Open Council

3rd Meeting of the Budget Committee

Open Council

3rd Meeting of the Budget Committee

June 11, 2025, at 10:00 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 10:01 AM; it being noted that Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillors P. Van Meerbergen, D. Ferreira, and S. Hillier; were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   2026 Annual Budget Update - Next Steps

2025-06-11 Staff Report - 2026 Annual Budget Update Next Steps

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report providing an update on the development of the 2026 Annual Budget Update, next steps, key dates, and public engagement BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, pursuant to section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Budget Committee Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Items 4.5 and 4.6 in Stage 4, Items for Direction, to be considered after Item 4.2 of the Budget Committee Agenda.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.1   Communication - Museum London - J. Bevan, Executive Director

2025-06-11 Submission - Museum London

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the communication dated June 2, 2025 from J. Bevan, Executive Director, Museum London regarding the 2026 Budget BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Budget Committee heard a verbal delegation from J. Bevan, Executive Director, Museum London regarding the 2026 Budget.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the delegation request from J. Bevan, Executive Director, Museum London BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.2   Communication - Middlesex-London Health Unit - E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer

2025-06-11 Submission - Middlesex-London Health Unit

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the communication dated May 27, 2025 from E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, Middlesex-London Health Unit regarding the 2026 Budget BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Budget Committee heard a verbal delegation from E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, Middlesex-London Health Unit regarding the 2026 Budget.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the delegation request from E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, Middlesex-London Health Unit BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.3   Communication - Cost Saving Opportunities within Heritage - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-06-11 Submission - Heritage Budget-S. Stevenson

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the communication dated June 1, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson regarding Cost Saving Opportunities within Heritage BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Budget Committee received the following communications related to this matter

  • a communication from Councillor S. Stevenson, dated June 9, 2025

  • a communication from A. Kaplansky, Kap Holdings Inc, dated June 8, 2025

  • a communication from C. Taylor, dated June 10, 2025, and

  • a communication from B. Vazquez, Chair of the Board, ACO London Region Branch, dated June 6, 2025.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Business Case for Council’s consideration reducing the annual budget of the Heritage Department. This report will include the options available to Council and the related cost savings and staffing impacts; it being noted that the Budget Committee received the following communications related to this matter

  • a communication from Councillor S. Stevenson, dated June 9, 2025

  • a communication from A. Kaplansky, Kap Holdings Inc, dated June 8, 2025

  • a communication from C. Taylor, dated June 10, 2025, and

  • a communication from B. Vazquez, Chair of the Board, ACO London Region Branch, dated June 6, 2025.

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That this matter BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to bring forward a report to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee after the Community Advisory Committee on Planning has completed their review of the Heritage Property List.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

4.4   Communication - Cost Savings Opportunities within Advisory Committee Budget - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-06-11 Submission - Advisory Budget-S. Stevenson

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the communication dated June 1, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson regarding Cost Saving Opportunities within the Advisory Committee Budget BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated June 10, 2025 from B. Samuels, Member, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Business Case for Council’s consideration that reduces the annual budget for the Advisory Committees. This report will include a detailed breakdown of the new recommended budget amount and any options available for cost savings; it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated June 1, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson and a communication dated June 10, 2025 from B. Samuels, Member, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed (3 to 11)

4.5   (ADDED) Communication and Presentation - Kettle Creek Conservation Authority - E. VanHooren, General Manager/Secretary Treasurer and T. Noble, Chair

2025-06-11 Submission - (4.5) Kettle Creek

2025-06-11 Submission - (4.5) Kettle Creek-Presentation1

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the communication dated May 23, 2025 from E. VanHooren, General Manager/Secretary Treasurer and T. Noble, Chair, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority with respect to the City of London 2026 Budget Request BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Budget Committee heard a verbal delegation from E. VanHooren, General Manager/Secretary Treasurer and T. Noble, Chair, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority with respect to the City of London 2026 Budget.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the delegation request from E. VanHooren, General Manager/Secretary Treasurer, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.6   (ADDED) Budget Updates Requested by the Mayor and the Budget Chair

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following communications with respect to the Budget Updates Requested by the Mayor and the Budget Chair BE RECEIVED.

  • a communication and verbal delegation from C. Finn, General Manager, Tourism London and A. Shatil, President, Tourism London Board of Directors;

  • a communication from Councillor S. Franke, Commission Chair, London Transit Commission;

  • a communication from S. Judd, Chair, RBC Place London;

  • a communication from B. Gibson, London Public Library Board Chair and M. Ciccone, CEO and Chief Librarian;

  • a communication from P. Squire, Board Chair, London & Middlesex Community Housing; and

  • a communication from R. Gauss, Chair, London Police Services Board.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the delegation request from C. Finn, General Manager, Tourism London BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part that reads as follows:

That the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation BE REQUESTED to prepare a business case to consider pros, cons, costs, and available sources of funding for additional investment in London & Middlesex Housing Corporation properties.

Motion Failed (1 to 14)

4.7   (ADDED) Development Charges Act - Mayor J. Morgan

2025-06-11 Submission - Development Charges Act-Mayor

2025-06-11 Submission - Development Charges Act-Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee received a communication and presentation from Mayor J. Morgan regarding the Development Charges Act.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential 

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 1:24 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 (3 hours, 38 minutes)

[15:53] Okay, everyone, we just take our seats, make sure you’re logged in for what to get started. Good morning, everyone. This is the third meeting of the Budget Committee. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Narnashbak, Haudenosaunee, Lenabwak, and Adwandran. We honor and respect the history, language, and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

[16:30] Just for everyone’s information, I am joined online by Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Ferreira, Councillor Hillier, Councillor Van Merbergen, all other members of Council and Committee are present in chambers. Sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis has not logged in yet, but I am expecting him online. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide an alternate format, so communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact 519-661-2489, extension 2425, looking to committee for disclosures of pecuniary interest, seeing none in chambers and nor online.

[17:17] Consent, we have one item, 2.1. This is the 2026 annual budget update. Hey, looking for a motion from committee, and staff will have a two-minute presentation on this as well. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Frank. Thank you, Mr. Murray, your overview of 2.1, please. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’ll be very brief in my summary of this report. We’ve provided a brief update on budget development activities, noting, of course, that our last update was just less than three weeks ago.

[17:58] Overall, budget development activities are proceeding as planned. We do have significant heavy lifting, of course, to be doing over the next two to three months to develop budget business cases, and so that will be the focus coming up over the coming weeks. In section 2.2 of the report, we’ve once again summarized the key dates in the process that are coming up. This is consistent with the information that we provided back in our March report to the committee, but we hope this serves as a helpful reminder of where we’re headed from here.

[18:35] We’ve also provided a very brief update on our public engagement plans. In section 2.3 of the report as well. We are still in the process of finalizing those plans, but we have provided dates and times for the budget pop-up events that have been confirmed so far. We hope this information will be helpful to all of you if you are planning to host your own award meetings or award events. Certainly, if you were interested in having your own events and having the budget team in attendance at those events, we are happy to do so, and we would certainly encourage you to start planning sooner rather than later for those if you are intending to do so.

[19:14] So with that chair, I’m happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, and thank you for providing those dates for a community pop-up for we in the public complaint accordingly, looking to committee for questions or comments. I don’t see anyone online with questions. I’m not seeing anyone in chamber calling the vote. Pass the votes, yes. Deputy Mayor Lewis votes yes.

[19:52] Voting the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you. As you heard the Deputy Mayor’s voice, all members of committee are now present. Scheduled items, I have none. Under items for direction, looking for your consideration for a change order to do 4.1 first as scheduled, 4.2, but then moving to 4.5 and 4.6, as those delegations are currently with us and ready to go. I have a mover and Councillor ramen, a seconder and Councillor Stevenson.

[20:27] I see no question or comment. Calling the vote. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you. Under items for direction, you’ll see the communication from museum London within your package. We’re joined in chambers by their executive director, Ms. Bevan, to technology.

[21:03] Julie, which mic would you like to use the top one? Okay, so we’re gonna put the top mic on. Sorry, we just need you to do a quick vote to actually receive the delegation who’s standing at the mic. We moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero.

[21:41] Thank you. Now I can officially welcome you. You’ll have up to five minutes. And then following that, if committee has questions and answers, that time will be separate. So welcome and the floor is yours. Thank you so much, Mayor, Council. Thank you for having me as a delegation to elaborate on the correspondence submitted by Museum London. Thank you, Mayor Morgan and Budget Chair Palosa for the conversations you’ve had recently with members of our board. As past board members yourselves, Museum London alumni, you’ve contributed to the careful stewardship of the museum and a solid foundation upon which to keep evolving.

[22:19] Our letter outlines measures taken to reposition the museum, control costs, find efficiencies, and maximize the potential of our resources. Partnership and investment from the city is crucial. What represents 0.2% of the city’s overall annual operating budget accounts for 52% of Museum London’s annual operating budget. We raise the other 48% every year through various streams, earned revenue like ticket sales and program registrations, venue rentals, our shop, tenant leases, corporate sponsorship and philanthropy are important pieces of the puzzle.

[22:55] And we bring money to London from other public funders like Ontario Arts Council, the province of Ontario, Canada Council for the Arts. Routinely we access project-based funding through Canadian Heritage, Canada Summer Jobs and others. Coming out of the pandemic and in relation to our strategic plan, our team has systematically evaluated our programs, their delivery and impact, and we’ve made adjustments based on visitor data and available resources. We’ve also taken a close look at service providers and implemented cost-saving alternatives, examining everything from security to payroll to software, insurance, and more.

[23:35] As you’ll note in our letter like others, we’re grappling with rising costs, cupi wages, utilities like steam, and fees that we pay as part of various service agreements with the city. I think I noted six examples in our letter. At our energetic summer launch party on Thursday evening, a member of council asked if I had ever reviewed our budget line by line. I want to assure you that I and members of our team review the budget and our financial plans in detail on the regular, I have sections memorized. And we’re constantly reevaluating and adjusting to ensure that our actual revenues and expenses are tracking or in sync with board-approved plans and that we’re putting resources into the right projects at the right time.

[24:19] And because funds come from so many diverse sources, we’re continuously and rigorously reporting, not only to the city, but to levels of government and their agencies, to foundations, to corporate sponsors and major donors. Canada Council for the Arts, which is a core funder of Museum London, recently released a report indicating that for every additional dollar, Canada Council invested in organizations like ours, those same organizations spent $6 in their communities. Likewise, your investment directly translates into economic impact.

[24:52] We have 40 people on pay what role, including full and part-time staff. Last year, we paid professional fees to over 50 people in the creative industries. Artists, musicians, photographers, designers, writers, videographers, guest curators and instructors. In 2024, we engaged the services of 120 businesses and through our shop paid out commissions to 61 different vendors, including local makers and artisans. Beyond economics, the museum is creating opportunities for learners of all ages, from kids in elementary, high schoolers who have traveled from as far as Milton to experience our exhibitions.

[25:28] Graduate interns and curious adults interested to expand their horizons have fun and connect. According to Nanos, on the topic of community identity and belonging, 91% of Ontarians agreed that the arts help us to better understand other cultures. We see this in real time at the museum as we welcome increasingly diverse audiences through our doors, gather, and listen to their feedback. As the cultural heart of London as a downtown magnet, welcoming tourists and engaging Londoners every day from our iconic facility, we’re well positioned to help build a stronger local economy, to express uniquely London, uniquely Canadian perspectives and values in uncertain times, and to foster the creativity and connection that our communities need now.

[26:21] Thanks for your attention, I extend warm invitation to all of you and your families to make use of the museum this summer. We have exhibitions that will move you, culture and history tours, artist-led garden tours, workshops, yayas cafes opening. We have an excellent Canada Day program that includes printmaking, Anishinaabe lessons, hoop and fancy dancing, NFB films in our lecture theater and more, all waiting for you to enjoy. Thank you, I’m happy to take any of your questions. Thank you, looking to committee for questions or comments. I will start my speaker’s list with Councillor Troso.

[27:01] If anyone online, if you just raise your hand or put your screen on, I’ll be able to identify you as well. Councillor? I wanted to just wait a minute to see if somebody else wanted to speak. As the Councillor who is currently serving on the board and as a frequent visitor to the museum, I just, I need to convey my deep appreciation, first of all, all you do, Julie. You are just absolutely amazing. And you go beyond, you go beyond what’s required from an executive director.

[27:35] And I just wanna point a few things out about the museum. The museum is quickly becoming, I think, one of the, I just don’t know what the right word is, but you are central to what this city, what this council is trying to do with downtown London. And the fact that you’re reinvigorating the cafe, the fact that you have not had the budget that you would like, the fact that you continue with your advocacy works to raise, not only raise more money from outside groups, but expand your other types of fundraising.

[28:17] It’s just, it’s breathtaking what you do. I’m honored to be a member of this board. I can’t imagine taking any further money away from this group. On top of everything else, there is no fee to attend this museum. Many museums have entry fees. And we ask people for donations when they come in. But the fact that you’re able to do that, could you address, though, in particular your staffing challenges?

[28:53] My concern is that we are going to have to cut back staff, even if there aren’t further cuts. Could you specifically address the staffing challenges that you’re facing? Thank you, we’re going to pause there for a second. Councilor Troso, would you like to move, receive the delegation? ‘Cause I failed to do that before I started taking speakers. I’ll do that. - And prepare for correspondence? Yes, I will move receipt of the delegation and the correspondence and say that what I just asked was through the chair. Yeah, thanks. I have a seconder in Councilor Ferreira. Ms. Bevin, your reply.

[29:27] Thanks for your question. As I noted in my letter, we made adjustments over the course of the past year in relation to the results of the multi-year budget. And as I said, as a nonprofit, we’re constantly evaluating and adjusting. And it is a challenging time. We’re very good at maximizing our resources, but staffing and because we have a QP bargaining unit who we are negotiating with later this year, their contract runs through 2025.

[30:03] Staffing always remains a significant issue that’s top of mind. Councilor, any follow-up? Thank you, I don’t have any further questions. Thank you, Councilor Layman. Thank you, you know, the museum London’s a gem in this city, but I just have a question regarding entrance fees. So you have a high value. And, you know, I was recently in Toronto, went to a wonderful exhibit. Auschwitz at ROM, I highly suggest everyone see it. It’s very moving. But I paid 30 bucks to see it at the Art Gallery of Ontario.

[30:39] There’s a charge to get in. Other museums, there’s a charge. We charge kids to go swimming at our pools. Why do you think we should taxpayers of London should support free admission at the museum? Thank you, Ms. Bevin. Thanks for your question. It’s true that places like the ROM, the AGO, the Vancouver Art Gallery who operate on that kind of scale do have significant hefty admission prices. And so this is something that we’ve examined over the past year. I’ve been in touch with colleagues across the country from other similarly sized art museums to look at the models, particularly examples where admission charges have been implemented in the last 10 years.

[31:21] And so what I’ve discovered, based on this research, is that instituting admission tends to be cost neutral. Because of the other kinds of infrastructure, staffing. And then the number of complimentary tickets that are needed to be provided to the public. And one of the things that I think it is really special and important about museum London. And one of the things that we’re doing a really good job at turning around is the misguided notion that museums are for elite audiences and only certain members of the community belong there or have access.

[32:00] And so we know that there are lots of community members who face barriers to access. And I think it’s something that’s really special and important to preserve at museum London. That anyone can enter admission. We’ve upped our donation game. So people have the option to tap, tap a donation. But preserving admission is something that we feel strongly about at the current moment. What we’re doing to offset that is to ramp up all of these ancillary programs. I mentioned in my letter the evaluation that we did around school programs.

[32:35] And so looking at different kinds of cost structures for things like summer camp, school day camps, workshops, special programs, tours and introducing more earned revenue and value added services so that we can endeavor to maintain that free admission and ensure that everyone has access to art and history and culture at museum London. Councilor. Thank you. Looking for further comments. I do have one question if you allow me from the chair. Ms. Bevin, there was a restaurant on site.

[33:11] It is now closed having been there for up with art that space remains vacant. Looking for you to see what your plans are for revenue generation and the purpose of that space going forward. So previously we had two food service spaces. Yaya’s kitchen is opening a cafe called Yaya’s Cafe at the front entrance to the museum. Later this month, at the back of the building, we have done a refresh of that space. It used to be the river room. Now it’s called Vault 421. And our plan is to use that space for our own museum London programs and for streams of venue rental.

[33:49] The museum is in increasing demand for all kinds of meetings, small and large. And it is one of the most beautiful spots at the museum. So in the short term, our plan is to experiment to see how we can rent it out, use it for our own purposes to generate revenue and then reevaluate that. Thank you. It is a beautiful space. I want to give you opportunity to plug that if I was looking for meeting space and whatnot. We’ll see how that comes if it works out or if we need to reimagine that space. So thank you for that.

[34:20] That’s all my questions. Mayor Morgan. Yes, and through the chair. So I’ll just say a couple of brief comments and then I’ll say some general comments about a number of the boards and commissions. That way I won’t have to repeat myself but I’ll roll it into this in a brief way. First off, I want to say to Ms. Bevin, thank you very much through the chair, of course, for all the time that you’ve given and the engagements that we’ve had sit downs, the discussions. I mean, I actually enjoyed earlier in the term touring the vaults and seeing the scope of the collection that museum London has the responsibility to steward.

[34:58] And it’s very impressive, the pieces of London history that are contained that many people don’t get to see every day. And so as you rotate those through, it’s kind of like a new experience. Each time people have the opportunity to come to the museum. I want to say, I appreciate how thorough your letter was as well and that you clearly articulated where your cost pressures are but where you’ve taken the opportunity to find efficiencies and ramp up revenue generation. And I know we’ve had a conversation about how I and I know other members of council can help you with your fundraising, whether that’s promoting events or activities that are happening because that’s a really critical part of a number of organizations who are dependent on not just support from government entities but also the philanthropists in the city as well as those who utilize the space.

[35:44] So certainly still absolutely committed to that and I appreciate the letter. I want to say generally and obviously related to this, this is why when we set a direction to say, boards of commissions, we’re asking you to help us find some savings. We didn’t do an across the board. Everybody’s got to find X number of percentage ‘cause we recognize that each and every organization are going to be at different positions. They have different cost pressures. They have different revenue generating opportunities. They have different circumstances around them. And so generally, because I’m not going to repeat this for everyone, I want to say I really appreciate all of the updates that all of the commissions have given and all the engagements that they’ve done and all of the work that they’ve done, often sometimes holding the line on costs does require some difficult decision making and although some may not be asking for any increases or may not be finding any decreases, I certainly recognize when you communicate clear and throw information that we really understand the actions you’ve already taken just to stay where you are within the structure of the existing budget.

[36:46] So to all of the boards and commissions who submitted information to the others who will delegate today, I just wanted to say half a council, thank you for the work that you’ve done in preparing these documentations, as well as those who are still working on it with their boards and looking into things for the work that they’re still doing in the process. So again, thanks to Ms. Bevin and the Team at Museum London and as well as to the other delegates who will delegate today. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you and sort of chair. I have a couple of questions from Ms. Bevin. Losing the restaurant and the steady lease income is the projection operating on your own.

[37:22] Do you expect revenues to be matched increased or do you think it will create a gap? What is your projection currently? Ms. Bevin. Thank you. We’re projecting a gap for this year. But after that, we expect based on our research that the way that we’ve organized it to operate that rental space on our own for our own purposes will outpace the revenue that we received previously from the restaurant tenant. There are also other operational reasons why it makes sense for us to have access to that space and to use it on an ongoing basis. But we will continue to reevaluate.

[37:55] Councillor Pribble. Thank you for that follow up. And if I remember correctly, in the last capital budget, we had investment of elevator. I don’t know if there was anything else. Any update on that or any other additional capital expenditures planned? Ms. Bevin. At the moment, the elevator work is scheduled. It’s a project led by the city of London. It has experienced some delays, but it’s on track for 2025. In my letter, I also pointed to the fact that because of delays and because of the scope of the project and the sensitivity of our collections, there are some uncertainties around how it will impact our staffing plans, there could be program interruptions.

[38:37] But we’re confident that everybody’s doing the best that they can and the city team is certainly very aware in terms of how crucial the elevator is to our operation. In addition to that, we’ve got a passenger elevator project that was part of that approval, which is out for tender is my understanding. On the horizon, we’re part of the large group of buildings who are on the steam line, which is being decommissioned. So that is on the horizon. And we know we’re also working with the city on building envelope study, like an energy audit and have eight HVAC units that need to be replaced in the next medium term.

[39:17] Councilor? Thank you. I’ll finish with two comments. I think that when you mentioned paid value at its services, I think it’s a great way to go. Adjusting young generation is absolutely amazing, getting them comfortable and their experience. So they feel comfortable going there and see the really true value of what you have to offer. And last comment, you certainly do add to the very positive economic impact of downtown. And thank you for that. Thank you, Councilor Ferra. Thank you, Chair. I just want to say thanks to Ms. Bevin.

[39:52] I think you’re doing a fantastic job as well, as was noted by some other Councillors here already. I agree completely with the museum being, you know, part of the cultural heart of downtown, and it is definitely a downtown magnet. I wanted to kind of just kind of speak to, I guess the free access to the museum and just kind of any fees that we do not charge. And I totally agree with that position, you know, like we’re trying to ensure that we have museum as accessible as we can to, you know, all of Londoners.

[40:27] And it is a recognition of like the socioeconomic condition, especially in our times. And it’s a neutral, neutralizing space for the city, allowing everybody to come through with no barriers there. So I do appreciate, I do appreciate that. And that would be something that I would like to see continue to move on. I did hear, Councilor Perble did talk about, or Councilor Perble asked about some capital expenditures, a capital issues coming up. And Ms. Bevin did speak to the steam decommissioning that’s coming to the building. And I just wanted to point out that, you know, I think the letter pointed out thousands, tens of thousands of works that you have in the vault.

[41:04] And all of them are really prone to not, well, all of them really need, you know, a very strict condition of temperatures and just the environment going on in there. So we have a lot of critical pieces in there that are very, they’re really reliant on the temperature and the climate within the building as well. So I just wanted to kind of go back to Ms. Bevin and just look into that piece, just because we have a lot of critical pieces that the museum is looking after right now.

[41:38] And I just wanted to really get kind of a more thorough understanding of those pieces. I know this is on the capital side, but it is mentioned in the letter, but I just wanted to go to Ms. Bevin and speak about the criticalness of those pieces and how we need to ensure that we have like a stable climate with inside the museum to ensure that those pieces live and, you know, don’t, I guess, decay for lack of a better word. Thank you, Ms. Bevin. Thanks for the question. So yes, the museum cares for over 50,000 artifacts and artworks in our vaults at the museum.

[42:15] It is require a requirement that we maintain a relative temperature and humidity for the safety and integrity of those artworks. Again, I want to say, I mean, the steam issue is one that I know a lot of us are concerned about because of the short timeline. We’ve had really good conversations with city of London facilities and who are working diligently on building a solution to address that. But it is the case that the exhibitions, the collections that we have in our care for Londoners and for Canadians are sensitive and valuable.

[42:52] And not only do we exhibit them in the museum and online, we send them out across the country. We also bring in exhibitions from other places in Canada and as part of that, we’re required to have a certain kind of facility standard. Our building is 45 years old and so it is of the age where infrastructure, ongoing infrastructure maintenance and upgrades are required. And because of this arrangement that we have with the city and because of the long-term commitment and the knowledge of city facility staff, we do feel like we’re in good hands and we’re in discussions on an ongoing basis about possible solutions.

[43:30] Thank you, Councillor, any follow-up? No follow-up for that at the moment. I appreciate the answer. Obviously, I’m interested on this one ‘cause I want to ensure that we protect all the pieces that we have in there and moving forward into the future, but I just want to say, I really appreciate Museum London. I really appreciate your staff. I really appreciate the leadership and direction. And your events that you have are some of the most fun that we have in the city. So I always enjoy going to that and I’ll leave my comments for there. So thank you. Thank you. Looking to see if there’s any further comments online or in chambers, last call.

[44:07] Okay, calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you and thank you Ms. Bevin for joining us in person today. Always a pleasure. Next, I’m looking for a mover and a seconder to receive our delegation from the health unit as they are here in chambers. I have a mover and Councillor Hopkins, a seconder and Councillor Frank, calling the question to receive that delegation at this point. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero.

[44:51] Thank you. Just as they are online, Kettle Creek will be our next delegation after this one, just for the compare themselves. Ms. Williams, welcome. You have up to five minutes and thank you for joining us in person today. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Council today. The Middlesex London Health Unit, unfortunately, is once again facing a deficit due to insufficient funding and growing expenses in a complex environment. In 2026, the projected deficit is $710,000. The following two years will be significantly strained as well.

[45:26] The financial outlook for the health unit is the result of an underlying structural deficit. According to ministry data, our per capita funding makes us the second lowest funded health unit in the province. As you well know, London and Middlesex have grown and changed significantly over the last several years, and our revenue has not kept pace with the needs of our community. We receive $69 per person to provide essential public health programs and services, while the average health unit receives $87 per person. The provincial share of MLHU’s funding is $50 per person, while the average health unit receives $57 per person from the province.

[46:09] Because of inequitable funding, the residents of London and Middlesex receive less public health service than those in other regions of Ontario. That $7 per person difference represents $4.2 million in revenue, and would ensure we couldn’t serve our community as it deserves. We have already reduced our budget by 22.5 positions, just under $2 million, over the last two years, as well as introduced zero-based budgeting for general expenses to ensure we are as efficient as possible. We recently negotiated with both our union partners, landing on a 3% wage increase for the next three years.

[46:49] At a time when comparable negotiations in the health sector were much higher. Without change to the funding model, the future public health picture for London and Middlesex is grim. The ongoing funding shortfall could lead to the following service reductions. A significant reduction in public health inspection capacity, including discontinuation of inspections of some food service providers, discontinuation of inspections of special events where food is served, for example, festivals in Victoria Park, reductions in inspections of nail salons, barbers and hair salons, reductions in inspections of recreational water premises at required and recommended intervals, for example, public swimming pools and spas.

[47:33] A discontinuation of group programming including Smart Start for Babies, which is a weekly prenatal nutrition program for pregnant people who are living on a limited income and may be facing other challenging life situations, eating disorder intervention program, a program focused on youth developing skills and critical thinking, resilience, communication relationships and help seeking and quash, a smoking and vaping cessation program for youth and emerging adults delivered in prioritized high schools, a significant reduction in social marketing interventions, including the discontinuation of all public health awareness campaigns, including recent work and sexually transmitted infection prevention campaigns and regional alcohol and tobacco campaigns, reductions in case and contact management, including the discontinuation of case and contact management of chlamydia, which is rapidly rising and the most common reportable disease in Middlesex, London, reductions in clinical services, including the discontinuation of the family planning clinic, which has provided birth control options to individuals who can’t access primary care for more than 30 years in our community.

[48:45] And a reduction in surveillance of emerging vector born diseases, including collection of ticks and assessment of mosquito larvae to mitigate Lyme disease and West Nile virus. These possible service reductions are on top of what we’ve already discontinued over the last 10 years, including the discontinuation of most chronic disease and injury prevention strategies, including no ongoing work on obesity, heart disease, cancer, sun safety, motor vehicle collisions or poverty, reduction in support for vulnerable housed individuals, including support for bed bugs, reductions in home visiting supports for young families, as we are currently only screening approximately 70% of babies born for risk factors, significant reductions in prenatal supports for the general population, a complete retreat from public health nurse presence in our schools, except for immunization, reduced capacity for tobacco enforcement, and a limited ability to address the increase in cannabis consumption, limited ability to support municipalities with public health expertise, and a significant reduction in vaccine clinics for the general public.

[49:59] The Middlesex London Health Unit simply can’t cut any further without serious consequences to the health of our community. Our Ask of the City Budget Committee and Council, as outlined in our letter, is to support continued joint advocacy for equitable funding from the province. We believe our collective efforts could positively influence this dire situation and ensure at least mandated public health programs and services for the residents of London and Middlesex. Thank you. Before I move into Q and A of our delegation today, looking for a mover in a second or to receive that delegation and their correspondence, moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

[50:41] Okay, so something’s now on the floor, starting my speaker’s list with questions for the delegation from the Health Unit. If there’s not any, okay, it’s starting with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and thank you for the presentation. I’m interested in what programs have been made a priority. We got the list of the ones that would potentially be cut or have already been cut. I’m interested in what ones are being prioritized. Thank you. That’s my turn.

[51:12] Thank you, and through the chair. So things like our Vaccine Preventable Disease Program, or newcomers in particular, those who can’t access primary care, certainly a priority. Infectious Disease Control, so case and contact management of our infectious diseases in the community is a priority. Our Nurse Family Partnership Program, which is a home visiting program for high risk, pregnant people who experience challenges. Those are some of the examples.

[51:46] We have also prioritized our high risk food inspections, so complaint-based inspections for food premises, where someone calls and, you know, unfortunately they become ill after eating at a restaurant. Those are prioritized. So those are a few of the examples of services we would continue to prioritize. Councillor. Thank you very much. Do you mind giving me a bit more detail on the infectious disease control? Yeah, so. Thank you, Miss Williams. Sorry, through you, I’m Adam Chair. And so a moment where I wish Dr. Summers was present with me, but certainly in terms of the full range, Ontario mandates that we follow up on what are called diseases of public health significance.

[52:28] And so we need to do case and contact management, essentially talking to people about, you know, where they’ve been and who they’ve come in contact with so that we can try and prevent further spread, as well as provide guidance to facilities like daycares in terms of how to manage when they’ve had infectious diseases in their environment. Those are examples of that work. Councillor, further speakers? Councillor Cribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a couple of questions. And years ago, the provincial government announced, and it was the Ministry of Health stated funding ratio for public health units in Ontario, 75-25.

[53:06] That was the ratio. And we started, and according to my records, we were already kind of in the 71-29 portion, and I do realize that there’s the Health Protection and Promotion Act. But I was just wondering, this starting base, and we are, it’s kind of a catching up game for us. And when I look at other municipalities, we are actually right now at 70-30 ratio. How can we go back or what can be done to go back to the starting point and have more provincial funding compared to other units? So it’s fair all along.

[53:39] And actually, if I look at our growing into sort of population, we are the one of the fastest ones, if not the fastest in Ontario. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Through you, Madam Chair. One of the initiatives that the province launched under the Strengthening Public Health Initiative was a review of the funding formula for public health. We are still anticipating the results of that, but it is intended to look at how public health is funded across the province to potentially take into factors. Our feedback in that process has been that population size and growth needs to be a factor for consideration, but I think that our avenue to increase provincial funding rests with that formula and the province.

[54:23] Councillor Perbble. So at this stage, you would say, your recommendation would be to wait for this new formula or the provincial site initiative to be completed. And then to start potentially, if we feel that our unit, local unit, is not funded according to the other ones when we need to compare the analysis, would your recommendation be to wait until or do already certain work now? Because again, I do believe that our base 75, 25 and 71, 29 was not fair to our community.

[55:00] Ms. Williams, also recognizing there’s opportunities to advocate as we go to EMO and other places. Through you, Madam Chair, that is our recommendation, is the advocacy with the provincial government. We have already met with all of our local MPPs. We’ve spoken to our federal counterparts, even though our funding doesn’t originate from them. The impact of immigration as an example and the amount of newcomers in London translates to costs in our budget. For example, translation costs, we want to be able to serve people in the language that they speak when they arrive to the health unit.

[55:37] So advocacy between now and then to hopefully influence that formula is what we are recommending and asking for partnership from the city in terms of trying to influence the outcome of that formula. Councillor Pribble, are you all up? Thank you for all your answers and thank you for all the services you provide to Londoners, thank you. Thank you. I have Mayor Morgan next and then Councillor Frank, just getting a text from a couple of colleagues to make sure our questions are budget-based versus operational and in the weeds. Mayor Morgan.

[56:10] Mayor, I’ll just make a comment through the chair. Thank you for the presentation also. Thank you for the engagement and in the letter colleagues will note also a presentation engagement with the City County Liaison Committee because this is an entity that is funded by the province but also the local chairs is funded jointly and proportionally and by the City of London, the County of Middlesex and so the ask of joint advocacy is something that was unanimously supported by the City County Liaison Committee and both the ward and I are very committed to pursuing that and as we approach AMO but not just AMO, there are opportunities to engage with the province and I appreciate the health unit outlining very clear the equity case across different publicly funded health units across the province and I certainly it was clear with my commitment to support that advocacy vigorously at the City County Liaison Committee but certainly would echo that again here today that will work closely with the warden and their team as we approach not just AMO but we have the opportunity through the county also for various other engagements with ministers at the branch level on this and of course the health unit is also engaged in directly themselves.

[57:25] So I just wanted to draw that note to colleagues is that this is something that was discussed at the City County Liaison Committee. This is an issue that is critical to the City of London but we have a strong partner in the county to advocate with as well. Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you and I first off wanna say thank you as a very proud board member of the health unit. I’ve been aware of these issues and we’ve discussed them many times at the board and had to make some really tough decisions over the past couple of years as is highlighted in the letter and from the presentation. I also want to say thank you to both the union and the management team for very productive negotiations.

[58:03] I think that was also highlighted that a 3% increase over the next couple of years is a very I think fair but also modest one in comparison to some of our other ABCs and some of the other health units across Ontario. And I am also very motivated for the health unit to get their funding arrangement relooked at with the province given the issues. I did want to just ask a question through the chair. I know it was highlighted our provincial contribution per capita but I’m just wondering in comparison to other average health units, what is our municipal contribution that the city and the county are providing to the health unit and what’s that comparison with others as well?

[58:43] Ms. Williams. Through the chair, we received $19 from the city and county to our cost shared budget and the average health unit receives $30 per person. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, thank you for that reminder. I just want to highlight that as it is already, the health unit is already getting such a low contribution from the province but also additionally from our municipality. So it is I think incumbent on both of us to recognize the situation we’re in and I think Ms. Williams really highlighted the potential public health impacts we could have if we continue to under fund such an important organization.

[59:20] So I as budget proceeds will be unwilling to make further cuts given the potentially very significant impacts to our community’s health. But thank you for the information. Thank you, Councillor Ferro. Thank you chair and through you. Just want to thank Ms. Williams for coming out and speaking to the committee. I just got, I guess a couple of questions. For, I guess for the timing, like I see here that you said and I think it’s also noted in the letter that the deficit would be at 700,000 or 710 as you said by 2026 and with the ad boxy that we’re doing or that we’re going to do with the province to see if we can get up to par on the provincial averages.

[1:00:08] I just wanted to know we’re like, we’re in June right now. So that would be by the end of the year. I believe that from the budget update document that was on this report that we should have our budget resolved by October or somewhere near by the end of the year. Just for timing, when would we need to know, like what for on your end, when would we need to know if we’re going to be getting those funds, extra funds from the province. And I’m just kind of looking on timing constraints. Like what, how much time do we have to advocate for this?

[1:00:42] Thank you. I’ll note our budget committee approvals on November 26. So Ms. Williams, time frame on your land. Through you, Madam Chair. In terms of implementing any further reductions in services which equates to staffing positions, it would be the October Board of Health meeting where we would be presenting those options for the board’s consideration. And then looking to implement those changes within the November timeframe, such that we could implement them, have them in place, the changes for the January 1st, start date of the new fiscal year.

[1:01:18] Councillor Ferri. Okay, so about four months that we have right here for that advocacy. So just pointing that out. So my last question, I do see that if we already get that $7 more per capita, that would put us away from the deficit. It would actually take us four times over above the deficit. So Chair, stop me if this is too operational. But what programs would, I would assume we would be having programs come back that have been cut in the past. Would you be able to speak to any of the programs that we might see come back critical or non-critical?

[1:01:51] I am going to deal with operational and that the board would make that decision at the health unit so that money become available. Councillor. Okay, that’s fair. All right, then I’m done on that one. I’m just going to say, I wouldn’t, I’m not going to be supporting any cuts at the municipal side for the middle sex blood and health unit just because of the letter and just from the information provided that we’ve had now and in the past. So thank you for the good work and I hope that we can have some successful advocacy with the province so we can get back up to par at least. Thank you.

[1:02:24] Looking for further hands online. So I only have one in chambers. Councillor Tressa. Thank you through the chair. Thank you so much for your letter. Your letter was a real eye-opener and you coming here to actually supplement your letter helped a lot. And I think that we should all understand that even if we’re in good health, even if we have good private medical care, we’re all in danger. If public health in general falls below a certain level and I just want to say and you can roll me out of order for getting outside of the city, I think the way the province has dealt with this has been absolutely dreadful.

[1:03:11] And it puts a lot of pressure on you and it puts a lot of pressure on us. I want to join with the Councillor Ferrara and others in saying unequivocally I am just absolutely opposed to making any cuts to your budget. And furthermore, I think we have to backfill some of this and that’s a decision we’ll have to make later at the risk of sounding operational. Could you tell me, can you think of any off the top of your head, one time, one time expenditures that we would be able to make that would not add to the recurring base that would help you through this difficult period?

[1:03:56] Ms. Williams, if you’re able through you, Madam Chair, one of the things that I have— Madam Chair, point of order, sorry, to interrupt our speakers. That’s okay, Ms. Williams just paused there, recognizing a point of order from Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, again, we are stringing to operational and if there were one-time asks, those would come from the board as well, not Ms. Williamson. I mean, we’re here today to receive communications, not speculate on business cases that may or may not come forward. So I really think we need to stick to the content of the letter, not get into speculative conversations about what may or may not happen in the future.

[1:04:42] Hardly speculative. Sorry, Councillor Chaucer, just a whole tight for a moment, I’m gonna deem that it is in order as we have Ms. Williams, they are not coming to the budget, public participation meeting later in the fall, that if this is information available, should the council wish to make a budget amendment, this would also be the time to do it. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

[1:05:16] We do have, and I have presented to a committee, budget committee here before, we have some outstanding bank loans related to the fit up of our city plaza office locations, which we currently spend just over $200,000 a year in paying down those loans. And so a potential opportunity for a one time expense would be to help us pay down the remaining portion of the variable and fixed bank loans, which would then allow us to redirect those interest and principal payments back into operations.

[1:05:52] Thank you, I’ll leave it at that. Thank you, I think that information was also in your letter. No. Okay, so information, if you wanna follow up with a board member, Ms. Williams afterwards, to dig into that and certainly loop the mayor and would be most helpful. Councilor Roman. Thank you, and through you, I’ll be brief. First, thanks to Ms. Williams for the presentation. If that information can be circulated to council, I think that would be helpful. Just with respect to the joint advocacy component that we’re discussing, I’m just wondering outside of the advocacy that’s being done from the county and the city and the health unit.

[1:06:32] I’m wondering if ONA and QP will also be advocating on our behalf as well. I know you said you’ve spoken to MPPs and MPs. I suspect their letters that they have as well. I’m just looking for as much bench strength as possible as we go into the conversation. And then I do have a question regarding timing because we talked about their timing being different from our timing and how we’ll align better to make those decisions. Ms. Williams.

[1:07:04] Through you, Madam Chair, I am very pleased to share that both QP and ONA have agreed to join advocacy with us. Mr. Holland being present for our item as one demonstration of that partnership, but QP National has agreed to work with us on advocacy and as has the Ontario Nurses Association in providing joint communication and advocacy to the province. Thank you, Councillor. Sorry, and just to follow up on the timing component. So I’m just wondering how with your timing being decision making in October and our decision following after, I’m just wondering how that impacts the timing.

[1:07:47] Okay, I’ll put that question to our staff if you can mitigate things. I’ll also mention the bank loan repayment and information that the council has requested for all council to see. If you just send that to budget committee at London.ca, the committee clerks will make sure that it goes out as a follow-up. Thank you, Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So the timelines for agencies, boards and commissions, budget submissions are articulated in an associated bylaw that we have. It is consistent for all of those organizations.

[1:08:21] We require draft budget submissions by August the 15th and then final board approved submissions by September 30th. That is consistent with the dates and the timelines that we’ve used for many, many years. And that is intentional because there is a certain amount of time that we require to compile the budget materials and get them ready for release this year, I believe on October 27th. So there is some runway that we need to do that. Having said that, there is the opportunity.

[1:08:55] And as you all know, there is the opportunity through the budget deliberations that will be happening in November to introduce amendments to the mayor’s proposed budget. So there’s the opportunity on the floor of deliberations. We don’t like to do that. We’d prefer obviously not to take that approach because that does not obviously allow for public engagement, full some public engagement and input on those decision points. But there is that opportunity to introduce those amendments. Should they occur? Should they be necessary during budget deliberations in November?

[1:09:26] Councilor Roman, last call for hands as I don’t see any currently, looking online, looking in chambers. Thank you, Ms. Williams, calling the question. Posing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Ms. Williams for being here for vote.

[1:09:59] Then we look forward to the follow-up communication being sent to the committee. Next, we have a presentation from the Kille Creek Conservation Authority. We have the general manager, Ms. Von Morn with us, looking, they are online. Perfect, her screen does work. I just need to move her in a seconder for a delegation for five minutes, move by Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. Call on the question. Posing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:10:38] Thank you, I’ll note their correspondence is within your package. Welcome, Ms. Mann Morn, you have up to five minutes to present to us. Please proceed. Thank you, Chair Paloadza, Mayor Morgan and members of council. I’m just going to try to share my presentation on the screen. So thank you for having me here this morning. Kille Creek Conservation Authority shares the city’s commitment to maintain high quality services while reducing pressure on the tax base. We’ve always worked towards right sizing our budget with low cost, no cost solutions and increasing revenue opportunities.

[1:11:19] These objectives were built into our budget projections for 2024 to 2027. We are phasing in salary and pay equity review over five years. We outsource professional services such as engineers rather than having them on staff. And we work with neighboring CAs to share services and with the wider CA collective to procure group benefits and insurance. We aggressively search out funding opportunities for capital improvements as well. For instance, this year, thanks to a generous donation, we have introduced four cabins at Lake Whittaker Conservation Area, which will generate an additional revenue stream for us.

[1:12:00] Our campgrounds operate independent of municipal levy and we’re able to invest revenue back from them into our capital replacement and help offset wages from other core program areas. As members of your committee are aware, Kettle is very lean, but we always work towards constant improvements. We continue to look for new revenue streams and our delaying projects until we can secure matching funding opportunities. KCCA appreciates the city’s leadership in demonstrating an offer to advocate for its boards and commissions for long-term funding solutions.

[1:12:37] Two areas that I believe would be mutually beneficial for us are funding for flood control structures and floodplain mapping. Many of you may have heard of the Provincial Water Erosion Control Infrastructure Fund. It provides 5 million annually to CAs to maintain dams, but more is needed. Dams across the province are reaching end of life and at the same time are a very expensive asset to maintain and repair and 5 million across the province simply is not enough. And finally, KCCA has been very successful in acquiring funding from various federal and provincial programs such as the Federal Hazard Identification and Mapping Program.

[1:13:18] These are important programs that should be continued as we look to keep our regulatory mapping up-to-date on an ongoing basis. We will continue to refine our 2026 budget later this summer once we have current value assessment data, but I want to assure the committee today that we are committed to finalizing a budget that finds the balance between quality service and a responsible apportionment. Thank you. Thank you for being with us today and for that correspondence that you’ve sent. Looking for a motion from Council Committee to have received that in the correspondence and then we’ll start Q&A.

[1:13:57] Moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Troso. Starting a speakers list, should there be any questions for the Calgary Conservation Authority? Okay, I will, if anyone online would like in on this, just put your screen on or raise your hand for I can see you. I’ll start my speakers list with Councillor Troso. Thank you very much. And thank you very much for your report and for attending our meeting. I should disclose that I am a member of your board and it’s really been an eye-opening experience for me to serve on this board.

[1:14:32] I’ve learned so much from you and your staff. This may seem like a small item, but I think we’re dealing with infrastructure here that if it goes right, nobody notices. Nobody says you’re doing a great job with these dams. You’re keeping them in good repair. If it goes wrong though, we have a very serious problem on our hands. And I’m wondering if you could just sort of back up a little bit and just remind everybody in this committee why London is part of KCCA? What is the part of our city that is under your jurisdiction and how are those borders delineated?

[1:15:11] ‘Cause I don’t think people understand necessarily why we have KCCA here. Councillor, I’m gonna deem that not to be a budget question. We also have three conservation authorities. We can dig into that behind the scenes, but budget-related question, please. Okay, well, I think that would have been simple enough to answer. Let me ask this then, if it’s more budget-related, what would the implications be if there was a maintenance gap or a break in one of these dams, in particular for residents of the city of London?

[1:15:48] Councillor, also, sorry, Elizabeth, just one second, also deeming that not to be budget-related. Councillor, maybe if there’s not adequate funding to keep the dams up, what would that look like? Thank you, that’s a better way of framing my question. Sorry, Ms. Barnhorn. Sure, dams are important infrastructure throughout the city of London, both the Upper Thames Watershed and Kettle Creek’s Watershed. If we don’t properly maintain these dams and find the funding to do it, they can result in a failure, which has an environmental impact as well as an impact in some instances to property.

[1:16:32] Councillor? Thank you very much. That’s, I guess that’s as far as I can go with this. I think you’re doing a wonderful job and every time I come to one of your meetings, I’m just, I’m very impressed with the operation that you’re running. Thank you. Thank you, further speakers on this item? Councillor Pribble. Thank you, just a couple of comments. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the letter where you clearly stated actually the savings that happened due to the apportionment during the last year and also stating that this fall in 2026 is gonna be potentially the revisitation of this as well.

[1:17:13] And thank you for the work you do. And as Councillor Troso, I’m the other member of the board from City of Council. So thank you and thank you for your entire team. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you for looking for further speakers online. As I see none, looking in chambers, see none. Thank you again for being with us. As a password member, you do, in my opinion, wonderful work and essential work for neighboring communities, including London, calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:17:56] Thank you. We are moving on to tourism London’s presentation. For IT, we’re going to the gallery, top side again. I need a mover and a seconder to allow Ms. Finn’s delegation. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Stevenson, calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:18:30] Thank you, welcome. You have up to five minutes and you can proceed and you’re ready. Thank you so much. Good morning and through you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Cheryl Finn, General Manager of Tourism London and I am here on behalf of Tourism London, the City of London’s Destination Marketing Organization. We are, in fact, employees of the City of London, subconted to do the work on behalf of tourism. Our mission is very simple. To drive economic growth by attracting visitors, events, meetings, and conventions to London.

[1:19:06] However, our impact is anything but simple. What we do supports jobs, small businesses, hotels, cultural institutions, and the overall vibrancy of our city that makes London a great place, not only to visit, but to work, play, and live. At the beginning of the current multi-year budget cycle, tourism London worked collaboratively with City Finance to align the multi-year budget with Council’s direction, achieving the requested 3.5% net levy increase in line with inflation.

[1:19:41] This multi-year budget was accepted and passed by Council through which Tourism London has maintained existing service levels without enhancement to operational budgets, nor additional investment for the UNESCO City of Music designation. Tourism is a serious economic driver. The return on visitor investment is irrefutable. For every dollar invested in our city, we generate three more in economic return. When we bring in conventions, sport tournaments, and major concerts, we’re bringing in revenue, not just to our hotels, but to our restaurants, local shops, small businesses, and more.

[1:20:24] Tourism London doesn’t just serve visitors, we serve Londoners, we partner with local artists, indigenous tours and providers, festivals, and nonprofits to showcase what makes London unique. We support events like the Home County Music Festival returning again this summer, very exciting. Our Sunfest, programming at Canada Life Place, and most recently the London Knights Watch Parties on Dundas Place, all of which helps to build civic pride, enhances an enriching quality of life for Londoners, as well as attracting visitations.

[1:21:02] Our budget is an investment in economic growth. We target high yield markets and travel segments with measurable returns. We’re learning how to leverage our UNESCO City of Music designation within international travel, a space we were never strong in prior to this recognition, to generate new revenue streams for our city. We work closely with our regional, provincial, and national partners to multiply the impact of every dollar. Each dollar helps us attract new spending to London, supports good paying jobs, strengthens our cultural sport and hospitality sectors, positions London as a must visit destination, and secures new private investment.

[1:21:48] Tourism is not a nice to have or that fun stuff, although it is a fun position to be in. It is an essential part of our city’s economy and future. In closing, I want to emphasize this very clearly. Tourism London is not a discretionary expense. It is a strategic investment in the future prosperity of our city. When visitors come, jobs grow, businesses thrive, and our entire community flourishes. Thank you for your time and leadership.

[1:22:20] We are ready and committed to deliver on our mandate. With your support, we look forward to continuing to partner with you to bring growth, vitality, and opportunity to every corner of our city. Thank you. I’m going to have you— sorry, we’re just doing some shuffling. Hold just one second. Thank you for your presentation. At this time, as 4.6 had A through F in it, looking for a mover and a seconder for, as the clerk said, easiest procedurally is the communications receiving all A through F. And then I’m going to focus on questions of Ms. Finn first.

[1:23:00] And then we’ll agree that we’re done with questions of her and allow her to leave, and then we’ll get into other questions of their correspondence. So mover in that. Moved by Mayor Morgan, seconded by Councillor Raman. Thank you. As we go into questions focused around tourism London at this moment, I’m going to highlight that Deputy Mayor Lewis and I are the council appointees, members, on that board. As you heard it stated that it’s— there’s a quandered to do the work of tourism London on behalf of the city. So they’re kind of a board, but they’re city staff. Just for committee’s information, those conversations were had as a board without staff in the room when we had those, as some of them also looked at staffing implications.

[1:23:43] So this is a letter from the board in a presentation of the head, just like any other. But just for you know that it wasn’t— nothing was done in the capacity of the city directing that board. It was a board sole decision for transparency. Starting the speakers list. If you’d allow me from the chair, just realizing as we look at tourism and we see things changing south of the border and in addition to the different value for money of our Canadian dollar versus the American dollar, just as we see changes that some Canadians are choosing not to go south of the border, what are we seeing tourism-wise coming to the north, and what are we doing to keep that money ideally flowing into the London economy?

[1:24:37] So we’re kind of sitting on a bubble in the best of both worlds. We do want to welcome our American travelers highlighting the value of their dollar here, as well as our festival season and all the amazing things we have to offer during the summer. However, data from regional, provincial, and national organizations clearly state that staycations are back. That is a bit of a trigger word for me because that was a term that we used during the pandemic.

[1:25:12] However, we are seeing Canadians wanting to stay in Canada and our marketing programs will be targeting those people out of province regionally and within province to come and spend time and money in London. Thank you. Looking online for hands of you. Anyone online would like anything? Just turn your cameras on for you to come up on my screen. Looking in chambers for questions or comments. Hey, I see no one online, but I do see Councillor Pribble and chambers, so I’ll start there.

[1:25:50] Thank you, questions for the chair. When you mentioned the staycations, so I’m quite sure Tourism London has a budget, marketing budget for different areas. And let’s say if you do find out or there’s this way for staycation, which we do hear a lot throughout the entire province, how flexible are you in terms of changing your marketing budget to address specific segment? So how prompt you are or if these decisions can be made throughout the year and you are flexible to address these potential opportunities? Ms. Van.

[1:26:25] Through you, the chair, we are very malleable. That’s the way we do our business. We have to be kinetic and we have to be reactionary. So this is common practice for us. We can respond to trends that we see growing or things that are maintaining. Councillor? Thank you for that other area. You have Convention Services of one of your departments. And we also have RBC Place, our local Convention Center. Are there any opportunities to work more closer together and potentially combine certain expense budget to get us further and get potentially more for the dollar?

[1:27:10] Ms. Van. Through the chair, I can’t imagine us working any closer. We already work very, very closely in leveraging both of our budgets to do as much as we can to attract large meetings, large conventions, exploring sporting opportunities as well, and maybe different unique ways to use space for other rights holders looking for different spaces, different places, different ways to do traditional business.

[1:27:49] Councillor? Thank you for all the special events that you bring to our city. Because again, as I mentioned before, it is no doubt very positive for our economic impact for our municipality. Thank you. Thank you. Looking for further speakers, still seeing none online, seeing none chambers. Like I said, anything further from Ms. Van before I allow them to go and we get into the other correspondence. OK, I’m seeing no’s in eye contact. So thank you for your time.

[1:28:23] You are free to be on your way and recognizing that tourism London and their staff is always available for questions behind the scenes in meetings. OK, so all of 4.6, A through F, is currently on the floor, being LTC communication, RBC place communication, London Public Library, London Middlesex Community Housing, and the London Police Service Board. So we have council representatives on those boards. We don’t have people online to answer questions from those boards at the moment.

[1:29:00] As always, we can ask, would a board member know who might be here? Realizing we’re wearing our counselor hat, and we’re not actually obligated to reply to anything at any time. But looking for questions as staff might have information to that would be useful. I will start my speakers list with Councillor McAllister and then Councillor Trousow, and I’ll build it out from there. Thank you to the chair as a board member for 4.6. E, I just wanted to speak to that. We had a very good discussion of the board. And thank you to the mayor and budget chair for coming to our board and speaking with us.

[1:29:35] And I think Chair Squire did a very good job in terms of summarizing the challenges we’re facing in terms of the budget. I think what this is is a reflection of the historical inadequacies in terms of the funding for community housing. We’ve done the best with what we have, but we don’t really have a lot of room in terms of cuts. We do take every opportunity we can to apply to higher levels of government for funding to get project specific dollars. You’ve seen that with some of the retrofits, especially investment in the aging infrastructure. But we do respectfully ask that we continue the advocacy with the province in terms of getting ODSP rates and no delivery rates raised.

[1:30:16] And then also in terms of the rent allocation that the province allows is still very low in terms of what we’re able to do with the dollars collected for rent. So I appreciate the board and all the work they’ve done on this. We did take a hard look. We have found efficiencies that have been identified. And as I’m sure with every board, we do take the opportunities to try to look for savings where we can. I’ll leave it there. If there’s any questions, I’ll do my best to answer them. I also know the deputy mayor is online and I’m sure he can jump in if he has any questions as well. Thank you.

[1:30:50] Perfect. Thank you for that. Councillor Trosto. Thank you. And this is through the chair to staff. The issue that’s raised here about the need to exempt LMCH from property taxation. This has been done in Toronto. Could you address whether that’s something that the city has the power to do or whether that would need new provincial legislation? ‘Cause that is an ask here and I just wanna get that straight. Thank you, Ms. Barboon and potential budget implications to you based on decision-making.

[1:31:25] Thank you through the chairs. So the city actually investigated this a number of years back and provided a report to committee in November 2020 that it looked at this issue. So it is in fact something that has been done on other municipalities. There is legislation to support it. However, in the case of the city of London, this is not something that we’ve looked into given that we are the primary funder because although the taxation may be exempted actually does create increase in the cost for the city of London overall as a result of the cost sharing implications.

[1:32:02] So I’m happy to share that report that we provided in 2020 that looked at this matter. I would thank you, thank you. I sure I would appreciate getting that and I think it is relevant to our discussions. Since we own the properties, we’re sort of taxing ourselves with all of the administrative costs of doing that. And I know that if we weren’t taxing ourselves, we’d lose that source of revenue. But if we weren’t taxing ourselves, we wouldn’t be paying the taxes. So what is the, if I may, what is the justification for, well, why have we not addressed this before?

[1:32:43] And again, I do wanna read your report, but it just seems to me as if we’re making more work for ourselves and we’re increasing transaction costs where they’re not necessary. So I just wanna fully support the LMCH’s submission on this piece that you can add to that. Yeah, so I’ll ask two things. One that the report you referred to that was already delivered to council back in the day, be submitted to BudgetCommittee@London.ca and the committee clerks will circulate to all council for we have that information.

[1:33:17] Secondly, for the councilors question of the tax, is why wouldn’t we? I’m not sure if there’s other implications in there based on its Middlesex as well, just not London, if you could expand on that information for the councilor and committee. Thank you through the chair. So based on the report that we submitted in 2020, that as you noted, the city collects the taxes, that comes in and that’s a revenue line in the city of London, it’s a net zero. However, as a result of the existing cost sharing and agreements, there is an impact on taxation that would actually raise the cost on the city’s side.

[1:33:55] So there is a net increase as a result of that reduction given the cost sharing implications. That is detailed in the report that we provided to committee in 2020 that we will share. Okay, thank you. And through the chair, I’d like to make the comment that given the conditions that are existing in London Middlesex housing as evidenced by the recent asset management plan, I cannot imagine wanting to cut back the support that we provide for this agency. And my question through the budget process is gonna be, what are some additional tools that we could use to actually enhance the ability of London Middlesex community housing or their successor to be able to better tend to their units?

[1:34:44] And if either of the councilors want to answer that or if Steph wants to answer that, I’m saying this in support. I’m saying this in support of their submission. They very badly need more funds for maintenance. And I think it’s a crisis because every month that we do not fix these units, it’s getting worse. And it’s just as creating, it’s adding to the public health crisis. Thank you. The mayor had put his hand up in response to that. I will start there and build out. Yes, this might be helpful for councilor Troso.

[1:35:19] One of the things that the big city mayor’s caucus spoke about with the new federal housing and infrastructure minister who is the former mayor of Vancouver and understands the pressures that municipalities face quite well is how the government will bring on the build Canada homes entity, which is their foray into actually trying to drive what was described as deeply affordable housing across the country. One of the things that the mayor’s communicated to the minister, which he would be familiar with is we have a number of municipally owned through shareholder agreements housing entities that supply rent geared towards income housing, which is one of the most affordable components of housing.

[1:35:58] And that the build Canada homes fund, you know, should in some way allocate funds to municipalities and support of their public housing entities so that we can continue to both provide net new spaces, but also potentially upgrade and modernize existing spaces to existing standards. So I know that doesn’t directly address all of your questions, Councillor, but I want you to know that, but this exact question about how do we adequately support the capital needs of public sector housing entities is exactly the type of thing that we’ve also been advocating for jointly as large cities across the country with the federal government’s design of the build Canada homes entity and the way that they’re gonna, ‘cause they’re gonna heavily capitalize at like tens of billions of dollars.

[1:36:43] And so there’s going to be a lot of capital available in that capital I think can be used to support public housing entities like the one that we have in the city of London. So I’ll just add that context for the council. Would staff like to comment as well or? No, okay, Councillor. And my final question on the LMCH portion of this and I raised this at a previous meeting and I think it’s directly relevant to our budget process is if council wanted to encourage civic administration to tap into some of the equity that we have in our LMCH property, which as I understand it is in the neighborhood of a billion, how would we go about do that?

[1:37:30] Would something have to be stated at this budget meeting or would it be something that could be put forward later? And I’m saying that because I feel very strongly that we need to be tapping into some of the equity that we have in unleashing that so we can make some improvements. And I’m just looking for guidance about how to proceed. Mr. Murray. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and through you. So I think when the councilor is referring to accessing the equity that is in those properties, I think fundamentally the challenge that goes along with that is that comes in the form of mortgaging or leveraging or taking on debt to fund needs that LMCH may have.

[1:38:15] I think it’s important fundamentally to know that as LMCH is a consolidated entity to the city of London, that LMCH debt would fundamentally be city of London debt at the end of the day. It would count towards all of our debt metrics. It would count and contribute to our credit rating. And so it’s an important conversation and one that should not be, should not be taken lightly and should be considered in our view in the context of all funding options that might be available to address LMCH’s needs.

[1:38:51] And the mayor spoke to potential new funding programs that are coming down the line as well. But it is something, debt is an option that can be considered to address LMCH’s needs. And we’ve used that in the past. We currently have an ongoing agreement and funding arrangement with CMHC to fund lifecycle needs at LMCH properties. But fundamentally, any additional LMCH debt would be city of London debt and should be considered in the context of not only the city’s overall debt picture but also needs budgetary needs of all service areas through the budget process.

[1:39:37] Thank you, Councillor. You have a minute and a half minutes. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that. And I understand that there will be many, many considerations and counter considerations. My specific question and I am looking for guidance here is I would like to move forward with at least a business case for us to consider doing this. How would council go about asking that to happen? Can we ask you that today? Or would that be a letter? Or would that have to go through LMCH? I understand that we own the property and it would be our debt.

[1:40:10] But I am really reaching out to you right now for some guidance on how to move forward with this. Mr. Murray. Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So the LMCH administration is currently in the process of working on their regeneration plan, which is an ongoing piece of work that they are working on. They are actively having conversations with those impacted parties who would have input into that, including the city of London.

[1:40:44] Once that regeneration plan is finalized, it would go to the LMCH board for their consideration. And that would then inform future budget requests that the LMCH board would put forward to the city through the city’s budget process. When would we expect that to happen through the chair? Councilor, through the chair in just one second. Deputy Mayor Lewis, come on screen. Councilor, I don’t know if you want to speak specifically to this Councilor’s question of where the board’s at in that process that Councilor Charles is digging into or you just want on the speaker’s list.

[1:41:22] You can just put me on the speaker’s list, Madam Chair. That’s fine. I’ll address it when I speak. Okay, thank you. Mr. Murray. Three, Madam Chair. I do not have a timeline from LMCH at this point in terms of when they will be finalizing their regeneration plan and bringing forward that to their board and then subsequent budget requests that may follow. I do not have that information. That would be a question for LMCH. Councilor. Thank you. Through the chair, I’d like to make a motion that this budget meeting request civic administration to prepare a business case for consideration in the 2026 budget process to consider the pros and cons and costs of tapping into, and I may be using the wrong word here.

[1:42:13] I don’t want to say mortgage, that might be too narrow, but tapping into the equity that we hold in our property. And I would like to make that in the form of emotion. And I want to move this forward. I don’t want to wait until an unspecified date in terms of when a new report is coming forward. Okay, you’ll hold tight. And Madam Chair, now I do have to call a point of order. Yes, Deputy Mayor. That motion would be out of order. We have just heard civic administration state that LMCH brings forward business cases for LMCH properties and operations, not civic administration.

[1:42:48] And council does not direct LMCH. The board directs LMCH. Okay, just one second. Could staff comment on the appropriateness of, is that in our realm of business cases to do, or does it need to come from the LMCH board?

[1:43:26] Through you, Madam Chair, as I previously noted, that would need to come from the LMCH board. So I’m going to, so I just need you at the point of order first, Councilor. So I’m going to deem that it’s out of order to address the council’s concerns. There’s two ways forward for you. One, you can send a letter directly to the board, asking them to do this.

[1:43:59] Or two, you can make a motion today that council request that the LMCH board consider this. And we’d hear back. I will opt for the second option, even though I believe that we direct LMCH with respect to the property that we own, and all of the subsidiary— Okay, I need you to pause there. But yes, what you said. Just one second, we’re clerking. Okay, if you refresh, you scribe.

[1:45:07] Something that may or may not be accurate is in there, Councilor Trossow. I need you to review it. Finance, team, wording-wise what you want to get back in any cohesive manner. Just trying to fix wording first, and then I’ll look for a seconder, and then we can start discussion. That the LMCH be requested to prepare a business case to consider pros, cons, and costs of tapping into equity that the city of London holds in LMCH properties.

[1:45:46] Yes, that is an adequate reflection of what I am asking, and I would look for a second. Hey, let me check in with the finance team. As we probably might want to put a year, a timeframe in here as well, that we need to hear back in order to do this. Councilor Stephen, is it? So I do have interest in a seconder, so just try and get the wording right before we have to get into amendments of amendments. So at least we’re procedurally correct. So Councilor Trossow, we’re just changing, we’re tapping into accessing the equity.

[1:47:26] Just, okay, I have a nod there. To the finance crew, any words of wisdom? Yeah, thank you. So the financing decisions should be evaluated as part of what is available. I would suggest taking out that portion because ultimately the form of debt and what other options may be available might be precluded by having that prescribed as to what that financing source has already been predetermined based on the work that LMCH will be doing through the regeneration plan and in the context of the city of London budget. So take out from where to where?

[1:48:02] Just as the clerk is deleting wording. So accessing various sources of financing, is that your versus equity? Just for colleagues online, finance, and people are wordsmithing at the moment.

[1:49:02] I’ll fill this void in letting everyone know that my intention is to finish with all of 4.6. We’ll see what time it’s at when we get to there and then we can discuss nourishment. I did not order anything in here. We would need to go upstairs and the cafeteria closes at 130. So just mindful of a bio break, but we will discuss that after 4.6. Councilor McAllister, is this help with wording as a board member or is this you getting on the speakers list? I get on the speakers list but I do have an answer to a question that was asked. Well, we’re gonna hold off on that but we will get to that.

[1:49:41] Finance. Madam Chair, we might suggest the wording be revised to that LMCH be requested to prepare a business case to be considered pros, cons, costs, and available sources of funding for an additional investment in LMCH properties. Mr. Murray, is that what you said?

[1:50:35] And colleagues, you refresh your screen. Seeing and nodding from finance. Councilor Travsau, if you refreshed and saw it, are you, oh, Councilor Stevenson?

[1:51:11] Yes, my understanding is that doesn’t preclude what I said before and this includes it but it’s broader, that’s fine. Yes, that’s accurate. Councilor Stevenson, having seen the refresh wording, you’re still good, motion moved and seconded on the floor. That would start a new speakers list in new time. Deputy Mayor Lewis, did you wanna go first to this one? Is a new list of what’s just the amendment that’s on the floor? Yeah, I will speak to that. But Madam Chair, I think first, if you could go to Councilor McAllister for the answer to the question that was asked, that would be helpful.

[1:51:49] Okay, I will start with Councilor McAllister then. Thank you and through the chair. I was just digging through my emails. So we did have a workshop to LMCH board. So Harco incorporates is the one who is doing the consultancy on the regeneration project and looking at their project timeline. It was initiated in 2024 and their project completion is August 2025. Okay, since the floor was yours, are you in the speakers list for this too?

[1:52:21] ‘Cause I could just start there. Yes, I was. Okay, go ahead. So in terms of where I’m at with this, this is something that I would like the board. If we were gonna prepare something, I think I would prefer it to come from us. As I just indicated, the work right now with regeneration, I wanna see that report come back to us prior to any business case being fraud forward. I don’t wanna put the city in a position of taking on more debt until we have a better understanding in terms of the impact of the full regeneration project.

[1:52:55] That’s a long-term project that’s gonna have substantial impacts on our budget, the city’s budget. And until I get that report back, I would not be comfortable moving forward with this. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councilor Ferreira and then I’ll put the Deputy Mayor Lewis back on the list. Okay, I see a nod from the Deputy Mayor. So Councilor Ferreira. Thanks, Chair. I had my hand up before the motion, but I guess it’s still relevant, just some questions on it. Like we’ve all seen the capital asset management plan and with the regeneration project, I know we all have concerns and we wanna bring buildings back up to par.

[1:53:31] I’m looking at the motion, I guess the question is the same, looking into available sources of funding other than using equity and buildings and re-mortaging or going to the province. What other sources of financing would realistically be available for this re-generation other than those two? Mr. Murray, as it pertains to the amendment on the floor? Three, Madam Chair. So in general terms, the sources of financing would be obviously federal or provincial funding sources that might be available debt and that could take various forms, whether that’s through CMHC programs or even simply through kind of the city’s general debenture issuance practices.

[1:54:15] In other words, city debt, that would be potentially an option. LMCH, we do hold a reserve fund, the public housing renewal reserve fund that has a relatively small amount in there that could contribute potentially as well. Potentially capital levy, maybe an option if council were to increase the capital levy budget to support this type of investment. So there would be a variety of potential funding sources again, that would depend on, you know, ultimately what the request would be.

[1:54:48] And we would assess that as part of developing business case. Councillor Ferra. Thank you for that. And would the motion like this preclude anything from the regeneration report that LMCH would submit? No, ‘cause this is a request for them to look at things and get back to us and finances also saying no. So next question. Madam, thank you. Perfect, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. I’m encouraging colleagues so very strongly to defeat this motion.

[1:55:26] This is, with all due respect, cart so far ahead of the force on this. It does not allow the regeneration plan to be completed yet. When that is done, LMCH, through the board, through the appropriate mechanisms, we’ll look at what we can do. But it is not just about financing. It is about the capacity to retain contractors. It is about how many tenants will have to be displaced to speed up work to be done faster. It is about other sources of financing. All of these components move hand in glove in moving forward with regeneration of capital investments at LMCH.

[1:56:05] When the reimagined Southdale Phase I began, 18 tenants had to be accommodated with relocations. That process alone took more than six months to provide those tenants with alternate accommodations that were acceptable to them. So to just jump ahead and say, we just have to find sources of financing and give LMCH more money and make them do things faster. There are a whole number of factors that go into how fast regeneration projects can be undertaken. There’s not even in this motion specifics on what investments in LMCH properties would be made.

[1:56:47] And again, that would have to be a decision made by the board, not by council. And it does not take into account supply chains, contractor availability, any of those things. We have the capital asset management plan. We have a regeneration plan underway at LMCH. We are seeing improvements happening. We heard from LMCH about that during their capital management plan presentation. This motion accomplishes nothing. And frankly, I cannot say enough how this has to be defeated.

[1:57:21] Let the board, let the company that has been brought on to do the consultation on the regeneration, complete their work, and bring forward business cases in an orderly manner with all the information available. Thank you. Further speakers? Kate, before I go back to Councilor Traussell, looking for further first time speakers to round the discussion before we go for next, saying no one in chambers, I will return to Councilor Traussell. I’m trying to better understand through the chair the hesitancy in asking for this, this business case.

[1:58:05] Based on what we’ve seen in the asset management plan, and I say this with all due respect, I’ll follow up on this at the shareholders meeting. But for now, I just want to say, these properties are in poor or very poor, some fair condition. The provincial standard, not only the provincial standard under legislation, but the local standard in terms of our governing documents, and I’ve been through all of them this week, in terms of our relationship with London Middlesex Housing Corporation, is they are currently in substantial breach of their obligations to maintain properties up to a certain standard.

[1:58:47] And while I appreciate that we have ongoing asset management plans, we’ll have another one in five years, we’re gonna see the regeneration plan. This is a matter of some urgency, given what has been recited and accepted by this council, in the asset management plan. So I think it’s imperative that, and this does not displace per Council Ferrara’s question, this does not displace LMCH’s ongoing efforts to address this problem internally. But I think it’s a recognition of the fact that this council has supervisory powers.

[1:59:23] The corporation of the city of London owns this property, and we enter into these agreements with London Middlesex Housing Corporation, and that’s well documented. So I think this has been well documented as being in need, and I wanna urge councillors to support this request. This is not a funding allocation here today, it’s a request for a business plan. So please vote yes on this, and we’ll just be getting more information. Thank you very much.

[1:59:56] Okay, looking to see if there’s further speakers, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to say quickly, I seconded the motion, ‘cause I do share the concern about the buildings, and I liked the idea of looking into the financing option, but in listening to the responses, I’m not gonna be supporting this motion. I’m looking forward to hearing about the regeneration, and talking about this issue at the shareholder meeting and at other times. Thank you, I have no further speakers online.

[2:00:31] I don’t see anyone in chambers calling the question on this amendment. Closing the vote, motion fails, 1 to 14. Thank you, I am back to my original speakers list. Councillor Traus, I still had the floor, but you have a minute left, I’m not sure if you wanna save that minute to speak to other items, Councillor, ‘cause then I would just move on with my speakers list and come back when you’re ready.

[2:01:09] No, I think that’s it, I think that’s it for now. Okay, thank you, so you still have one minute remaining. I had Deputy Mayor Lewis next on the original list, and then Councillor Ferrer, you’re open to pass and come back if you want, but just back to the original list. Yeah, I will pass at this point. I think I made the comments that I was going to make on the main when we were debating the amendment, so I’ll pass for now. Thank you, just a reminder, this is all a 4.6 on the floor from all the added communications.

[2:01:42] Councillor Ferrer, your hands down, were your questions satisfied with the last round? I’m good, Chair, thank you. Thank you, Councillor McAllister, you were still on the original list, you’re also good. As I said, just a reminder, this is LTC, RBC, London Public Library, LMCH, and LPS, looking for anyone further in chambers. Okay, I’m gonna go to Councillor Stevenson, and then it looks like the Deputy Mayor would like a piece of this again, and then I’ll finish running at my speaker’s list.

[2:02:19] Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, on the LMCH, I do have a question if it’s inappropriate or not the right one, just stop me, but I do recall speaking to some of the larger developers in our city who mentioned that when there were issues with our social housing and it was brought in house, they had offered to help out with some of the repairs, and hadn’t heard back, and I just wondered if, is that something that we’ve explored, or maybe isn’t even possible for the city to do, is to accept help from some of the developers in the city, if they were still willing to do that?

[2:02:51] Has that might help with some budget questions and cost pressures to the city manager? Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, I do recall having some history in this reality, some of those discussions in the past where our developers have indicated support to LMCH directly, I do believe that, and I think that continues to be probably something that the LMCH board and the organization looks at on an ongoing basis as well, but I do recall that in the past, Councillor. Thank you, that’s all. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[2:03:26] Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for the reminder that this is on all of those items, because I did want to, outside of LMCH, also just take a very quick opportunity to thank the London Police Services Board. As you will recall, you and I delegated to speak to them on both their reserve fund targets. Appreciate that as a board, they have agreed to lower their reserve fund target range. That is helpful to us, not just currently, but moving forward in future budget years. And I appreciate their commitment to try and find some savings to return to us this year, in ways that don’t compromise operational safety and community safety in their operational development.

[2:04:12] So I just wanted to highlight that. I think that’s something I appreciate having taken the time with you to go and visit their board that we’ve referred and that they are taking action on the request we brought to them for the reserve fund. So I just wanted to highlight that before we wrapped up our discussion on these items. Thank you, I’ll highlight that I think that idea originally came from Councilor ramen. So appreciate that, that it was brought forward in seeing through through our delegation request to them. I also want to, just on that one, just for Council understands that the LPS Board actually has a Finance Committee chaired by Councilor Stevenson as obviously not the Councilor in that space, made up also with laymen and Ms. Branscombe.

[2:05:03] So that is who the presentation went to then went back to the full board and then came to us just to understand behind the scenes how that went. Further questions or comments of all 4.6. Okay, so everything’s on the floor for 4.6 and it’s going to be a motion to receive all those noting behind the scenes that staff will circulate that tax information report from 2020 behind the scenes to us in the near future.

[2:05:38] Last call for questions. Not online, not in chambers, calling the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you, as we had done a change of order, the circle is back to 4.3. My intention is to see how far we can get and use our time wisely. As I know, other people have places and commitments.

[2:06:12] So 4.3, this is the communication on cost-saving opportunities with Heritage. It’s a submission from Councillor Stevenson. I’ll acknowledge that on the added, there’s added communications as well as an added communication from the Council with additional information. So Councillor Stevenson, are you looking to move that this time? So a nod out from Councillor Stevenson and they’re looking to move it. Councillor, if you want to just read out the motion that you’re looking at moving at this time and then we will check to see if there’s a seconder.

[2:06:45] Sure, it says that the civic administration be directed to prepare a business case for Council’s consideration, reducing the annual budget of our Heritage Department. This report will include the options available to Council and the related cost savings and staffing impacts. Thank you, looking to see if there’s a seconder. It’s also loaded in E-Scribe. So the wording is accurate in E-Scribe.

[2:07:18] If you want to refresh, it should be there. Looking to see if there’s a seconder. Okay, Councillor Vermeergan is the seconder and we’re going on the speaker’s list. Okay, we have Councillor Vermeergan as the seconder. Give us a moment. We’re going to get up on the big screen and then I will start with Councillor Stevenson. If you’d like to make comments, I’m going to pause briefly. There was a delegation request by Erin Koplansky.

[2:08:03] They are not in chambers and they are not online or nor on the phone. Okay, so a couple of things.

[2:08:43] We’re going to do it the motion on the floor. We’ll see where it goes and then we’ll do a motion separate to receive the communications, including from the delegate who is not with us today that we cannot hear because they’re not with us. So I will start with Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you. I brought this forward after, you know, speaking in the community or listening to community members for the last couple of years, hearing the changes that are coming provincially in terms of heritage. And so the opportunity here is just to see if there are some ways to do some cost savings and potentially increase some of the efficiencies within the department, given the changes.

[2:09:24] And I believe in talking to some colleagues, there may be some other ideas here. So I’m just going to leave mine short and see how the discussion goes. Thank you. You’ve only used 30 seconds. The remainder of the time is still yours. I’ll highlight that depending on where the conversation may or may not go as if we discuss salaries and employment numbers that would involve going into closed session, which we can do and is available to us just for, you know, that has been provided for, should we go there? Looking for further speakers on this?

[2:09:59] Councillor Layman. Thank you, Chair. So through planning advisory committee, community advisory committee and planning are undertaking a task to review roughly 2000 heritage properties on our heritage designated list as per provincial regulations. They’re going to be coming back to planning with a list windowed down to possibility of looking at these properties to designate as heritage properties.

[2:10:38] What I would suggest that we can go here is to wait for that task to be completed and to be reviewed by planning staff and PAC. And then perhaps when management has a chance to, you know, see the impact on staffing, as far as, you know, reassigning roles, et cetera, which is kind of, you know, I trust that they would continue the great job that they’re doing, is perhaps bringing a report back to planning on the changes made in that regard to staffing.

[2:11:13] So what I would like to do is refer this, make a motion to refer it, to have staff report to PAC at a future date after the community advisory committee on planning has completed that review of heritage designated properties. The clerk is going to clerk something lovely. We just need a minute to get it in, and then we’ll put up to see what, if it’s accurate, there will be a seconder, and then I will go to staff after that of any words of id, wisdom for consideration as we move through this discussion.

[2:12:43] Hey, layman, well, everyone, if you refresh your screens, and then looking to the mover and seconder, if this wording is your intention. Oh yeah, that’s suitable. Got a nod from the mover and seconder that that is, we’re good to go. I’ll look to staff for your input on this. If you’re able to at this moment, if not, I will start with the questions from committee.

[2:13:22] Mr. Mathers? Through the chair, so this would be a very prudent approach. We need to know how much work is going to be coming forward through this, these possible additions to their digital listings. So I think this is a very prudent way to go about this change. Okay, so preference for a report to inform any next steps. I’m gonna start with Councillor Stevenson and then I’ll recognize Councillor Robin and go from there. Okay, thanks, yes, I’m happy to support this for the reasons that are being stated here.

[2:13:55] I did have a question, and I do know that part of it is in the way that reporting change between the multi-year budget, 2023 and 2024 to 2027, but we’ve got a capital expenditure of 625,000 for heritage, and I know we’ve got 14 properties. I wondered if between now and council, we might be able to get a breakdown of that amount between those properties. Is that something that’s available, a budget that we could get before council? Does this is strictly on the referral at this moment?

[2:14:29] Oh, right. So I’m gonna support the referral. Sorry, thank you. I had Councillor Raman next, and then Councillor Pribble. Thank you and through you. I just wanna make sure I’m understanding what we’re referring at this point, because it seems like we’re referring a reduction, or a business case on a reduction, but I don’t know that we fully understand the scope yet of what’s going to come back from CACP, which could actually say that for the next few years or something into the future, we actually need more support in order to be able to do some of the work that they’ve been preparing.

[2:15:09] So I don’t wanna hamper the work they’re doing by suggesting that we need to come back with a reduction. So I’m just wondering if Mr. May, there’s maybe more through you two staff, if they might be able to give us a little bit more perspective on the scope of that work to help understand if the referral on the motion makes sense, or is it just let them do the work that they’re naturally proceeding to do, let them bring back the report that they were going to bring anyways, and from there we can look at it at a future time and decide what to do with it. Thank you.

[2:15:44] And noted this would be referring it back to staff, but we are referring Councillor Stevenson’s motion to look at a business case. Mr. May, there’s— Through the chair, so the way that I’m understanding the combination of those two pieces would be to take a look where our workload would be coming out of the heritage property listing that comes back from the advisory committee and then come forward with the staffing needs associated with that and the existing work that we’ve been doing over the last many years, and then anything that also would be impacted by the recent changes over the last two or three years from the provincial government.

[2:16:24] So my understanding would be we bring back something that would just reflect the staffing needs to support that work, whether it’s a reduction or maintain the status quo or possible increase if there’s increased workload as well. So we just be bringing back the appropriate service requirements to be able to meet that need. Hey, I got a pause for a second. Realizing we’re looking at referring this to staff and the motion has stated related cost savings and staffing impacts seems to be assuming there would be cost savings and an impact and staff would just indicate they don’t know what it’s going to look like and there actually potentially could be an increase in this motion be opposite to what we’re doing.

[2:17:11] Looking from guidance from the clerks is the referral contrary to what the report may or may not indicate coming from staff. Councillor Layman, a word of wisdom? My intention of this was not to tie the hands of management, but to bring forward to pack management changes in organizations, whether it’s, yeah, I don’t want to speak for management, but I see that there could be an impact here, which I think Councillor Stevenson was referring to, but I don’t want to say it’s necessarily means reduction in labor, but reallocation labor perhaps, I don’t know, like that’s, I just wanted to refer that to staff to make that determination.

[2:17:59] Okay, so we’re on the same page that may or may not mean that clerks are saying it’s not contrary and I will go back to Councillor Raman as your speaker on the list. Thank you and through you. So I won’t support a referral on this if in the current wording that’s here. So to me it’s directing staff to do something that is in my opinion, I understand it’s not contrary, but is in a way contrary to what we’ve heard. I would rather vote down the referral, vote down the motion, put forward a separate motion that says what we intend to do, which is to hear back from staff, although I do think it’s in their ordinary work plan to do this anyways, so I don’t really think it’s necessary.

[2:18:44] I think the intention’s actually quite different than what’s in this referral. So, evaluative work, I think is better when it’s scoped to the work that we actually want to see come back and when we don’t scope it accordingly, then we send a mixed message as to what the direction is, just in my opinion. Thank you, I had Councillor Pribble next and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, I completely agree with what was just said by my fellow colleague, Councillor Raman, because I do think every past is that those are potentially, some people like to read them between the lines and I don’t think this would be appropriate.

[2:19:24] And it’s not just appropriate, it’s not our meaning for our reflect for our staff in these departments, that’s one thing. Second thing is going hypothetically in terms of the PAC, is there a timeline when this project is supposed to be back to the PAC meeting? Thank you to Mr. May, this report is coming regardless, it’s already in the works, is my understanding, I have a nod, and the timing of which we can enjoy this report at PAC. Through the chair, so our understanding, so this has been completed by the advisory committee, so understanding that their timing is looking at for Q3 of 2025.

[2:20:07] So fall 2025, Councillor? Thank you for that information, and based on how long we’ll take our administration, our staff to evaluate it and to propose back, some suggestions to back to the council or to the PAC. Mr. May, there’s? Through the chair, so we would endeavor to get that back before your budget deliberations, so if this came back in September for the latest time period, then we’d wanna bring our report back to you as soon as we could in October, ideally. We can start the base work, as we do know what the provincial changes have been, and we just would have to add in whatever the additional information coming out of the advisory committee.

[2:20:50] Councillor Pribble. Thank you for the announcement, it absolutely makes sense to me, thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I hear what colleagues are saying about concern around this creates an expectation that a reduction will come forward. I’m comfortable hearing from Mr. May, there’s that they will, what’s actually being envisioned here is a right sizing, I will call it, of the heritage department in light of provincial changes, and we know the clock is ticking on the cultural registry and those 2000 properties to be evaluated, provincial changes, I believe, in the long run, and I do say in the long run are likely to reduce the overall need for heritage staff, but that also is in the long run.

[2:21:51] And so I actually don’t need to see this as an update for this budget. I could see this as being a discussion in next year’s budget, perhaps, as once we’ve had all of those evaluations come back from the advisory committee, which I appreciate them coming to PAC and working through the committee process to get that work approved for them to undertake, and to frankly help our heritage staff, clearly, we’re not going to get through all 2000 on the list before the provincial deadline.

[2:22:25] Deputy Mayor, just speaking to the referral, keep it tight, please. Yeah, click down. So I’m willing to support the referral hearing how Mr. May, there’s this interpreting what’s being asked. If the referral doesn’t pass, I’m also prepared to support something to come to PAC in the future as Councilor Raman indicated more scope, but I think I’m comfortable with what I’ve heard from Mr. May, there’s. My only question through you, Madam Chair, to our staff is given that there could be staffing implications, reorgs, and if the advisory committee didn’t report till the end of Q3, is it realistic that something would be brought forward for this budget, or are we likely looking at an amendment potentially for next year’s budget?

[2:23:13] And I’m just wondering from timing, I know the urban growth boundary and everything else has that department very busy right now. Mr. May, there’s if you’re able. Through the chair, we’ll do our best to bring you back that information on the timely basis. And I would likely agree that it would be difficult for Council to have a term around that would make any kind of significant changes within that timeframe, but we’ll do our best to at least bring you that basic information. You can make some decisions moving into the next budget. Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

[2:23:44] Given that this referral does not have a specific date to it, that it says a report to a future meeting of PEC. Like I said, I’m comfortable supporting the referral. I think it’s a right sizing conversation can be had here. I just think it needs to wait until after the work has been done around some of the provincial changes and the deadline that is ticking down from the province. So this referral to me accomplishes both that time constraint and a right sizing, potentially in the future.

[2:24:20] Thank you, Councillor Ferrera, and then I’ll have Councillor Hopkins and in the mayor. Thank you, Chair. So I won’t be supporting the referral or the original motion. And I don’t know how many, how much I could say on the referral part. So just stop me when I can, but I do feel like we haven’t really had a fulsome conversation on this. Like the original letter submitted to the budget agenda does have inaccuracies on that from what I’ve seen. And we haven’t really kind of articulated out what is what on that agenda.

[2:24:52] Like, for example, I know this is a referral, but I would like to go to staff and ask staff what the difference between heritage Toronto is and the city of Toronto’s heritage planning department because I did see comparison in the letter. Sorry, that would be the main motion strictly in the referral council. Okay, well, with the referral to reduce the annual budget for the heritage department and the main motion, can I speak to that? Or it has to be specifically to the referral with the community advisory committee on planning.

[2:25:27] Just really trying to keep it tight to the referral ‘cause based on what the referral happens with the referral, we might be back to the main motion anyways. Okay, would I be able, is staff able to say who are the members of the community advisory committee on planning? To staff, who are the community members on planning that we are waiting for this information back if we do the referral? Through the chair, I can pull that up. I’ll just need to need a moment. Okay, is there gonna be another question, Councillor Ferriwell, staff pulls that up for you? Well, I have a few, but I don’t know if I can ask them during a referral motion, but I’m just saying to colleagues, like, for example, some of the capital expenditures with the heritage side of things is Elden House.

[2:26:11] So if we were to see a possible reduction on that, we would see funding decrease for Elden House. So we need to have a more thorough conversation before any referral or the motion itself. But I’ll leave it there and I’ll just see what staff have to say about the advisory committee. Hey, Mr. Mathers is still digging through technology. I’ll deem your questions at this time concluded once we get that answer, Councillor, in the interim.

[2:26:43] Councillor Hopkins, would you like to wait for Mr. Mathers answer back to Councillor Ferri or can you commence with your comments? I’m more than happy to make comments just on the referral. I will not be supporting this referral. I am very uncomfortable with supporting a reduction in our heritage department. We haven’t even discussed the motion itself, but yet we’re referring it. So I am confident in staff that they will bring forward a report to us when they are able to do that. First of all, understanding the provincial regulations, which we still need to figure out.

[2:27:22] So this to me is such a, I think words escape me that we would even contemplate a referral to reduce the heritage department without even having a conversation on it. So I will not be supporting this. Thank you. Mr. Mathers, I don’t, is he there? Sorry.

[2:27:53] (laughs) I disappeared. You changed seats, that’s not allowed. You’re back. I don’t know if you’re ready with an answer, I can go with the next speaker. Through the chair, I would just ask for some assistance from the clerk’s department, the meetings, the list of the folks. So I’ve got the listing of the requirements for the committee, but I’m just having a hard time. Okay, thank you. I have a few people. Okay, so the committee clerks have the information since it’s already available. I’ll have it stated, recognizing though, I don’t think it’s actually pertinent to the referral, but it’s here and I’ve made everyone scramble.

[2:28:32] Current members of the community advisory committee on planning are Mark and Brugio, Carl, Adigan, Jeff Gard, Heather Garrett, Susan Jory, Chris McCaskill, John Mark, Mattelier, Paige Murray, Spencer Sandor, Mike Wallace, Alex Wilson. Thank you. Mayor Morgan, floor’s yours. Yes, so I’m gonna speak against the referral, and but I appreciate what the council is trying to do with referring this and I understand the work that’s being done.

[2:29:03] I’ll outline very clearly why. I don’t think it’s necessary. I also don’t think the main motion is necessary. Like this is what happens, you know, staff are managing their departments and when they, in their analysis, know that work is done or requirements change, they are constantly reviewing this through our service review process. And then this is how Mr. Murray comes to us and says we have identified $6 million in savings because we have right-sized things. We’ve analyzed areas, we’ve zero-based budgets, we’ve done an assessment of this. This is something that is a basic expectation of Mr. May, there’s in his division to do.

[2:29:40] Once the work is done, once legislation changes, we either ramp up staff, we ramp them down, people have the opportunity to move to different areas where, you know, there’s more work in one area and less work in another and for me, this is a basic expectation of our service review process that I trust our administration to do each and every day and the type of decisions that have led to millions and millions of dollars of savings through the service review process, that Mr. Murray has the lucky opportunity of sharing with us each and every year, but it is a function of this type of work happening each and every day within the corporation.

[2:30:12] So I don’t need to support the referral, I don’t need to support the main motion, but I understand the concept of what the counselors are trying to do here, just for me, it’s an expectation of how the municipality functions each and every day and I trust our senior leadership team and the management of this organization to do that as part of the service review process. And that’s how if Mr. May, there’s fines that they’re savings, Mr. Murray’s gonna come back to us before the budget process is tabled and say, great, it’s not six million, it’s six million, 200,000 and something because we found more. Or I mean, I’m not gonna limit you, Mr. Murray, you can find as much as you want, but like this is how the process works.

[2:30:47] So again, fully respect what colleagues are trying to do here, I just don’t think it’s necessary and I think Mr. May, there’s has heard that we’re thinking about this and he’s gonna be very transparent in what’s happening with his division, just like when the city manager has made changes to where economic development is housed or how government relations works or how CIR is functioning, there’s always moves and changes being made within the corporation to execute council’s vision in as efficient way as possible and I trust the administration to do so. Thank you, this is strictly on the referral, Councillor Travsau.

[2:31:24] Strictly on the referral through the chair, I will be opposing the referral. I think this is a fundamentally flawed motion which I won’t address right now, but taking a flawed motion and referring it in very vague language doesn’t help. So I agree with what the mayor has said, I’ll be voting against the referral and I’ll, should the referral not pass, I’ll reserve my other comments on the main motion to talk further on the merits, but I absolutely know on the referral, thank you.

[2:31:59] Thank you, further speakers online or in chambers? Seeing none, calling the question. Simply on the referral, close the vote. Motion fails five to 10. So the referral failed, we’re back to the main motion.

[2:32:35] As submitted, I can continue with the speaker’s list. I’ll also note that there is a little building way in comments due to your chair doing multiple things. So some comments were already made on the main motion if your comments have been said by yourself or others, just please keep it tight. I really am trying to guess I would hear for one. So I had Councillor Lehman, the floor was still yours and you did the referral. Not sure if you want back on it now or I’ll go to other speakers. Councillor Travis, I was next and I’ll build my speakers list from there.

[2:33:11] Thank you and through the chair. I want to strongly oppose this motion. Putting aside the work that the CICP is doing or its current exercise, there are many, many functions that the Heritage staff performs. We received what I consider to be a very, very helpful, historically accurate and meritorious letter from ACO London. And I think it’s important to point out that the Heritage staff has a lot of functions and to just sort of say we’re going to cut them back, I think really, really misses the point that that will create a lot of problems, that’ll create a lot of problems for the city and our ability to comply with our heritage obligation.

[2:33:59] Coming under the auspices of the Ontario Head of Heritage Act that I’m reading from the ACO letter, Heritage planners deal with individual property designations, by-law matters, heritage conservation districts, demolition requests, heritage alteration permits. They manage the register of cultural heritage resources. They also have tasks mandated by the planning act. I think if I try to reel off all of the things that the Heritage planners do for us and why their function is important in the city, I’m sure I’d miss something.

[2:34:35] So I’m just going to say that was very, very open-ended. Yes, certainly we could eliminate the heritage planners and I don’t know, would we fire them or would they just go to a different function? What we would find I think is heritage issues come up and we need the expertise of heritage planners. So I think I’m just going to leave it at that. This is not a well-thought-out motion and I’ll urge everybody to vote no one. Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Chair.

[2:35:07] So I guess kind of going off of Councillor Troso’s comments. Heritage staff don’t just work on heritage items. They work on other planning items as well. Just a question to staff, how many positions do we have for heritage staffing? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So looking through the multi-year budget, it shows four full-time equivalent positions. Half of one of those positions is a man. So the one of the positions is a manager. Half that work is related to heritage.

[2:35:39] Half of it’s work related to other planning and development duties. So it’s really three and a half positions we’re talking about. Councillor Ferra. Thank you for that. And my question that I was asking at the referral, sorry about that when I asked it during the referral, but there’s a lot of connections between heritage Toronto and direct comparisons with the heritage staff in London. And I just wanted to know what does heritage Toronto actually do? Is it a regulatory body? Or is it part of the heritage department at Toronto? Staff.

[2:36:14] Through the chair. So heritage Toronto does some really great work in Toronto. They’re a little bit more akin to our London Heritage Council. The work that heritage Toronto does doesn’t overlap at all with what our staff do on a day-to-day basis. City of Toronto has heritage planners and whole heritage group. They have actually 45 full-time equivalents in their heritage group. Councillor Ferra. Thank you for that. So there is a heritage planning department in Toronto and then there is heritage Toronto.

[2:36:48] So they’re not the same thing when you were to make, like they’re not the same type of body if we were to compare heritage Toronto with our heritage staff. So just, that’s kind of what I heard. I guess I don’t need a confirmation on that. But this, like the note to the Budget Committee, there are some inconsistencies in an accuracy in it and there’s not a direct comparison with that. So for that, and then for some of the other reasons that I spoke to on how we’ll be affected on our capital side, what kind of heritage properties does the city own and operate?

[2:37:24] How will that be affected? These are things that I’m just not willing to support. So I’m not gonna be supporting this motion as well. Thank you. I’ll also note for those online that there was a head nod for Mr. Mathers when the question was asked of these things are not the same and Toronto has to. That was a nod, Councillor Stevenson was next and then looking for anyone else is that I only have one other speaker outside of that on my list. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll just keep my comments short. But I bring forward things to the budget based on what I hear in the community.

[2:37:57] So it was the similar with cycling lanes and other things. Just for conversation, for debate, for discussion, to hear what staff might be able to come up with in terms of options. That’s what this was about. All of us, I think, love the heritage that we have in our city and the buildings and treasure it and want it to excel. And I’ve heard a lot of communication over the last couple of years about people who’ve had some very difficult dealings in terms of heritage property.

[2:38:30] And we’ve seen some of them here before council and some people who love heritage, bought a heritage property, wanted to do everything to support it, had the money to do it, still have some very somewhat traumatic stories to share. And so without getting into all the details, I obviously leave the motion vague to say, hey, are there some opportunities here to improve service, to reduce costs? I’m open to a yes or no on that. We know that the province is clipping our wings a little bit in terms of a heritage going forward.

[2:39:06] This motion does let the public know that, hey, we are aware of it. We’re exploring options. We’re asking staff to come back to us. We’re not dictating anything. We’re saying, hey, here’s an invitation to look and come back to us that maybe staff as well wouldn’t be inclined to do necessarily if not prompted, especially if it is impacting departments and people. So we get to be a little bit more impartial. When some of the numbers are when comparing cities, and I know it’s very hard to do, but it does appear from a high level numerical view that our numbers are high.

[2:39:47] And the legislation is changing. So again, this is an anti-heritage. It’s listening to Londoners and saying and recognizing that we get to start doing things differently. We are going to have to find areas to cut costs. That is just a for sure. And what are we gonna look at? If we don’t wanna look anywhere, then okay, but then what are we gonna do? And part of the reason why this comes forward like this, and I do think there’s a better way to do this, and I’ve started to look at other cities, we get to be more involved.

[2:40:28] We get to have departments potentially come forward and talk to us about what they’re doing, and let us ask questions. We have the boards do it. And yet when it comes to the service review, council doesn’t play a role. When do we get to look line by line? When do we get to hear about the departments and what they’re doing and what they’re focused on and why the numbers are up or down? I think there’s a real opportunity for council to play a more detailed role in the finances. In fact, I think it’s incumbent upon us. And maybe rather than have motions like this just come forward as ideas, we could do it more systematically.

[2:41:02] But I’m looking for support on this to say to Londoners, we’re looking at this. We know there are changes. We’re gonna ask if there can be efficiencies. And staff are gonna report back to us on options. Okay, I have a brief comment to make, but I will recognize Councilor Hopkins first. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I’ll just start off with thinking the councilor for the conversation. And I would want to appreciate the mayor’s comments around service reviews that happen within our departments. And I read this motion as a little misleading, even though we are a big city now, comparing big city to a big city like Toronto.

[2:41:48] And I found it a little bit, there was a bit of misinformation there. And it created a concern for me as a city councilor that is there a problem in that department. So thanks for the conversation. I did some digging of myself in terms of trying to understand where this motion would go. I found that Toronto has, I thought, 41 heritage staff staffers, they have 45. London has 3.5.

[2:42:22] Toronto is supported by heritage Toronto, their version of a provincially mandated advisory committee. London is supported by London Heritage Council. And then we’re supported by the advisory group. The province mandates that both heritage and planning acts are complied with. There’s been no change to the management structure in our city since 2018. The city owns 14 municipally owned heritage properties. We have not had any heritage conservation areas during my time on council.

[2:42:59] There was a business plan for 24 to 27. 0.01 costs per day for the average rate, 0.06, if you add the property tax supported budget. It made me also wonder if we did things in a different way, where would we find the costs in the heritage department? How much would we be spending on consultant support for specialized knowledge, administrative internal conversations as well as expertise that is required when appeals are held?

[2:43:36] I don’t know if you’ve looked into the job description of a heritage planner, but it is quite extensive. And I really would encourage you to do that. Not sure where these proposed salary savings are coming from in this motion. And I really point that out and it is public knowledge if you search municipal heritage salaries and other municipalities, you’ll find that London wears 64th at a 74th for the position of a manager.

[2:44:13] So I just want to also take this opportunity, since we’ve had this conversation of thanking staff for the expertise and the work that they provide, not only to administration, but being accountable to the public and to the stakeholders in the community and to us. So thank you to staff. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Could you take the chair if I can make a brief comment? I have the chair and go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

[2:44:48] I didn’t support the referral and I’ll also be unable to support the motion before us today. I am waiting for the report from staff to fully outline the environment we’re operating in, provincial legislation and any comparables and information that is available for informed decision making. I like reductions where possible, always interested to see the business cases, but those business cases for me must be informed by a fully thought out and costed staff report before we get to that stage.

[2:45:29] So for me, thinking this little bit of an order, waiting for that staff report to then advise us on any staffing implications that we will be dealing with. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you, and I’ll return the chair to you with no one that I’ve seen on the speakers list. Okay, just doing a IC Councilor Stevenson’s hand, but looking online, looking in chambers, hopefully this will be wrapping it up, not that anyone gets dibs on last comments, but Councilor Frivall.

[2:46:03] Thank you, I just wanna make a comment. The demands change, the provincial legislation change, and I think that the maximization and optimization should be on the minds of everyone who is sitting here in front of us. I’m not from the position of a Councilor. I’m not ready to make some suggestions in terms of the staffing and go to that level. I don’t believe that that’s purpose of my governance. And again, looking at all of you, I do think that optimization, it is in your mind, and any of these suggestions, recommendations, those changes, it is a must.

[2:46:43] But again, in the position that the people or the individuals are in front of us, they have the experience, and they have the knowledge to do this. Yes, can we talk about optimization? Absolutely, but to go to these levels, I don’t feel that’s not the area me as a Council, wanna get into it. We have these people who are responsible for those areas. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, sorry, just pausing everyone’s time. I’ll recognize Councillor Frank, who has not spoken yet, and then I will go ideally back to Councillor Stevenson, who’s used three and a half minutes, Councillor Frank.

[2:47:25] Thank you, yes, I just wanted to say, I won’t be supporting this motion. I trust that staff will bring forward any reductions through their annual process, as they’ve already found a six million, I think at the time when they’ve done their review, and when they’ll do it again next year, if they identify that there are some changes needed in the Heritage Department, that’s the appropriate time for that to come forward. And I have full confidence and trust in staff to be able to do that in a transparent and regular manner. So I won’t be supporting this. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and through you, just a follow-up question to staff, because we keep hearing about it being mandated.

[2:47:59] What heritage tasks are mandated by the Planning Act? I’m gonna ask how that’s relevant to your motion on the floor. Well, several people have brought it up that this is mandated and we shouldn’t be touching it. And so I’m asking what tasks are mandated through the Planning Act? As it would pertain to the staff noted within your motion, Mr. Mathers, if you’re able. Through the chair, so there’s a substantial number of pieces through the Heritage Act that were mandated to be able to, that council has authority over.

[2:48:41] In London, we have the ability and we’ve set up to be able to ensure that we have very timely, can meet all of our planning and other related timelines. We have that authority passed on to staff to be able to move forward some of these applications so that every single application doesn’t have to come to council. So last year, there was over 100 of these applications that may came forward and we were able to deal with most of those administratively and not have to come directly to council. So there is also always multiple ways that you can deliver a service. We think that the way that we have right now, using some very talented and very hardworking staff to be able to bring forward a large amount of applications and keep that from all those applications I’m going to planning committee is probably the most effective way to deliver that service.

[2:49:28] But of course, as part of our reviews, happy to look at like the best way to deliver service, but we really feel that with this very small but mighty team, we have a good amount of people and the appropriate amount at this time. But we will review as we move forward. Councilor? Thank you, I appreciate that. And just to follow up for clarity, can you give just a few examples of the tasks that are mandated through the Planning Act? Mr. May, there’s ever so briefly if you could. Absolutely. So any kind of higher to multiple alteration permits that needs to be dealt with by council in some way, the way that we do it in London is through that authority and pass to the staff to be able to make some of those decisions and only come back to council with the most significant decisions.

[2:50:16] The Heritage Act also has a 90 day requirement that’s been brought forward recently that we need to be, if there’s any kind of a prescribed event, which could be a planning or zoning application, that we have that coming back and have that reviewed within 90 days. And if we don’t do that, then there is implications of that moving forward as well. And then also, there’s other, anything that’s related to a demolition as well that would have an impact. We would have to have a review for heritage listed properties, be able to make a recommendation so that we can bring that back to council for their decision making.

[2:50:51] Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, any follow up? Okay, I have no further speakers online, looking for hands in chambers. I see none, call on the question. Point of order from Councillor Frank. We won’t close voting at this moment. Yes, thank you. I’m fine to receive the communications, but I don’t want to support the motion.

[2:51:23] Is there a way to break that out? Are people indifferent? I don’t know. I can vote no against all of it, but I was hoping to receive the communications. So you can vote as you will. Should it fail, we will do a separate vote for this in all the other communications we’ve discussed. Closing the vote, motion fails, three to 12. Looking then for a motion to receive this communication and all the other ones that were noted.

[2:51:57] A through D? Yeah, A through D. I have a nod from Councillor Frank as a mover and a seconder in Councillor Hopkins. The vote is ready on the question. Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero.

[2:52:51] Okay, at this time we have two items left. A communication from Councillor Stevenson and the Deputy Mayor, sorry, the Mayor on 4.7, which would also involve a presentation. Are we good to keep going, realizing if we can be efficient, we could still get food before everything closes? Okay, I see it keep going. Councillor Stevenson, 4.4. Thank you, and do you want me to read the motion? Yes, and I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder. That the civic administration be directed to prepare a business case for council’s consideration that reduces the annual budget for advisory committees.

[2:53:30] This report will include a detailed breakdown of the new recommended budget amount and any options available for cost savings. Okay, before we start, speakers list, looking to see if there’s a seconder on this. Can chambers, looking online? Is there someone online? ‘Cause I don’t, at this point I have— Yeah, I’ll second. And that would be who is seconding? That would be Frank Mohavlich, Paul van Mirbergen.

[2:54:09] Okay, Councillor, you’re not actually helping the process or helping hold decorum and chambers. So you are seconding the motion that the Councillor is speaking of? Yes, I am seconding the motion. Okay, so the motion is on the floor, moved and seconded. Councillor Stevenson, not sure if you’d like to speak on it, as I do have a question for staff as well. Thank you, I will speak on it just very briefly. To me, this is just a tidy up to the work that was done on the advisory committees already.

[2:54:42] This is the budget piece, again, doing on behalf of the community, hearing some things about expenses for conferences and things like that, that, you know, maybe something that we wanna cut back on given the financial pressures that render. I realized that it’s small. As I said, it’s a tidy up as far as I’m concerned to the advisory work that was already done. At the very least, I think it’s good to have a look at what it is that we’re approving and is there ways to reduce costs? Maybe there’s costs already that are being reduced based on the reduction in advisory committees, but suggestions that have come forward and Mr. Samuels made a few comments that I thought were great.

[2:55:27] This was the idea of bringing this forward, is to have debate and discussion about it. I thought he made some good comments. There’s been others, and we are looking for nickels sometimes, and so I think this is an appropriate motion to support and just finish off this work with the advisory committees. Thank you, just for committee’s information. Looking for an answer from this finance, as we consider this, the councilor’s letter to committee, not in the motion, but the preamble to the motion, stated that there are budgets 120,000.

[2:56:02] Could you confirm that this includes anything else besides advisory committees that would pertain to other boards? Through you, Madam Chair, no, the $120,000 that is referenced is the full advisory committee’s budget in its entirety. So there’s nothing for external agency boards and commissions as part of that 120? Like, okay, I’ll go to Sarah, sorry, definitely. Sorry, through the chair, there is actually stipends that flow through the advisory committee budget for both the LTC and the committee of adjustment.

[2:56:49] Yeah, so recognizing they’re not, that’s just where that money is just for, you know, where things are nestled in the budget. Okay, further speakers, Councillor Trossa. Well, I would like to through the chair speak against this motion. And I guess when I’m reading Mr. Samuel’s letter, he’s saying he’s opposed to this motion. I just don’t see how you find support in his motion for what you’re trying to do.

[2:57:23] The expenses for advisory committees are already very low, and they’re very regulated. They don’t go out and spend money without it also coming through their committee of jurisdiction and council. And I just don’t see this as a problem. I don’t think this is looking for nickels. I don’t even think there’s a penny here. Because if the entire budget is 120, unless we want to eliminate the entire budget of 120, which I think would be devastating, advisory committees have already been cut back.

[2:58:05] We have very strict rules that have gone through the governance committee and this council regarding advisory committee expenditures. And I think if there is a need to further restrict the very little money that advisory committees are spending, we could do that on a case-by-case basis. I don’t think there have been any abuses. I don’t think there have been any problems. And if anything, I think, well, it’s outside of the motion. So I won’t talk about how we need to further support the work of advisory committees.

[2:58:37] That’s for another day. But I’ll be opposing this, and I would encourage everybody to just vote no on this. I just don’t see the point of this. Thank you. Thank you, and thank you for chairing yourself and keeping it tight. Looking to see if there’s other speakers online or in chambers. I’ll just look for other first speakers before I recognize Councillor Stevenson again. Councillor Stevenson, the floor is yours, and you’ve used a minute.

[2:59:10] Thank you. Like I said, I’m just gonna keep it quick. But there is an opportunity here. Maybe it goes to governance working group to look at the terms of reference to take out some of the things because I’ve got community members saying, hey, in a tight budget time, I didn’t think paying for this conference for this person was a good idea. Or why are we paying for the university to do X? Or why are we paying for security and staff to come in in an evening when it could be done during business hours? Some of the suggestions here were reducing the time consuming multiple layers for expenses and a more efficient way to potentially make it easier and better for the advisory committees as well to access those amounts.

[2:59:55] And there’s a recommendation here by Mr. Samuels about potentially just having staff attend when they’re needed and not always having staff available at some of these meetings. Like I said, this was the purpose for having this. I think even small ideas like this can be beneficial. And at the very least, and I’ll do this at council is at the very least, we should be reporting out all of these advisory committee expenses the same way we do our council expenses. Other cities do it as well. And I think there should be full transparency there.

[3:00:28] And it’s not about saying anything’s happening that’s wrong. It’s about where can we, as I said, advisory committee members themselves are making these suggestions. If finance wanted to comment briefly that of how the money is accounted for within the budgets, if not, I will move on to council approval. Okay, Councilor? Thank you.

[3:01:00] We did make changes to the advisory committees and during the last year through the government’s working group and we did never review, as far as I know, and maybe correct me if I’m wrong, staff can comment on that if there was a financial review with the changes, any changes we do within the corporation and there is money attached to it, we should make a review if it’s still valid. And potentially it could be lower, it could be higher, but the review should be always done. Can I ask the staff if this review has been done after we made the changes to the advisory committees?

[3:01:36] Mr. Murray? Through you, Madam Chair, what I will say in general terms is that as part of our ongoing right sizing work, every year we’re looking for opportunities, I can’t speak to that specific one, but certainly where we identify opportunities for right sizing to reflect any changes that have occurred or shifts in service delivery or that sort of thing, that would be incorporated in our annual budget right sizing amendment. Councilor? Thank you for that.

[3:02:08] And I appreciate kind of the global picture, specifically to this one, though, and maybe I’m misunderstood, but have this been case included in your review after we made the changes to the advisory committees? Mr. Murray? Through you, Madam Chair, I do not have that information. I’m not sure if the clerks would be able to speak to that, but I’m not familiar with this specific. To the clerks, through the chair, so that work will be under to it with this next upcoming budget.

[3:02:43] We’re preparing that as we speak, and as the changes to advisory committees happened in the middle of last year. So with this upcoming budget, we will take a look at that, sir. Thank you for that. And as I stated, I do think that it’s very important, not just with this one, with any other one, when there are changes, financials attached to it, we should always review them. So I’m very much for it, but the motion that’s in front of us, the way it is stated, I will not be supporting, but to review, I totally support, to have done, thank you.

[3:03:21] Thank you, Councillor Lemond, could you take the chair for a moment? Yeah, the chair, please go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, I appreciate where we’re trying to go with this. Also not able to support it this time. I will ask through you that the clerk just give the breakdown of what that LTC and committee of adjustment component was of the price allotment, just financially from the numbers that you heard.

[3:03:58] I’ll go staff. In 2024, those expenses are totaled roughly 73,000. Councillor. Thank you. And just as we’re looking at things of why I can’t support it, I don’t, my question, this is actually getting to the right place of what we’re looking for. And I don’t believe it does, so I’m gonna be a know it this time, but definitely looking for those updates as staff, their normal updating process through budgetary means. Thank you.

[3:04:32] I’ll return the chair to you. Thank you, looking for further speakers online, Orange Chambers, so call on the question on the motion before you as Deputy Mayor Lewis, second call for Deputy Mayor Lewis, marking Deputy Mayor Lewis absent, closing the vote, the motion fails, 11 to three.

[3:05:28] At this point, I would look to see if there’s a motion to receive the Councillor’s communication and the communication from Mr. Samuels. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hawkins, calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, that moves us on to 4.7, which is an added regarding the Development Charges Act.

[3:06:15] It’s a request for presentation from Mayor Morgan, looking to committee to see if we would receive the presentation at this time. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor, this could be you, Councillor Preble, just gonna call the question on receiving his present. Okay, so we’re gonna do this one a little bit different that we’ll receive his presentation and communication all at the same time. So I’ve asked the Mayor to keep it to five minutes, but promised he can go a little bit over ‘cause it’s a good one.

[3:06:47] And he’s gonna move to the podium section at this time. As he puts his presentation up again, if you put the button on your screen, you’ll be able to see is without having to turn around, you’ll be able to see that. So if you hit your button, should be able to see the presentation.

[3:07:52] Okay, thank you for your help. Okay, so I’ll be as brief as possible. I just want to outline for Council the changes that I’m bringing forward because there’s a couple of pieces to it and it involves a significant amount of work over a number of months. But I just want to remind Council about the situation that we are in from a DC exemptions perspective. In 2021, we faced about $3.1 million of DC pressure to backfill provincially mandated exemptions. By 2024, that had risen to 32.1 million. As you know, this is something we’ve debated a couple of times in the past in the Council and in the standing position of most municipalities is that we’re obligated to put these in because the act was basically saying, these are exemptions that can’t be paid by underfunded the DC fund, which would essentially raise the future DC rates.

[3:08:47] So this became one of our top advocacy positions. So last year we had a delegation with Minister Klandra. This is exactly what we talked about. That led to a number of discussions between myself and the minister outside of AMO as well as the new minister flag and the premier’s office directly. This was also something that was discussed with colleagues on both the big city mayors and some colleagues on AMO that I’ve been talking with. I want to say though, through this process and I have to be clear about this, I want to thank our staff, particularly the staff in the finance area, but Mr. Jason Sens specifically who is the person who monitors and gathers a lot of the information on the DCs, his work and some of the documents he produced for our lobbying was instrumental in communicating this challenge clearly to the province so that they actually understood what sort of pressure that they were putting on different parts of municipal budgets based on the exemptions which were not funded by the province.

[3:09:46] So if you look at the screen, this is what we currently have baked into the current base budgets of the city limits, about $10 million, but it’s spread across the property tax supported budget, the water budget and the wastewater budget where we’ve actually built in budget allocations to deal with exemptions. But this next screen, and on the side, you can see this represents about a 0.7% property tax increase of 0.5% water increase and a 2.3% wastewater increase. But the actual pressure that we face is municipality is much greater.

[3:10:18] And these are pressures that we were going to have to figure out what to do with in the future. The pressure on the property tax supported budget was actually $13.6 million higher at more of the $20 million range. Water slightly higher at another $1.3 million, so 1.8 total, but significant, significant pressure in the wastewater budget, which our staff were trending towards leading towards coming forward with a significant rate increase on those two budgets, as well as at some point within future multi-year budgets or annual budget updates. They were going to have to raise that $6.4 million up to something closer to the $20 million which is another percent and a half of property tax pressure which was not based in, baked into any of our previous estimates.

[3:11:00] So actually addressing this is not only creates the potential for tax savings in the immediate budget, but takes significant pressure off of the water wastewater rates and the property tax rates in the future, and this is a permanent change. So we ended up successfully getting a letter from the province of Ontario just shortly ago. And the reason why I met this budget committee meeting at the last minute is as soon as I received the formal correspondence after months and months of back and forth discussions and lobbying, I wanted to bring it to the budget committee right away so that you would know what the changes are that I intend to make in the table budget.

[3:11:35] I’ve also had our legal staff review the letters and ensure that our new interpretation moving forward, and this is something that we can do. I also want to be clear, when the province decided to issue this letter to us, this is something that impacts all municipalities across the province. Many municipalities, if not all of them, were in the same position of us as putting property taxes or surplus or other pieces into the DC fund to backfill these exemptions. So the province is also issuing letters, I think believe yesterday to the City of Toronto, which has their own act and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, similar to the one that we received so that they can actually be aware of the changes in their interpretation.

[3:12:17] This is the province from the ministry communicating with our civic administration, copied to me a very clear interpretation of the legislation, which is different from the previous understandings of the interpretation of the legislation before. And it’s appropriate for the ministry to do that. They’re one of the few, I mean, the province passes the legislation, it’s not up to us to do the final interpretations, especially if it’s different from the existing interpretation, but the ministry can make this clear definitive change and articulate it. So what this actually does for our budget situation is it puts us in a much more favorable position.

[3:12:54] We’ll be able to table a budget with a 0.7% tax decrease on the property, tax side of things, but also those upward pressures in the water and wastewater budgets, which again, on the property tax side would have been 1.5% on the water side would have been slightly under a percent. On the wastewater side would have been a future increase of approximately 5%. We don’t have to do those increases anymore. We have the capacity to actually move forward and do this. What I will say though, and the province is well aware of this because this has been part of the discussion all the way along, is there will have to be infrastructure programs at the provincial level to assist us in providing the housing enabling infrastructure that the DC fund would have otherwise provided.

[3:13:36] The province has created exemptions that they’re not funding. They’re also saying municipalities don’t have to use property tax money and appropriately so, we don’t have to use property tax money to fund those exemptions ourselves. But we do need to build the housing enabling infrastructure that the DC fund funds. Not every province has DCs or maybe a transition that this province wants to make, but in the meantime, this is directly related to provincial infrastructure programs, and so the recently announced $2 billion in the government’s platform that they got elected on. That needs to come to fruition within provincial budgets to ensure that there are billions of dollars available to municipalities for housing enabling infrastructure because there will be deficits in the medium term in the DC funds to be able to fund that infrastructure.

[3:14:19] Easily replaced by provincial dollars, could be replaced by federal dollars too, ‘cause I know the new prime minister’s interested in doing a lot of nation building projects of which, and they have an aggressive target on housing of 500,000 units per year. They’re gonna need to be in the water, wastewater, and infrastructure game as well. So I wanted to present this to council because I wanted to be very transparent about my intentions to table these savings within the tabled multi-year budget, and to answer any questions you have about the process, and I know our staff are available too. They’ve assisted all along the way, and I’ll just remind council that this is an active and standing lobbying position that we’ve had on this council.

[3:14:56] In this case, we’ve actually been successful in achieving some significant savings for London taxpayers and wastewater and water users, not just here in the city, but across the entire province through this work. So I’m happy through the chair to answer any questions, and then, but this is more a piece for information because I intend on bringing this forward in the table budget later this year. Thank you. As you did see in the mayor’s letter that, and he just stated that it will be coming as a business case in the tabled budget, contained within his letter.

[3:15:30] Just thank you for your work on this staff’s work on this AMO, just everyone across the board. This was all hands on deck, looking to see if committee online or in chambers has additional questions that the mayor would not have already addressed. I will start my speakers list with council. Through the chair, I take it when you’ve got that letter, you shook the envelope to make sure there wasn’t a check, and there was no check there. It was just the letter saying, we didn’t have to include it in this year’s budget. So you’re shaking your head. This is very positive, and I really appreciate the lobbying work that you and other folks in AMO have done on this and the work that our staff has done.

[3:16:11] I don’t think we should make the mistake though, and I think you were very clear in your report. I just want to underline it. There’s still a lot of work to do on this file because while we don’t have to include this in the budget, there still could be a hole here in the future. And I don’t consider the province to be off the hook in terms of their promise to us to actually make good, to reimburse us. And I just wanted to make sure that we’re on the same page here and that I’m not missing anything. And yeah, I’m sorry there wasn’t a check, but do you want to comment on that through the chair?

[3:16:54] Yeah, Morgan. All right, I’m not used to not be able to get the microphone when I want it. Yeah, absolutely, Councillor, the position we outlined with the minister early on was, there’s a number of ways to solve this. One is the province could basically give us a check for the exemptions and make sure that they’re properly funded. But in the absence of that, requiring municipalities to fund this with property tax payer money or surplus money that could be used in a number of different ways to the main core functions of municipalities was something that was another option.

[3:17:30] But recognized all through that was that there would be an infrastructure piece to this, it’s necessary. I spoke to Minister Surma actually yesterday about this and about the announcements that were in the PC platform and when we can expect to see those come to fruition, she’s quite excited about bringing on billions of dollars of water and wastewater funding through her ministry. And so they’re well aware of that. Also, when I got the letter, I was very clear to the Premier’s office and the relevant ministers that it’s my intent to do this with this letter. They expected that, which is why they also issued letters to other municipalities through AMO, so that they can do that.

[3:18:09] I mean, I just got a text from a warden who said, can you share the letter with me so that I can look at the way that we’re doing this as well? This is going to become a question about how we actually fund water wastewater and housing enabling infrastructure across the province because we know we need to do it. There’s lots of ways to do it. One of the ways is the province can fund it directly. The other way has been through the DC fund, but the DC fund isn’t going to be non-existent in the future. It’s just going to be underfunded by the statutory exemption pieces, which is the piece that we’ll need to make up through provincial programs.

[3:18:42] Thank you, thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, I did had to excuse myself from the meeting for a moment, I let the clerk know I’m back. Do we have the emotion to receive this on the floor? Do you need a mover for that first or are we good for that? We’re good, just any comments before we wrap up? Sure, so I do want to take this opportunity very much to say thank you and congratulations to the Mayor on the success of the advocacy that he has been doing on this for, I don’t know, he’ll correct me if I’m my timeline is wrong for at least almost a year now.

[3:19:34] I know that the work started back, even before our AMO delegations in Ottawa a year ago. I’ve had people say to me out in the community and at meetings and things, wow, we seem to see you more than the Mayor. And I repeatedly have told them the Mayor’s doing a lot of work behind the scenes on some pretty important files. And I can say today that this is one that he’s been working on for many, many, many months. I know it’s taken up a quite considerable amount of his time with ministers, with the Premier, with provincial staff in the bureaucracy there.

[3:20:12] I am really, really, and I’ll be honest, there were times when I felt like maybe I was doing some duty coverage on what might be a little bit of a loss cause. I wasn’t even entirely confident that this was going to be successful. I am so happy to be proven wrong in my doubts there. This is, and as the Mayor has said, there’s lots of use still to get those statutory exemptions backfilled properly by the province because we still need the money to put infrastructure in the ground.

[3:20:47] And I know that that is an ongoing discussion by the Mayor with provincial representatives as well as by other mayors. But this is a huge, huge and very positive step forward in terms of how we deal with both the need for housing to get built faster and what those statutory exemptions that the province has provided to incentivize that mean for municipalities and how we are funded. This has been creating tremendous tax pressure burdens for a number of years.

[3:21:22] It’s not retroactive, so we don’t get to save on some of the costs that we’ve had to backfill in the past, but it is certainly a very positive step forward. And so I just have to, again, emphasize and I’ll be happy to return some of those event duties and other activities to the Mayor and free up some of my time. But I am really glad that I was able to assist by providing some coverage so he could do some of this work. I know it’s been some late nights sometimes, there’s been travel involved for meetings, there’s been all kinds of things happening. This is a big win for readjusting.

[3:21:58] What we all keep saying is the unfairness of property taxes and how they’re the least fair, most regressive tax and some of these things need to be funded in other ways. This is a concrete step forward in starting to address that. And so I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Mayor and now that the sort of the cats over the bag, as it were, happy to be able to recognize the work that he’s put into this ‘cause I know how many hours, how many days, how many weeks it’s been over the last year. So thank you, Your Worship, for delivering on this.

[3:22:32] It’s a big win for the taxpayers in London. It’s a big win for the taxpayers across the province. When we fund through income and sales taxes, things that benefit everyone, we’re funding things in a way that those who are most able to pay are paying the most and those who are least able to pay pay the least, property taxes don’t do that. So transitioning the funding in this way is a big, big help to bring some tax fairness to Londoners and right across Ontario. Thank you, and if it means the Mayor bringing home $10 million, I’m sure any member of council will keep covering any duties we can while he does that advocacy and work.

[3:23:11] Just letting committee know if we keep our comments tight, I have asked the cafeteria to wait for us. Councillor Layman is next, and then looking for other indications online or in chambers. So I’ll go to Councillor Layman, then Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Chair. As Chair of Planning, the past few years has been of great concern with DC exemptions. I see the work that our staff does to address our housing shortages. I see the work that this council does to address that, and yet we were seeing the burden of DC exemptions on the taxpayer.

[3:23:48] So I really wanna thank the province for recognizing this. It gives encouragement for us to continue the work that we’re doing to address the housing shortage that I know is high priority for the province. Echo, the Deputy Mayor’s comments about the Mayor. Great perseverance here. I share, Deputy Mayor Lewis’s apprehension. I didn’t think this was gonna come through quite frankly. I didn’t see positive signs. So good for you for keeping the squeaky will there, and it’s paid off.

[3:24:26] I’d also wanna say it this time too. We’ve been dealing the last number of months with the budget meetings, et cetera. A lot of work has gone into it. You know, I think all of council realizes that the concern of taxpayers with our last recent two years of tax increases, and they weren’t sustainable in light of the economic challenges that our Londoners face. Mary took the step of making a rather audacious goal of 5% at your state of the city, which a lot of people I think didn’t take seriously to be honest with you.

[3:25:11] I think this council did, and I think you can see it by the work that’s been done by first the working group, and then the Budget Committee, we’ve seen a lot of debate, and we’ve seen a lot of it is to achieve true savings for taxpayers. To the Budget Chair, thank you very much for your role in this process. I saw you at the police board where I serve at and responded, which you saw the correspondence today from the finance committee that our Councilor Stevenson chairs, and I’m a member of.

[3:25:53] And responding to your request for lowering the Reserve Fund and looking for $1 to $1.5 million in savings. And to all the other ABCs for their honest deliberation, in helping us help the taxpayers in doing what we can to achieve savings there. So I just wanted to use this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of all of us here. It’s not easy, it’s hard work.

[3:26:28] You can see the frustration sometimes in the debate that goes around, but it’s important work. I would say that’s probably the most important challenge we have and when we set the tax rate because it’s not our money, it’s Londoner’s money. And we have to be really responsible for that. So thanks, Mayor. Thanks for your efforts there. And this is terrific news. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you. And I think this is absolutely fantastic news for our community. I do have a question though last year we had here a Premier Ford and Minister Flag with a great announcement for us $23.7 million for the sewer upgrades.

[3:27:09] When I look at these three graphs in front of the property tax, water, waste water, the $23.7 million, was it budgeted? Was it under budgeted? And would there be or is there an opportunity to reflect this potentially in the taxpayers rate as well? Thank you. Mr. Murray. Through you, Madam Chair, so, excuse me. The funding program that the Council is referring to is specific to a certain particular project here in the downtown core. It is already budgeted as part of that project and is specific to those works.

[3:27:45] So there’s not an opportunity, unfortunately, to offset rate increases associated with that specific project. Councillor Pribble. Thank you for the follow up. Mr. Murray mentioned that the $23.7 was already budgeted. So therefore, I don’t think this was lost here. This was expected at $23.7 million. So how does it, where does it reflect now, the $23.7 million that we received? Mr. Murray. Through you, Madam Chair, it is a funding source for that particular capital project.

[3:28:21] Councillor. That answers my question. Thank you. Further speakers? And I add some context to that specific question, Councillor. Go for it. I understand, I understand what Councillor Pribble’s asking. He’s asking, did we already budget for that particular project? And then can we pull it out of the budget? That project was one of the projects that were identified when the province actually approached us early on and said, if we build a new program to fund new housing enabling infrastructure, what are some examples of projects you could bring online that you otherwise were not going to do that could actually bring net new units online?

[3:28:58] And so that project was not necessarily contemplated in a number of our capital plans. It was a net new project that could open up 17,000 units of development in the downtown core that we otherwise may not have done without a proper funding source. So I think that’s why Mr. Murray is saying, the budget is here and it’s used up. It’s not displacing significant amounts of other budgets in other places within the city of London’s capital plan. It’s a net new project for significant new residential density units in the downtown core. Okay, Councillor Stevenson.

[3:29:34] Thank you, this was really good news to see this decrease in our property tax rate. But I’m a little confused by this because there was no legislative change. The Development Charges Act hasn’t changed. So we discussed this. We had long debates about this budget. There were a few of us that thought this was an option then. And we had long debates about it because it was seen as necessary here.

[3:30:16] But we knew that other cities weren’t doing this. We knew it wasn’t mandated, but it was just prudent and good for our credit rating and all of that. So as much as I’m happy to see this, I’m not understanding all of the advocacy and effort and why this permission letter now all of a sudden makes all the other concerns go away. I also, my understanding is that we could have done this right from the beginning. So although we may not want to go back and do anything retroactively, the fact that this was available to us, the fact that clarity’s coming so late, I think is a little bit concerning.

[3:30:59] And like I said, it’s good news for the public. I don’t think it’s a good look on us as Council quite frankly. And I do appreciate getting clarity and time for this budget, but it would have been nice to have had this available to us sooner or more good. Yes, so with respect through the chair, those aren’t facts. You can say the fact is, but those aren’t facts. The reality of the day was municipalities felt that there was a direct and clear obligation to put these funds within the DC fund, not just us but a number of others.

[3:31:35] Our treasurer and their interpretation was very clear of the legislation who is members of the Municipal Finance Officers Group and others. And the advice of our legal staff at the time is that this is an obligation that we have under the Act. Any Act may have some nebulous pieces to it that requires interpretation. The only people who can interpret the Act with some authority that gives us the coverage to take these sorts of actions are the people who pass that legislation, which is the provincial government and that level of authority. Having this letter in hand gives us the cover to take the actions that we do, because this is the ministry’s clear and definitive interpretation of the segments of the legislation, which could be, frankly, interpreted a number of ways.

[3:32:15] But there are interpretation of it, makes it very clear. It’s also why the provincial government, when it took this action, decided we need to actually issue a letter to all the other municipalities so that it is clear across the board because they would recognize that it may not have been clear in legislation in the past. So I would say, I fully support the decisions we made in the past and the comments that were made and the advice of our staff. It wasn’t just the advice of the City of London. It was the advice of many municipal officials across the province and this clarity was absolutely critical to us being able to move forward in a way that did not create unnecessary risk to us, of being offside with the legislation and potentially facing an appeal on inflows into the development charges fund from, say, the development community.

[3:32:59] Councillor Stephen, you’re okay. My speaker’s list is growing. Councillor Ferrer and then Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to take this opportunity to thank the Mayor for his advocacy. I know representing London at AMO. This has been a continuous conversation at the Lord German Caucus asking the province how we are going to be kept whole given the responsibilities with the changes to development charges.

[3:33:33] And I can see this as a step going forward to being kept whole. So again, thank you very much for the advocacy. I will continue to have these conversations at AMO on behalf of all municipalities, exactly what this means too. But I know the amount of work that is needed to get the attention of the province to get the support. I think this is a happy day here at Budget Committee. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ferrer. Thanks, Chair.

[3:34:08] Can you just, can you hear me? ‘Cause I can’t see myself on this screen. Okay, so I know we’re almost done here. So I’m gonna be really quick, you know, where credit is due, I gotta give credit. So that is gonna obviously go to the mayor, his office, our staff and budget chair as well. You know, we were talking about nickels, but now we’re talking about millions. So I do appreciate the work that has been brought forward and the work that has been done. I would say it’s unfortunate that we had to do this work considering that the province did say that they would make us whole. And they didn’t say maybe they’ll make us whole if you work for it.

[3:34:41] And I know we still got a lot of work to go still, but I do wanna just say, I think this is great news. Hopefully we can get more in the future to make us fully whole. And thank you to the mayor, to your office, to staff and all the work that everyone has put into this one. So I’ll leave it there and good to see, good for London. Thank you, further speakers, online or in chambers. Hey, I don’t see any hands.

[3:35:14] So I’m going to the mayor for closing comment. Yes, and as much as I appreciate the comments my colleagues have made, I will commend the provincial government for their engagement on this and actually listening to the concerns of municipalities on this. Yes, we still have an important conversation to have about infrastructure, but I can tell you they’ve been very open about their desire to fund housing and a million infrastructure across this province. Obviously there’s still some details to work out to ensure that that happens in a way that is adequate enough for us to meet the obligations we have to build the housing that meets our targets. But I would say there were a very transparent and willingness openness to understand the problem, meet with our staff multiple times, take the data, look at it, and then go to the ministry to say, is this what we really intended in the DC Act?

[3:36:00] And then issue finally, a clear interpretation of their intent within the Act and what they would like to see us do, which is where the letter comes in. So I’ll say that, and in summary, I’ll just say from a budget perspective, I know that there’s been articles in the paper saying, maybe 5% is just political theater or maybe we’re not going to get there, but we are now within very close striking distance of this. And with the assistance of the boards and commissions who are considering these savings, this is a real reality that we are going to have the opportunity to meet through the discussions that we will continue to have.

[3:36:35] And so I will have this for you in the fall. This will be the options, but we’ll table a budget and we’ll have those debates and discussions about how to properly ensure that we’re bringing tax savings where we can while meeting our obligations to provide services to the public as well. Thank you. Councilor Bamberengen, are you still on the line or have you taken your leave? Okay, I’ll note that Councilor Bamberengen seems to have left and Councilor Hopkins has left.

[3:37:10] So the motion’s moved and seconded to accept the mayor’s presentation and information calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries, 13 to 0. Thank you. I’m not aware of any deferred matters for additional business. We have no confidential items that move us on to a motion and to adjourn. I have a mover and Councillor Frank, a Councillor and a seconder and Councillor McAllister, hand vote all in favor of adjournment, motion carries.

[3:37:52] Thank you. And if you’re interested in nourishment, I would suggest going up to the cafeteria as soon as possible as they close shortly. It’s taco day. Madam budget chair, do you want to ship some tacos out my way?