Open Council

2nd Meeting of the Budget Committee

Open Council

2nd Meeting of the Budget Committee

May 22, 2025, at 10:00 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 10:03 AM; it being noted that Councillors S. Hillier and P. Van Meerbergen were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That Consent Items 2.1 and 2.2 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.1   2026 Budget Request - D. Trentowsky, Chair and T. Annett, General Manager, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

2025-05-22 Submission - UTRCA

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That the communication dated April 29, 2025 from D. Trentowsky, Chair and T. Annett, General Manager, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority regarding the 2026 Budget Request BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Update on Budget Engagement with Agencies, Boards and Commissions - Budget Chair/Councillor E. Peloza

2025-05-22 Submission - Update on Budget Engagement with ABC

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That the communication dated May 9, 2025 from Budget Chair/Councillor E. Peloza with respect to an updated on budget engagement with agencies, boards and commissions BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   2026 Annual Budget Update - Status Update

2025-05-22 Staff Report - 2026 Annual Budget Update–Status Update

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

a)    the report providing an update on development of the 2026 Annual Budget Update and the budget reduction options identified to date BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to include identified budget right-sizing opportunities in a business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementing the user fee changes for the revenue generation opportunity identified in Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2025, and to bring forward the corresponding business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update; and

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business cases in the 2026 Budget Update:

i)    Appendix B, Ref # - 1    Roadway Maintenance – Reduced Summer Sidewalk Maintenance

ii)   Appendix B, Ref # - 2    Roadway Planning & Design – Reduced Road Network Improvements

iii)  Appendix B, Ref # - 3    Urban Forestry - Reduction in Pathway and Trail Edge Brush Mulching

iv)  Appendix B, Ref # - 5    Aquatics – Closure of 5 Wading Pools

v)   Appendix C, Ref # - 2    Recycling & Composting - Stop Multi-Residential Green Bin Cart Pilot Project and Future Expansion

vi)  Appendix C, Ref # - 3    Recycling & Composting - Stop Collecting Blue Box Materials from Non-eligible Sources (NES)

vii)  Appendix C, Ref # - 4    Parks & Horticulture - Maintenance of Local Road Traffic Circles, Gateway Features and Cul-de-sac Islands;

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated May 18, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

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

a)    the report providing an update on development of the 2026 Annual Budget Update and the budget reduction options identified to date BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to include identified budget right-sizing opportunities in a business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update;

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated May 18, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementing the user fee changes for the revenue generation opportunity identified in Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2025, and to bring forward the corresponding business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update; and

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix B, Ref # - 1    Roadway Maintenance – Reduced Summer Sidewalk Maintenance

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix B, Ref # - 2    Roadway Planning & Design – Reduced Road Network Improvements

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix B, Ref # - 3    Urban Forestry - Reduction in Pathway and Trail Edge Brush Mulching

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix B, Ref # - 4    Urban Forestry – Tree Planting Grants & Non-replacement Tree Planting

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix B, Ref # - 5    Aquatics – Closure of 5 Wading Pools

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix B, Ref # - 6    Corporate Management – Resident Satisfaction Survey

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix B, Ref # - 7    Human Resources – Internships

Motion Failed (1 to 13)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix B, Ref # - 8    Information Technology – Digital Transformation

Motion Failed (1 to 13)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix C, Ref # - 1    Traffic Control & Street Lighting - Eliminate Full Funding of New Streetlight Installations

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix C, Ref # - 2    Recycling & Composting - Stop Multi-Residential Green Bin Cart Pilot Project and Future Expansion

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix C, Ref # - 3    Recycling & Composting - Stop Collecting Blue Box Materials from Non-eligible Sources (NES)

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix C, Ref # - 4    Parks & Horticulture - Maintenance of Local Road Traffic Circles, Gateway Features and Cul-de-sac Islands

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Morgan

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business case in the 2026 Budget Update:

Appendix C, Ref # - 5    Capital Financing – Climate Change Reserve Fund Contribution

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

4.2   Budget 2026 Cost Savings Opportunities - London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) Review - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-05-22 Submission - Budget LEDC-S. Stevenson

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the communication dated May 11, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson regarding the budget 2026 cost saving opportunities regarding London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) review BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the communication dated May 11, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson regarding the budget 2026 cost saving opportunities regarding London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) review BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee at which the LEDC is scheduled to appear.

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

4.3   Budget 2026 Cost Savings Opportunities - Cycling Lane Projects - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-05-22 Submission - Budget Cycling Lanes-S. Stevenson

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the communication dated May 11, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to the 2026 Budget cost savings opportunities regarding cycling lane projects BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Budget Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

V. Lubrano lll;

London Cycle Link Board of Directors;

S. Rutkowski;

M. Sloane, Professor, English Communications, School of Language and Liberal Studies, Fanshawe College;

H. Joseph;

C. Forsythe;

H. Tallman;

A. Thompson;

N. Roberts and the rest of our biking family;

M. Bernais;

J. Buscema;

A. Celere;

J. Belanger, President, Storm Stayed Brewing Company;

M. Pereira;

K. Costello;

M. Wickett;

S. Allison;

S. Middleton;

M. Hopkins;

T. Gervais;

C. Taylor;

M. Murty;

T. Lardner;

B. Donahue-Power;

M. Gualtieri;

M. Wilson;

G. Soth;

T. Shaw;

I. McGrath;

J. Weller;

C. Branton;

P. Morris;

P. King Shannon;

Kaluyu’ti (DarkN8V), Everything Indigenous Education Awareness Stream;

C. Tanner-Slater;

M. O’Neill;

A. Suksi;

C. Dagandan;

L. de Looze;

F. Durand;

S. Durand;

S. Brooks;

M. Zettler;

P. King;

A. Sharp;

T. Boere;

J. Bothwell;

A. Serrano Rodriguez;

T. Pulinec;

E. Hrinivich;

R. Skinner;

K. Kellestine;

K. Rhodes;

G. Rhodes;

J. Schuurman;

A. Tedford;

S. Murillo;

S. Wild;

C. Richards;        

Nathan;        

A. Carr;        

S. Murphy;        

S. C. McWatt, Assistant Professor, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University;        

M. Adler;       

A. McClenaghan, Bicycle Cafe;        

C. Murphy;       

B. Ball;       

D. Isaac; and        

MA Hodge and B. Morrison, Climate Action London.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Budget Committee with a list of all approved future cycling lane projects, their location, timeline, budgeted capital costs, source of funding and estimated annual maintenance costs;

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential 

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 12:39 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, 53 minutes)

[15:17] Good morning, everyone. This is the second meeting of the Budget Committee.

[18:25] The city of London is situated on the traditional lens of the Nashback, Haudenosaunee, Anapuok, and Adwondron. We honor and respect the history and language and the culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. For everyone’s information, Councillors Hillier and Van Merbergen are with us virtually all other members of the committee are in chambers. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

[19:04] To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I’m looking to members of committee for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none online or in chambers, consent items, we have two, looking to see if we can move these together if you would like them dealt with separate. I see no one asking to be moved separately. So looking for mover for 2.1 and 2.2, moved by Councillor Ferrer, seconded by Councillor Frank.

[19:40] As the budget chair, I just want to thank the upper Thames for having us, all our engagement with our ABCs. As you see in item 2.2 have now been concluded. So this is the first letter to come back and you will see more letters of response coming from the other agency boards and commissions as we move the budget process, including at the next meeting. Looking to committee members for comments for 2.1 and 2.2. Seeing none online, I’m going to start in chambers with Councillor Hopkins.

[20:19] Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make a quick comment on 2.1, which was receiving a letter from the upper Thames River Conservation Authority. I want to thank you and the mayor for attending our board meeting and having that discussion with the board. I also understand that the chair has also sent a letter and just as a reminder to Council or to committee here upper Thames is supported by 17 municipalities and there is a review on the value assessment that we’re still waiting for regarding member municipalities.

[20:57] So that is something we’re still needing to understand. I also want to thank you for the City of London for the advocacy and supporting conservation authorities when it comes to the freeze on our planning fees. I know the conservation authorities are getting together to advocate and to allow that freeze to be removed and really want to thank the City of London for their support on that as well.

[21:29] Thank you. I also note personally, I found it a little bit different appearing between boards where my colleagues sit, but we’re not colleagues in that situation. So thank you for receiving us so welcomely. A question to staff on this as Councilor Hopkins noted that this letter highlights advocacy requests that they have with the City should when the opportunities arise. I suspect that other agency boards and commissions will also highlight advocacy opportunities. Will government relations be made aware of this or do we need to do a separate thing to forward it?

[22:03] Just making sure as people are counting on us and looking to us. Thank you, through you, Chair. We will certainly be watching this and intending to add this to the issues that we identify through a government relations piece as well as the work that the mayor and others do in this regard as well. Thank you. Looking for further comments online or in chambers? Hey, Councillor Stevenson, please proceed. Thank you, mine’s on 2.2 and I was wondering if someone could share what the organizations, what tools they gained from the service review training and how they’ve been able to apply them.

[22:41] If we heard any feedback in terms of what particular tools were beneficial. Thank you to our finance team. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So the service review training covered a number of different tools, specifically the tools that the City already uses. So those tools would include elements such as zero-based budgeting, zero-based reviews. They would include program reviews, asset reviews, organizational reviews, deep dive service reviews on particular programs or services, as well as Lean Six Sigma and continuous improvement as well.

[23:21] So it was a pretty far-reaching overview of the various tools that was provided to the agencies, boards and commissions. A training happened back in December. So I think it’s still fairly early days in terms of the organizations working through and applying those tools on their respective budgets and their respective organizations. So I have not received any tangible updates at this point, but I do understand that many of them are making use of those tools that they received training on back in December.

[23:54] Thank you. Councilor. Thank you. Just as a follow-up, I was wondering, maybe even just initially, is there some excitement or something that is being shared that they learned something new? And for the public, when we see reviews of all of these things, do you mind just sharing like what kind of things are being looked for so that the public understands a little bit better what these reviews entail? Thank you, to the finance team. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So zero-based reviews are effectively more of a budgetary activity in the sense of basically rebuilding a budget from the ground up, basically, so in the sense of starting from scratch and building up what is required from budgetary resource perspective in order to deliver the programs or services that are being delivered.

[24:46] That is scalable, so it can be done a very kind of low level in terms of that a specific budgetary line or account level all the way up to and including kind of on a full organization, although the larger you go and obviously the more you bite off, the, I guess, more time consuming that process would be. So that is zero-based reviews. Asset reviews are exactly as they sound in the sense that it’s looking at the assets of a particular organization and assessing whether the current ownership model of those assets or the current way they’re being used to deliver services is most optimal.

[25:30] Organizational reviews tends to focus on the organizational structure of that organization and looking at how it’s structured, how it’s aligned, reporting relationships, you know, opportunities for, for example, shared services and that type of thing. So that is generally the focus of organizational reviews. Program reviews are exactly as the name would suggest. It’s specifically looking at, you know, the programs or services that an organization delivers and whether those are meeting the needs of the community, whether the resources that are aligned with those programs or services are appropriate given the services and programs being delivered currently.

[26:16] When this continuous improvement, Lean Six Sigma is really about identifying opportunities for waste in processes and how that can be eliminated and, you know, allowing processes to be streamlined to eliminate any kind of non-value added within those processes. So it’s really at a very granular process level and typically very focused on particular activities that, you know, are then aimed to kind of streamline and eliminate any non-value added from those processes.

[26:52] So at a high level, that is kind of generally what the tools are. I think what we can say is that some of those tools were new to some of those organizations that went through the training. Not all of them were familiar with those tools and I think they’re at least coming out of the training in December. There was excitement around, you know, getting the opportunity to apply some of those tools that they had not previously known about or applied to their organizations. Thank you.

[27:24] Councilor? Thank you, I appreciate that information. You know, there was an investment made in that day-long training and I’d be very interested at the end of this to hear about the tangible benefits that were created because if it really was a great thing, it might be worth looking at doing every four years knowing that the boards turn over unlike what is here. So I look forward to hearing more about that in the fall. Thank you. Other questions or comments from committee members on IMS 2.1 and 2.2. Apparently I looked a bit Mr. Wallace, he’s good up there.

[27:59] We’re good, calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, that concludes our consent items. We have no schedule items. IMS 4.1, I’ll note in the agenda there is a communication from Mr. Butler. So for the 2026 annual budget update, staff does have a brief overview for us and then we’ll go through some process questions before I look for a mover and a seconder as there will need to be at least one, two minor changes of wording in the motion that was provided.

[28:45] Ms. Barbara. Thank you through Madam Budget Chair. Basically just to give you a bit of a sense in terms of our last meeting in March, we had presented the original budget overview and update and had identified at that point in time that we would be looking to bring forward at the main meeting, a list of preliminary options that would look at achieving the permanent tax levy reductions through the 2026 budget. So through this report, we are essentially bringing back two recommendations to looking at reducing the tax levy.

[29:19] The first one on recommendation B is the work that civic administration has completed to do through our service review exercise and to date based on the preliminary work that has been completed that we’ve identified approximately $6 million that we would be able to include as a business case to bring forward in the mayor’s budget later this year. Recommendation B basically just allows us to continue doing that work and as we continue refining it and looking for additional opportunities and creating those business cases to move forward.

[29:54] Recommendation C is with respect to revenue changes that we’ve identified and included in Appendix A is some additional revenue generation opportunities that we believe would be prudent for council to consider for recreation and sport user fees. So recommendation C is looking for direction to proceed with bringing those forward and doing the work to look at those amendments to bring forward. When we get to recommendation B, we have identified further options that we wish to seek council direction on in terms of bringing forward the, they’ve been identified in Appendix B and C of this report and they relate to program reductions and/or eliminations.

[30:39] So through this report, what we are seeking is preliminary direction on whether council wishes to receive a business case as part of the 2026 budget update. So to be very clear, today’s report isn’t looking to debate the items that are on there. That will be done through the budget process. If council wishes to proceed, the debate today is around whether you wish us to do the work to go forward and develop those business cases to submit as part of the budget and as the mayor’s consideration as he brings forward, the mayor’s budget at the end of October.

[31:17] So there are a number of options on the list for council’s consideration that if you wish us to pursue them, then we’re looking for that direction. But if there are items, and the way we’ve worded the draft preliminary recommendation is tell us which items you don’t want us to do, assuming there are a number of them that you wish us to proceed. That may be the simplest method in terms of being able to proceed and focus on. If council does not have an appetite to want to look at a potential reduction or elimination, please tell us now, because that way civic administration won’t spend the time developing that business case, refining the additional information that we need to be able to create the business case so that we can spend time on the items that you do wish us to proceed and to ensure that we can spend our time wisely on the more pressing priorities of council.

[32:09] So I think that really in a nutshell is we have two recommendations for your consideration. And then the third is for you to provide us direction on what items you don’t wish us to pursue any further through the development of the business case. So the intent is that through the business case and through the budget process, you will have the information then through the budget process to not only have the public input and engagement through our budget, engagements and workshops that we do, and as well as through the public participation meeting, that’s where you’ll have plenty of time to give the signal to the public what things will be coming forward and the opportunity for staff to then go forward and do the work that will be needed to develop what those options are.

[32:52] So with that, I’ll turn it back to you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I’ll look to committee first to see if there’s any questions in regards to the $6 million overview. Other things before we get into it, I’ll also note in E-Scribe, there was a wording change in B and C, the word budget amendment has been changed to business case, realizing there’s no current budget to amend. So that was not only a mystery of change made from the potential motions that you had in advance versus today.

[33:25] Councilor Ferra. Thanks, Chair. And thanks for the update from the City Treasurer. I just go through the report, I did notice, and I know it just kind of leaves our options open, but we don’t have the monies that we put into the operating budget contingency reserve for the surplus part into this report. I do know that we don’t necessarily have, or as it was discussed at committee, that could be where those monies go, will be kind of up for debate at the budget update. But I do see that there’s gonna be a factor here with some of the stuff as we debate.

[34:00] I know we’re not supposed to be debating it right now, but I did want to kind of just clarify something. So that the monies that we put aside into the operating budget contingency reserve, that’s about 16.9 million, I think it was, or 16.6, and that’s divided over the two years. So it’s really like 8.45ish per year. And then we do have the $6 million identified preliminary money that was identified. And that’s only for this upcoming year. Is that correct as I kind of understood that? Okay, so as we get to that point, we have the total 13.1 million reduction from civic admin in the ABCs.

[34:40] Civic admin has potentially found 6 million identified for this upcoming year. And we potentially have 8.45 million for this upcoming year as well. So I just wanted to confirm those facts. Thank you and to staff. I know there were some nods along the way, just before the colleagues online too, just verbal recap. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So that is correct, the $6 million of savings. Again, that’s preliminary. That is what we’ve identified at this point. That work continues.

[35:13] We are not finished by any stretch of the imagination. So at least at this point though, it is $6 million for 2026. Your figures are also correct on the recent direction from council in relation to the 2024 year-end surplus. 16.9 million was set aside in the operating budget contingency reserve. So across two years, that’s approximately 8 and a half million dollars per year. What I will know though, and in my understanding, it is the mayor’s intention that that 16.9 million split over two years is supplemental or in addition to the direction to reduce below 5%.

[35:53] So in other words, it would not be counted towards the 13 million required or directed reduction for 2026. Councillor. Thank you for that. Okay, so I do see we’re trying to maybe get below that threshold from the mayor’s direction. I guess my main question then would be, we are discussing potential reductions or eliminations as per appendix B and C. But that is just for you to do the work on that as you said. So at the budget update, we can actually have those discussions, so there could be the potential depending on how everything lands and how the operating or the surplus money, when that comes to debate, there could be the potential for some votes here for a potential elimination or reduction, may not go that way and we may continue that program depending on the monies that we have and how things are discussed, I guess, at that point at the budget update.

[36:54] So that’s kind of how I understand this. I just wanted to clarify that just before we move forward. So okay. Yeah, that would be correct. No decisions are being made here today. The votes are just strictly, if you want a business case made to be brought forward for consideration, come the fall. But if we’re not interested at this point, staff would appreciate not doing a business case, just for fun. Okay. So like I said, still taking procedural questions and then we’ll get into handle, how to handle those optional cases outline that next. Councillor Frank.

[37:28] Thank you. I was just going to ask to split them. So it sounds like we’ll be doing that shortly. Okay. Councillor Pribble. Thank you. So the staff, and I just want to clarify, he identified $6 million because in the report, it does state that it has been preliminary identified yearly. And then there was a comment made by Mr. Murray that for 2026. So I just want to clarify that these are ongoing savings that I understand that 6 million might be 5, 5, 6, 5. I understand that, but this is ongoing savings not just for one year.

[38:08] To staff. Thank you through the chair. Thank you for that question. It’s important to clarify that yes, in fact, when we’re referring to the $6 million at this point, roughly that we’ve identified, yes, those are in fact permanent reductions. They start in 2026. So just to clarify and be completely clear, that is correct, yes. Thank you. Thank you. No more questions, so does that. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. And just for clarification in terms of this budget committee and our next meeting in June, we’re looking at bringing forward budget cases for 2026.

[38:45] Are we also still doing the work of the SWORG committee and bringing forward savings, potential savings that might be for future years? And is there a way that when we’re making submissions for the June meeting, we know how to delineate that? Thank you. The mandate of this committee has also encompassed SWORG now. It’s absorbed it. As we move through it, Councillors can bring their ideas forward. Mr. Murray, if you want to outline the easiest process for that, realizing there’s a June meeting, but there’s also meetings after that and also highlight ideally the timelines that the mayor’s working on too, as we ramp up to the October deadline.

[39:27] Thank you through you. So absolutely there is the opportunity to bring forward ideas that any Councillors may have at either the June 11th meeting or future budget committee meetings, depending on the idea and the background work and analysis that will then be required. I mean, there may be some runway that’s required in order to turn around that analysis and it may not even be possible for those particular ideas to impact the 2026 budget. So it’s entirely possible that some of them may not be things that we may benefit from from a budgetary perspective until 2027, for example, at the earliest.

[40:07] So having said that though, certainly if Councillors have ideas that they’re contemplating, encourage those to be submitted to any meeting of the budget committee and that will allow us to then get to work on those and start assessing what the potential opportunities are and when they might be potentially realized. So as the Councillor has noted, there is the June 11th meeting of the budget committee. That will be an opportunity for any other ideas or communications to be brought forward. Over the summer months, we will then be work at work on putting together the 2026 budget and actually following through on the direction that you will be providing.

[40:50] And the intention then would be that the budget and the business cases associated with the budget will come forward as part of the mayor’s budget in October. So the mayor will, before that, obviously, make some decisions on what is going to be included or excluded from his budget. Ultimately, all of the business cases that are directed to come forward will be included in the budget. As you saw last year, there will be some that are likely included in the mayor’s budget. There may be some that are simply presented for council’s consideration and you may wish to add those in if the mayor has not already.

[41:26] But those will be all part of the budget committee discussions that will commence in October and continue through November. So I hope that answers your question. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you. First, thanks to staff for their work on this report. I just have the procedural question as it relates to a budget case preparation. Does a budget case need to be prepared if we, instead of looking to have this on the tax base, we already use a reserve fund.

[42:01] So for instance, when I look at a couple of the items on the list that are in front of us, I’ll just give you an example. There’s the reduction of repairs on local roads. There’s the street light program, which in my mind, when you’re adding street lights, you’re increasing road safety. We have a reserve fund that’s sitting at 7.7 million for road safety under automated enforcement, which also says other road safety projects. Could we ultimately decide to use a reserve fund instead of using the tax levy increase?

[42:45] And therefore, do we need a business case to move it from tax levy to reserve fund? And I have another example of that. Mr. Murray. Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So ideally, in the interest of transparency, everything would be supported by a business case of that nature. Certainly that provides the opportunity to elaborate on what the implications of any such action could mean. So I would suggest that in an ideal world, even though there may be a continuation of the program, but a change in funding source, I think ultimately the opportunity to elaborate on that is ideal in a business case.

[43:25] In that case as well, you’re also still impacting the net tax levy. So you would be, just for example, in the case of the local improvement program that you referenced, counselor, you would be potentially taking some of the costs off the tax levy, so reducing the tax levy and instead of funding them potentially through a reserve fund, that would have tax levy implications that should be reflected in a budget business case. Okay, that’s the answer to the business case. Councilor. Thank you, that’s very helpful. And just to clarify, how do we ensure that the specificity of let’s say the Recycling and Compost program, which is a pilot project, fits with the dollars that are in the SEAP Reserve Fund that are outlined for pilot projects, like how do we make sure that those things are a one-for-one exchange on a reserve fund where the language is, in my opinion, a little bit challenging, just based on the definition, is that something that committee would decide staff would provide in the business case commentary on whether or not it fits within a reserve fund, Mr. Murray?

[44:39] Thank you through the chair. So yes, that would absolutely be something that would be potentially addressed or commented on in a business case. Certainly, if there are specific ideas that you might have in terms of things that you’d like us to look at of that nature, we would appreciate that specific direction and be able to take that away and assess whether it’s feasible, whether it’s a fit with that particular reserve fund, whether there’s sufficient balance in the reserve fund noting, again, of course, that reserve funds are one-time dollars and we need to be very, very cautious about using those for one-time or for ongoing costs, excuse me.

[45:15] So certainly, we would look at that as all part and parcel of developing a business case. Councillor? Seeing no immediate hands on liner and chambers. Procedurally, my advice to committee would be for a mover and a seconder for A through D. D would inherently move all the cases, as Ms. Barbone had said. Having heard from Councillor Frank procedurally at that point, I’ve asked the clerk to prepare each item to be called individually, just for a really quick vote.

[45:50] You can vote yay or nay. Mr. Murray has provided via email yesterday a response to some questions he got from Councillors in advance, realizing those pieces of information are high level at this time. Just procedurally, it seemed easier to move everything, call it individually, versus people trying to move stuff in and out and we’d still do all the votes. So looking for a mover and a seconder of the recommendation of A through D, as shown in any scribe. Okay, moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by seconded by the mayor.

[46:33] Okay, so for, we certainly take questions. This is your opportunities for appendix B and C. If you have specific questions on them, noting that the mayor’s direction to staff was to bring back cases that could lower the tax rate. So inherently, everything was making a business case unless council or committee at this moment directs otherwise, I will commence my speaker’s list with Mayor Morgan. Thank you, so I wanna say I appreciate our staff bringing this forward. And I also appreciate colleagues understanding that we’re not actually debating these items because frankly, we don’t have all of the information or components to them yet.

[47:10] We’re deciding whether or not to proceed with getting the details. And I think, you know, there’s a few examples here of why that’s really important, is because on these things with the details, there’s probably a number of different ways to approach it. Whether it’s, as Councillor Robbins suggested, funding something for three years, back-sopping it with a reserve fund before the elimination of the program or another avenue, we won’t actually have those details unless we move forward with a number of the business cases. A lot of these could probably be segmented in different ways too with the details available to us. And so there’s probably be more options for debate and discussion and opportunity on the table if we get the information.

[47:49] So from my perspective, I’m open to getting all of the information that staff have recommended on here for the exception of one. I have no interest in appendix B number five, which is the one related to waiting pools. I’ll tell you why. This debate’s been had a few times, but the $95,000 ongoing savings for what was likely be a significant capital cost of the removal of the infrastructure, to me is not going to move the numbers in a way that I’m interested in.

[48:22] So, I mean, if other Councillors want to get that information, they can, but I’m happy to support those who want to take that one off of staff’s workload and not even get that information. I’m, that’s the only one that stood out for me for one that I’m, I just, I don’t think I have a lot of intention of moving forward with given that it’s going to have a significant capital cost associated with it for a very small operating savings. Thank you, I’ll note one, it’s committee. So you can speak more than once, but I’m still timing. Two, it is absolutely appreciated if you mention appendix, whatever appendix and then the number, ‘cause we got multiple pages and multiple appendix is just to help us follow along with you.

[49:00] Next to my speaker’s list, I have Councillor McAllister and then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to these items. One of my concerns, well, the mayor already raised one of them, the aquatics, the waiting pools. I believe one of those would have probably been in my, in my ward and I know they get a lot of use and definitely an amenity that people enjoy. Another thing on the recreational side of the appendix A, I’m just wondering maybe if I could get some more information from, I imagine maybe Ms. Smith would comment on this, but it says between three and 15% increase in the recreational user fees, it’s a pretty large range, oops, sorry, and I’m just curious.

[49:46] I find, I hear this a lot from my constituents in terms of, they already feel a bit disadvantaged in terms of the fees. I do my best to try to let them know the subsidies that we have available and provide free recreational times when available, but I’m just curious what that would perhaps entail because I think that might be a pretty big hit for some of my folks. To staff, please. Thank you and through the chair, basically our cost recovery and recreations or for user fees is about 63.7%.

[50:25] So what we would be doing is looking at all of our fees, it doesn’t mean as you said, all fees would increase by 15%. We’ve begun a user fee benchmarking exercise where we’re looking at what other local providers charge in fees, local organizations and our peer municipalities. So you’re right, we do have some fees that are pretty close to cost recovery, but we have some that aren’t. So this is where we looked at that range from three to 15% and there would be many different factors we would look at as part of this business case and this user fee increase.

[50:59] And you’re correct, it’s important to note, we still have our city of London income-based subsidy process play your way. This assists Londoners every year, each person, if eligible, is up to $300 a year to support them to take recreation and sports programs. We would not be impacting this program at all. Councilor. Thank you and through the chair. Thank you for that answer. I’m just wondering if you can provide a bit more detail in terms of what the recreational fees entail, just so public is aware. I think I have a good understanding, but just so they would be aware of where they might see those increases.

[51:36] Ms. Smith. Sure, so we generate approximately 22 million a year in annual revenue fees. And it’s approximately 13 million of that goes against the tax levy. So our bar totaled 35 million. Approximately 13 million is subsidized through the tax. As I said, one of the biggest factors for us is minimum wage. It’s increased by 24% since 2019. So we are continually playing catch-up on that. And we know also that it’s been raised again for October 1st, 2025.

[52:15] So regardless of this increase, we need to look at our user fees this year because we continue to play catch-up specifically just looking at minimum wage. There are other factors that are impacting our ability to provide awesome recreation and support services to the community. Minimum wage is one of the big ones, but also looking at the safety and security of our residents and our staff at all of our facilities too. So there are some pressures and we will be looking at our user fees as part of this review.

[52:54] Councillor? Thank you and through the chair. Yeah, and I appreciate the pressures. I would say, I appreciate also hearing that we won’t be touching the subsidy, but I would be looking for, you know, if we have substantial changes to some of these user fees to look at trying to balance that with the subsidy. I just, speaking from my own words experience, I have a number of low-income families that often reach out to me. It’s great that we have the subsidy program, but especially in the summer, these are some of the few programs that residents can access.

[53:28] So I’m particularly, but like afraid, that cutting too deep into this or raising the fees to a level where families would not necessarily be able to access our facilities. So that’s a big concern for me on that. Another concern, which Councillor Roman kind of hinted at earlier, I’m also concerned in terms of the roadway maintenance, especially when it comes to traffic safety. I’m sure Mr. McCrae is kind of sick of hearing from me on a number of these items. But I do have a lot of the older neighborhoods in terms of the street light replacements, also like road repair and resurfacing.

[54:03] I think the older neighborhoods have a lot more issues with this kind of thing. A lot of these subdivisions were built without these things in place. So we’re perpetually playing catch up. I understand the need for the cost savings, but some of these neighborhoods never had these things to begin with. So it’s kind of kicking that ball even farther down the line. But I would say to the Mayor’s point as well, I would like to see the aquatics portion, that closure of the five waiting pools removed. I’m not sure if that requires an amendment at this time, but I’d be happy to put that forward. I don’t see any. I’m going to reserve rest of my comments for later on if there’s more, but I just wanted to raise those at the outset.

[54:38] Thank you. As to your question, no amendments are needed because we’re going to call everything separate, just to keep things pretty straightforward that we’re not going to be on an amendment up an amendment of the amended marginal motion of an amendment. So it’s just going to be called individually when we get there. And when we do get there, we’ll use the same mover and seconder too to help with the expediency. Next to my speaker’s list, and Councillor McCousher, you use three minutes. I have Councillor Stevenson, and then Councillor Frank, Councillor Troso, Councillor Pribble. I’m sorry, can I just clarify your question? Because it’s all bundled.

[55:11] So for instance, appendix B, all of those items are one. So how do we separate it? No, we’re going to separate each item. OK, perfect. I’m on it. OK, Councillor Stevenson. OK, thanks. I’m not very interested in many of these. I’ll be honest. I’ll be listening to my colleagues, but most of these are things that I think residents value and want to keep and increasing user fees. It’s just not someplace I want to go right now. I would be interested in potentially moving some of them to reserve funds that they’d be open to.

[55:45] So the ones that I do have questions on would be appendix B7, human resources, internships. Can you just give me an idea? I don’t know what internships we do or what departments that might be impacting. Thank you to staff, realizing all our questions at this point still might be really high level. Through the chair, thank you for that question. So currently we have 11 internships. We have two that are hosted within engineering. We have three that are hosted with the anti-racism, anti-oppression division.

[56:22] And then we have six availabilities within human resources itself. And what we’re looking at here is we found that we didn’t quite have the value in the human resources side of it, but we’re still seeing value under the ARIO division and the engineering division. So we’re looking at possibly considering scaling back just the human resources internships. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for that. And just to follow up, what is an internship? Is it a co-op or is there— Thank you.

[56:56] Maybe if we also know how we recruit our interns too, just to know where they’re coming from. Thank you through the chair. So the internships are opportunities for people to come into our organization to learn how we do business in the areas or industries that they’re interested. It’s beyond a co-op. It’s people that are other in their last year or have already completed their education. And they vary from anywhere from one-year terms up to three-year, 20-week terms.

[57:32] So it’s broken down by different lengths of weeks to come in and work side by side and learn the industry. Councillor. Thank you. So they’re obviously paid positions then. Another one that I would need to just have sort of whatever larger picture you can give us is Appendix B number eight. It says, information technology, digital transformation, the rollout of the Microsoft co-pilot and fabric.

[58:10] Just no idea what that is to stop. Thank you through the chair. So we found that we were able to identify savings within these two programs. Microsoft Fabric is our cloud-based data platform that helps us with data management. And Microsoft co-pilot is the AI assistant that’s built into Microsoft 365. Councillor Stevenson. Perfect, that’s all mine for now. Okay, Councillor Frank.

[58:42] Thank you. And I just wanted to share which ones that I’m generally not supportive of and don’t need staff to make a report on. I agree with Mayor. I’m not interested in the item five, Appendix B, the closure of the five waiting pools. I wouldn’t support that at council. Additionally, under Appendix C, I wouldn’t support reducing or stopping the green bin program in multi-unit residential, as well as the item three for stop collecting blue box materials. And item five, the contribution to the climate change reserve fund as it’s already very modest as it is.

[59:18] So I won’t support those moving forward. Thank you. And all those will be called separate to through B&C when we get there. Councillor Trapp sound. Thank you very much and I’m really glad I’m going after Councillor Frank because now I can talk less because she raised a couple of things that I wanted to flag. And I agree with everything she said. We’ve made so much progress on the blue box that I just don’t think it’s a great time to not keep moving forward on that.

[59:53] What I want to talk about though is roadway maintenance, reduce summer sidewalk maintenance, and also the reduced road network improvements. I believe that in the long run, this would not be helping us very much because both of these programs are, they’re safety features. And if we don’t have them, I think that there’s a greater possibility that we’re going to have injuries. And if we have injuries, we have claims. And I think that whatever cost savings you find here on a sidewalk or in a pothole, I just think we could just lose that really quickly, just in a couple of claims.

[1:00:40] Furthermore, in terms of one, roadway maintenance, I mean, if we use lower cost asphalt, we’re just going to have to come back and do it again. Could somebody tell me the difference between, maybe this is too much detail, but the difference in the life of a sidewalk panel replacement and patching it? Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, that would be information to prepare as part of the budget case should you wish to receive it. Councillor Trost?

[1:01:11] Yeah, okay, so I just want to do say, do say that both one and two are real non-starters for me, just based on the feedback that I get from residents about sidewalk safety. And I think that if we don’t have safe sidewalks, that if we need a panel of replacement and don’t do it, I think we also have accessibility problems. Even if we do the asphalt repair, it’s going to start to degenerate.

[1:01:44] And I just think this is a false, these are false savings. So I’ll be against those. Certainly the waiting pools and the other things that Councillor Frank raised are problems for me as well. And I think it’s a good idea to just eliminate some of these now, so I appreciate the time that we’re spending on this, because it’s going to be less work and less time later. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, sir, the chair. And I have a couple of questions to the staff that arose from the comments from my colleagues.

[1:02:18] And first I have to Mr. Smith, actually. You mentioned the ratio of 63.7 versus 36.3. According to my notes, two years ago, we were 61 to 39. So therefore, if my notes are correct, we are going moving towards additional 2.3% towards the tax base and tax base subsidizing these amounts. If you can just confirm it, if that is correct. To staff, thank you. And through the chair, that is correct. We have made some minimal additional increases to user fees over the last couple of years, specifically tied to the minimum wage changes.

[1:02:56] We are going through now with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan update. We will be looking at a lot of our numbers. And as part of that, we will be looking at our ratios. When we look at our fast growing city and we will probably come back at the same time with a potentially a new cost recovery model for recreation and sport programs along with that Parks and Recreation Master Plan update. Councilor? Thank you for the answer. Answer, so there’s a chair to Mr. Parity. You mentioned human resources, 11 internships, two, three and six HR, six HR.

[1:03:29] Sorry, you didn’t mention six. You said HR potentially not needed, not as a beneficial. So is my assumption correct that the two plus three, sorry, the six HR elimination would be the 84,000? Staff? That’s correct. Councilor? Okay, thank you for that. And now to the finance last question. If I calculated this, all these savings, I came up to $2.8 million, $2.8 million if we consider $8 million, 1% roughly. So they would represent 0.35% of taxpayers.

[1:04:07] So just if you can confirm to me that if we approved all these cases to go forward, even if you came back, we are savings 0.35% of the taxpayers’ money. Mr. Murray? Thank you through the chair. So the total tax levy at this point is for 1% is a little closer to $8.9 million now. So it’s a little higher than that. So $2.8 million on $8.9 is about 0.3. So just slightly lower than you noted, Councillor. Councillor Pribble.

[1:04:41] Okay, so thank you for that. So I just want to reiterate that if we go ahead with all these cases, if we prove all of them to the full amounts, we are saving 0.3% of the taxpayers’ base. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to share some of my thoughts here, I’m glad we’re going to be separating these and business cases with some business cases coming forward. I do want to follow up on the Mayor’s comments around waiting pools.

[1:05:14] I am not at all interested in getting a business case. A couple of years ago, we did take away some waiting pools in the city. And it was quite contentious in the community. They are very important to communities. So I am not interested in reducing any further waiting pools in our city as our population grows. Having said that, my interest is keeping our tree canopy, making the requirements of our climate emergency plan where we’re going as a council and supporting that.

[1:05:53] I do have a question through you, Chair, to staff about the capital financing, climate change reserve fund contribution. If you could just give me an update and a bit of history, ‘cause I know we took some money out of that and I’m not exactly sure where we’re at. Thank you, Appendix C, item five. Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So the $192,000 that you see noted in the appendix is the remaining ongoing contribution to that reserve fund. So you are correct, Councillor, over the course of the past couple of budget years, reductions have been made to that ongoing contribution.

[1:06:34] And what you see in front of you is what is left in terms of the annual ongoing contribution to that reserve fund every year. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, appreciate the update. And I am not at all interested in reducing it any further. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ferra. And then Councillor Layman, I’ll need you to take Chair sooner than later. Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Chair. I just want to, I hear with the committee here saying I’m in line with a lot of the items that I’ve heard already. I do have some questions, ‘cause I know I’m probably not in line with two, but I wanted to just before I go into that, I do know that we’re talking about elimination or reductions.

[1:07:16] Do we need direction for that? Or is that just going to come in a future business case amongst the two? And the reason I asked would be, for example, for Appendix B4, as I heard with the urban forestry, tree planting grants and non-replacement tree planting, like I wanted to know what’s the uptake on that for the city. And then I wanted to know if that, if there is something, you know, this is the one that I’m struggling with. I just wanted to know what the uptake would be on that. Before I get to the question, how would these business cases be? Would we have both an elimination and a reduction option in that business case?

[1:07:52] Thank you, yeah, specifically what that business case would look like coming back. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So just for clarity, the items listed in Appendix B are program or service reductions. So they do not reflect full elimination of those programs. They reflect a reduction, a partial reduction to those programs or services. Similarly, in Appendix C, those would reflect full elimination of those programs or services.

[1:08:27] So we’ve intentionally made that distinction between the two appendices that you see in this report. The business cases that go along with these would be framed according to how they have been presented in this report. So for example, if the business case pertains to one of the items in Appendix D, which is a service reduction, the business case would be written as such. And similarly, if it’s an Appendix C item, it would be written as a full elimination of that. Now in some cases, you know, if we’re, for example, proposing to eliminate a full program or service, there may be options for partial instead.

[1:09:06] And that could be the conversation that then happens during budget deliberations on those potential Appendix C business cases. Councilor Ferra. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thanks for that answer. So I guess going back to that example for item four in Appendix B. So that reduction is based on what? Is that based on, like I was saying before, like the uptake of the program or just areas that staff have found that potentially we could have this reduction and not impact that program. Mr. Murray here, just whoever wants to thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Yeoman’s online and he’s able to answer that question.

[1:09:47] Welcome, please proceed, Mr. Yeoman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you. So for the tree grants program, our grant program has been largely paused for the last year. So we’ve been doing a review and working to recreate the grant program and to relaunch it actually was something pretty new and exciting. We have $100,000 that’s allocated towards. That’s what’s being proposed here is to drop it into half. So it’d be $50,000 for that. For the tree planting portion or tree planting budget for street trees is $400,000 a year. So this would be a quarter of that.

[1:10:21] What we are suggesting with this and we will collaborate further in the business case, we are seeking federal government funding for tree planting as well. And we think there might be an opportunity then to backfill this funding with that as we go forward. Or if not, then we’d be seeking that funding to do additional tree planting as well. Councillor Ferra. Okay, thank you for that, that’s helpful. All right, for item, Appendix B, item eight, it was asked kind of about the data storage or the coal pilot and the AI Microsoft assistance or fabric.

[1:10:58] I just wanted to follow up on that. I heard on the answer that I think it was the fabric side is a data storage piece or something like that. I just wanted to know, I guess generally speaking, kind of data and where else would we put that data? Like, I just want to know, do we lose capacity to hold whatever we put in that area or are we going to be shifting that to somewhere else? Thank you, I’m going to caution that some of these are really specific questions that would come back in a business case, but I love all answer from staff. So through the chair, this one is a cloud-based data management, it’s not storage.

[1:11:38] If you need anything more specific on that, I would have to take that back to our director of ITS and provide something back for you, because that is very specific. And when it comes to data storage, it’s not something we normally discuss openly. Yes, thank you, always a caution of IT security and external threats, Councillor Ferra. I figured that, but you did answer my question. This is about the management of data, not about storage. Okay, so that helps, that’s all my questions for now. Thank you, I’m going to go to, so I still haven’t got through first and then I’ll get back to seconds.

[1:12:16] Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you. So there’s a number of these that I think the conversation has been helpful to clarify kind of what the intent is, because I wasn’t entirely clear as to where the findings, the savings are being found. And so automatic reaction was maybe a no, but now I’m willing to hear where this might come from. With respect to the recreation and sports user fees, because it is amongst a large amount of fees, I’m willing to entertain looking at them, but I’m just wondering at what level of detail will we receive the feedback?

[1:12:56] So it will just be, here was the set rate at this point, here’s what we’re recommending. My concern is, I remember when we had this conversation the last time, and there was a tremendous impact into the aquatic sector, specifically to London Aquatic Club and to others that the forest city diving, et cetera. And because of those changes, they had to then pass along those kinds of costs to their users. And so my concern is that when we go forward with this, will we have enough time and enough opportunity to engage with stakeholders?

[1:13:39] Or would they just be expected to read the report and come in here and talk to us during the public participation meeting? Mr. Murray. Thank you and through the chair. So part of the, alongside the budget, we’re also preparing our user fee detail report that is required every year that is attached to a public participation meeting. So if we’re directed to go forward with this recommendation, we would then, as you might have seen that report, we have hundreds of user fees.

[1:14:13] We would do all our exploring of where we would do our increases and what and if we would increase based on what the market is like now, then we would include it line by line any changes. As we’ve laid out those user fees for the entire multi-year budget process, we would then relook at what already was our increase for 2026 and we would also look at 2027 and may adjust those depending on where we go. And we would look at each individual fee and you would see those fully laid out in that user fee detail report that we would be proposing to council for review.

[1:14:51] And I believe if I’m correct, the city clerk can correct, that’s also includes a public participation meeting for Londoners to come and talk about the pros and cons of potential increase to user fees. Councilor Roman. Thank you. So I guess my concern remains that these groups usually don’t know that this conversation is taking place and by the time they find out or figure out that there’s going to be impact to their service, it’s a bit too late for them to participate in the process actively.

[1:15:29] So I just wanna share that caution having the Canadian Canada Games Aquatic Center in my ward, that is something of concern. Having more recreational options for young people right now that are cost effective that are accessible in all ways is really important. So this is one where I will be looking and making sure to try to engage with community as much as possible as we move forward with that discussion. Excuse me, but I wanna talk about some of Appendix B.

[1:16:07] I’m willing to look at a business case for one, two, three, and five, or sorry, not to look at a business case for one, two, three, and five, but my concern is some of these items, as I mentioned, could go into some cost reductions that could come from other sources like reserve. So I’m going to kind of figure out if that’s a possibility or not before, and that’s what I’m weighing right now. I’m not interested in seeing us not fund the urban forestry reduction in pathways and trail edge brush mulching, especially with having the medway forest in my ward, and also in other parts of ward six and elsewhere.

[1:16:51] This is something I get continuous requests for support along trails edges so that people can enjoy those pathways, and I think $100,000 is potentially, yes, it’s a savings, but I’m not sure if we’re doing enough as it is. And then just with respect to some of the other business cases that are in front of us, I have already probably received somewhere between 10 and 15 calls about item four, which is our summer maintenance around the subdivision internal traffic circles, subdivision gateway features.

[1:17:30] These are very much a concern in my part of the city around how we maintain them, so I’d love to see more maintenance, and so seeing any savings there, I think will be a challenge for my ward in particular, so I’m not willing to see a business case on any savings in that area. I know some of what we’ve done already is we’ve made some changes in terms of what’s in those beds so that they’re not flowers and they’re just grassed over, so they’re easier to maintain. I’m already receiving feedback from residents that have had that happen, and they feel as though we’re taking away the beautification that was part of the subdivision agreement, which was part of what the reason why they enjoyed their neighborhood, and so it is, I think, an ongoing concern, so I ask my colleagues not to support for 30 seconds.

[1:18:20] And lastly, I will say again, I do not want to see us reduce recycling programming, but would entertain it coming from other sources like the reserve. Thank you. I’ll recognize Councillor Lehman next, and then he can recognize me when we’ll trade when we’re done. Thank you, Chair. I just want to follow up on Councillor Ralman there as far as timing of public engagement. You know, my idea, I’m sure many of your Councillors around here is when it comes time to next fall is to, you know, engage with our constituents, probably, you know, I plan to, like, by the town hall.

[1:18:54] What do you suggest for that timing where we will have an idea of where the mayor’s budget is going for suggested amendments to the mayor? I just want to get a feel for what you see in the process that will be appropriate. Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So the mayor’s budget will be released in full in its entirety on October the 27th, so that will then kick off the formal part of the budget deliberations process.

[1:19:34] So at that point, you will have full details, full information on all of the budget business cases that are being contemplated through this year’s process, including those that are included in the mayor’s budget and those that are not. So the benefit of doing your consultation with your constituents in the month or early in the month of November is that you have those full details. They can see the full implications of the potential business cases in those business cases and have a full some discussion on those potential options with all the information.

[1:20:12] Having said that, though, there is no reason why you cannot gauge your constituents’ interest and appetite in these options that are in front of you in this report today. I appreciate that the information at this point is high level, but I suspect many of you, as has been noted, are already receiving calls and having conversations with your constituents about them. So certainly I would encourage you to continue that over the coming months in preparation for the formal budget deliberations that will happen in November, at which point you’ll have all the information fingertips to be able to have those full consultations.

[1:20:51] Mr. Murray, before I hand it back to Councillor Lehman, at what point is it an appropriate time for a UNI to send a joint email of letting them know when they can start booking those word meetings just for their own hold on our calendar and we can get the facility in the spaces booked, recognizing I’m also not sure of your timeline when you’ll book your city pop-up events, just looking for the timing of that and when we can start putting a request into you. Through you, Madam Chair. So we are actually in the process right now working with our communications team to iron out the details of our public engagement, our city-led public engagement events and activities.

[1:21:28] So that is being finalized right now. So I would say within the next few weeks, we will then be able to initiate the process and engage interest on specific Councillor-led events and ward meetings. Do you anticipate that’s something that could be made available for our June budget meeting of letting us know what city events are done as long as the comms team has had a chance to finalize those with you? Yes, Madam Chair, I do think that is appropriate for inclusion in the June 11th.

[1:22:02] Perfect, Councillor Lehman. Thank you, because we see these lists of things come through and of course, we don’t want to get rid of anything, right? But what we don’t hear is people saying, well, my property taxes are too high. So, you know, I think it’s important to have, you know, the discussion for me with my constituents to say, okay, your property tax are too high or some of the things we’re considering, what do you think? And people might go, yeah, you know, I’m fine with keeping these things, but I understand that taxes are gonna be what they are vice versa, but at this point, you know, I find it hard.

[1:22:38] There’s some things in here which I don’t want to proceed with, obviously, but for the most part, I want to just keep it open for that discussion to happen, thank you, Chair. Thank you, are you able to take the chair at this time for I can speak? Thank you, so I have the chair and I’ll recognize Councillor Closer. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, to staff, thank you for this, also noting that you were directed to find ideas that it wasn’t, these are the things we’re recommending, it’s to hear some things for our consideration and that we’re starting the conversation from that point.

[1:23:14] All note, procedurally, as well. We have this conversation today at other main points at Council, we can bring forward other ideas in the next budget meeting. I’ll highlight Appendix B, item one. I intend to do some work and bring back wording for sidewalk maintenance around mudjacking. The City of London currently doesn’t do it. Other places do where you actually raise this lab up, experience that with my own driveway, had great results, also knowing that sometimes sidewalks are removed and then weather hits and there’s a gap in the sidewalk infrastructure for accessibility for some time.

[1:23:51] So I’ll work on that motion, I just didn’t have it for today. The item two for colleagues, I hear great concern from residents about the pavement quality index in some neighborhoods and alligatoring potholes, which sometimes I refer to as inverted speed bumps. They’re there and they still slow traffic. And last summer council, we did do a scale back and some roads that were in the next year to be slated still haven’t come back up for their turn. So that small reduction can sometimes cost that street that’s been waiting almost a decade longer of a wait.

[1:24:29] Number three, did some high level internet research. And my understanding of this trail edge brush is that potentially they’re melting in place things that could be around the trail’s edge, could be just too much brush, thick brush, invasive plants would have a potential impact on trail maintenance hearing from ward 12 residents, especially around White Oaks Park, about an increase in ticks in the area along some of our trails.

[1:25:01] And they’re concerned of just really making sure that things are scaled back to protect the kids on walking to school routes. And just as they’re out with their families and dogs enjoying the area. So concerns with that one. As per Appendix C, I know I’ve heard some from some small businesses around the blue box materials that a small local pizza place saying can we just put out our boxes anyways, it’s pizza, hot sauce cans and just help with waste diversion that way.

[1:25:43] Might be a part of a business case, but a question through you, Mr. President, officer to staff. If the city is looking to collect a feedback to help cover the costs that were not mandated to cover, is there a way to potentially include a small fee in the business licensing fee? If we’re looking at recouping that, not sure if there’s an answer at this time, but realizing they’re licensed could be a way to track the businesses that way and recoup a small nominal fee. I’ll go to staff on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:26:22] We could evaluate whether or not there’s a user for your cost recovery basis for this because of the small number of customers. If we’re to go to full cost recovery, it may be more than they wish to do. It might be a possibility of an offset as well. So we could explore some sort of self-financing model at that time. Come back to Council Palazzo. Thank you. Having heard those comments, would you need a amendment to the motion or just something to consider? Proceeds really. Madam Chair, I don’t want to speak for, sorry, Mr. Chair. I don’t want to speak for my colleagues in finance, but I think we’ve heard from committee that if there are alternative financing strategies for some of these services, then we should be considering that as part of our business cases.

[1:27:00] I’ll go about the chair. Okay, thank you. I’m not interested in stopping that collection. I’ve heard from local businesses that it matters to them and some of them it’s really small, but also knowing that we’re trying to, it’s something that we’re not mandated to cover and appreciating where those funds are coming from. I’ll say for the green bin cart pickup pilot project, was super excited. Was it the launch of it as the first one was in my ward? In residents of that, of the apartment building, we’re really excited to be included in it ‘cause they don’t have a standalone home, but it just made them feel included that they could help divert their waste, realizing a family and apartment building produces the same amount of food waste as a family in a standalone home.

[1:27:50] Looking through you, it’s gonna be a question to miss, Chair. If there was any consideration given for a potential business case for places that such as places of worship who get weekly garbage pickup, that they would just lose that weekly pickup and just fall into the normal bi-weekly pickup that any of them in the residential neighborhoods would follow. I’ll go to staff. Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Stanford’s online and he can provide some additional information about services that are provided to places of worship.

[1:28:25] Generally, they receive a similar service to the route for residential that they’re on. The exception would be where they’re on a downtown route, for example, which does receive multiple pickups a day and they would be part of that cycle, but in a residential neighborhood, they are receiving at the same rate as usually the residents, but Mr. Stanford certainly knows all the details. Okay. - Good morning. Through the presiding officer, it is not something we’re specifically looking at at this time. For example, when it comes to churches and places of worship, we do collect right now from about 140 locations.

[1:28:59] It might have increased in the last year or two. We just haven’t done an update. It is something that if directed, we could look at more deeply to find out if there’s opportunities to make adjustments that are financially beneficial to the city overall and other potential options. Budget chair. - Sorry. Thank you, just flipping through 1,001 pages of good stuff. Question in regards to Appendix B number five, the potential closure of the five waiting pools.

[1:29:36] When those waiting pools come up for lifecycle renewal, just inherently, naturally on their own, is that a decision made by the park staff within the confines of their approved operating budget? Or is that a decision that would come back to the appropriate standing committee at that time when it’s time for lifecycle renewal? Most stuff. Thank you. And through the chair, the city of London, we began operating waiting pools back in the 1960s and continued to build into the 1980s. Many of them, we had a total of 23 waiting pools.

[1:30:12] Now we only have nine. There’s really not being a rebuild of waiting pools. We either have decommissioned or replaced with a spray pad, which is more cost-effective and efficient. So the remaining nine waiting pools, as I said, have been, most of them were built in the 1960s. There is very minimal lifecycle renewal for these as part of the Parks and Rec Master Plan in 2019. One of the recommendations was to begin to develop criteria and begin decommissioning waiting pools.

[1:30:46] And look at other alternatives. Because of the age of them, the aging infrastructure, the standards have changed over the years for waiting pools. And the hours of operation for waiting pools is very minimal as compared to a spray pad where we turn on the water and we open them from May to September, where a waiting pool is about eight weeks of a year. It has two staff at it. So that was the plan in 2019 to begin to look at decommissioning them.

[1:31:19] We haven’t gone forward with that. Go to the budget chair. Thank you. My specific question was when decommission or lifecycle renewal comes back, is it a Parks and Rec staff decision or does it come to committee for the consideration of if they would like to move forward with the decommissioning? All good stuff. Thank you and through the chair. If we were going forward with a recommendation to decommission, we would bring that forward with the criteria and the rationale to council to review. Go to the budget chair.

[1:31:52] Thank you and that concludes my questions. Thank you and I’ll return the chair to you. I’m sure with, I have no one on the speakers listening. Thank you, I certainly do. Councillor van Merbergen. Thank you chair. With regard to appendix B number reduction, road network improvements, I’m sure we can all agree that London roads are coming apart right before our eyes as we speak, to go ahead with a business case, even at the business case level, I have no interest in and I’m sure many don’t.

[1:32:41] I mean, to go even poorer in terms of the state of London roads is not good for the city. I mean, who among us would be in favor of even poorer roads than we have now? So I’m certainly going to voice my opinion on this but it should not go to a business case. Thank you. Thank you, looking to see if there’s any other council members who have not had the opportunity to speak yet.

[1:33:16] There’s three of you remaining if you’d like to speak at this time. Okay, I do have people on the list looking for second comments. I’ll note that this was a process to see if we want the business cases to come back. So just looking for, I would ideally say final comments or those burning questions that you cannot make a decision if you want a business case yet or not unless you have that information. So I had Councilor Perbal, potentially with a burning question, Councilor Stevenson and Mayor Morgan, just let you know the speakers listening going on.

[1:33:52] Councilor Perbal. Thank you, sir, Chair, to the staff who are actually specifically Ms. Smith. If you do go ahead with the recreation user fees increase or looking at the business case, you did mention you are going to look at other organizations providing locally such services which that I would imagine there would be the competitive analysis. Would you be including also competitive analysis with the other municipalities to see where we stand? Ms. Smith? Through you, Chair, definitely we would be looking at our peer municipalities too, Councillor. Thank you very much.

[1:34:26] Last question through the Chair to Mr. Murray. Based on the kind of media assumption that based on what’s in front of us, we are looking at 0.3%. Can you please tell me where it would be on average home property tax, what would reflect average and also on the median home? Thank you. Mr. Murray, if you have those numbers, if not, I can come back. No, thank you, Madam Chair. So just as a reminder to Council property taxes are based on assessed values, not market values, whether that be average or median.

[1:34:59] We based our calculations on the average assessed value for residential property, which is currently 252,000 again, assessed value. Each 1% represents approximately $39, $40 approximately in that range. So 0.3% to the average residential property owner would represent in the neighborhood of approximately $12. Councillor Pribble. Okay, thank you for that amount.

[1:35:31] And the reason why I’m asking is because we do supply or we make public the charts, the graph charts to the public comparing ourselves to other municipalities, both on medium and average. So that’s why I wanted to know how much would it be in dollars? Thank you very much, no more questions. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just a quick question on appendix B7 again in terms of the internship. So if I do the math on the 84,000 for 6 HR internships, it’s about 14,000 a year, is that correct? And would that be true for the ARO in the planning as well?

[1:36:07] Staff. Through the chair, so that’s correct for the ARO, approximately $13,671 per person and for human resources. The engineering one internships, they’re up to a one year terminal length and they average approximately 60 to 69,000 for those two each. Councillor Stevenson. Mayor Morgan. Yes, as you asked for just some final comments, I’ll just say I appreciate the discussion that my colleagues had.

[1:36:40] I also appreciate the strong temptation to try to debate the business case that we don’t have yet. There’s a lot of details we don’t have. I wanna give one example, just so colleagues have a sense, ‘cause there is one of these things that I actually know quite a bit about. Like, for example, appendix C item one is a program that used to be a local improvement. So tax payers could say we’d like a set of streetlights, we could say sure, you can go ahead, we’ll add it to your taxes over a 10 year period, everybody on the street pays for it, you can have streetlights.

[1:37:13] We moved it to a fully funded program, so that we pay for that. Since we moved it to a fully funded program, no one’s done it. And so it would move back to a local improvement. There wasn’t any uptake on this. We would have all of those details and details like that on all the other things to make decisions on, ask questions about, decide if we wanna fund them different ways. So I appreciate that it’s kind of a difficult position to be in to say, I want more information, knowing you might wanna go five different directions on it later, but without the information, you don’t know how you wanna go.

[1:37:45] So there’s an example of one that there’s a lot of details on that might actually inform how you’d like to go about it, because it’s easy to make a lot of assumptions about these without knowing exactly where we’re gonna go. Again, I recognize for some it’s pretty clear what they mean, and colleagues don’t wanna support them, but for the most part I’m gonna support the information on most of them with the exception I made. And that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m committed to putting them in a table budget or supporting amendments on them, I’ll reserve that decision for when I have the full details. Thank you, I see no hands-on liner in chambers.

[1:38:23] The advice from staff is we’re gonna do the vote on appendix D first, sorry, appendix B. So I’ll note that we’re gonna use the same mover and seconder, as you’ll see in eScribe that inherently everything’s in to be a business case. So this is a vote to exclude it. So if you would like to exclude it, not get a business case, you’ll vote yes. If you would like the business case, if you want the business case, you’ll vote no.

[1:39:04] If you don’t want the business case, you will vote yes, ‘cause you’re voting yes to exclude it. So we will go in numerical order. Excuse me, Chair, just would you mind just repeating that? Yeah, so I’m gonna advise that you hit current item in eScribe, so you will see that it reads that civic administration be directed to exclude the following business case in the 2026 budget update.

[1:40:17] We’re going numerical order, so it’s number one, which is the roadway maintenance reduced summer sidewalk maintenance. So if you would like it excluded, no business case, you vote yes. If you’re like, brooming that business case, you will vote accordingly. Seeing some nods, Councillor Ferri, you strictly— Strictly to what you said in lay person terms. Or I know, I’m just to confirm in my own mind, I guess.

[1:40:54] I see civic administration be directed to exclude the following business case. If I wanna keep that program, I vote yes. If you don’t want the business case come forward to eliminate that program, you will vote yes. Okay, I think I got it, thank you. Okay, do you need to understand, ‘cause like the next 15 votes are all gonna be the same. So it seems that we’re all good, same mover and seconder. We were opening the question for number for the first one.

[1:41:58] Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to four. So that means staff will not make a business case for that item. Vote number two. Make a business case to eliminate the vote. So staff will not make a business case, which means there’ll be no business case to eliminate that money.

[1:42:40] Ms. Merber, when do you wanna clarify perhaps in a different voice, we’ll clarify anyways. Yeah, you can hear me through the chairs. So what we had originally, the intent of this was to tell us which business cases you don’t wish to do. Thinking that there may only be a few, perhaps that council would just say, please exclude the following that you would vote on.

[1:43:21] Perhaps in the interest of maybe making it easier for people, noting we’re going through every single one, would it be perhaps simpler to simply change the word to include, tell us whether, you know, is it easier for people to wrap their head around this if we were to change the exclude to include so that you’re voting yes for a business case versus voting no for no business case. I recognize that’s changed for the clerk, but if that’s easier, that might be another way to approach it. It’s up to committee if you can understand the way it’s been written.

[1:43:55] It was moved this way. If there’s comprehension issues, we can change it, but I think everyone actually, from most part, voted what they intended. Okay, I’m seeing nods. Next time, we can keep that in mind of double negatives and confusion. Okay, second one. This is roadway planning design, the reduced road network improvements. Councilor Pribble. I just want to make one comment because what I heard the questions around me, when it’s excluded, the staff is not going to do it, but I don’t think there was the confusion, the confusion for what I heard around me is, if it’s excluded, the money stays in the budget and it goes forward.

[1:44:38] I think that was the case. So it wasn’t the excluded, it was, if you would exclude it, it is not, we are not asking them to do it. Yeah, yeah. But the money stays in the budget. Yeah, that you’re quite like, you need to know that. Like if people around you want to ask, they can ask their own questions. So that’s correct. We’re opening the vote on two. Closing the vote, motion carries, nine to five.

[1:45:39] Third one, urban forestry reduction and pathway and trail edge brush. Molt. Councilor Chossow, Mayor Morgan.

[1:46:26] Closing the vote, motion carries, eight to six. Urban forestry tree planting, grants and non-replacement tree planting. Opening the vote. Closing the vote, motion fails, seven to seven.

[1:47:18] Five, aquatics closure of five waiting pools. Councillor Hopkins.

[1:47:58] Excuse me, Chair, I voted wrong on that. Just don’t— Then change it, it’s still open. To confirm, yes means you don’t want a business case. Thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries, 12 to two. I was— Hey. I was in the middle of changing my vote. Okay, the cross talk needs to stop we’re in the middle of a voting series.

[1:48:34] Six, corporate management, resident satisfaction survey. Closing the vote, motion failed, four to 10. Seven human resources internships.

[1:49:32] Closing the vote, motion failed, one to 13. Eight information technology, digital transformation. Closing the vote, motion fails, one to 13.

[1:50:26] That moves us on to Appendix C. One, traffic control and street lighting eliminate full funding of new street light installations. Councillor Ploughall. Closing the vote, motion fails, seven to seven.

[1:51:06] Two, recycling and composting, stop multi-residential green bin, car, pilot project and future expansion. Closing the vote, motion passes, nine to five. Three, recycling and composting, stop collecting blue box materials from non-eligible sources. Councillor Tross out.

[1:52:11] Closing the vote, motion carries, 10 to four. Parks and horticulture maintenance of local road traffic circles, gateway features and cul-de-sac islands. Closing the vote, motion carries, motion carries, eight to six. Five capital financing, climate change, reserve, fine contribution.

[1:53:18] Closing the vote, motion fails, seven to seven. Thank you, that leaves us with this. I’ll note that these votes are recorded and we’ll still go to council for final vote. Should you have changed your mind, heard from residents or realize you voted differently than you intended, realizing it may or may not have made a difference. We still need to dispose of A, B and C of this. Yeah, so we’re receiving the information, staff is directed for the right sizing and appendix A, Councillor Hopkins a question or?

[1:54:09] Yeah, we’re using the same mover and seconder for the rest of it and that’ll be coming up in a moment. Is this being split in versus all one? It’s all one, did you need something split? I’d like to vote. Okay, we’re gonna cancel the vote and we’ll call it separate. Okay, we’re just preparing it.

[1:54:48] We’re gonna do A and B together and first and then we’ll finish off the rest. Okay, calling the question on A and B. Closing the vote, motion carries, 14 to zero.

[1:55:32] Thank you, calling, seat, vote, motion carries, 10 to four. Includes item 4.1, just give me a moment to unshuffle my papers as being moved into 4.2.

[1:56:37] Councillor Stevenson, this was a correspondence from you. This is your LEDC one, looking to see what your intention is at this time. Yes, thank you, after a few conversations, I’d like to refer this to the SPPC committee when LEDC is scheduled to appear and I believe I have a seconder and Councillor Hillier. Councillor Hillier’s indicated he’s still your seconder on that. It’s just being loaded into E-Scribe as the clerks did have the wording beforehand, so thank you for that. Traditionally, LEDC has appeared in October.

[1:57:11] That date’s not set yet, but whatever date he, Mr. LaCodya, comes for his annual update. He’ll have the list of these questions to address during his presentation. Councillor Stevenson, would you like to speak to it as it’s been moved and seconded? And if you refresh, it is in E-Scribe and up on the screens for those in the gallery. Yes, thank you. So the reason I brought it forward to the budget committee is just as we were all asked to look deeper into the financials and the opportunity for cost savings. This one has come up where it’s a $3 million a year contract to which we don’t have any oversight or transparency around to the public or to council.

[1:57:55] So not suggesting anything untoward, just wanting to do the due diligence that Londoners are asking of me to say, if we’re looking at all the boards and commissions, I realize this isn’t one, but as far as the public’s concerned, it’s the same as the others, just a different contractual arrangement. So I think it’s a great opportunity for us to just say that we’ve done our due diligence on it and the appropriate timing does seem to be more for the SPPC. The reason I brought it to budget was, as I said, it’s in alignment, it lets the public know that we’re dealing with it at the same time we’re speaking with all of our other boards and commissions.

[1:58:37] Thank you, further speakers on this item? Councilor Trafsell. Thank you very much. Well, I think it’s better to have it at the SPPC than to have it here, ‘cause in my view, it’s clearly not a budget item. I was going to oppose this very strongly in any event. So I’m not really sure I can support just continuing this discussion someplace else. So I am a little confused right now. I guess I have a question for staff. When LEDC comes in for their normal meeting with us, presumably, what did you say, October?

[1:59:14] Would these questions be able to be asked anyway? To staff, Mr. Small Bear, Dater’s Bear. Thank you, through you, Chair. There are certainly elements of this post resolution that are specific to civic administration. There’s some requests around civic administration to do some certain things. And so we can do that. There are other things that has noted in the resolution, proposed resolution that would be received in closed session at this point in time as well, including the financial statements.

[1:59:51] When this organization or other organizations that we fund through our economic development strategy funding come forward, they do present an overview of the work that they do. So there will be opportunities for council members to ask questions at that point in time. We would go back through this, and as we’ve been doing over the last little while, since receiving this as a draft form, to determine what information could be shared publicly and what information could certainly be shared in confidence. The question around whether or not LEDC has any opportunity to seek federal or provincial funding is certainly something that could be addressed publicly, as could the request for the budget for 2026.

[2:00:29] Councilor? Well, they certainly do. Based on what I understand, they certainly do seek work on seeking federal funding and helping other people. I still don’t see the point of this, I still don’t see the point of this if they’re going to be here in front of us and people can ask questions that are appropriate questions. So I’ll still be voting no, and that’s just to indicate that I don’t think, I’ll leave it at that. I’m just gonna be voting no. Thank you.

[2:01:02] Personally, Julia notes that if civic administration or LEDC isn’t aware of questions in advance, it would help for them to be prepared and come with questions, especially if we need to set up a closed session in advance that that would be prepared. Councilor Pribble. Thank you everyone. I mentioned one thing to my colleagues that if you don’t want to wait till September, the CEO, Mr. LaCotea, he’s meeting with him regularly and he’s very open to sharing this information with any one of us, so I just want to let you know that. So you don’t have to wait till September if you really want to know.

[2:01:35] That’s one thing. Second thing is, and I know it has to do a little bit with this, but we approved the economic development strategy and currently that was the month, the timeline was seven months. Can you please confirm this to me? And I’m just the reason why I’m saying it because I want to tie it to the LEDC. So it does have to do with it. Thank you. Thank you, cautioning that it’s actually a referral, this item on the floor, before we get into questions about the ACTEV plan. Sorry, I will repeat it through the chair.

[2:02:13] So we did agree the council go ahead with the third party with the London Economic Strategy. The timeline was seven months. Can you please tell me if it’s still accurate and when this economic strategy should be developed? Questioning the relevancy to the referral on the floor, but I think it’s just timing the economic development plan that we’re gonna see it back. Through you, Chair, Madam Chair, yes, that’s the plan and obviously working hard to get it back to you as quickly as possible.

[2:02:45] We’re expecting the fact that later this fall, you’ll have a budget to consider as well, so. Thank you for that answer. So as my colleagues, as you know, I wasn’t for supporting the contract that we signed a couple of years ago. And I think that I will be voting against this as well. The reason why is that I really believe after this strategy is done that there should be revisiting the entire contract and our cooperation with LEDC. And that’s the reason why I wanted to know. So when I look at the timeline by September, we will not be knowing the results of this.

[2:03:19] So that’s, thank you for answering that. So I’ll be. If I could, Madam Chair, through you, we do have a current contract with LEDC and other organizations for economic development funding. Part of the economic development strategies to look at roles, responsibilities, and get feedback from stakeholders and others with respect to how we deliver economic development services in this community that could include who would do that work for us. But currently we have a contract in place until 2027 with this organization.

[2:03:53] Thank you, I completely agree. But based on whatever the results are, I think it’s going to be the right timing and I’ll be proposing. And I hope LEDC and the other two organizations that will be willing to do as well to make changes to the current contract we have. Because I might. Sorry, I’m just going to have to procedurally promote other organizations as a referral for LEDC only. You just got to keep your comments really tight as you. Oh, I said it because the city management mentioned other organizations. So I’ll stick to LEDC. But no, no more comments. You answered my question and I just needed to know how to vote on this item that’s in front of us.

[2:04:27] Thank you. Thank you that you have the information you need. My next speaker is Mayor Morgan and then I’ll do a last call for questions. Yeah, so I’ll speak against the referral. Mainly because I actually don’t need this information, whether it’s here or at council. And I will echo what Councilor Privel said in speaking with the CEO and the board chair. These individuals are more than happy to meet with members of councils. We have questions about the organization. In fact, a number of the questions that are contained within the motion. I know Mr. LaCote and the board chair are happy to sit down. My understanding is Councilor Privel actually recently did that with the organization and got a lot of questions answered.

[2:05:03] I think when items come directly to council through a committee and the organizations haven’t been consulted, they’re just not having the opportunity to have that engagement and talk about the good work that they’re doing. And even within the structure of the things being referred here, you know, we have a purchase of service contract with this organization. We set an amount that we’re willing to pay, which Council agreed on to receive results which are reported back to us. Comparisons to Waterloo, we, you know, we pay less. They have less money to work with overall EDC and they produce actually more net results.

[2:05:41] Like there’s an ability to go in and have a good robust conversation with this organization. There’s some things that they’re not going to share publicly but I know that they’re willing to share with some members of council if they want to sit down with them. So, you know, I think I would strongly encourage members of council about questions about the LEDC or organizations like it. Have a sit down with them, you know, ask some questions. They’ll tell you as much as they possibly can and I think you’ll get a lot of information from them and it’s a great way to form a collaborative relationship with an organization that’s doing a lot of really good work for the city within our industrial sector and others. They’ve supported the city time and time again above and beyond their contract when, you know, we had the pandemic and we formed, you know, the response, the London Community Response Network.

[2:06:24] LEDC stepped up when we have the tariff issue now. They joined the economic response team and they’re working to coordinate this is above and beyond, you know, what they’re required to do but they will step up and support the mandate of the city. So I’m not saying that the councilors can’t ask these questions if they want. I think a lot of them, they could just go to the organization and when they’re before us, they can ask them when the purchase of service contract comes up, when the economic development strategy is up and we might be looking at a new model. You know, some of these things could be looked at then but I’m not sure putting it at the next available SBPC when they’re here is going to resolve those questions because we’ve got other processes in place that I think we need to complete before we get into an analysis of the purchase of service contract which does not expire until December of 2027.

[2:07:14] Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I was unsure which way to vote because if I am supporting the referral to SBPC, I’m feeling very uncomfortable that we are setting ourselves to go into camera. I have no problem following up with LEDC asking questions, I do that on a regular basis and I just don’t think there’s even a need to do this so I will not be supporting the referral.

[2:07:53] Okay, I don’t see anyone online at this time. Procedurally on this motion, just so everyone knows before you vote, if it’s a yes, this will go and be attached to when LEDC comes for their annual update in the fall. A vote no would mean it doesn’t go there at which point I would need a motion to receive the information, realizing, regardless of how it happens, whatever questions a Councillor might have can be asked, your annual update, this, others.

[2:08:38] Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanna follow up on this that again, it’s not saying that Council, there’s something that we, there’s there that we need to, I’m not saying that there’s a problem there. What I’m saying is we have a contract of service to which we don’t get to see the financial statements and the public doesn’t get to see the financial statements. It’s 100% funded from property tax dollars. And so there is an expectation when I speak to the public that they get to see where their money is spent.

[2:09:20] And I have full confidence that they’d be happy with what they could see, but the problem that they can’t see it, you know, is just one second. I just got a pause there on this clock. So your time has paused, Councillor Troso. She’s debating the merits of the letter and the motion arising out of the letter, not the referral. True, it is the referral on the table. So just frame it around the referral. Yeah, well, I just, I feel that it is appropriate to refer it out of this committee.

[2:10:00] And I would like to see it addressed at SBPC in the fall because we do have an annual renewal on those contracts. And I think it’s incumbent upon us to just say we’ve looked, the financial statements say we’ve asked about salaries and then just be able to tell the public we did our due diligence as a board of governors over this stewards of this money. And I just think that’s the appropriate time to do it. And it’s right before, you know, we do the budget. So I would just ask for support on the referral. Thank you.

[2:10:31] And I believe it’s an annual update they give us, but their contract actually runs into 2027. Okay, I’m saying no, it’s just for clarity of language. Looking for further comments, looking online, saying none, looking in chambers, saying none, opening the vote now. Closing the vote, motion fails, four to 10.

[2:11:09] Okay, so there’s still a letter on our agenda that we will need to dispose of, Councillor Stevenson. Can I make a motion to just receive it then? Yes. Motion to receive by Councillor Stevenson, a seconder and Councillor Hopkins. This will receive it, realizing that when the delegation comes at its time, questions can still fully be asked there. Okay, speaking briefly on the receipt. Yes, I want to speak to the receipt. I appreciate the Councillor Stevenson with the receipt.

[2:11:41] I would have seconded it. I also agree with not saying take no action on it. I meant what I said, but I do believe a number of these questions can get answered in other avenues. And if the Councillor isn’t satisfied with those avenues, want to reserve the right to bring some of these questions back at the appropriate time and the appropriate forum. So I appreciate that it’s just received and not take no action because I think there’s certainly a right to take some actions on these. Again, I would encourage the Councillor to take some time to sit down with the LADC. I think they’d be willing to chat with any member of Council who wants to ask a few of these ahead of time.

[2:12:13] And if you want to still ask them in public, you can still do that. Thank you. I’ll note that Mr. Locote had reached out saying as Councillor Pribble alluded to, his offer to meet anytime is open. And I believe some financial information’s actually already sitting in the city manager’s office if someone wanted to seek information there. Calling the question on receiving the correspondence from Councillor Stevenson. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[2:13:08] Thank you, that concludes item 4.2. Item 4.3 is a correspondence from Councillor Stevenson. I’ll note in your added agenda, there is a multitude of correspondence from the community. I’ll note that the first one that you’ll see is the letter and then the clerk listed the names as it formed, followed more of a form letter approach, just noting that correspondence was received as well without attaching each one for ease of access of the information. And then the ones that had different content were noted separately.

[2:13:40] I’m gonna go to the Councillor first out of respect ‘cause they did submit the correspondence looking for their intent. And then we’ll see what the intention is. Mr. Stevenson, the floor is yours. Thank you. I’d like to move the motion that I had in the letter and that was distributed and I believe I have a secondary and Councillor van Mirbergen. Yes, I’ll second. Okay, I haven’t asked for a secondary yet. So hold tight there, Councillor.

[2:14:14] So Councillor Stevenson, if you could just read out what your emotion was. Yes, that civic administration be directed to report back to council with the list of all approved future cycling lane projects, their location, timeline, budgeted capital costs, source of funding and estimated annual costs, annual maintenance costs, with the intention that council will consult with the public and potentially delay or cancel some of these projects. Thank you.

[2:14:47] As the chair, I’m making a ruling from the chair that this is already a decided matter of council. We discussed the Mass Mobility Plan and passed it through council on April 1st. If we were to discuss this today, it would need reconsideration by committee. And it’s a simple majority. If we would like to reconsider this today is the motion that the council read out. As someone, that’s where the ruling is.

[2:15:22] So at this point, I would need a motion. If someone would like to move a motion to reconsider it, then it would be someone who supported it at committee. If Councillor Stevenson is looking to do that, you would be eligible. I just wondered, if I take out the last bit and just end the motion at estimated annual maintenance costs with no intention, would it be the same ruling of the chair? Sorry, just one moment.

[2:17:00] Thank you for your patience to committee. The clerks are deeming that that would for them justify with that removal and make it eligible to be before us today. And then we could do with it as committee what we will. So we’re updating, I scribe to remove, I believe you said, with the attention. Hey, so we’re just eliminating that. Okay, if you just wanna refresh your screen in e-scribe, it should be loaded.

[2:17:57] Councillor Stevenson, does it read as you intended? Yes, thank you. Councillor Van Merbergen, are you remaining as the seconder? Yes, I am. Okay, so that movie is officially on the floor. Okay, so for those who haven’t, you might have to hit the little refresh button to make it come accurate. Procedurally, I’m gonna go to Councillor Stevenson first, and then I’ll start my speaker’s list from there.

[2:18:31] Unless, if it’s a point of order, yes, that trumps anything, Councillor Frank. Thank you, I’m just wondering. So if this does come back to us in the fall at Budget Committee and we start debating and cutting cycling projects that have already been approved and master mobility plan at that point would that require reconsideration as it’s a desired matter of council that we’ve already approved the MMP? I will confer with the clerk for a moment. I will also highlight that there will be a difference as we move through this, depending on what comes back of what’s been approved versus anything that was already put out to tender would be in a contradiction and procedurally out of order.

[2:19:09] So give me a moment. I’m making the clerk speak to it. Thank you, Budget Chair.

[2:19:45] I would point to 35.1. So if there is a motion to reconsider, because at that time there may be a motion that hits the floor and any motion to reconsider would have to consider whether there are anything being implemented resulting in a legally binding commitment that’s in place. So at that point, and I wanted to flag this, reconsideration would not even be in order at that point. So it will depend on what the motion is that’s put on the floor and whether there is a legally binding commitment.

[2:20:17] So it will depend on a number of factors. I hope that’s helpful. Councilor Frank, that resolves your point of order. Okay. And that’s on page 41 of your council procedure by-law for anyone who would like to read through it. So I’ll note that when it does come time for a vote, if you don’t want this information to come back, you’ll know if you want information to come back, not knowing what it might entail, you will vote yes. I will commence my speaker’s list with Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I appreciate that. And I just wanted to explain why I brought this forward and that you can see that in the recommendations or in the list that we just looked at, it really there is very little that’s gonna move the needle in a significant way.

[2:21:00] And so one of the things I hear about a lot is the complaint about the cycling lanes. And we did talk in the master mobility plan that it was 180 to 200 million. So we’re talking a very large amount. When, I just think when we bring it up in the budget committee, there’s, we tap into a different population and segment of the population to get involved in this discussion. And having the clarity and the details there, I’m perfectly happy with getting all this information.

[2:21:33] And then in the fall, we say, yes, this looks good and the general public supports it. And then at least we can say, ‘cause it’s not all just budget reductions. Some of it is the SOAR committee and clarity and accountability and transparency to say, hey, we’ve looked at it from the master mobility perspective. We endorsed it. Now we’re looking at it from a fiscal responsibility perspective. And we still endorse it. Then we get to say to the public, when they say this wasn’t a good investment, we looked at it, we’d had the general public buy-in and this is the decision that council made.

[2:22:10] So I think there’s a value in having the information so that we can respond to resident concerns and potentially find some savings. Like it’s been very interesting to hear the response that I’ve had just recently. People making suggestions about just tweaks to the kind of cycling lanes, where they are, transit, cycling signals, details that we didn’t get into in the master mobility plan. So again, from a transparency, accountability perspective, this isn’t necessarily putting a target on the cycling lanes, but it’s having us engage in an open public discussion around a somewhat contentious issue and get public buy-in on it and maybe find some tax savings at the same time and maybe provide better service.

[2:22:57] Thank you, I see hands just one second. Proceedually to the mover and seconder, just administratively, it says report, be directed report back to council. I assume we mean as council sits as budget committee. Okay, no one has an issue with changing administratively where it goes ‘cause it needs to go to the right place. Okay, we’re good, the clerk is clerking that. I next to my speakers list, I’ll have Councilor Frank, Councilor Robin, Councilor Travis out, and I can go from there.

[2:23:33] Realizing, I think we can just keep our comments as tight as possible. Sorry, I have a procedural question. Yes. Thank you. This was scheduled from 10 to noon. I’m just wondering what’s the plan in terms of are we going to continue on? I know other people have commitments, and I’m not sure that I personally, I’m okay with referring this to the next meeting, if that’s possible, just so that we can sit for the time that we were supposed to sit for. I’ll say there was no end time to the committee meeting.

[2:24:05] That was strictly what your scheduler was sat at. I would say you’re, if someone needs to go, you’re always welcome to go. I know one councilor is on, at least one of us is on a timeline. I forget what my next meeting is, I should probably check. We could always move referral. Also note that there was a large amount of correspondence from the community, and intention and concern from them as well, just to make that decision.

[2:24:36] So a referral could happen at any time. If we want to do it, I could always see if our scheduler is next time, just book a three hour block, if we’re going to be a little bit longer. I need a larger sheet of paper for my speaker’s list next time. So that procedural question has been dealt with.

[2:25:13] Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I will speak to the item at hand. So I won’t be supporting this, as I’m sure is a shock to nobody. As I already have the information that is being requested by this motion, so I find it redundant. And I already feel fully transparent on this process to the community, to myself, to my residents. I do see this as putting a huge target on the back of cycling infrastructure. The timelines and estimated funding has already been approved to the MMP, and we already have all that information. And I already did that fiscal responsibility in evaluating it when I evaluated the estimated costs.

[2:25:48] I also want to highlight a few numbers in case other folks don’t have this information in front of them. So last five years, we’ve spent about $11 million on road cycling lanes, of which about 42% come from federal and provincial sources, so almost half. On road projects, we’ve spent 273 million, and with only 20% of that coming from federal and provincial sources. So if we are looking for any savings in regards to transportation, road projects are clearly financially much more of a burden on our capital costs, and we receive significantly less federal and provincial contributions.

[2:26:22] As was cited, the estimated costs through the next 25 years of cycling infrastructure and other transportation infrastructure is between 180 to 200 million for cycling. And that’s split though between on road and parks pathways. So that’s not only on road cycling, that is also TVP improvements and other pathway improvements. So based on that number, I already understand the estimated costs. Additionally, I asked for annual maintenance costs, which is requested in this, and I was able to get it right away from staff.

[2:26:55] And based on 2024 actuals, the maintenance of on-road bike lanes was about a million dollars. The annual maintenance costs for roads was $23 million. So again, if we are looking for savings, we do see that there is a much more heavy burden for car infrastructure. In general, I’ve said it many times at council, and it remains fast, the most affordable way to get around the city is by walking, biking, and then transit. And if we are trying to actually focus on affordability for Londoners, we need to provide every opportunity for safe transportation options. And if this is an issue about affordability, we need to focus on providing the most cost-effective choices.

[2:27:32] And a lot of the cycling infrastructure network is about providing complete streets on busy roads like Southdale, Sunningdale, places where we have cyclists who are with car traffic and are at high likelihood that they might be hit or unpotentially killed. So I’m very interested in creating a affordable city, as I know many counselors are. And I think that we need to offer safe bike routes for people to get around the city so that they aren’t relying on buying second or third cars. It costs about $10,000 a year to own a car. And I don’t want to force Londoners to spend $10,000 a year buying more cars for their households.

[2:28:07] I don’t think that’s very affordable. So I won’t be supporting this. I don’t see the value in it. I see it as a huge target on cycling infrastructure. And I wouldn’t support it a bunch of time anyways. So I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it. Thank you, Councilor Roman. Thank you, mine was a procedural question. I’ll wait for the rest of the debate. Thank you, Councilor Tresau. Thank you, and through the chair, once again, I wouldn’t really thank Councilor Frank for articulating what I wanted to say so well.

[2:28:42] I also want to thank you for doing the extra homework. At a point, I was going to raise the staff. Maybe I’ll just, and I don’t have to because you’ve already done it. These are things that we could just pick up the phone and call staff and get simple answers to. And I think putting this in the form of emotion and going, I think we’re stirring up an unnecessary controversy here, given the extensive nature of what we’ve been through with the mobility master plan consultation process.

[2:29:20] So I appreciate the ruling from the chair, but I’m going to be voting no on every aspect of this. And I would suggest once again, if you have questions about something, ask whether it’s the LEDC or our active transportation staff. We can get answers to questions. So I’ll be voting no on this and anything else associated with this letter from the Councilor.

[2:29:52] We spend so much time on this. And again, thank you, thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Looking for further speakers, I’ll also note in E-Scribe, it will read, we’ll do two separate votes, one on receiving the correspondence and one on the motion itself. Further speakers, Councillor Robinson, no.

[2:30:28] We’re happy to make a comment and just want to thank Councillor Frank for doing the homework and giving us the information here at committee, I really do appreciate it. I know we can all follow up with staff, but I appreciate your due diligence on this. I won’t be supporting it. Maybe just adding to Councillor Frank’s comments, my concerns really revolve around the funding that’s already available for us, the agreements that are already in place.

[2:31:04] I am not at all willing to jeopardize any of that. I think that would probably be my main motion reason for not supporting the motion. And maybe just ending off, we need, we are a growing city, we are a big city, we need to improve different ways of moving around the city. We must do that in a safe manner and to do that, we need to invest in these projects and to support them.

[2:31:44] And again, the importance of being able, the affordability of all of us to move around should be there, so I am not at all supportive of this motion going forward. Thank you, further speakers on this item? Councillor Cuddy, I’m doing first before I do second, so I do acknowledge Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. I also won’t be supporting this motion.

[2:32:19] And I do appreciate what Councillor Stevenson has done putting this together in order to save costs, but cycling isn’t just for transportation, it’s also for safety. And people are gonna continue to cycle and use our roadways, whether or not there’s a bike path there for them to use or not. And we have to consider the safety of everyone in the city, not those just using cars and other means of transportation, including pedestrian, but cyclists, and we’ve had a fatality in my ward just recently a year ago, and we’ve had one, Councillor McAllister’s ward last year.

[2:33:02] And I don’t think that reducing the number of paths and cycle paths is going to improve our safety. It’s only going to cause more risk and more harm to those using it. And as I said earlier, people aren’t gonna stop cycling, they’re gonna continue, they just have to do it safely. So I do appreciate Councillor Frank bringing this, bringing the information forward. I didn’t realize all of that, and thank you for that information. And again, I won’t be supporting us now and I won’t support it, Councillor, thank you.

[2:33:35] Thank you for their speakers before, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Privel. Thank you, and I was considering to supporting this because there was one part that actually I wasn’t aware of and I didn’t have that information, but I was actually answered on the floor a couple of minutes ago. So I will not be supporting it either, but I just wanna let you know that I do think that we have opportunities, even though we approved a mobility master plan, I still truly believe that there are some opportunities to make, for example, TVP, the hub, the spine, et cetera. But bottom line is strictly to this, I will not be supporting it.

[2:34:10] Having said it, do I think we have opportunities to improve it? Absolutely, thank you. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, I snuck in there for the second round. Appreciate you, recognize me and through the chair. And I appreciate Councillor Frank, all the information just he was provided. And one of the things I just wanted to highlight, which I have this conversation repeatedly with residents about is much of the cycling infrastructure. There was a large federal component to that. I think a lot of the time people will pick on the cycling lanes. I know it’s a very visible thing on our streets.

[2:34:45] I personally see a lot of value in it in terms of the safety provides the cyclists, but a lot of the time people incorrectly state that that is entirely on the tax base, or the property tax base, I should say. There were other levels of government involved. We saw a lot of that infrastructure built up over the last few years, but that was a commitment from other levels of government to improve that infrastructure. And I think it’s a valuable lesson in terms of hopefully we can capitalize on that with other projects to get that buy-in, to build out our city to allow people many different forms of transit around town.

[2:35:21] Thank you. Councilor Van Merbergen. Chair, yeah, I’ll be supporting this motion. I mean, to get this type of information back is only prudent in the middle of a budget cycle, makes complete sense. When you listen to some of the previous rhetoric, trying to make the point that roads and cars cost more than bikes, you really got to give your head a shake. I mean, the road system is used by everybody.

[2:36:03] The bike lane system, I think we can all agree, is less than underutilized. Unless we want to put London into a complete depression by shutting down the road system because it costs more, it borders on the nonsensical. When you hear some of these arguments, we need a better road system. Okay, Councilor Van Merbergen, I got points of personal privilege being raised in multiple, Paul, you need to stop just a second. Councilor. - Councilor.

[2:36:35] I will be supporting this motion. Thank you. A question to IT next time. Are you due to the ability to stop a speaker online? Okay, I see a no. So if there is points of order and Councilor’s not speaking or not halting online, I will continue to try and be louder over pop. Councilor Van Merbergen said his comments have concluded. I will still note that I had several concerns being raised of the words being chosen and the implications raised within Chambers.

[2:37:12] Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’d like to state my point of privilege. One, these arguments are not nonsensical. So I’d appreciate apology from the Councilor for using that language. And two, we can’t all agree. So I don’t appreciate when the Councilor says, we can all agree on a certain thing. He can state his opinion, but he does not speak on behalf of all of us, including myself. Councilor Van Merbergen, Councilor Frank, you’ve heard their concerns and they are requesting a retraction/apology of nonsensical Councilor Vanbergen.

[2:37:56] I would say that that request is unnecessary like the other Councilor I-2 engage in rhetoric. He engages in rhetoric all the time to make these equivalencies between them. Okay, Councilor— That’s just a kind of road system. Councilor Van Merbergen, just a second. I might have to seek advice how to deal with a point of privilege on a point of privilege while someone’s still answering. Councilor Frank, your point of privilege? Thank you, yes. I do not engage in rhetoric.

[2:38:29] I share my feelings and opinions when I do it without trying to offend anyone. And in my comments today, I did not notice if I was offending anyone. If anyone felt that way, they can more than willingly declare a point of privilege and I would apologize. And again, I don’t mind the Councilor sharing his perspectives, but calling my comments nonsensical is offensive and I would appreciate an apology. Okay, Councilor Van Merbergen, the request stands from the Councilor Frank for a retraction apology of nonsensical.

[2:39:28] I would need your comments specific on that in the form of, as a Councilor seeking an apology. If not, I will need to refer to the policy. Councilor Poussaint, Councilor Procedural By-laws. If I may, Chair, I think if you look at the record, do I have permission to speak? You do, to the apology and the nonsensical. So that’s my point.

[2:40:05] If you check the record, we’ll see that I extended orders the nonsensical. I did not state name of anybody and I’ll leave it at that. I think once again, Councilor’s restaying that it borders the nonsensical, that no one specifically was nonsensical. Councilor Frank. For the, what, how do I word it?

[2:40:39] For the, in the interest of saving time for this committee, I will retract my request for apology, but I would hope that other members of Council would see fit to choose their words wisely. Thank you, we’ll deal with that matter as being disposed of. Can I raise a point of order? Yeah, sorry, I was just trying to find my speaker’s list and wondering whose timer was on my clock.

[2:41:22] A point of order, Councillor McAllister. Yeah, a point of order to the answer that was given from IT, and this is, I guess, to the clerks, but I do think that the chair should have the ability to mute people online. They shouldn’t, because they’re online, have the ability to speak over everyone. Thank you, the court can speak to it, and hopefully it will be disposed of. Thank you, Rob, budget chair. When items come up very, very quickly, sometimes it takes us a second to react. We do have the ability as host or co-host to mute.

[2:41:59] I would note that once we have done that, then in order for that individual to regain the ability to speak, we will need to prompt that within Zoom. So it’s just a matter of timing, but your comment is noted. Thank you, I’ll deal with that as disposed of, looking to see if there’s any of the first speakers. I do see Councillor Traus’ hand, go ahead. Thank you, through the chair.

[2:42:32] If I have any time, I just wanted to make one comment in the form of a substantive suggestion, and that is, when we improve the safety of cycling, when we improve our cycling network, when we make it easier for— Okay, Councillor Traus’ I was paused your time. Point of order, Councillor Stevenson. This isn’t about the safety of cycling lanes, it’s about getting information. I would rule that it is in order, ‘cause the information on safety lane, cycling lanes does impact cyclist safety, potentially of what comes back.

[2:43:10] Thank you, I just want to, I’ll make this very brief then. We’re not taking anything away from motorists when we improve the cycling lane. And I think that that’s a very unfortunate myth that I’m hearing all too often, that it’s a zero-sum game, and there’s just a pie. And I just want to put this to rest. You’re not taking anything away from motorists by making cycling safer. And that’s what I wanted to say. Hey, I have no further speakers on my list.

[2:43:46] I don’t see it online. Councillor ramen, is there anybody else for the speaker’s list? Just, I need to get the clerk prepped. Councillor ramen, you have not spoken actually to the motion yet, please proceed. You have your full time. Thank you and through you and much appreciated. So I appreciate the fact that we are discussing this here today, although I would like to have seen us have a more full-sum discussion in the future on the many letters that we received and the feedback that we received.

[2:44:20] So I have two thoughts on this. One, I agree with my colleagues that cycling investments are important and we need to be making them. And so that I think is an important thing to state right off the bat. But I will say, asking for more information, I think is key as well. And so I’m struggling with this as well because I’ve recently had some of these discussions around reducing a lane in my ward in an area where cycling lanes have been proposed and there needs to be an opportunity for a full-sum discussion about that.

[2:45:07] And so, but the timeline in which I was informed of this doesn’t allow me an ample enough time to engage with my community on it. So I’m trying to balance the need to know about things that have great impact on a very fast-paced growing area the northwest of which we just considered also some changes to the urban growth boundary to further increased density in this area and reduction of a lane of which is significant in my ward so that bike lanes can be added.

[2:45:45] So I’m, again, of two minds. I wanna see us do cycling improvements and other roadway improvements where they make sense with ample consideration and consultation with the community. But I also want to be able to be given the time to evaluate those projects and have those discussions. So I, again, like I just think the wording of this is challenging for me. I also don’t see it as entirely, although it relates mostly to the capital costs and not the operating budget.

[2:46:24] I’m still struggling with this one a little one and I, a little bit, I’m going to bring my concerns to committee, a standing committee, but I understand why this may be here. Thank you, I don’t see any further speakers online, checking in chambers, calling the question, that apologies, Councillor Stevenson. Also an excellent question. You’ve used one minute and 50 seconds. Okay, thank you.

[2:46:55] So just a few things too. I didn’t call a point of personal privilege but there’s a lot of comments that say that, you know, they’ve done their due diligence and thanks to one Councillor for doing their due diligence, somehow implies that maybe I didn’t. And I want us to watch that. The diversity of opinion and thought is not something that I’m finding is here enough as much as I would like to see it. I also did my due diligence. Current annual maintenance is $1.6 million, $12,000 a kilometer, winter portion of that is $1.2 million at $9,000 a kilometer.

[2:47:29] Removing protected cycling lanes cost is estimated at 350 to 400,000 per kilometer. What we’re talking about here is future. So if we’ve invested ballpark $50 million in cycling lanes and we have 1.6 million in annual maintenance, if we’re gonna do an additional 200 million, is it reasonable to say that we would be multiplying 1.6 million by five as an estimated annual maintenance that we would be committed to going forward? Madam Chair, if you wish I could answer that.

[2:48:04] The $200 million that’s cited in the mobility master plan includes half of it fully in non-road cycling infrastructure and some of it in boulevard cycling infrastructure. Those are not maintained in the winter, so no, it would not be a factor of five. Okay, thank you and that part is helpful. This is the conversation is really about doing things eyes wide open, right? This, although I brought it up as budget in that there’s the opportunity for cost savings, what we’ve done so far today is less than— I’m just gonna caution with eyes wide open to make sure that we’re not imputing other members of council who did believe that information.

[2:48:44] Yeah, no, sorry, I don’t mean that. What I’m saying is cycling lanes are something that people are talking about and the province is saying that the public is questioning it. I just want us to have a really open, honest, and again, not to say we’re being dishonest, but I want to just be, I want to engage with the public on this. Let’s have the conversation and get the public’s buy-in on this and then possibly find some savings in terms of cycling light, the transit lights, I don’t know, wherever you call them, the cycling lights that tell people to go.

[2:49:21] People are asking questions about that. We didn’t get into the detail, I don’t believe in the master mobility plan. Are there any savings in here that we could find that would make the public happier and save us some money? So it really is, this is about information. It’s about providing information to the public so that they’re better informed and we’re better informed. Yes, we can ask questions individually, but I think it’s great for the public to understand what the ongoing costs will be, what the timeline of this is gonna be, what, when we agree— - Third to second?

[2:49:57] The ongoing maintenance costs, we can’t change them without taking out the protected cycling lanes because it’s mandated by the province for safety standards. So again, do we want to engage with the public on a difficult conversation and have that so that the conversation is clear and we’re not avoiding it? It’s going to come up, it’s a question of how we’re gonna do it. So I’m just asking for the information so that we can talk about it openly in the public. Thank you, I’ll recognize Councillor Frank for a moment.

[2:50:36] Councillor Stevenson, that was your full five minutes. Realizing I don’t want to get into too much cross debate, just looking to dispose of this item as well. If it’s something the burning question or comment, is that a no? I was just gonna be very quick and say that I felt that we have already deeply engaged the community in asking them about cycling infrastructure through the master mobility plan and I’ve already had this discussion so, so many times. So I do not need this information.

[2:51:11] Thank you for their comments online. I don’t see any hands in chambers, in chambers. So we’re gonna call these separate. One’s gonna be to receive all the letters. The first vote that is up is that to the administration be directed to report back to future meeting the budget committee with a list of all approved future cycling lane, projects, their location, timeline, budget, capital costs, sourcing of funding and it’s just estimated annual maintenance cost.

[2:51:44] Call on that question now. So the chair, the first is for correspondence, right? No, the first is the motion. It’s the main motion. Yeah, closing the vote, motion fails four to 10. At this point, looking to see if there’ll be a motion to receive the correspondence from the Councillor and the correspondence that was sent in from Councillor Frank.

[2:52:29] Okay, Councillor Frank is moving receipt of the correspondence from Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Ferris, the second, saying no, hands up, call on the question. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to 0.

[2:53:11] Thank you. There’s no deferred matters additional business. There’s no confidential items. I’ll note that I did send a note to Ms. Hunt to ideally update that scheduler to be three hour time block instead of two, just to help with our scheduling purposes and our calendar. Mr. Murray stated we’re back here mid-June. So if you have things that you would like to work on or flush out for information with him, I mean, his team are available and we’ll see back in June and we’ll have those timelines to help schedule our word meetings with the city pop-ups.

[2:53:46] I think that does it for today. Motion to adjourn moved by Councillor Ferris. Seconded by Councillor Cady, a hell and vote of all in favor. Motion carries. Thank you everyone, have a good day.