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by L82 Construction Ltd was the lowest of eight bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the contract administration and construction supervision for this project at an upset amount of $628,784.00 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and a private property owner in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Sunningdale Road and Richmond Street Intersection project;

d)    the installation of a new pedestrian signal BE APPROVED at the intersection of Sunningdale Road West and Meadowlands Way;

e)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

g)     the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work;

h)     the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT-2024-345); and

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

Motion Passed

2.7   Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services: Hyde Park Stormwater Assignment ‘B’- Phase 2 Construction 

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Hyde Park

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for contract administration services for the Hyde Park Stormwater Assignment ‘B’ Phase 2 Construction project:

a)    Montrose Environmental Solutions Canada Inc. BE APPOINTED to complete resident inspection and contract administration in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset limit of $202,800, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and

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

Motion Passed

2.8   Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

a)     the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Dillon Consulting Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program William Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $467,942.75 including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

ii)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Rectory Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $427,552.13, including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

iii)    Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd., BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Sterling Street, Salisbury Street and Mornington Avenue project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $448,800.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

iv)    Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd., BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Central Avenue project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $387,200.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

v)    Spriet Associates London Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Craig Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $252,395.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST:

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and

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

Motion Passed

2.9   Supply of Inlet Screen and Repair Parts for the Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant - Single Source

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Supply of Inlet Screen

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the supply of an inlet screen for the Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)    the supply of an inlet step screen and repair parts for second inlet step screen BE AWARDED to Claro for the total price of $167,712 excluding HST, as a single source in accordance with Article 14.4.d of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

Motion Passed

2.11   Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2025 Remuneration

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated March 24, 2025 entitled “Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2025 Remuneration” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.13   Fees and Charges By-law Update - Fee Exemption for Affordable and Social Housing

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Fees and Charges By-law Update-Fee Exemption

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025 to amend By-law A-60 Fees and Charges By-law with respect to affordable and social housing development.

Motion Passed

2.10   Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of Belvedere Park

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Declare Surplus-Part of Belvedere Park

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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

a)    the subject property outlined on Location Map as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix “A” BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE SOLD to one of the abutting property owners via invitation tender as allowed for under the Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard delegations from L. Patterson, T. Young, B. Deleeuw, A. Deleeuw, and J. Matsui, with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received communications from L. Patterson, B. Garrity, and T. Young with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the delegation requests from L. Patterson, T. Young, B. Deleeuw, A. Deleeuw, and J. Matsui, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.12   Consideration for an Updated Low-Income Seniors and Low-Income Persons with Disabilities Tax Deferral Program

2025-03-24 Staff Report - Seniors Deferral Program

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program”:

a)    the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program” BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Business Case for the implementation of an expanded Low-income Seniors and Low-income Persons with disabilities Tax Deferral program modeled on the program in effect in Ottawa for submission to the Budget Committee for the 2026 tax year;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation and received a communication from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement with respect to this matter.

Additional votes:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the delegation request from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to an expanded Property Tax Deferral Program for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities in London:

a)    the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program” BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take no further action for the implementation of an expanded Tax Deferral Program at this time noting the impacts on budget amid the Mayor’s direction to bring forward options for consideration that, if adopted, would produce a 2026 property tax levy increase under 5%;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation and received a communication from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement with respect to this matter.

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program” BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee, pending the Province’s announcement regarding its taxation policy;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation and received a communication from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed (1 to 4)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to an expanded Property Tax Deferral Program for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities in London:

a)    the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program” BE RECEIVED for information; and

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation and received a communication from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to an expanded Property Tax Deferral Program for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities in London:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take no further action for the implementation of an expanded Tax Deferral Program at this time noting the impacts on budget amid the Mayor’s direction to bring forward options for consideration that, if adopted, would produce a 2026 property tax levy increase under 5%;

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program”:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Business Case for the implementation of an expanded Low-income Seniors and Low-income Persons with disabilities Tax Deferral program modeled on the program in effect in Ottawa for submission to the Budget Committee for the 2026 tax year.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Municipal Autonomy and Revenue Generation - Councillor S. Franke, Councillor A. Hopkins and Mayor J. Morgan

2025-03-24 Submission - (4.1) Municipal Autonomy and Revenue Generation

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Councillor Anna Hopkins BE REQUESTED to bring forward the issue of municipal right-of-way fees for natural gas utilities to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), requesting that AMO:

a)    advocate for provincial regulatory changes to allow municipalities to charge utilities for right-of-way use;

b)    engage Ontario municipalities to develop a unified advocacy position on this issue; and

c)    explore policy solutions aligned with other provinces to ensure fair municipal compensation.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Provided to Members only.)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

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

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

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

instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 2:52 PM to 3:01 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:04 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 10 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. I see the city manager is figuring out her new chair. Okay, wonderful, excellent. I’m looking to get started with the sixth meeting of infrastructure and corporate services.

I’ll start with the land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Hognashoni, and Lenapawik and Adawandran people. 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 Nations, Métis, and Inuit today.

As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. Today I’m joined in chambers with members of the committee, Councillor Frank, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Pribble, and online is Councillor Van Mirbergen. We’re also joined with by Councillor Trozzo here in chambers and Councillor Pelosa online. Looking at item one, disclosure of pecuniary interest.

Sorry, and Councillor McAllister, who’s snuck in just now. Thanks for joining us. Disclosure of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we’ll look to move to item two, which is the consent agenda.

I’ve been asked to pull 2.10 already in 2.12 in order to receive delegations for those two items. So is there any other items that people would like to be pulled from consent? Okay, seeing none, I’ll look to members of the committee to craft a motion for the remainder of the items. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

Looking for a seconder, Councillor Frank, thank you so much, and we’ll look for some discussion on any of these items. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to, through you, give to staff, give my thanks on 2.5, which is the Boswick Road improvements.

Much needed work to be done on Boswick with all the development that’s going on in this area. So thanks so much for getting this going. Anyone else on the items for consent? Councillor Per beble, go ahead.

Thank you, if I can have it. Excuse me, 2.1, the debenture insurance. And when I look at the issuance and historically 2019 was actually kind of our second highest $149 million. Now we are going, I think it was $50 million.

And I just want to, in terms of the debt and in terms of these projects. So these are the maximum for approval for this year. And if I look at the projects that are included, are there certain things potentially if we need to, if we need to have tighter cost controls, expense controls? How do we proceed with it?

If we approve this now and then potentially certain things do happen, unexpected. If you can kind of explain this to me better to increase my level of comfort, thank you. I’ll go to Mr. Murray.

Thank you and through you Madam Chair. So what you see before you today are the projects that we will be issuing on as part of our 2025 to the debenture issuance program. I think it’s important to note that these projects were all as part of the approved capital budget. So they all go through the budget approval process.

They are also all subject to the budget monitoring process that we do on a regular basis. And of course, we report out semiannually to counsel on the results of our capital budget monitoring program. So the next iteration of that report will be coming at the end of April. I think the other thing I’ll reiterate here too is that we have a fairly conservative debt issuance program here at the city in the sense that we only typically issue on projects that are complete or substantially complete or where there is a discernible phase that has been achieved.

And we are issuing based on actuals that have been incurred to date. So it is not as if we are issuing in advance of actually incurring these costs. These are actual expenditures that have occurred to date and that we are now in the process of issuing debt on to recover those costs that we have incurred. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor, go ahead. No for that, thank you for that answer. And just 2.6, very happy to see this on the agenda and hopefully we’ll be able to progress even wider section than what we have in front of us but very happy to see that. Thank you, staff, and looking forward to moving forward with this initiative.

Thank you. Thank you. For those that are just joining us in the gallery, we are just on the consent items excluding to 10 and to 12, which we’ll be dealing with after items for direction. So we have a bit of time still.

Okay, just looking to other members of the committee and then visiting members. If there are any comments, I do have some of my own, which I’ll turn the chair over to Councillor Frank. If there’s no one else. Councillor McAllister, go ahead.

Thank you and through the chair. I’m not a member of this committee, but appreciate the opportunity to speak on some of these. I am curious with, I think it’s 2.13. In terms of the fees and charges by-law update for the fee exemption for affordable and social housing.

I know this is very specific obviously to just one thing, but I would like to take the opportunity to ask staff if there are any other exemptions that we’re looked at to try to make a bit more enticing for the investment in the affordable and social housing. I think staff are conferring and I’m going to Mr. Felberg, go ahead. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair.

No, at this point, all we’re focusing on is the exemptions under the fees and charges by-law. We haven’t really looked at anything further. We could look at additional things in the future, but for now, this really is to support projects like the Vision SoHo or some of the other projects in the core. The cost to calculate the portion of the, sorry, apologies, the portion of the road that we are impacting in the core.

In this case, for example, for Vision SoHo was calculated around $80,000. So the impact is significant for an affordable housing project. So what we’re trying to do is balance that out in order to help with some of those, some of the financial impacts to the projects. Councillor McAllister.

Thank you and through you. So noticing that obviously we’re referring to the SoHo project, but other being any discussions, for instance, just with LMCH in terms of any projects, as they’re going through obviously regeneration, looking at a number of their sites, would that be something that would be extended to them as well? Mr. Falberg.

Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. With the LMCH project and the regeneration is very early days at this point. So there’s still a lot of work to do to figure out where they’re actually looking to develop or where they’re looking to expand their work. Certainly something that we could take back and part of the consultation that we’ll be doing with the LMCH over the next number of months is learning what it is they want to do and where some of those, the focus that work could occur.

Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you and through the chair. Yeah, appreciating it. I just had my first engagement, obviously, with the consultants who are working on the regeneration, for any of the Councillors who are interested.

Great project in terms of rejuvenating a lot of sites that are well past their date. So I just wouldn’t, I know early days, but I just wanted to put that on the radar anywhere where we can help to facilitate trying to get more affordable community housing built because it’s very much appreciated. So thank you. Thank you.

Any other additional questions before I hand the chair over? Oh, Councillor Rimeer, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. And I just wanted to speak in favor of the Boston Road improvements, excuse me.

Following up on Councillor Hopkins, it’s much needed, badly needed, stepped very much so in the right direction. And again, very positive. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Okay, with that, I’ll hand the chair over to Deputy Chair Frank. Thank you, and I recognize you on the speaker list. Thank you so much. I just had some comments regarding two items.

One being the Sunnydale Road and Richmond Street intersection improvement, and the other being 2.2, the appointment of the consulting engineers for the Trunk Water main installation program. I’ll start with item 2.2. Many residents in the corridor, you know, were asking about the work that was being done last year. There was some surveying and things done.

And so this helps, I think, to give them some insight into what’s planned, be turning between Gainesboro and Oxford at this point and more to come, obviously, in terms of communication and work. When we say a large Trunk Water main, what do we mean? Thank you, to staff. Thank you, through the chair, so if I recall correctly, the Trunk Water main on Wonderland Road is set to be 1200 millimeter, so 1.2 meter diameter.

So that is quite a large pipe for clean water in terms of sewers, it’s even big, but for water, that’s quite large. Thank you, back to Councilor. Thank you, and on the map, it just kind of shows that the water main as the entirety of Wonderland Road. I’m just wondering if residents will get a more clear picture of where exactly that water main sits along Wonderland.

To staff. Yes, and thank you, through the chair. Yeah, so as we get into a detailed design, we will refine exactly where within the roadway that sits. It certainly doesn’t take up the entire right of way.

It’s quite large through there, but it will be going from Gainesboro all the way to Oxford. So it is quite a large section that we will be working on, but we are just getting into the design at this point, and there will be lots of contact points with the public with more detailed information. Councillor. Thank you, and this may be more of a planning question, but from what I recall in terms of applications, I guess this takes into account applications that have already been through planning in that area, but I do know there’s a few that are in pre-consultation in the Gainesboro area.

Is this to accommodate those in pre-consultation? Staff. Thank you, and through the chair. So this is part of a number of growth projects identified within the water network that are needed, rather than being extensions to our existing service, but up-sizing service inside.

So these servicing studies were done with growth projections for the entire city. So as this is a trunk main, it feeds, will feed quite a large area, not just those specific developments, but certainly the developments and the developable area in that area does feed into the expected capacity of the pipe. Councillor. Thank you, much appreciated.

My next questions is had to do with Sunnydale and Richmond as we get ready for that work to be done. There’s an upcoming consultation for residents, both virtually as well as one in person. And I want to thank staff for that work to engage in those consultations and for all the updates that have been provided on the website for that project. I had a chance to talk to residents in the area this weekend, really positive about the work that’s coming in the area, really excited, even though I kept reminding them that it is going to be painful for them in the short term, while they navigate the area.

But overall, heard really positive feedback about what those improvements in the corridor could mean, especially from folks that use transit in the area, where there’s a very difficult crossing to get to transit right now. And people feel very concerned and compelled to address that concern. One of the points of feedback I did hear from residents is that the area of Meadowlands, where we’ve identified for the pedestrian crossovers, some more clarity around why we couldn’t use Village Walk Boulevard instead as a crossing point. And so I think that that’ll be something for the conversation we have with residents in the coming weeks.

But overall, as I mentioned, generally very positive, especially for having finally some sidewalks on Sunningdale and the vision that’s coming with that. Thank you, and I didn’t hear a question, so I will be returning the chair back to Council Roman. Thank you, okay. And seeing no, oh, Councilor Baxter, go ahead.

Thank you, sorry, I forgot there was another item that I wanted to speak to in through you. For 2.9, this is the supply that I went screen and repair parts for Voxhall wastewater treatment plant. I just have a few questions for staff. I know, obviously, as part of this, it is one’s a repair and one’s a replace.

And I’m just wondering in terms of, I believe it mentions what kind of like salvaging and using parts, was this a cost saving, or was it that we could get enough in terms of the lifespan of this to do the work to repair it instead of replacing? So I’m just curious in terms of how long we think this will last before it comes back. I’ll go to Mr. Odkirk.

Thank you. Thank you, and through the chair. Yeah, so we undertook the repair in order to get the one screen back up and running so that it can be in place while we’re waiting for the new one to come in. And by doing that, we’re able to salvage a lot of the parts.

So then when we are completely replacing the other screen, we’re gonna take and salvage some of those parts, keep them for spares for the two pairs, and then buy the new one to replace it and put it in the same place that it was. So it really was a matter of maintaining operations, plus maximizing our reuse of available spare parts. Councillor. Thank you for that, appreciate it.

Keep it running as long as we can, and obviously it makes sense. And I’m just wondering just so I can pass this link to the neighborhood, but in terms of any impacts, in terms of whether it be sewage, water, like what would this impact in terms of the neighborhood? Noting this is at the end of Price Street. So just so they’re aware of any impacts.

To staff? Thank you, and through the chair, no impacts. We shouldn’t see any change in operation out there. We’ve managed to keep operation completely intact.

Thank you, Councillor. Great, thank you for those answers. Appreciate it, no more questions. Okay, final call.

Okay, seeing no hands, we’ll look to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Okay, thank you. We have no scheduled items.

And items for direction, we have item 4.1, which is a letter from two members of the committee, as well as the mayor on the municipal autonomy and revenue generation. It’s included in your agenda package. I’m going to look for a mover and seconder from those on the letter, thank you, Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins, and then look for some discussion. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes, and I’d be happy to speak to this. This is something that I only recently in the past couple of months had learned about. And given the efforts, we are undergoing to try to find more sources of revenue so we can alleviate the tax burden. I’m really hoping that we can encourage AMO through Councillor Hopkins, who is our rep to develop a policy and advocacy position on this issue.

And as you probably read in the letter, for example, if we were able to charge utilities for the municipal right-of-way access, so essentially underground underneath of our roads for the use of essentially the land to run their utilities like pipes, we would be able to generate an estimated between three to $9 million in revenue in comparison to other provinces that do this work. And for example, other provinces across Canada, municipalities are already able to charge this fee and generate revenue, but not in Ontario. And therefore, we need to address the legislation that prevents municipalities in Ontario doing that, which is also covered in part C of the motion. So trying to speak with the province to ensure that we have all the tools in our tool belt in order to be able to generate revenues for the services and for the infrastructure we provide.

Additionally, I have heard some feedback that if utility companies were charged this fee, it would increase the cost but into customers potentially. And I would say that I have already heard of other municipalities that then take the funds generated and then provide it to residents through incentives to switch to more energy efficient options like air source heat pumps. So it actually provide potentially a revenue source for us to fund our environmental initiatives in our climate plan and provide an opportunity for people to do what we want them to do, which is to switch off of fossil fuel use as they are able to. So really looking for the support of this committee and then further at council so that we can try to influence some provincial policy on this item.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair and many thanks to Councillor Frank for doing all the heavy lifting on this one. I was so pleased that she came from the work that she was doing at FCM to AMO. I have passed on through the AMO, large urban caucus to AMO staff and they have decided to undergo some work and report back to the AMO board on their findings.

One thing I just want to share, I’m usually told when we meet with the provincial government from time to time, they like to see what municipalities are doing to create revenue streams. So I think this is some work that we can undertake to see if there’s a revenue stream there. But more important, I think it’s also an opportunity to have this conversation with the provincial government to see if municipalities can make their own decisions when it comes to this kind of revenue. We all have different contractors, different contracts that come up from time to time.

So it is really more of an individual. It’s not across the board with all municipalities. So I think that having the opportunity to make our own decisions municipally to generate some revenue, I think this is a good conversation to have at the AMO board and very supportive of it. Thank you.

I’ll look to others for other speakers. Okay, seeing none, we’ll look to open the vote. Councillor van Mirbergen, closing the vote. Motion carries four to one.

Okay, thank you. That dealt with item 4.1. So we’ll look to go back to the items that we pulled from consent. We’ll start with item 2.10, which is the declaring a surplus city-owned property part of Belvedere Park.

So with respect to this item, we had a number of delegation requests that were received into the added. My understanding is there may be others that also wish to get to speak on this item. So I’m wondering if Councillor Frank, did you have a bit of a motion just crafted so that we can hear all delegates on this item? Sure, and would that be the motion?

Is any delegates who wish to speak on this item who are in chambers or online would be able to? Okay, I’ll move that motion. Thank you, and we have a seconder and Councillor Hopkins. And so we’ll wait to the vote, and then I’ll speak to a little bit further.

And that’s open for voting. Councillor van Mirbergen, second call. Councillor van Mirberg, closing the vote. Motion carries, five to zero.

Thank you. So I have two that have provided their request on the added agenda that we’re able to make it today. So I’ll look to those on the added first, and then I’ll go to anyone else that would like the opportunity to speak. Just a bit of housekeeping around our delegations.

So the committee will now hear from public delegations. Each individual will have up to five minutes to speak to the matter. And in keeping with our respectful workplace policy, please ensure your comments are respectful of staff and those here in chambers. Please step up to the microphone and state your name for the record story before beginning, and I will advise you when your five minutes starts.

And if you can, if you can refrain from duplicating your comments already made and make your remarks focused on the subject matter at hand. Okay, and with that, I’ll look to Miss Laura Patterson first to start. Yes, so my name is Laura Patterson, and my five minutes have started, good afternoon. As I read the report that part of Belvedere Park to be declared surplus and sold, the question comes to mind.

What if it had never been stolen? Would we be here evaluating its usefulness as Parkland? Would parks teams independently visit Belvedere Park assess the Southeast corner and ask realty services to sell it off for them? Do they assess every awkward nook or pocket neighborhood parks, of which I can attest there are many for Parkland value and potential for sale?

If this question is answered with honesty, the answer is a hard no. The reason I’m able to so confidently say that is the answer of Park’s teams when asked their preference was to keep it as Park many times. Section 2.0 discussion, paragraph one of the reports, states that in June 2024, PILR yielded no interest or objections in regard to the subject property. This is untrue.

A June 27th response from Gary Irwin for the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure states parks planning and design does not support the disposition of the Parklands. Stephanie Wilson, manager of parks long range planning and design response of August 19th, was this is existing Parkland. I believe the request is to declare it surplus and sell it. My preference is to keep it as Parkland.

There was also PILR in 2017, deciding to keep the land as park, which was inexplicably never acted upon by the city. It was only after lengthy internal conversations, including influence of realty services for the support of parks. Quote, “Realty doesn’t want to take the bullets at council,” end quote, and a final plea for parks to quote, “provide a clear and succinct rationale for inclusion in our public report, speaking to why the lands are being recommended for divestiture,” end quote. That after asking the same question many times in hopes of getting a different answer, realty was successful.

Which begs the question, what is their interest? Sorry, Ms. Patterson. I’ll just remind you that I don’t want to make assumptions as to how staff came to their conclusions so again, we’ll keep the factual.

Okay, but that does come from a freedom of information communication, but in any case, which begs the question, what is the interest to push for the sale? Is it a city objective to pimp out our parks for profit? If yes, I suggest this be made known to the public as they are bound to have strong opinions on it. The report state’s park users are unaware a portion is encroached upon.

This is also untrue. Just the documented complaints we know of state back to 2010. Suggested challenges maintaining the park land are also weak. On one hand, it’s too small to be useful, yet on the other hand, maintenance of this small area would be too burdensome.

It’s hard for both facts to be true. I can assure you, people seek quiet zones in the park safe from the path of frisbees and balls to picnic, read a book, play with their infant children. Site lines are cited as a concern, but you can see straight into the area from the main points of the park. And again, when wonders had it not been stolen, will we even be having this debate, given many city neighborhood parks have irregular shapes and pockets?

Possibly the most ironic statement of all is concern over crime prevention and potential to generate complaints from abutting property owners. The area in question has in fact been stolen and is already the subject of complaints. Moreover, if I’m in the park to do something untoward, I can see choosing a spot where I’m within visibility in your shot of three homeowners. The report summary states the land was offered for sale to 85 Whortly in 1958, but a question, if the circumstances around that are fully known, given it would eliminate park access to 88 Euclid as the current theft of the park does.

The linkage to the corporate strategic plan section states the proposal demonstrates accountability, transparency, and prudent stewardship of public assets. The errors and omissions contained within and the way it seems somewhat reverse engineered towards a desired outcome suggest otherwise. As well, prudent stewardship would dictate that after the 2017 PILR it was determined that park land was too onerous to maintain, the city would have moved to declare it surplus and sell it then instead of allowing approaches to continue enjoying it without costs for years. The reference to a parcel of vacant land seems dubious by that argument could be not referred to all park land as vacant and moved to sell it.

The solution to stealing the park seems to be to un-steal the park. This matter has been mishandled by the city for years showing complete lack of compassion for the public and neighbors whose access has been inhibited or completely removed. Permits are needed to access the park and often not granted yet one can fence off the park without repercussion for decades and then has the opportunity to buy it. Air to the committee to reject this proposal and return the park to the public for their enjoyment.

If the area genuinely becomes problematic in future, that can be addressed then, instead of conjuring imagined problems that only serve an end goal of selling it. Thank you, exactly five minutes. Okay, I’ll look to go to Timothy Young next. I’m Mr.

Young, go ahead, you’re five minutes. Hi, my name’s Timothy Young. Two months ago I received over 50 pages of emails and documents relating to the stolen Belvedere park land at the rear of 85 Wortley Road through a Freedom of Information Request. The thrust of the city’s emails from when I filed my complaint in June of 2024 about the park land theft appears to be tone deaf.

The emails from the city employees only advocate for the sale of the park land option. There is a total tone deafness to the idea of recovering the stolen park land so that the public may use and enjoy it. The city’s emails and the report before us today only consider the selling option. Why is the restoration of the stolen park land not considered?

The legal precedent concerning theft by conversion of municipal park land is the recent April 2024 decision in Kosiki v Toronto. The public benefit is used in this court case applies in the stolen park land matter. The two parts are, one, the land must have been acquired or dedicated to the municipality for the use or benefit of the public and the municipality must not have waived its rights over the property or acknowledged or acquiesced to its use by a private landowner. Both parts of public benefit clearly apply to the stolen park land at the rear of 85 Wortley Road and therefore this part of Belvedere park should be immediately returned to the city of London’s ownership and control.

I question if the city of London’s legal department was consulted for their opinion in this matter. The letter dated April 7th, 2017 that I received under the Freedom of Information Act by Christine Jarvis is the eight-year-old solution to this matter. Her letter wants the fence and the walkway removed and Belvedere park made a hole again. Can anyone answer why the action described in this eight-year-old letter has not yet occurred?

The entire premise of selling any park land is not only flawed but is also wrong. When was the last time park land was sold by the city of London? The proposal to declare surplus and sell off part of Belvedere park as proposed by this report clearly does not demonstrate accountability or transparency, meaning the 2017 letter was never considered or prudent stewardship of public assets. Who sells off public park land?

By advocating to sell this forever park land, public trust is not built, public trust is destroyed. President Set, if this land is sold, will result in many other parkland and croachers demanding the exact same opportunity to purchase stolen park land. Illegal behavior will be rewarded and this committee will be astonished by the volume of similar demands. As proof, the southeast corner of Belvedere park approximately 120 meters from this little part we’re talking about has two properties that are also encroaching 10 feet into Belvedere park.

In a phone call, Christine Jarvis advised me that Sift and Bog is a hotbed of encroachment. At the Old South Community Organization where I sought and received their support in opposing the sale of park land, in February of 2025, I learned that the Covers neighborhood is also filled with encroachers who’ve extended their fences and put in blockage in contravention of that land being public and a park. If you defeat this proposal to sell off parkland, you will prevent many future claims and problems. A win-win solution in this matter is to retain public ownership of the piece of Belvedere parkland in dispute because then all three properties abutting the park retain access.

If 88 Euclid or 83 wortly win a bidding war for the property, 85 wortly loses park access permanently. By refusing to sell parkland and reclaiming ownership, the committee and the city of London will make the best decision that benefits all stakeholders. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, if anyone else is looking to speak to this item, I see some nods, please make your way to the microphone and we’ll go from there. Hello, sir, if you don’t mind stating your name and then five minutes will begin. Sure, Brian Duluth, I don’t have any prepared statement. I just found out about this meeting yesterday, so that’s why I’m here today.

We bought the home in 1997 and when we purchased the home, the fencing question was already in place and we were under the assumption that that was the parcel of land that we were buying. We had no idea that that was actually parkland, so the claim that it was stolen, we never stole anything, we just didn’t realize. When it did come to our attention, I think it was Bernadette Garrity at 88 wortly, or sorry, 88 victor, she wanted to have a tree trim, Euclid, sorry, she wanted to have a tree trimmed and noticed that the outline was showing that it was park and that’s when the whole thing came into question. At the time, a by-a-law officer came and wanted us to remove the fence, but I stated that if this is park and that’s park, it’s not our fence, we never put it up.

I think back in 1961, everybody along wortly, they decided to purchase to extend their backyards into the park and when we bought it, so somebody had extended that fence along and that’s how we bought it. So I’m not sure, back in I think 2017, when the issue came up, the decision at that point was that the fence would remain because it was agreed that a park just wouldn’t be designed to have this little bump out and we would continue maintaining it, which we’ve done for 28 years and that’s how it was left. I think I can shed some light too as to why my neighbors are upset with us. They had a pool put in last year and at the same time, my mother-in-law lives right next to them so they’re in between us and I was working on the deck and the fellas were excavating and we noticed that they were pulling up a decent size culvert that was managing water from the park.

I alerted them to this and I said like, you guys gotta fix this and their comment was that it wasn’t on the plan so we don’t have to do anything. So my wife alerted the city, they sent out plumbing inspector and basically they were forced to fix the and correct the pipe to make sure that this pipe takes water from the park and basically we didn’t want water building up and coming into anybody’s basement along Warley Road, which it did to my neighbor at John Matsuyu next door. So I was not just advocating for all of us, I was advocating for them too because water can be a huge issue as we know. Anyways, I think that’s what the problem is so they’re upset that we had called the city and basically wanted the pipe fixed.

So that’s all I have. Sorry, everyone, I won’t encourage any cross debate while we’re receiving one person’s delegation. Any others that would like to speak to them, Matt or go, please go ahead to the mic. My name is Annette Delou, thank you, go ahead Annette.

I am Brian’s wife and we did not steal the land. This has been an ongoing problem for several years as you have noticed and we had resolved it with the manager of the parks. He decided it would be inappropriate to remove the fence because loitering would occur, encampments might occur. The sight lines would make it difficult.

He said no one would design a park that way. Why it wasn’t included in the 1961 purchases, he didn’t know. The other thing he said for the big machines, they would be difficult for them to come in because there’s a locust tree, there’s a maple tree and there’s the large tree and there’s a lilac tree. So there’s quite a few trees in that little parcel of land.

It was determined that we never put the fence up. There used to be a hedge that ran all the way along the park. It was removed at some point because the city stopped maintaining it. So it’s always been enclosed as far as we know.

So the fact that they keep saying we have stolen this land or we’re encroaching this land is not true. We have tried to resolve it. We’ve tried to purchase it. We’ve tried to be accommodating neighbors.

There are five gates into our backyard allowing people to go into our backyard and into the park. Mascarity has a gate. There is a gate at the back which the Matsui’s put in in 1987. So we’re not denying anybody access to this little park.

And people freely go in our backyard to access the park. So if you could resolve this issue, I appreciate it because it has been a little bit tense. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else looking to speak, please make your way to the microphone. My name is John Matsui, I live at 101 Wortley Road. Thank you, go ahead, John. And it’s directly next to Brian’s home and directly two doors from this couple’s home.

And we have lived there the longest so I think I can speak the matter more than anybody ‘cause I witnessed more of the history. There used to be a large concrete railing at the back of Belvedere Park which became hazardous to kids and would break some of the park equipment when they try to cut the grass. So the city removed it, when they removed that, it started flooding all the homes on Wortley Road. Not all, but certainly mine, Brian’s, their place and a couple of others.

So to the point that literally the worst house, I went into, you could actually see the water flowing through the basement. So the city had to dig in there and put a drainage pipe to the front road. And when the pipe was removed during the construction, my basement started to flood. And Brian, before it actually even started to flood, Brian went over and talked to Tim and told him what it was ‘cause he’s a contractor so he knows this kind of thing.

And when there didn’t seem to be much action happening there, Brian called the city and asked them to investigate. So there was a bit of water flowing my basement right from the back and that we had never had any water in the house before that. So I feel that that was somewhat of the cause of this dispute. I know also in the fact that the property lines, Bernadette who lives on Euclid Street came to me and asked because she didn’t have a survey, they didn’t have a survey because they had mortgage insurance, they didn’t do it, but we bought our house in an era where you had to have a survey.

So that’s the first time that was, I don’t know when, maybe five years afterwards, after they moved in, that everybody came to the discovery that that property wasn’t theirs. We didn’t know that, nobody knew that. And ‘cause I didn’t really look at it before that. So it wasn’t stolen and I know that at the time that I heard, this is here to say that all the other property owners were given a chance to buy that property, but for some reason or other, that back thought at 85 was not purchased.

So, and then when the whole issue came up again, Brian and Bernadette offered to buy the property and, but were turned down because Bernadette objected to it. So we didn’t wanna cause a lot of friction among neighbors. And so it was just left as it was. We also are on the route from the downtown a lot and we had a lot of break-ins in that era before we started putting in security cameras and different things.

And that was seen as being a real problem or for people being able to loiter in that area, hide in that little nook because it’s a very small piece of land. And Bill Cox had who was then head of parks and they could never get their equipment and they’re without damaging it. So that’s why I think the deal was, I’m not sure of this, but that you would maintain that back card and that we would give people in neighborhood access, people walk through my property on to Brian’s through there and get into the park so all the people along you could easily get in there. And it’s well known, even a couple of blocks away they go and we don’t wanna broadcast it to the city in general.

So don’t report that guys. So anyways, that’s sort of it. I mean, Brian and that have been fantastic neighbors, not only to us, but the whole neighborhood and to hear that them accused of stealing something. I mean, really, really upsets me, okay.

Thank you. Okay, so that I believe concludes the delegation. I don’t believe we have anybody online. Okay, no, we can’t return to a delegation after the fact.

We can only take somebody as a new speaker that hasn’t spoken yet. Okay, so with that, I will look to committee to see if there is a mover for the staff recommendation or it’s in committee’s hands as to what they’d like to do. Council Frank, thank you. Could I perhaps start with asking a few questions to staff?

It would be helpful to have a motion on the floor in order to do that. So if we could look to put something forward, okay. Councilor Hopkins, are you looking to put the staff recommendation? Do we have a mover or a seconder for that?

Councilor Ranveergan, thank you. Okay, with that, I’ll go to Councilor Frank. Go ahead. Thank you, yes.

I was hoping, given we heard some comments from the delegations, perhaps getting a bit more information from staff in regards to the rationale of like how we wouldn’t design the park land this way now. And it was outlined in the report, but some of the items regarding the equipment access to that area. Thank you. Okay, for that, I’ll go to staff for any comment on some of the conversation as well as the questions that were asked directly.

Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. This really is a unique situation. We’re very rarely in front of committee and council recommending the disposal of park land. Obviously park lands are incredible.

I said an incredible component to our community or at large. This one, no does have a lot of legacy. I think you’ve probably heard a lot of that from the delegations as well. Our concerns really have to do with, as was articulated in the report, sort of the functional nature of the space.

It’s a bit of a pocket in the back of the park. We do have a number of safety concerns, potentially with it and ongoing challenges that we have when we have these sort of situations. This is not a park design that we would actually have now. And historically, our understanding is the park actually was rectangular and then was separated out with some severances that occurred.

In terms of equipment, as indicated, the trees are a bit of a challenge to work in. So we might actually bring in pushmowers or something like that for this situation as well. Or we’d look at naturalizing it, but then it has some other concerns that come along with naturalization at times as well. So that’s why we’re before you recommending the disposal of this site.

Thank you, Mr. Yeoman. You caused me cognitive dissonance because you’re sitting in front of a name tag that is not yours. So I was looking at you, I was like, that is not this to recray.

Why don’t you please, but thank you. Okay, I’ll go back to Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. And a different question, I suppose.

I’m wondering if we don’t support the staff recommendation, then what will be the next steps to remove the fence and who would bear those costs? Thank you. I’ll go back to Mr. Yeoman.

Any comment on that? Actually, through you, Madam Chair, I’m gonna go to Mr. Jeffries for that ‘cause we’d take cues from them. Okay, thank you, Mr.

Jeffries. Thank you for attending and for any comments you can provide, go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. Essentially, if I can just back up a little bit.

So 2016, we received a complaint about this in 2017 and notice was issued with respect to the encroachment. At that time, further action was paused. I can’t speak on the details of 2017, but I can add that we do do enforcement on encroachments and if we’re directed to do so, we will follow accordingly. Thank you, back to Councillor Frank, go ahead.

Thank you, and is there any information that can be provided about what those enforcement next steps would be if directed to staff? Mr. Jeffries? Sorry, through the chair.

We would be issuing the property owner a notice similar to the one that was issued in 2017, indicating for return to park lands and there would be a compliant state on that notice. Councillor? Thank you. I have further questions at this time, but if anyone else has questions, I would like to return to me for comments perhaps later.

Okay, thank you. I’ll look to members of committee first to see if there’s any additional questions before I move to visiting Councillors. Okay, with that, I’ll go to Councillor Trossa. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. I’m not a member of this committee, so thank you for allowing me to speak as a visitor. I’ll keep this very brief. Through the chair, if there was a code violation noted in 2017, why was that not followed up?

To staff. Through the chair. As some staff back in 2017 that were a part of this file are no longer with the city due to retirement and whatnot, I can’t speak on those details at that time. All I can speak to is our process now and we would take action in the way of a notice to the property owner.

Councillor? Thank you, I’ll leave it at that. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair and maybe through you to staff, just as a follow up to the recommendation that we have, it’s noted the challenges of maintaining and the safety issues.

I’ve read the report. I really appreciate Mr. Yeoman’s comments about this is an unusual situation. It doesn’t happen very often that we sell Parkland, which I’m pleased to hear, but given this is an unusual situation, I’d like to have a better understanding.

I read it in the report, the maintenance, and the challenges, but if this recommendation is supported, what will continue with this land? Obviously, it will be sold off, but just wanting to have a better understanding of the future of where we go. Mr. Yeoman?

Through you, Madam Chair, so Mr. Warner could speak more about the process next steps, but in terms of the maintenance of the park itself, we would maintain status quo with our operations from what they currently are. If the staff recommendation were to not proceed, then we would incorporate it into our maintenance cycle and make adjustments according to that. I will say though, for the benefit of the community, I would like to give my sincere apologies in terms of some of the confusion.

I’ve been asking my team actually to be looking at sites as they come forward that are suggested for disposal to really look at whether or not we should be retaining or we shouldn’t. At a baseline, we don’t dispose of Parkland, but given the situation we’re in with the economic climate and other considerations, we’re really trying to be aggressive in terms of making sure our resources are allocated as efficiently as we can. Thank you, Mr. Warner.

Did you have any comment on this? Through you, Chair, I can speak to the process with respect to disposition, if you’d like. So if Council does decide to declare this parcel of land surplus, there will be a notice provided by the clerk’s office to the city website, as well as to the Londoner or newspaper. Then the realty services would contact the abutting landowners as this parcel of land is not viable or developable and it would only have a value or a use to an adjoining property owner.

We would solicit interest from those adjoining property owners and if they’re interested, then we’d invite them to a tender process. So it would just be those who are biting the property and we’d be looking for fair market value of the property and then the purchaser would have to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale that would be subject to Council approval. Conditions would include purchase price as well because their cost is with respect to legal expenses in order to transfer the property. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Warner, and just as a follow-up, is it three owners then, Mr. Warner?

Yes, so there’s three practical owners that could use the property. There is a fourth that has a sliver, potentially of land that does abut, but technically they wouldn’t really have a proper use of the site and whether or not they’d have an interest. We could include that property owner in the process as well. Councillor?

Yes, I would encourage that, thank you. Thank you. Okay, I’ll look to other committee members. I see Councillor Frank has her hand up for a second time around.

Okay, go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I have one more question, some comments through the chair. I’m just wondering to some of the comments from the delegations in regards to a precedent setting and then, you know, allowing future parcels of park land to be sold off. I’m just wondering if staff can comment on their interpretation of that.

Thank you, Ms. Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very unusual circumstance, as Mr.

Yeoman noted, it has been in place for many decades. If we were to encounter somebody who recently fenced in public park land, we’d want to work with our colleagues in use of enforcement in order to address those immediately. We are not in a position where we’re looking to wholesale off-sell-off park land for private use. These are one-off circumstances that are really a historic in nature.

Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, yes, so I have all my questions answered, so perhaps I’ll just go right to comments. So I do find this to be a bit of a complicated situation for me. Generally, I, like many Councillors and members of the public, am very against selling off park land for personal or residential use.

Especially in Ward 11, if you look at a map, we have very limited green space, especially on the old South side, and indicated as in the OSCO letter as well, we saw that they do not agree with this off of park land. And I do agree with some of the comments from the gallery that generally we should not be selling off park land. On the other hand, I do regularly frequent Belvedere Park, we actually call it the truck park in my home because the residents have left trucks at the playground for kids to play with. And having frequented that many times regularly, I don’t personally see how providing that section in the southwest corner would provide materially for the enjoyment of green space.

I did hear that perhaps people might sit over there and have a picnic or sit in that small parcel, but there is ample amount of space within the park land for recreational play. I’ve seen people do yoga’s in the corner areas, as well as with the playground for play with the youth. So I don’t see how this small area would add a benefit to the public, which is what I would be seeking if that is what we were to move forward with. And of course, we heard from staff the concerns regarding like septed safety issues, overall costs of maintaining long-term.

So I’m trying to balance these two, diametrically opposing values and principles, and of course, struggling. The one that I find that outweighs the benefit is that again, I don’t personally see the material benefit overall to the community if we reclaim this park land. And I think, again, I would be very in favor if it was a more significant portion, or if it was an entire area where there could be some sort of recreational amenity provided to the community. But in this specific case, and just looking at it as a specific case and not as a precedent setting, I don’t believe that it would have that much benefit.

So since I believe that we vote case by case, I know that many people would say, this could be precedent setting, but in future issues of encroachment, I would take each report separately to understand what the issues were, just like this one. And so based on the information provided to me by staff, by the community’s input, I do support the staff recommendation to declare the land surplus as well. Thank you, looking to committee to see if there’s any additional comments. Okay, oh, sorry, Councillor Van Mire bringing, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I will be supporting the staff recommendation. I take particular note about the crime and safety aspect to this particular little pocket. So thank you.

Thank you. Before I call the vote, if it’s okay with members, I would like to speak from the chair, just provide my commentary. First, I wanna take a moment to thank all residents for taking the time to come speak to us and for the communication that they’ve sent. I appreciate the background that’s been shared and the differing opinions on this item.

I tend to agree with the ward, Councillor, that this is a very unique situation. And it’s one that I feel that we can best address on this case-by-case basis by looking at the material and the information that’s been provided by staff. And yes, from time to time, you know, staff may make a different recommendation, different staff look at things with different lenses and different priorities. I know I have one of these in my ward as well, that’s quite unique.

And so for that matter, I will be supporting the recommendation. With that, I’ll look to open the vote. Using the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Okay, thank you.

We will now move to item 2.12, which is a consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disability tax deferral program. We’ve had a request for delegation from Mr. Pollock. And so I’d be looking to the committee to put forward a motion to hear said delegation.

Councillor PerbeLL, Councillor Hopkins, thank you, and that’ll be up in the system for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Hi, Mr. Pollock, thank you for joining us.

Just to remind you of five minutes, and please go ahead. Good afternoon, my name is Don Pollock. I made a submission to Council last February asking that we study the concept of a property tax deferral. The problems with the senior community are well understood.

Property taxes are regressive. If they’re above the rate of inflation, most seniors have inflation protection with their CPP and old age security, but it becomes an issue. I suggested a study rather than the Gould’s standard, and I thought I actually knew the answer to this. And my experience with the city is that it’s an incredibly well-managed professional organization.

The only place we’re out of step is with seniors. And let me give you an example. On the property tax deferral issue, there are two cities that do not have a program that would be London and Winnipeg. Now, it’s a mishmash of programs, grants, credits, but we rely on section 319 of the Municipal Act, which is outdated, and I believe two people qualified for it.

And as a follow-up to suggest that maybe we’re out of step with retirees, the globe released a survey in November on livable cities, and they looked at 440 cities with a population over 10,000. And for retired employees, we ranked 330th. And the disappointing part of that is I heard no feedback from the city. I was expecting either they didn’t understand, or we’ll do something to fix it.

The report was disappointing to me because they suggested the status quo. They suggest we continue to be one of the rare municipalities outside of Quebec that does nothing. I found the logic was primarily internal process focused. It did not look on our citizens that are struggling, and the one group that is really getting hard is if you have retired seniors and you have a death, the family income is gonna drop by 30 or 40% in a lot of cases.

They can no longer pay their property taxes, and if aging in place is one of our goals, the unique situation in London is a problem. And when I talk about the gold standard, I wanna just walk through a very simple example that I think we can have a program and not cost a city money. Another way it would work, let me give you a simple example. If we had a senior who was paying 5,000 a year in property taxes, and they deferred it for 10 years.

So in simple terms, if it happened today, they don’t pay property taxes for 10 years, and the year 2036, the city would get their money. Now, clearly there’s a cost of capital because the money’s deferred, and the other issue is you’ve got an administrative cost. The solution is charging interest. So you charge the senior, it’s a voluntary program at rate of interest.

It’ll be 1%, 2%. But if you start getting up to your borrowing rate, if you charge 7%, either A, you can borrow the funds to finance it, or B, you can go to a third party. Effectively what you’ve got is a reverse mortgage, or the same type of financing. And when I see people in our city struggling, and when I see a solution is available to the city, and all the municipalities, all the major ones outside of Quebec, except Winnipeg and London, have said no, no, we don’t want to do that.

And I think that’s not fair. I asked you to reject the recommendation, and I suggest there’s an immediacy to this, and that we should find some way to help these people, even if it’s not the gold standard. There are so many people, especially at West, especially, they’ve got the help of the provincial governments, which is a whole separate issue. But we’ve got to do something.

And I think my part will be, I intend to get out to the seniors, and say, yes, we have a problem. There is a solution. How can we encourage the city to help us? Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, before I entertain a motion on this item, I’m looking to go to Ms. Barbone for any commentary. And if you can provide us with an overview of what’s in the report.

Thank you through the chair. I think certainly in terms of just trying to provide some context for the report. So on August 28th, council provided a resolution to direct staff to report back on the considerations for an updated property tax deferral program. And the specifics in the resolution are contained within a report, but they specifically refer to reviewing the provisions of the city of Ottawa’s tax deferral program and some other similar programs, and including the financial analysis of the implications of adopting that kind of a program, including what the deferred revenue impacts and additional staffing costs will be.

So that’s what our report has provided the context for, so that council has the information to determine how they wish to move forward. So specifically in Ontario, the Municipal Act governs and sets out the regulations for property taxation in Ontario. So there are many other numerous jurisdictions in other provinces. However, they have different legislation for which they base their programs on.

So anything outside of Ontario has a very different framework than what Ontario has. And many of them and primarily are done through the province where the province holds the deferral and not the municipality. So there’s quite a stark difference in the implementation of the programs. So in Ontario, and this is highlighted in the other comment that was added on the agenda, is that Ontario operates under the Provincial Property Tax Grant Rebate, which is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency.

So it’s called the Ontario Senior Home Owners Property Tax Grant, which is intended to help offset property taxes for seniors who own their home and have low to moderate income. This program is entirely funded by the province of Ontario and is applied annually when you file your income tax return. So ultimately, we know the city of the province is currently looking at a review of the Provincial Tax System, and that began in 2024. However, we don’t know at this time what changes are being contemplated.

Certainly from a provincial perspective, given that they already have the information available through CRA, it would certainly be a much more efficient process to verify the data that is required to look at eligibility. So in direct response to the resolution, we’ve outlined the financial implications, which do include additional staffing costs. However, should Council wish to consider the adoption of the program, those are costs that would need to be contemplated and obviously supported. So it’s very important to determine how a program will be administered and what costs prior to Council making the decision which they want to go forward and have staff do the work to develop a program.

So certainly we know, based on the research that we’ve done, that application renewal fees will not be sufficient to fund the cost of administering a program, because there won’t be sufficient fees to offset the additional impacts of deferring the revenue. However, as a result, we know a budget increase would be necessary, and noting the mayor’s direction to reduce the 2026 property tax levy, it would be inconsistent for staff to recommend a direction that is contrary to some of the work that we’re already doing. However, if Council wishes to support the adoption, it is absolutely something that is feasible, and that can be done. However, there is a cost and notwithstanding the additional direction through the budget, Council would need to direct a development of a business case to be included as part of the 2026 budget and for the mayor’s consideration.

Thank you, okay, I’ll look to go to committee for a recommendation to be put on the floor. Thank you, Councillor Van Murebergen, you’re looking to move the staff recommendation? That’s right, Chair, I’ll move the staff recommendation. Thank you, do I have a seconder?

I’ll second it to get it on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanna thank the delegation for being here, and I wanna thank staff too, for the recommendation coming to us.

I know it was a conversation that we had through at the beginning of the multi-year budget process. And here we are today with this recommendation, and I’m not sure how to do this. I do have a motion, it is contrary, so I’m asking the committee not to support B, and to do that, I guess we need to vote, and then I would put my motion, and my motion is really to start the conversation on where to go forward. Okay, thank you.

I’ll look to other members of committee to see if there’s any additional questions or comments. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, just a question that, excuse me, I heard from our staff through the chair to the staff, province is reviewing since 2024, any potential update or where it’s going or where we could receive some more details from the province. Ms.

Burbone. Through the chair, so certainly when the provincial budget came forward last year, that was, so that is part of the component as well, that the reassessment has been deferred until the completion of the property tax review. So given the very recent change in the provincial government, I think it, I’m hopeful that perhaps we might hear something in the near future, but certainly, that’s probably been on hold till the provincial election was complete. I know that they were working to have some consultation with municipalities on trying, looking to support a whole number of things as part of the property tax review, but we don’t have any recent information as to the status of that review.

We’re gonna continue liaising with the Ministry of Finance in hopes that we might get information, but unfortunately, it’ll be on their timeline when they provide that. Councillor? Thank you, no more questions, sir. Thank you, I will go to visiting Councillors now, Councillor Trossa, and then Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, thank you very much. And through the chair, I’m going to limit my comments as to why I think the staff report should be voted down, and then if the staff report is voted down, there’ll be further comments about what’s put on the floor. London has declared that it’s an age-friendly city, and London has also declared that we’re gonna have a very large property tax increase this year. And London is well aware, as are the senior groups who have approached us, that this property tax increase has a particularly detrimental and prejudicial effect on people who are of fixed income, especially if they’re of low-income people.

So from the start, I want to question the premise in the staff report that says, since we’re under this mandate from the mayoral order to give people some property tax relief in the form of a smaller levy for 2026, it seems counterintuitive to me that when a particular proposal, which is well-founded in provincial legislation, is put forward, that would do exactly that, and would do exactly that and target it to the groups of people who need it the most. I just think we need to be looking at this from the perspective of not what’s efficient, of not what’s convenient, of not what the province may do in the future. We need to be looking at this from the point of view of seniors and disabled people who are of low income, who are trying to stay in their homes. And I hear time again from residents in my ward who live in very nice homes in very nice neighborhoods, but they can’t keep up.

Because their income is not going up, and in the particular case of a spousal death, their income goes down. How are they supposed to continue to maintain their property and pay the insurance and deal with maintenance, especially in difficult climate times? And above all, pay the effects of this large levy. So I’m going to be supporting moving forward with an Ottawa-type program.

Now, provincial legislation does not just give the city the authority to do this. ‘Cause we often get into the discussion, can the city do that? Isn’t this something the province would have to do? Section 319 doesn’t only empower the city to have this program, it requires it.

The word “shall” is used. Having said that while section 319 mandates that the city have this program with respect to low income seniors and low income disabled people, it’s clear that the city has the discretion to determine the parameters and the eligibility requirements. So we have a lot of latitude here. But right now, this is not working.

And the reason why it’s not working is our current bylaw, which is woefully outdated and needs to be fixed, says the program is triggered by an assessment increase. Now we know that there’s the assessment increase and the levy increase. But the assessment increases have been largely suspended for how long has it been, eight years? We don’t know when that’s going to come back.

So I think in order for this program to be meaningful that we are under an obligation under section 319 as it’s currently written, to have this program, in order for it to be meaningful, at the very least, we need to change the language, the triggering language from assessment increase to any increase, which includes the levy increase. ‘Cause that’s where people are being hit. How much time do I have? Less than a minute.

Okay. The parameters of the program in terms of the eligibility requirements, the city has been given a lot of flexibility. We’re told we have to do it, but we get to define who’s low income, both with respect to seniors and disabled persons. So we need to grab this opportunity.

We need to grab this opportunity because we have seniors and disabled persons who are living in homes that they own, but they can’t afford to continue living there. And they need relief and they need it now. This was brought forward by the navigating retirement group. It’s also been supported from the local cop chapter, Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

I know they sent a letter around. I did not see it in the added agenda. So I hope that could be added to the materials that go to council. But Carp is very clear that they support what navigating retirement and what Mr.

Pollock has been telling us here. This is an important issue for a growing number of London seniors who we have to act on this. And I’ll reserve my other comments until after the motion is on the floor. Thank you.

Thank you. Looking to other visiting counselors, Councilor Callister. Thank you and through the chair. And I appreciate it when this was originally brought forward.

I believe this was Councilor Trosso. I mean, I tried other avenues in terms of long-term care. I wanted to look at deerness and trying to increase their capacity on that front because I really do feel seniors are doing a rock and a hard place on a lot of fronts. Just speaking to who are trying to help here.

When it comes to low-income seniors, I have a number of folks who fall into this category and they do not qualify. I’ve had a number of people reach out. I’ve looked at the criteria, they don’t meet it. And really, I want to paint a picture for my colleagues in terms of what I’m seeing.

I have a number of seniors. They frequent the food bank, which is also my ward. They frequent a number of food programs at the resource centers. They go to the library where they can.

They go to coffee house just for a coffee. A lot of them are really struggling. And that’s not to say that other portions of the population aren’t struggling as well. But I really do see you with seniors.

A lot of them are isolated. They won’t necessarily have family members. Some of them have inherited their homes. They don’t have pensions.

I have a number of folks who works in the service industry who didn’t necessarily get any sort of a pension. And they’re very much living on the edge. I’ve also seen seniors lose their homes, end up in their car, and then from there, they end up in homelessness. And we do have a portion of the population that are seniors that are experiencing homelessness.

And we’re seeing growth in those areas, which is very much a shame. And I wish we could see some movement in terms of finding spaces for seniors in public homes. Because another thing I hear all the time is, yes, we’re seeing beds being created for seniors, but there are very expensive retirement communities which a lot of folks can’t afford. So I do think this is something that deserves reconsideration.

I hope that my colleagues will look at other options. Even if you have to refer this, I would not kill this. I really do think it deserves a deeper dive. I think we owe it to seniors because they’re really struggling.

And again, that’s not to say that anyone else is not struggling. The property taxes have hit people on a number of demographics. But this is a group that’s really having a hard time shouldering this. So I would ask my colleagues to consider what Councillor Hopkins is putting forward.

If not that, refer it, please. Like this is something down the road. I think it’s going to get worse. We have an aging population.

It’s growing and they do need support. So thank you. Thank you. Looking to other members of Council Mayor Mirbergen.

Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. We’ve heard through the staff report and staff comments that this will have an effect of increasing the burden of taxation, which will affect all Londoners, including low income seniors. So begs the question, we have the province undergoing a property tax review as we speak.

It seems to me that there’s a lot that we’re going to learn as this becomes complete. It would make sense to refer, in my view, this motion until after we hear the property tax review from the Ontario government. So I would move for a referral. Okay.

Thank you. I have a mover for a referral on the floor. I’ll look to members of committee to see if they’re willing to refer or looking to refer. I have Councillor Frank as a seconder.

Okay, now we’ll begin discussion on a referral. Sorry. So just so that I get the reason down, Councillor van Mirbergen. So my understanding was you’re looking to refer to hear back from the province on some of the things they’re doing with respect to taxation.

Although we don’t have a timeline as to when we’d receive that. Is there anything else you’d like to add to the language of the referral? No, I think that basically covers the chair. They are undergoing the review and it could very well affect greatly how we proceed with this.

So it makes sense to go with the referral. So thank you. Okay, I’ll take that as you’re reasoning. Go to Councillor Hopkins first, for comment, go ahead.

Yeah, I appreciate having the conversation here of a referral, but I’m not confident that the provincial government is gonna come forward with tax policy to us this year or even next year. I know the conversations that we have around the AMO board is really encouraging the provincial government to come to municipalities and speak to us about social and economic prosperity review, which would undertake something like this. And I think it’s important that we continue to put the pressure on the provincial government to come forward to allow us to make some of these decisions, but I’m not convinced referring this is going to solve the problem for seniors here in our city today. Thank you, Councillor Perbault.

Thank you, and I have sort of shared a question actually to our staff. And before I ask the question actually, I do have even in my ward increasing number of the senior citizens that are in this situation. And they are not, when I heard from some of the other higher levels of government quotes like that these seniors should be moving out of their mansion and leaving it for the kids, for the younger generation with their kids. Many of these are not living in these mentions there are the one floor bungalows.

So I would certainly not be supporting the staff’s recommendation. But what I do wanna ask is if as on the floor right now there is a referral, if the province doesn’t come in very near future, what could be the next step if we do not support the staff’s recommendation? And if we go with the referral till the province makes their decision, but if this is lengthy project how could this come back so we address it? Wouldn’t be better if we actually address it now and ask our finance to come with some amounts, figures back to us based on certain projections.

Thank you. Okay, Councillor, I’m not exactly sure if you wanna word that in a way that doesn’t put staff in a position to answer on whether or not the referral moves forward. But I think what you’re asking is for potential alternative possibilities. But staff have made their recommendation.

If you don’t support the referral and the referral doesn’t go forward then there are opportunities for the committee to look at other motion, should the original motion be defeated. Do you wanna refer as your question to staff? No, the question I had was what I stated is that if the referral, if we move the referral now but the province doesn’t come back, how could this be brought back, could it be brought back by our committee or by whom, so again, so we don’t leave it for potentially six months, one year, two years. If the province doesn’t make up their decision, how could it be brought back, so this is addressed?

Thank you, so maybe I’ll ask the clerk if she wants to provide her thoughts on that. Through the chair, thank you. Councillor can submit a communication to a future agenda for a meeting. If they anticipate that either the province isn’t coming back or is taking too long, there’s nothing stopping a Councillor with submitting a communication for a future committee agenda with direction to civic administration.

Ms. Berbone. Through the chair, it might be helpful here. So there’s a couple of different ways this can play out.

So certainly we know there’s a very significant property tax review that’s currently underway. As soon as that is done, there are going to be a number of significant implications for taxation at the city of London and every other municipality. So as soon as that review is complete, we will automatically be bringing that information forward because there will be work that the city has to do. So the problem is we do not know when the province is intending on completing that review on whether it will be 2025 or whether it could be 2026.

So that gives you a little bit of context there. Alternatively, with respect to the implementation of a deferral program, there is a cost. If council wishes to have a deferral program, you can refer this to the budget if you would like civic administration to review this and develop the business case to bring it forward. This is certainly something that at the end of the day, can the municipality do it?

Absolutely. Do we have the current resources and the cost to support a program? We do not. And that would be a budget conversation.

So there’s a couple of different ways that the council and through the committee we can decide to proceed. But certainly, irrespective of the property tax review, we will be bringing that forward as soon as we get that done. So that will happen, whether that’ll include anything related to this, I do not know. But certainly it is part of their purview of their review.

So irrespective of that, the council could move forward if there’s a desire to have a program to refer it to the budget process. Thank you, seeing no further hands from committee. Oh, Councillor Van Reibergen, and I’ll go to Councillor Trasso. Well, I think staff for that clarification, I think it may make some sense to refer this to the budget, where it could be more thoroughly explored.

And perhaps in the meantime, we could also find out if possible from provincial government sources, what kind of timeline we’re looking at. So if I can do it, I would change my referral to the budget. Thank you. Just a moment, I’ll speak with the clerk.

Okay, Councillor, I have a path forward. We would have to first defeat the referral that’s on the floor. And then we’d have to defeat the staff recommendation that is our next part of this motion because a referral back to staff is contrary to the main motion. So that’s the path forward as we’d have to defeat both and then look to put a referral to staff back on the floor.

Councillor Van Reibergen. Yeah, sorry about that. Got a bell going in the background. Yeah, so just a referral to the budget process is somehow out of order at this time.

Yeah, there’s currently a referral on the floor right now, but because the main motion is also to take no action, then it’s contrary to that. So if you want to defeat the referral and have a committee vote on that, and then again, vote on the main motion and then move a subsequent referral. But referral takes precedent. Yes, but that’s why we’re dealing with the referral, but on the main motion because it’s contrary to make a referral that’s contrary would be the issue.

Okay, I think that being the case, I will leave this referral on the floor to the vote on that and just take it from there. Thank you. That would not preclude me further into this process from doing another referral. Is that correct?

That’s correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, I’m seeing some other hands come up. So Councillor Hopkins, were you looking to speak now ‘cause I go to members of committee first and then I go to Councillor Shossup.

On the referral, my understanding is to bring anything forward, you have to defeat it. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Shossup on the referral. Thank you, thank you very much through the chair.

I don’t think the deferral helps us with anything. Wait for the province to bring what there is already perfectly valid enabling legislation on the books that we do not need a statutory amendment for that says the municipality shall have this program. So I don’t know what the province is going to bring back. I don’t know when they’re going to bring it back, but for certain, we already have the clear statutory authority to move forward with this program.

So to refer this to wait for something else from the province, when we already have clear statutory, not just authority, but a mandate that we have to do this, I don’t think makes much sense. So I would vote against the referral. I really am looking forward to hearing what Councillor Hopkins is going to put on the table because I really think we need to move forward in this in a positive direction. And by the way, if you think the problem is bad now, wait until impact does the reassessments, and I don’t know when that’s going to happen, but then people are really going to be getting in from both sides of the equation here.

So please vote no on the referral, and let’s move on with the substance here. Thank you, I’ll go back to Ms. Barbone for comments. Thank you, I just wanted to clarify one item just to make sure it’s clear.

So under section 319 of the Ms. Black, where we are required to have a program, that program is very specific to increases in assessment only. The program that is being contemplated is under a different provision of the act that is under the ability to make grants, it is not. So the section 319 with respect to assessment would still remain in place as that is the mandatory program specific to assessment.

They are not over, like they’re different sections just to be clear. So when, and that’s one of the reasons why it’s not currently in use right now is because with the deferred reassessment, there are no significant assessment increases. So when a reassessment does come under the current provisions of the program, that is when there would be many more people that are eligible as a result. Just wanted to make that clarity just because there’s two very different sections of the act under which the program would run.

Thank you, I’ll go back to Councillor Trasso. Yeah, 319 is through the chair, 319 is very clear that the eligibility requirements, the city has a lot of latitude in setting those. And I don’t believe it is limited to a particular type. And even if it is, we’ve already been told in the staff report that there’s another independent section that we have the authority to operate under anyway.

So I just think- Councillor on the referral, please. Pardon me? On the referral, please. On the referral, I’ve said, what I have to say about the referral.

Thank you. Okay, so just looking for further comments on the referral, Councillor Van Mirberg, and go ahead. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to reiterate, there seems to be a lot of moving parts going on at the provincial level.

And it would only be appropriate to give ourselves a little more time for them to come back because things may change incredibly. So I think let’s vote in favor of this referral to give us that time. I mean, again, we’ve already heard that to go forward with a program like that would put so much upward pressure on an already high tax rate. And again, that helps nobody, including low-income seniors.

So I think the referral makes a lot of sense on so many levels. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Okay, I’ll look to any other members, visiting members, seeing no hands.

If it’s okay with members, I’ll make a comment on the referral. I won’t be supporting the referral. I don’t think that we have enough of an indication of timeline from the province to know whether or not we have an opportunity to move forward with this in the direction. I’d rather deal with this right now at committee.

With that said, I’ll look to open the vote. Opposed in the vote, the motion fails. One to four. Okay, thank you.

Now we’re back to the main motion, which again, if you refresh, you’ll be able to see. Just looking for speakers on the main motion. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Again, I will say that I would like to bring forward a motion and ask the committee to defeat be.

I do believe that this program is out of date. I know I hear from residents in my ward. There’s a lot of, we’re an aging population. Thank you, Councillor Chaselle, for reminding me we are an age-friendly city as well.

And I do think we need to update our program. There are opportunities that we can have here now. The one thing I want to say though is, when I speak to residents, and there are many that have lived in their homes for 35, 45 years, they want to age in place. You want to be able to afford their house.

They don’t want their house to be valued at 800 or a million dollars. They just want to be able to afford to live. Most likely, they will have to probably sell their property to their children who are struggling to be able to afford to buy a house too. So I think it’s an opportunity that we can see where we can support seniors and people that with disabilities on those fixed incomes, it’s tough for all of us out there.

And I think this segment of the population, it’s even harder. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers.

Councillor van Mirberg, and go ahead. I just wanted to clarify, Chair. So in order to have a referral, because clearly, this is a budget item. We’re dealing here with increased costs.

So to refer to the budget makes imminent sense. At this stage, correct me if I’m wrong, but I can move a motion of referral to the budget. Councillor, the issue is that in the recommendation contained here in the staff recommendation that was in the report, it has a part B to it, and that is to take no further action. So that is why the referral would be deemed contrary.

So I’d suggest if you’re looking to bring something forward, just as Councillor Hopkins has stated, that we vote on this matter, and then should it be defeated, then we look to bring forward some additional language and a motion. Would it be just, if you’re waiting for a second, would it be in order to refer everything, except that no action be taken? Move a motion in that regard. I would refer everything except for the no action be taken.

Okay, Councillor, we just dealt with the referral to refer the item, and that failed. So— That was a referral, but that was a different referral. Yes, it was different because it was connected to the province, but you’re now looking to just refer part A of the motion. The motion includes all of A and B.

Right, so we can’t refer a modified motion? You can, what would be the modification that would move it to the budget? I guess I’m going to have to. So no further action be taken.

If that is removed, and then we refer the rest to the budget. Through the chair, we can move a motion for a referral to the budget committee with the same direction until such time that the province announces their intentions with respect to their taxation policy. However, a referral with a direction to staff would be out of order. Okay, so the referral is to the budget committee, not to the staff.

Through the chair, that’s correct. Staff’s recommendation, the report is to take no action. So amending the referral to direct an action would be contrary to staff’s recommendation, which is on the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, and I appreciate your patience. We are all trying to figure this out and find a path forward, so I appreciate that. So anyone else on the motion that’s in front of us right now? Okay, I’m gonna ask Councillor Frank to take the chair.

Thank you, I have the chair and I recognize Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you. So I do see what our conversation or banter back and forth is where it’s going. And I just wanted to weigh in on a few aspects.

One, like many of you have shared, I’m hearing similar concerns from residents of mine around ability to pay and their ability to be able to afford their homes. And so I too feel that we have to look at addressing some of these concerns for low income and seniors within our community. Some of the challenges though that I have with the two approaches that are in front of us. So first I wanna speak to the fact that in the report it mentions that 57 people across all of those municipalities were the ones accessing the program.

So if I think about how many cities we’re talking about and we think about the cumulative staff, potential staffing cost program costs for this, it almost begs the question of whether or not a provincial approach would be better and maybe something that can better address some of the cost pressures associated across the province versus each city having individualized programs and having to incur the staff costs associated with such little uptake. So if we look at again 57 people that were eligible for these programs across all these municipalities, for our city, I wonder whether or not it would actually meet the need that we’re hearing from the community. So I could foresee a few different options that I don’t believe are interconnected to this, but I think could be valuable. One is we already have a program with the Housing Stability Bank, but that program has limitations in the terms of reference around the usage being for renters for instance.

Is there opportunity for us to do something within the Housing Stability Bank to make it so that those low income seniors that are perhaps looking to apply for some assistance could do so through a program like that? Is there other opportunities through other avenues? I’m not sure, but I do think that a program at the cost that we’re looking at with the impact it could have potentially again unknown at this time, I’m more concerned about whether or not we’d be able to institute that. I would prefer if there was an ability to look at this motion, I may craft something between now and council, look at language around that the mayor be requested to write a letter to the Minister of Seniors and Accessibility and the Minister of Municipal Housing to look at some advocacy strategies that would benefit the entirety of the province and maybe could be better in line with a program that could provide more support than something that we could do here locally.

So that’s where I am at at this point. And I just wanted to share my thoughts on that. Thank you and returning the chair with no one on the list. Okay, thank you.

I’ll look for any additional speakers. So if it’s helpful to the committee since I’m hearing some differing opinions on part A and B, I can separate those two votes. If that’s helpful, I can separate the items. Look in the committee, if they’d like me to do that.

Okay, I’ll look to separate it. I’ll call A first. A is just to receive the report and the delegation. Wasn’t the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, and now we’ll go to B. Wasn’t the vote, the motion fails, two to three. Okay, so we’ll go back to committee. Councilor Hopkins, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you very much for your comments. I quite agree, there’s probably a lot of options out there, but I would like to bring forward a motion and I will read it out. I do not have a seconder.

So I would like to start off that civic administration be directed to prepare a business case for the implementation of an expanded low-income seniors and low-income pensions with disabilities, tax deferral program, modeled on the program in effect in Ottawa for submission to the budget committee for the 2026 tax year. Thank you and I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Perbal. Okay, so I’ll look to members of committee to see who’d like to speak on this.

Councilor Van Meerberg, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. So it has to be clear, this is a motion to refer to the budget committee, is that correct? To the chair, I’ll read the motion.

Motion moved and seconded is that the civic administration be directed to prepare a business case for the implementation of an expanded low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities, tax deferral program, modeled on the program in effect in Ottawa for submission to the budget committee for the 2026 tax year. So staff would be preparing a business case. Thank you. Okay, any further comments, questions from committee or visiting Councillors?

Okay, I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins first. Yeah, I’d just like to encourage committee members to do this. I found that it would not perfect and there’s a lot of unanswered questions and probably a lot of options out there. I think we do have to do something and this is an opportunity for staff to come up with a business case, give us the information.

And at that time, through the budget process, we can make a decision on this business case. So I’m looking for your support. Thank you, Councillor Trossa, go ahead. Just to briefly say through the chair that I would be supporting this motion at council and thank you very much for putting something affirmative on the floor that actually moved something forward.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no further hands or anyone in chambers or online, I’ll look to open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to one. Okay, thank you.

That deals with items for direction and the items that were from consent. We have no deferred matters in additional business. We’ll move on to confidential. I’ll look for a motion to go in camera for the reasons provided in the agenda for 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, which are land acquisitions, listed or client-privileged, position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations, looking for a mover and a seconder.

Councillor Frank, Councillor Perbal, and we’ll open the vote. Councillor Van Mirbergen, closing the vote. Motion carries, five to two. Recording in progress.

Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Frank to report out from in camera. Thank you, and I’m pleased to report that progress was made for all the items that we went in camera for. Thank you, we’ll move to item seven, which is adjournment.

Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins, Remember in seconder and by hand. All in favor, thanks everyone. Motion carries.