Open Council

6th Meeting of the Budget Committee

Open Council

6th Meeting of the Budget Committee

November 20, 2025, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:31 AM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   2026 Annual Budget Update Deliberations Introductory Presentation

2025-11-20 Presentation - 2026 Budget Update Deliberations

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Budget presentation from the Deputy City Manager, Finance and Supports BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Mayor’s Budget

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that the Mayor’s Proposed Budget was provided to each member of Council, the City Clerk, and the public on October 27, 2025.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Amendment - Budget Case P-6

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Business Case P-6 - Reduced Road Network Improvements - BE EXCLUDED from the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Update Budget:

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $114,000          2026 Tax Levy:  $114,000                 2026 Capital Expenditures:  $114,000

2027 Operating Expenditures:  $114,000          2027 Tax Levy:  $114,000                 2027 Capital Expenditures:  $114,000

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

4.2   Amendment - Budget Case P-1 - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-11-20 Submission - P-1-S. Stevenson

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 9, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update to fund Business Case P-1 LMCH Operating Budget Support for 2026-2027 from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.3   Amendment - Budget Case P-2 - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-11-20 Submission - P-2-S. Stevenson.docx

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update to exclude Business Case P-2 Middlesex-London Health Unit Debt Retirement from the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update; it further being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 14, 2025 from E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, Middlesex-London Health Unit, and a communication dated November 9, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Franke

That Business Case P-2 Middlesex-London Health Unit Debt Retirement – BE EXCLUDED from the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update:

 

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$2,366,000          2026 Tax Levy: -$2,366,000           2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $0                         2027 Tax Levy: $0                           2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

the Middlesex London Health Unit BE REQUESTED to submit an additional funding request for 2026 onwards for permanent base funding for an additional 2.0 FTE;

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 14, 2025 from E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, Middlesex-London Health Unit with respect to this matter.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following part BE APPROVED:

the Middlesex London Health Unit BE REQUESTED to submit an additional funding request for 2026 onwards for permanent base funding for an additional 2.0 FTE.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Franke

That Business Case P-2 Middlesex-London Health Unit Debt Retirement – BE EXCLUDED from the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update:

 

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$2,366,000          2026 Tax Levy: -$2,366,000           2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $0                         2027 Tax Levy: $0                           2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 14, 2025 from E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, Middlesex-London Health Unit with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That pursuant to section 35.7 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Committee decision with respect excluding Business Case P-2 Middlesex-London Health Unit Debt Retirement from the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update BE RECONSIDERED to provide for Councillor S. Trosow to correct his vote.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Franke

That Business Case P-2 Middlesex-London Health Unit Debt Retirement – BE EXCLUDED from the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update:

 

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$2,366,000          2026 Tax Levy: -$2,366,000           2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $0                         2027 Tax Levy: $0                           2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 14, 2025 from E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer, Middlesex-London Health Unit with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

4.4   (ADDED) Amendment - Councillors C. Rahman and S. Stevenson

2025-11-20 Submission - C. Rahman-S. Stevenson

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by increasing the roadways budget to implement traffic calming in school zones across the city and deploy more temporary traffic calming devices to mitigate construction-related traffic diversions in neighbourhoods during capital projects, with the capital expenditures to be funded from the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund:

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $155,000       2026 Tax Levy:  $0       2026 Capital Expenditures:  $100,000

2027 Operating Expenditures:  $155,000       2027 Tax Levy:  $0       2027 Capital Expenditures:  $100,000

it being noted the operating expenditures to be funded for two years from the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund;

it being further noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 10, 2025 from Councillors C. Rahman and S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by increasing the roadways budget to implement traffic calming in school zones across the city and deploy more temporary traffic calming devices to mitigate construction-related traffic diversions in neighbourhoods during capital projects, with the capital expenditures to be funded from the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund:

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $155,000       2026 Tax Levy:  $155,000       2026 Capital Expenditures:  $100,000

2027 Operating Expenditures:  $155,000       2027 Tax Levy:  $155,000       2027 Capital Expenditures:  $100,000

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED to fund $155,000 for three years from the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the amendment BE AMENDED to change three (3) years to two (2) years.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the amendment, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the main motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.5   (ADDED) Amendment - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-11-20 Submission - (4.5) Tax Levy-S. Stevenson

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 17, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update by reducing the tax levy by 1%.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.6   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-12 - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-11-20 Submission - (4.6) P-12-S. Stevenson

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Business Case P-12 Resident Satisfaction Survey Frequency - BE EXCLUDED from the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget:

2026 Operating Expenditures: $0                         2026 Tax Levy: $0                           2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $28,000                2027 Tax Levy: $28,000                  2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Committee recess at this time, for 30 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 12:00 PM and reconvenes at 12:34 PM.

4.7   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-20

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update to redirect a portion of Business Case P-20 (2024 Surplus Allocation for Tax Mitigation) to increase funding for the Housing Stability Bank program for 2026 and 2027;

it being further noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 18, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update by combining the 2026 and 2027 one-time adjustments in Business Case P-20 Portion of 2024 Surplus Allocated for Tax Mitigation;

it being further noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 18, 2025 from Councillors S. Trosow and D. Ferreira with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by re-directing a portion of Business Case P-20 (2024 Surplus Allocation for Tax Mitigation) to increase funding for the Housing Stability Bank program for 2026 and 2027, it being noted this funding and expenditures are non-permanent:

2026 Operating Expenditures: $700,000      2026 Tax Levy: $700,000      2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $700,000      2027 Tax Levy: $700,000      2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update to redirect a portion of Business Case P-20 (2024 Surplus Allocation for Tax Mitigation) to increase funding for the Housing Stability Bank program for 2026 and 2027.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Trosow

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 18, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update by combining the 2026 and 2027 one-time adjustments in Business Case P-20 Portion of 2024 Surplus Allocated for Tax Mitigation.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.8   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-13 - Councillor S. Stevenson

2025-11-20 Submission - (4.8) P-13-S. Stevenson

That the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to utilize previously budgeted 2025 tax supported funding for statutory Development Charges (DC) exemptions for tax levy mitigation.  It being noted that these funds were budgeted in 2025 and have not been contributed to the tax supported DC Exemptions reserve fund nor subsequently transferred to the obligatory City Services (DC) reserve funds, whereas 2024 contributions have been completed based on Council direction and the adopted budget and therefore cannot be utilized for this purpose per section 35(1) of the Development Charges Act.  It being further noted that this would reduce the projected 2025 surplus (to be finalized in April 2026 and subject to external audit) and corresponding surplus allocations per the Surplus/Deficit Policy:

 

2026 Operating Expenditures: $0             2026 Tax Levy: -$2,400,000                      2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $0             2027 Tax Levy: -$2,400,000                      2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

 

It further being resolved that the City Treasurer BE AUTHORIZED to contribute the above noted amount to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in 2025 to be utilized in the 2026 and 2027 City of London operating budget to offset the general tax levy.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to utilize previously budgeted 2025 tax supported funding for statutory Development Charges (DC) exemptions for tax levy mitigation.  It being noted that these funds were budgeted in 2025 and have not been contributed to the tax supported DC Exemptions reserve fund nor subsequently transferred to the obligatory City Services (DC) reserve funds, whereas 2024 contributions have been completed based on Council direction and the adopted budget and therefore cannot be utilized for this purpose per section 35(1) of the Development Charges Act.  It being further noted that this would reduce the projected 2025 surplus (to be finalized in April 2026 and subject to external audit) and corresponding surplus allocations per the Surplus/Deficit Policy:

 

2026 Operating Expenditures: $0             2026 Tax Levy: -$4,800,000                      2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $0             2027 Tax Levy: $0                                     2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

 

It further being resolved that the City Treasurer BE AUTHORIZED to contribute the above noted amount to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in 2025 to be utilized in the 2026 City of London operating budget to offset the general tax levy.

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED to utilize previously budgeted 2025 tax supported funding for statutory Development Charges (DC) exemptions for tax levy mitigation.  It being noted that these funds were budgeted in 2025 and have not been contributed to the tax supported DC Exemptions reserve fund nor subsequently transferred to the obligatory City Services (DC) reserve funds, whereas 2024 contributions have been completed based on Council direction and the adopted budget and therefore cannot be utilized for this purpose per section 35(1) of the Development Charges Act.  It being further noted that this would reduce the projected 2025 surplus (to be finalized in April 2026 and subject to external audit) and corresponding surplus allocations per the Surplus/Deficit Policy:

 

2026 Operating Expenditures: $0             2026 Tax Levy: -$2,400,000                      2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $0             2027 Tax Levy: -$2,400,000                      2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

 

It further being resolved that the City Treasurer BE AUTHORIZED to contribute the above noted amount to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in 2025 to be utilized in the 2026 and 2027 City of London operating budget to offset the general tax levy.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

4.9   (ADDED) Amendment - Councillor D. Ferreira

2025-11-20 Submission - (4.9) Parking-D. Ferriera

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by increasing the budget to provide for a free two-hour parking program through the Honk App, including two-hour free on-street parking in the Core Area (Midtown, Downtown, and Old East Village):

2026 Operating Expenditures: $784,000       2026 Tax Levy: $784,000           2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $784,000       2027 Tax Levy: $784,000           2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion BE AMENDED to include the following:

the free two-hour parking program through the Honk App, including two-hour free on-street parking in the Core Area (Midtown, Downtown, and Old East Village) BE FUNDED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund for 2026 and 2027.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That pursuant to section 33.15 of the Council Procedure By-law, the question be now put.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED by increasing the budget to provide a continuation of the free one-hour parking program through the Honk App, including one-hour free on-street parking in the Core Area, (Downtown, Midtown, and Old East Village):

 

2026 Operating Expenditures:  $330,000                   2026 Tax Levy:  $330,000                       2026 Capital Expenditures:  $0

2027 Operating Expenditures:  $330,000                   2027 Tax Levy:  $330,000                       2027 Capital Expenditures:  $0

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

4.10   (ADDED) Amendment - Councillor D. Ferreira

2025-11-20 Submission - (4.10) HotSpots-D. Ferriera

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 19, 2025 from Councillor D. Ferreira with respect to an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update to include funding to establish a dedicated, year-round “Hot Spots” crew to proactively monitor and respond to sharps and biohazards in public parks and open spaces.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.11   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P25 - Mayor J. Morgan

2025-11-20 Submission - (4.11) Mayor Morgan

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Business Case P-25 - Stop Collecting Blue Box Materials from Non-Eligible Sources - BE INCLUDED in the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Update Budget:

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$250,000     2026 Tax Levy: -$250,000     2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$250,000     2027 Tax Levy: -$250,000     2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated November 19, 2025 from Mayor J. Morgan with respect to budget cases.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

4.12   (ADDED) Amendment - Budget Case P-24 - Councillor S. Stevenson

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to include Business Case P-24 (Eliminate Climate Change Reserve Fund Contribution) in the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Business Case P-24 – Eliminate Climate Change Reserve Fund Contribution – BE INCLUDED in the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update:

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$192,000          2026 Tax Levy:  -$192,000     2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$192,000          2027 Tax Levy:  -$192,000     2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

4.13   (ADDED) Amendment – Councillor H. McAlister

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s 2026 Annual Budget Update to fund the Housing Stability Bank Program $500,000 ($250,000 for 2026 and $250,000 for 2027) from the Community Investment Reserve Fund.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s Tabled 2026 Annual Budget Update BE AMENDED in order to fund the Housing Stability Bank Program $500,000 ($250,000 for 2026 and $250,000 for 2027) from the Community Investment Reserve Fund:

2026 Operating Expenditures: $250,000             2026 Tax Levy: $0                    2026 Capital Expenditures: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $250,000             2027 Tax Levy: $0                    2027 Capital Expenditures: $0

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential 

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:08 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 (6 hours, 0 minutes)

[0:51] It’s wired, so we can’t take it down. Recording in progress. If everyone can find their seats.

[24:26] Good morning, everyone. This is the sixth meeting of the Budget Committee. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Nashback, Haudenosaunee, Lanapuok, and Adewandran. We honor and respect the history, language, and the culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nation, Mayte, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

[25:03] I am joined in chambers by all members of council, excluding Councillor Van Merbergen. He is not online. I will let members know when he joins the meeting in whichever form we find him. For your information today, we are gonna be joined online and available for questions or comments being representatives from the Middlesex London Health Unit. As that’s one of the business cases, we have potentially amendments for looking to committee members to see when we get to certain items, if there’s other agency boards or commissions that you want on standby, currently there’s none, but we can certainly send them to Zoom meeting and make sure someone’s available.

[25:48] So just looking to committee for that. Hey, seeing nothing. If you change your mind at some point, just let me know. I would say texting is easiest as well. My phone is face up. Looking to committee for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, just for your information, for timing of the day as well. I’ve been asked if we’ll be done today. That is up to you guys. We do have two days reserved, but if we’re close to the end of the day and wrapping things up, ideally, I would like to clear things up today.

[26:25] If we’re long ways off, we will be claimed back tomorrow. Lunch is scheduled in the Councillor’s lounge. We’d be ready around noon. So we’ll see where we’re on the middle of a debate and break accordingly. There’s also coffee and a muffin for you in the side room. The Councillor’s lounge, if you haven’t found it or need it, please find it. That takes us to consent then. This is a 2.1, the 2026 annual budget update deliberations introductory presentation. Looking for a mover and a seconder.

[27:02] So Councillor Hopkins is gonna move it. Councillor Cudi is gonna second it. So it’s on the floor, so going to council or staff for their brief presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we’ll get the presentation slides up on screen here. All right, so I will keep my presentation very brief today, but we did wanna give just a few opening remarks and a brief update, particularly on our public engagement program, as well as a few brief reminders as we get into deliberations today.

[27:35] So once again this year, we did utilize a number of different engagement channels as part of the budget process. In particular, we held five in-person and one virtual pop-up information sessions. These have happened over the course of the past couple of weeks and were held at various days and various times and various locations across the city. I would say generally at each session, we typically talk to in a range of five to 20 people. However, there were more folks who took all handouts away and were going to look at budget information on their own time.

[28:13] We also, going to the next slide, we also attended three councilor led board meetings, as well as two community group led events as well. I will note as well that I’m aware that other councilors also held their own board meetings to discuss the budget as well. We also had our survey on budget business cases running on our get involved portal as well. We had 37 people complete that survey and the next three slides of this presentation outline the results of that survey.

[28:46] What I will say for all of the business cases is that the blue portion of the bar indicates those who support those respective budget business cases and the purple portion indicates those who do not support those respective business cases. And generally speaking with the exception of a business case P8, the cases that are included in the mayor’s proposed budget receive majority support. Support for business cases not included in the mayor’s budget, so those being business cases P22 through P25 received a little bit more mixed support ranging from 30% to 59% support.

[29:30] Going to the next slide, again, as we have in previous years, we’ll have our tax levy model running today and we can illustrate the impact of any potential amendments that you’re considering upon request. Our starting point again is 3.6% and as a reminder, each 1% on the tax levy is a little over 8.8 million and therefore each 0.1% is about $882,000. On the next slide, we’ve included a number of reminders about important financial principles that are again articulated in our strategic financial framework.

[30:09] These include using one-time funding only for time limited or one-time costs or revenue phase in. Again, ongoing costs should be funded through ongoing revenues. Need to be mindful of taking on more or new services without reviewing those business cases and considering the impacts to future budgets as well and also considering whether there needs to be a long-term exit strategy for any new services that are being contemplated. We’ve talked about this many times before as well, but again, being mindful of maintaining debt at manageable levels into the future that not only ensures the financial stability and sustainability of the corporation, but also limits the future burden on taxpayers down the road in terms of servicing that debt.

[30:59] We want to ensure as well that we maintain adequate reserve fund balances. We’ve talked many times before about reserve funds as well and the important functions that they provide, including providing cash and liquidity to pay our bills as they come do, providing contingencies to whether, for example, future economic storms or emergencies or liabilities that may arise. We have many reserve funds that help support effective asset management practices, and we also want to have a source to support one-time initiatives in the future as well.

[31:35] Lastly, just have included the key dates in the process, simply as a reminder. So any council amendments to the mayor’s budget that are made today or tomorrow will be approved at council next Wednesday. And then we’ll get into the next steps in the process being potential mayoral vetoes and/or council override of those potential vetoes. So with that, I’ll turn it back over to Madam Budget Chair. Thank you. Looking to committee to see if there’s any questions or comments on that before we vote on receiving it.

[32:13] Seeing none, any scribe calling the question, and I’ll note that council member in committee chambers, so all members are now present. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. This takes us on to scheduled items. It’s 3.1, I mean, the mayor’s budget. This is to receive it that we have received it, and then following this, we will get into the emergency direction.

[32:46] So looking for a mover and a seconder of 3.1. Moved by Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. Is there any comments before we get into deliberations? Nope, so calling the vote. It’s our toss out. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[33:21] Thank you. This takes us into items for direction, amendment P6. We had two people interested in this one, so I’m going to look to Councillor Stephen since you have a nod that she’ll move it, I’ll second it. And then I would like to hand the chair to the vice chair. Layman, while I speak to it, and then I’ll have the chair return to me and I’ll finish for the rest. So chair just to confirm the motion is made by Councillor Stevenson and your seconding up.

[34:05] And would you like to speak to it first? Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Presenting Officer. As we know today, the mayor’s budget as tabled is the budget. It’s up to us to make amendments to change it or revise it. Looking for your support in adding this one back in. I recognize and appreciate it’s just one small street. I have some small streets in my ward that have been waiting and sometimes delayed as the city reprioritizes things, have heard from residents that it is a small amount, but when it’s your street, it means everything.

[34:40] I also believe that street maintenance and rehabilitation is a key foundation of the work municipalities do, so looking for your support to put this one back in. Thank you. Thank you and I’ll return the chair to you. Thank you, I’ll resume chairing. I will start my speakers list. If anyone liked what you’d like to comment, I will go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I don’t have much to add to what you said, but I agree with all of that. I think that residents want us to continue to improve their roads. There are some that are in very poor condition. And this isn’t an area that I hear from residents.

[35:13] They want to see a cut. Looking for further speakers, I’m going to go with Councillor ramen and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. Excuse me, I’m through you. Just a question to staff. I remember that in this business case, this was identified as potentially money that was unused in some cases in that area. I just want to confirm that if we keep this in the budget can be used. Sorry to staff, I was looking at you, but that means nothing.

[35:47] Go ahead. Yes, through the chair, this full amount is used each year for our program. If we do have any contingency that’s unused, it’s rolled into the next year to make sure that we can maximize the number of streets that we do. That’s why you see a range of streets in there because it depends on the size, scale of the streets and how much we have carried over from unused contingency from the previous year. Councillor ramen. Thank you, and just my comment on this as I have heard from residents in my ward that want to see their local streets improved and I’ll be keeping this in the budget. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[36:21] Thank you. Well, I appreciate the answer that we’re able to get the money out the door, generally, and that it goes into a contingency if it’s not. I also listen constantly to the comments from landowners that there’s too much construction going on right now. They’re frustrated with their ability to move around. And while we’re talking about local streets, nonetheless, that matters. This is one short street called a SAC level street. I have some in my ward that need doing too, but to reduce the pace by one a year, I’m gonna leave this in the budget.

[36:59] I won’t be supporting adding it back in. Thank you. Further speakers? Do you want? Okay, I’m gonna move to Mayor Morgan and then Councillor Trosto. Yeah, I’ll just be brief. I put this in the budget because I heard people want to tax savings. There’s a variety of things in the budget where you can go down 114,000 and you can keep it the same. Frankly, you go up 300,000 million dollars and do a whole bunch of more local streets.

[37:34] This is something that is flexible each and every year. We can adjust it as we move forward. Not doing one small call to SAC a year is a pacing issue. So yeah, you know, people’s streets will still get done. It just might take a little longer. So this is in the table budget because it is a way that we can find cost savings with minimizing the impacts across the system. It’s also something that is very easy to change in the future as we want to ramp up a ramp down, capital expenditures on road works. Thank you, Councillor Trosto. Thank you very much and through the chair.

[38:08] I want to thank Councillor Palosa and Councillor Stevenson for bringing this forward. I fully support what you’re trying to do here. My worry about this type of savings is one accident, two accidents wipes out the savings. And I’m not going to ask our risk management department now to go into a long detailed report about the types of claims that we get or how much claims cost us.

[38:41] But I think this is a false savings and I say that with all due respect. I understand the intention behind it, but I too in my word persistently get complaints about the different aspects of road maintenance. So I really in good conscience cannot go along with the cut. So I’m going to support the motion that’s in front of us now. Thank you. Thank you further speakers. Okay, I’ll note in eScribe, when you go to current item, you will see that says that it’s to be excluded.

[39:19] So if you would like to have the road work, this is one of those ones since it’s already in the budget. If you want it removed and funded, you have to vote yes. If you would like to keep the cut, you vote no. I know. So Sam based on your comments, you would vote yes, that you want it excluded from the budget ‘cause right now it’s a thing to be cut if you want it funded and removed. Yeah, sorry. I’ll walk us through this today as we go ‘cause some things are going different directions. Okay.

[39:52] And it’s early yet and we’re just getting started for the day. So any further questions on that? Okay, call on the question. Sir Van Meerbergen closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to four.

[40:37] Thank you. That takes us on to amendment budget case P1. This is the London Middlesex Community Housing Operating Budget Support for 2026 to 2027. I will go to Councillor Stevenson first. It was their communication. Thank you. I’d like to move the revised version of that amendment and I don’t have a seconder. So I’ll put it out on the floor to see if there is a seconder this morning. So the clerk’s just putting the motion in and up.

[41:10] Is it just one moment? It’s on the screen. It’s in the East Club. If you refresh, you can see it. Councillor Stevenson, if you want to say what it is, then I’ll verify if there’s a seconder or not and we’ll proceed from there as well. Thank you. Yeah, it’s to amend the Mayor’s 2026 annual budget to fund business case P1 for the LMCH operating budget support for 2026 to 2027 from the operating budget contingency reserve rather than have past taxpayers to do it.

[41:46] Thank you. So you’ve heard from the Councillor looking to see if there’s a seconder call. Sorry, Councillor, I see no seconder on that one. So just to let you know procedurally, when we get to the end, if there’s something that did not have a seconder, like the one we just had, at the end, we will group them together to receive the communication versus doing it individually as we go to dispose of the items on our public agenda.

[42:31] That was the advice from the clerks, okay. That takes us on to amendment business case P2. I’ll note that if you look on your added agenda, there’s also communications from Ms. Williams from Middlesex London Health Unit. P2 is the Middlesex London Health Unit Debt Retirement. This is a motion from Councillor Stevenson. So once again, Councillor, I’m gonna go to you first. We’ll make sure the right one’s in E-Scribe and then I’ll have you introduce it and then we’ll look for a seconder. Thank you, I appreciate that. I’m gonna move the revised one for this as well.

[43:04] And this is to that the mayor’s 2026 annual budget update be amended to remove business case P2, Middlesex London Health Unit Debt Retirement. And I believe I have a secondary in Councillor Frank. Councillor Frank. So just one second, I wanna make sure the right ones in the E-Scribe— Is it possible to put forward the one that Councillor Frank circulated this morning or if you can be an amendment? I have not done such a one. Okay, so you just forgot to pause then ‘cause we’ve obviously been here and let’s hold up. I can read out the change.

[43:55] No, there’s problems with it, just one second. Okay, so I’ll note that the Councillor said it was the amended one and it hadn’t been articulated which amended one certainly could use one from Councillor Frank. Finance does have a question, Mr. Murray. Have you, I believe you’ve seen it. Yeah, everyone, I appreciate your patience.

[44:30] We’re just trying to speak at the right one to start for we’re not already amending things to start. So if the clerk can put up the one from Councillor Frank that the Councillor Stevenson’s trying to move, we can deal with the question from finance. Councillor Frank, I believe that’s the, no. Okay, Councillor Frank, staff are saying they don’t have it.

[45:43] I was trying to save the time of an amendment, but if it’s faster— You still might save time, we’ll see. We’re almost there. I’ll recognize too that once something’s amended and amended, everyone gets to restart their speaker’s time. So like I said, you still might be saving time. Okay, I think we got sorted out. We’re just loading it in now. So just to clarify, you want to Councillor Stevenson’s original numbers and then your highlighted portion.

[47:22] I have a thumbs up, yes. Just finishing loading that out. I’ll note for this one as well, as it pertains to the health unit that via Zoom, Ms. Williams, Dr. Summers and two other staff compliment will be available to speak to this or ask questions once we get to that portion. Okay, if I’ll look to the mover and seconder, we’re thinking this is it, looking for confirmation. I have a head nod from Councillor Frank, a thumbs up from finance of the head nod from Councillor Stevenson.

[48:04] Okay, so it’s on the floor. If you refresh your E-Scribe, it’ll show on your screen for you, it is on the screen for the public. Councillor Stevenson, I’m gonna go to you to read it out just for people to see. And then I will start a speaker’s list. And if you want to speak first, that’s fine. If not, I can start with someone else, like your seconder. Thanks, the whole thing read out or just the change at the bottom. Oh, things are together, if you… Okay, so the business case, P2, Middlesex London Health Unit Debt Retirement be excluded from the Mayor’s Table 2026 Annual Budget Update. 2026 operating expenditures minus 2,366,000.

[48:42] 2026 tax levy minus 2,366,000. The Middlesex London Health Unit is requested to submit an additional funding request for 2026 onwards for permanent base funding for an additional 2.0 FTE. It being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication date in November 14th, 2025 from E Williams Chief Executive Officer in Middlesex London Health Unit with respect to this matter. Mr. Murray, a clarification? Yes, please, Madam Chair.

[49:14] I appreciate the opportunity. I would just appreciate some clarification on the intention with respect to submitting an additional funding request for 2026. Mechanically, I’m not sure how that’s possible given that we are now in the process of the 2026 budget deliberations. So some clarity on that would be helpful. I’m not sure if the Councilor intended 2027 onwards, but clarity would be helpful. Thank you. Go to Councilor Frank on that one. Sure, thank you. Yes, the intention is that I’d want the Health Unit to submit an additional request for funding for 2026 for 2FTE.

[49:49] My understanding is at any point throughout the year, we can add funding to our budgets. We approve spending that’s outside of the budget cycle. So I would want ideally at the next possible opportunity for them to submit a budget case for 2FTs. Mr. Murray, I just heard a budget case mentioned and this is what we are today. Just for clarification on the process. Thank you, Madam Chair. So what we’re doing right now is the budget process. The budget process will be completed in the next handful of weeks. The mechanism, if there’s a request for permanent ongoing funding going forward, would be for the Health Unit to bring that forward as part of the 2027 budget in a business case for additional funding as part of that process.

[50:36] If the Health Unit were to come forward mid-year, we would be into a situation of having to consider a one-time funding request from a one-time funding source. The opportunity though for permanent ongoing requests is as part of the budget process. Councilor Frank. Thank you. And given that you did highlight, we’ll be in this process for the next couple of weeks. If they are able to submit it before Council meeting, then are we able to consider it at that point? Mr. Mary?

[51:09] No Madam Budget Chair, my understanding is procedurally, it needs to be done now for adding additional ongoing funds to the budget. It needs to be done as part of this budget committee meeting, which will then be approved at Council next Wednesday to finalize thereafter. Councilor Frank. Thank you. Then could we reword it to ask for one-time funding for 2026 and then a permanent budget case for 2027? Okay. I’m gonna get that we’re getting really into the weeds of amending potential stuff on the floor. Just procedurally, it seems to be a lot back and forth with staff.

[51:43] So if you’d like to make a change of what’s on the floor right now and remove or change something, I’ll allow it after that it’s in the hands of committee and debate and timing is gonna start. Final comment, Councilor Frank? Yes, then I’d like to make that amendment that I just said. You got to repeat that for the clerk, she’s. Sure, that the Middlesex London Health Union be requested to submit an additional funding request for 2026 for one-time funding for additional two FTE and moving forward in the 2027 budget for permanent funding for 2.0 FTE.

[52:33] Sorry, we don’t have financial numbers to go with this. I’m seeing notes from finance that the budget stuff right now is normally based on numbers of amount coming in or out versus other direction to do things. I don’t believe that’s gonna be procedurally in order. I’ll check with Mr. Murray’s team. Thank you, Madam Chair. If we are adding to the budget today, we need a number and amount to support in addition to the budget as part of this process.

[53:07] So I do not have any information to provide in terms of what the cost of set FTEs will be. Madam Chair? Yes. Point of order. I mean, we’re spending a lot of time on this already. Respectfully, we do not have a budget business case submitted and approved by the Middlesex London Health Unit Board. We don’t have a number and we have a counselor trying to add full-time staff with all due respect without a number and without board approval.

[53:43] I would suggest that this amendment is out of order, period, given that it’s not been approved by the board. Thank you. I don’t know what’s approved by the board or not those conversations in that space. I will note that I’m here for finance. We don’t have time to start doing more business cases before the budget council next week. Mr. Deputy Mayor Lewis, getting to where you’re going to finance the second piece below the numbers procedurally cannot even be dealt with today.

[55:31] The request would submit additional things. I’ll note that we don’t know what for any board or ABC had a conversation with the board versus not. So we don’t necessarily have access to the information. Mr. Murray. Thank you, Madam Chair. So in order to action this as part of the 2026 budget process, we would need a number. So unfortunately cannot action that without that. And as you noted as well, we do not have information as to whether the board endorsed such a request of the city or not.

[56:12] So procedurally, ‘cause we’re not gonna be able to dispose of it ‘cause there’s no numbers attached to it, I would deal, deem the Middlesex Line and Health Unit request to submit additional stuff to be out of order. So the budget process that we’re in today, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I do have numbers if you’d like. So I can provide those. And additionally, it has been moved and seconded. So are you able to withdraw that as the chair, even though it’s been moved and seconded? So I gave some leeway.

[56:58] Hoping it was gonna save us time realizing you both had things on the go. It clearly has not. I’m deeming that once again, like nobody saw it beforehand before it went in, that section of the motion can’t be dealt with today. You’re welcome to challenge the chair if you want. But the numerical values that Councilor Stevenson had circulated on the agenda already is fine and can be dealt with in budget. I’m deeming that second portion would need to be removed. Councilor Frank.

[57:29] Thank you. I do have the numbers 240K a year. Just let everyone know I’m gonna be less generous with anything behind going forward from here as it’s costing more time than we’re gaining.

[58:19] Mr. Murray, the knowing 240K, is there a certain spot where to put that numerical value in to make it plausible if we can get to debate? Thank you, Madam Chair. So if we do have numbers today and we are including that as part of this amendment, our recommendation would be to reflect that on an ongoing basis. So for 2026 and 2027, we would need to reflect the additional cost in both the operating expenditures and the tax levy figures for 2026 and 2027.

[59:02] My team could certainly provide that. Those figures, if you give us a couple of minutes, I will note, however, though, that the $241,000 figure that I believe Councillor Frank is referencing relates to the principal and interest repayments on the debt, no, it’s not. Okay, thank you. Okay. I’m gonna note that essentially even adding the $240,000 is that they come back asking for it. So this still needs to be wrapped up and dealt with today.

[59:35] And I don’t see a way that they can come back with something in writing of additional business case today in this moment and still have that procedural issue that it’s directing a future business case and to come back and there’s no coming back after today. Still deeming that out of order. Mr. Murray, a few comments, like just trying to actually get to the business of the day.

[1:00:19] ‘Cause then it still notes that they’re requested to submit an additional request and today is the debate and there’s no way that they can come back two day with an additional request. Hello, sorry, Madam Chair. I will also fight for committee’s attention that the health unit budget is cost shared between the city and the county. So any request of the city should reflect the city’s portion and not just the gross amount of additional resources. So the city’s share is approximately 85% of the municipal funding portion of any municipal funding request.

[1:01:12] Councillor, is it possible to defer this to after lunch? This particular motion, like can we— It’s kind of already on the floor. I’m hearing from the clerks, we could always deal with it if you vote. Madam Chair, I’m prepared to call the question. We’re winging out a motion on the floor without details. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’m already, I appreciate your frustration. I’m already dealing with 1.0 orders, not yours at this time. The clerk is also advised we could just vote no on this or yes, to dispose of it and then should and if it fails, go back to the original motion that you had circulated.

[1:02:00] And as, and we’re over the threshold of monetary value, so you can’t just call the question. And there’s no calling question at committee. So two ways to know, sorry about that. Okay, so I’m gonna, sorry, I’m sorry, I wanna hear that one on the record.

[1:02:46] The mayor said he was wrong that you can call the question at committee. Okay, so you can call the question at committee, just it’s over the financial value, two call side question. So to usually get out of this, there’s two ways, one, that section be withdrawn and I don’t, is there an appetite to withdraw that wording, Councillor Frank? Okay, one, you can withdraw that the wording and you can deal with the numerical values only. Or two, we can stick it together, vote it down and then the original numbers would be there, could be put forward.

[1:03:30] If there’s still a mover and a seconder. Councillor Truss, you’re gonna have to wait. I was just speaking to Councillor Frank, just one moment. I can withdraw and potentially bring something back later today, so I’ll withdraw at this point just so that we can move forward with the first motion. Thank you, like I said, procedurally, did anyone object to that? You object to it. Okay, so we have an objection. So now it’s on the floor. I’m starting my speaker’s lesson since someone tried to get out of us and now we’re still into it.

[1:04:04] So I will start the speaker’s list. I will note that throughout the day there’s things already circulated that we will deal with procedurally bringing something else forward is also in order today, as long as it’s part of the budget. I will start my speaker’s list with Councillor Frank and then I think Councillor Ferreira and then there’s someone over here. Like I said, this day takes as long as we want it to. You’re welcome to say no, you’re not gonna say yes, you’re welcome to say nothing. But I am timing, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you and appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this.

[1:04:43] So the reason why I’m supportive of this direction is because in regards to paying off the one-time debt retirement, I’m not very supportive of that in that 70% of that debt is the province’s debt. The reason why there is a loan in the first place is ‘cause the province would not provide capital funding for the health unit to be able to fit out their new space and so they had to take it alone. And I think that was very responsible of them and we are paying off this debt over time. That being said, I don’t think it’s in the best interest of residents of London to be paying off provincial shares of funding and I think that we should go through the process of having the province continue to pay that off.

[1:05:20] That being said, I do understand the intention I appreciate trying to free up operating funding within the health units budget because we are chronically underfunding the health unit. The provincial contribution on average for health units is 57 per capita. In London, we get $50, so we’re missing $7 per person, which equates to millions of dollars in lost revenue and therefore lost service. At the municipal level, London in 2024 gave $18 and the average is $30 per person. So we are also chronically underfunding the health unit from the municipal side. And that results, as we’ve seen in the letter in service cuts and reductions, we had to cut 22.5 staff positions last year because we are unable to be able to make it work with the minimal increases we’ve been having.

[1:06:02] So again, I appreciate the efforts to try and find long-term operating savings for the health unit by trying to pay off one-time debt. That said, as I said at the beginning, I don’t wanna be paying the province this year. So the reason why I was putting forward the amendment in regards to having two additional staff, that is the net amount that the health unit would be able to have if they had their debt paid off per year. So I’m supportive of having the province pay their fair share as well as increasing our contribution to the health unit because I do think that those services are desperately needed.

[1:06:39] So I want to move forward in this direction and hopefully there is some support for that as well. Possibly, procedurally, we can split those two sections if somebody wants it. Separated, mention it in your speaker time. I have Councillor Ferreira and then Councillor Chau, so I don’t know if I saw your hand to this or something else.

[1:07:15] Okay, you’ll pass. Okay, and then I had Councillor Stevenson and Deputy Mayor Lewis. So Councillor Ferreira. Thanks, Budget Chair. Good way to start the morning. So I guess, I would remind or what I saw at audit committee yesterday was Middlesex London Health Unit basically say that it’s very tough or they’re unable to achieve the standards as set out on the Ontario Health Act. And that’s because the MLHU is short on staff, very short on personnel. I think they’ve quoted 22 people, 22 nurses have been, I guess, released from the organization in the last few years.

[1:07:52] And the original motion that came, or sorry, the original item in the budget from the mayor’s budget itself was speaking to that. It was trying to pay off debt so we could have more operations and those FTEs, hopefully would be added to the roster so we could have more services available. So half of this motion, I’m not for because I do wanna see us paying off the debt. I understand that we don’t wanna be taking up provincial obligations and that is said here quite a bit. This item at the mayor’s budget does do something different but I just, I’m not sure if we’re gonna see the province actually bring us more funding for more FTEs, for more personnel on the ground.

[1:08:36] So I would ask, I guess, from what the chair has asked to split those two items ‘cause I would support the bottom part adding the additional two FTEs or actually making that request to the province, sorry, to the health unit, which would make a request to the province. So I guess the first question I would ask would be for the FTE compliment that we could potentially increase by the mayor’s budget item itself without this motion. How many FTEs would we see be included if we did pay off this debt? Okay, so I believe the health unit is on line with us today.

[1:09:17] It was a specific question. I believe that if the mayor’s budget has tabled, went through what you could see for a staff compliment change. Roughly, if we can get some rough numbers on how many personnel we’d be able to add to the organization with this item from the mayor’s budget specifically, not this part of the nation. Thank you. So we have Ms. Williams and Dr. Summers with us. I’ll leave it to you to trade off who wants to answer the question and welcome. They’re on Zoom. If you do your little toggle thing, you could see them.

[1:09:52] Thank you, Madam Chair and through you, it would be two FTE of health unit staff that we would be able to fund. If the debt is repaid, Dr. Summers can speak to what area of work we would deploy those staff. Good afternoon or good morning. And thanks for having us and for considering this. So as Ms. Williams indicated, we’d be able to fund an additional two FTE likely in public health inspector capacity and emergency preparedness and directly serving vulnerable populations would largely be where those resources would be allocated given our current most biggest areas of risk.

[1:10:33] Thank you, Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate that from MLHU. So basically what I would like to see would be as many increase on the compliment as possible. So the two FTE requests for the Middlesex London Health Unit to go to the province, I like, I’m not in support of the first part of the amendment. So I would like to break it up ‘cause I would support the bottom part. And I guess another question I would just ask, really a quick question. I do see on the business case number two that the total tax period impact for the average household would be $10 and 31 cents.

[1:11:08] But that’s, I do see spread over 24 to 27. So I was just wanting to get some confirmation. If that amount is for the entire multi-year budget schedule or just specific years. Team Finance? Sorry, could you please repeat the question? In business case P2, I do see where it says total 20, 24 to 20, 27 tax period impact in dollars.

[1:11:46] I see the average amount for the average household would be about $10 and 31 cents. I was wondering if you could break that down, give a little more details if that’s per year or the entire cycle or how much would it fall within 26 and 27? Finance? Thank you, 3D Manager. So that is the total impact in terms of the total savings covering the total 20, 24, 20, 27 period. So the savings is $10 and 31 cents as noted in 20, 26. And that is the, again, because it’s one time in nature, it reflects the total impact for the four years.

[1:12:24] Councilor Ferris. Thank you. So about, let’s say on average about $2 and 50 cents-ish, a little bit more per year for the average taxpayer for the average household. So I think, like I understand, we don’t want to be picking up obligations for the province, but I also don’t necessarily have faith that we’ll see monies come down for our health unit in the near term, especially in a critical time. And then hearing where potential FTEs would go with this paying off of the debt, I know that that would happen immediately. So like I said, I’d like to see as many more compliment added to the roster as possible.

[1:12:59] So I would be voting for the bottom part, that inclusion of the two full-time equivalent. And I would be voting for the mayor’s item here. And that’s just because I’d like to see as many compliment added as soon as possible. Thank you. All note, Councilor Ferris, that it’s requests that they come back and ask for stuff, that they’re not automatically getting the money to date for those positions, to support differentiation. And those votes have been split in E-Scribe when we get there.

[1:13:30] I had Councillor Stevenson next, and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, thank you. I appreciate Councillor Frank’s seconding this motion. I mean, if the real intent here is to ensure that there’s two FTEs at the health services, there’s deeper ways to do that than paying $2.4 million on a loan that the province is responsible for 75% of.

[1:14:08] We’ve had people come and ask for $80,000 a year to help get doctors. There has to be another way to provide the services that doesn’t cost the taxpayers $2 million. We, at the public participation meeting, we heard people say they’re really, really struggling. It is not equitable across the city. There are some that say no problem. I’d pay more. And there are many who are saying, as LMCH said in their business case, we can’t make the numbers work. We’re on a fixed income.

[1:14:40] The 16% property tax increase over the last two years is insurmountable. So how do we tell those Londoners that we’re using $2 million of their property tax money to pay for a loan that the province would pay 70 to 75% of if we just continued on the way it is, all to get two full-time equivalents that we could get for $240,000 a year. So if supporting Councillor Frank’s amendment stops taxpayers from spending a million dollars that they don’t have to and stops 2.0 in hitting in one year, then I’m happy to support that.

[1:15:22] So I’d really encourage Councillors to remember the voices of those who were pleading as LMCH did in their business case. We gave them money. How do we help the Londoners who are also on a fixed income, also facing unexpected insurmountable property tax increases? Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just cover a few points here as quickly as I can.

[1:15:56] Colleagues, you cannot look at P2 in isolation. P2 goes with P3. In addition to paying off this loan, we have a $700,000 operating deficit because of provincial shortfall funding that we have to prove in P3. And the suggestion is a two-year drawdown on a reserve fund so that the work can continue to get the province back up to the proper ratio. So I’m supportive of that and I didn’t pull that one. But you cannot look at and listen, I agree with both Councillor Frank and Councillor Stevenson that paying the provincial bill sucks.

[1:16:36] They should be paying it themselves, plain and simple, but they haven’t. So now we’re in a position where we can either, and I think this is really, really important. Councillor Ferrer, you said you want the two FTEs or you’re going to vote for the second part, but not the first part. If you vote for, sorry, you’re going to vote for the first part to pay off the debt. You don’t have to vote for the second part if we pay off the debt. The two positions are created. What I actually heard from Councillor Ferrer is he wants to now fund four positions if he voted for, and that’s up to Councillor Ferrer, but we can provide these two positions by paying off the debt.

[1:17:17] It also means we’re not directing public funds to banks for interest payments. We’re directing public funds back into public services. And I’d rather pay off the loan and direct public dollars into public services than make banks more profitable on a loan. I really, really personally object to trying to add FTE positions to a border commission when it has not been a position endorsed by the board in the submission they made to our finance department. And I will agree with the chair that we’re not privy to the discussions that the board had, presumably in camera when personnel matters are involved, but it is not the submission that the health unit made to the city.

[1:18:02] And so for Councillors to just start adding because we think it’s a good idea, without board endorsed budget submissions, I will absolutely not support. The removal of 22 staff, I heard 22 nurses have gone away. That’s not true. And we just heard Dr. Summers say that he would use these positions likely for public health inspections. That’s not public nurses. We need to be careful about our language around assuming what staff positions have been removed. Some of these I suspect were administrative. Some of them were inspectors.

[1:18:35] Some of them may have been public nurses, but to say that 22 nurses were removed is not factual. So please keep that in mind as we speak about this. I also heard, and I’m gonna say this respectfully, when we talk about people struggling, it was not a 16% increase in the last two years. That was the average increase across all property tax classes. And Mr. Murray has provided graphs to show us what the residential impact has been. And that I believe comes out to 13.8 or something like that, but I don’t have the graph in front of me.

[1:19:11] And I’ll allow Mr. Murray to correct that number if it’s wrong. So Madam Chair, can I just ask Mr. Murray what the residential, not across all classes, but the residential impact has been in the last two years. Mr. Murray, if you remove that number now, if not, I’ll come back. Have just a one moment finger. I don’t know if you want to continue speaking while they retrieve that or you want to wait. Okay, in the in-term, I’ll note that I have Mayor Morgan and then Councillor Hopkins, and then I have some Councillors signing up for seconds on this already.

[1:19:48] And Deputy Mayor, you’re at three and a half minutes. You’re speaking time. Mr. Murray, you’re ready, please go ahead. Thank you, through you Madam Chair. The total impact of the last two years has been approximately 14.3%. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Murray. I appreciate you getting that math for us. So I’m not arguing that that’s not still been an impact. It absolutely has, but it’s not 16%. I will not, and I’m gonna say this for the rest of the day, I will not support just adding staff when we haven’t had business cases submitted by boards to add staff.

[1:20:25] We all serve on boards. We should respect the board’s submissions that were made. I will support paying off the debt reluctantly because I do not want to bail the province out, but on the other hand, by bailing the province out, we do free up the dollars for two full-time staff, and we free up those dollars permanently. Ongoing, if we don’t do this, all we are going to set ourselves up for is for the health unit to come back and ask for another increase next year and another increase of the next year.

[1:20:57] And if we do that, that is an increase in perpetuity. If we pay off the debt, that is a savings in perpetuity because we’re no longer paying interest. So I am gonna vote to pay off the debt. I am not gonna support just randomly adding staff because we think that we should. Mayor Morgan. Thanks, I appreciate the comments. Let me, I want to start by saying that, like I totally respect and agree with where Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Frank are coming from. Like you are absolutely right. You know, there is a pathway here where the province will pay a share of the debt, the principal interest payments.

[1:21:35] And that’s fine, and I’ve articulated it a couple of times. You know, I think the province should always try to pay their fair share, but in this case, having the health unit paid principal and interest payments for a decade or having them have some capacity for public health programming, my preference was having them have the capacity for public health programming. So I also want to respect that the attempt to try to fix that challenge by adding a couple of FTEs because I think that’s pretty critical given how you look at case P3. So I just want to say I totally respect where the Councillors are coming from and I’m not saying in any way that their numbers are incorrect in the way they’re approaching this.

[1:22:14] But I want to talk about the evolution of how this business case came forward, the other proposal and why I think we should stick with what I put in the table budget. The first piece is, you know, the development of the business cases are a collaboration between, especially on the ones that involve the county, the county, the Health Unit Board, and of course, my office, and then tabled for Council approval. In this case, this is the proposal that the Board of Health asked for, and also the proposal that the county is willing to put in their budget. And I spoke to the ward in this morning and the one that the ward is willing to support. And the wardens shares the views.

[1:22:47] We don’t really like that the province isn’t paying its share. We also don’t like that the province isn’t paying its per capita share. But let me go back to a couple of things. One, Councillor Frank also articulated that the municipality has laggard in how much it pays per capita. And so I do think that there is some capacity for us to put in some additional money here on a one-time basis. The second piece is with respect to how this impacts the budget. And I spoke to Mr. Murray and he can correct me if I’m wrong. But if we don’t put this in the budget, yes, it can lower 2026 by 0.3.

[1:23:24] But it also raises 2027 by 0.3 because of where the numbers land and where we got to get back to because there isn’t money in the 2027 budget. But I didn’t claw back the actual savings from the Health Unit. So that’s what gives them the operational capacity to deal with some of the pressures they have in the future and avoids future municipal asks. So that’s the one piece. Doing it the way that’s proposed by then on top of that, adding another couple of public health nurses is going to have 2026 go down by 0.3, 2027 go up by 0.7, and then up by some additional amount of the two public health nurses.

[1:24:06] So it’s going to raise the future budget by more because we’re doing two things at once. So I think that this could get really complicated. One of the simplest ways to address this is let’s, although we don’t like it, pay off their debt, give them 10 years of capacity to have public health programming as was articulated by our Health Unit professionals who work there. Let’s partner with the county on this.

[1:24:38] And let’s continue our advocacy because there’s a bigger piece here about the joint advocacy for the province to pay its fair share over a longer time horizon on all of the operating dollars, the per capita, we’re behind the per capita rate on average, all we’re asking for is fairness there. And I’m happy to add in an ask to go and ask the province for some of this money too. I’m not sure if they’ll pay it or not. But if someone would like to add that direction, I’m not adverse to that as well. I don’t think that that should stop us from proceeding in this way. I don’t know how much time I have left, Chair, but— Minute 20.

[1:25:11] OK. So I get that this one is not comfortable. But I get that there’s other alternative ways to do this. And I respect that we can have a healthy robust debate on this. But what I do appreciate is that everybody seems to value the public health services here. The easiest and quickest path to helping them with their problem is the way that they asked for it. And then adding any additional pieces of advocacy you’d like to add on top of that beyond what we’re doing in the future to try to recoup those costs. But I just don’t think it’s going to be a great position to be in if we lower the tax rate by 0.3, raise it by 0.3, and then on top of that add some additional public health resources.

[1:25:50] I think the easiest pathway is the way that I tabled, even if the municipality is paying slightly more than its share. And again, I go back to the municipalities below its average share that municipalities pay and the provinces too. And so we probably both need to add a little bit of money. This is one of the ways that we could. But we’ve got to keep the pressure on the province to pay their share as well. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate Mayor Morgan’s comments around the advocacy. We were at the AMO conference. We were advocating the need for provincial funding.

[1:26:30] We’re in November. And I’m not confident that they’re going to step up. So we have the problem. We need to deal with it. I appreciate Councillor Stephen’s comments around being sensitive to the increases in tax as the burden that we put on Londoners. But I think we also have to be sensitive to how we can help Londoners. So I am supportive of paying down the debt. And I am supportive of adding extra money for two staff.

[1:27:13] It was quite interesting when we were at the delegation how some of our schools, you know, district, have nurses and some don’t. And yes, we can point the finger to the province. But we, too, have a responsibility here. And sometimes these debates come forward. This is where we need to have the debates. And I really do appreciate it. And I can go both ways. But I do know that supporting this going forward, we are doing something here as a council.

[1:27:50] And I hope we can find a way to come together and support this. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Morgan, come back. Knowing that what Councillor Hopkins said reminds us of AMO, we did do delegations on this topic. And you made a comment of we could direct you to go ask for this money. Would you commit to just going and asking for it, or I’ll get into amendments as well? Well, to answer your question, when the ward and I spoke this morning, I said we’re both committed that we should bring forward to our respective bodies, paying this off with municipal dollars, following the health unit’s plan.

[1:28:30] But we both are already committed to, let’s actually also write a letter to say to the province, we paid off some of this debt. We think you should be a contributor. And then lead that into our current campaign of, we also want them to up their per capita share to the average. So I don’t need a direction for council to do that. It’s my intent to proceed that way anyways. I don’t think that changed the decision for us today. Thank you. I had Councillor Lehman next, and then Councillor McAllister. Thank you. So there’s a couple of things I’m going to pack here.

[1:29:02] First of all, I don’t think this is the right form to bring forward ad hoc requests for a certain amount of FTEs. There’s a number of ABCs that we have in the city, and I wouldn’t like to start sending a trend for that. That we need to add a couple of staff or library or a couple of sworn officers for the police. I think those requests should come through to the proper channels in this particular case. The Middlesex County is a part of this as well to make this request outside of, with their agreeing to that.

[1:29:38] I don’t think, again, this is proper. This should come from the board with the partners signed on. I’d like to refer to a sentence. We received a communication from Dr. Summers, outlining this request that led to this being in the budget, and some of the reasons, and one is financial. It deals with the kind of where Councillor was going in the request for a couple of FTEs. And it says the 241,000 plus interest as currently views pay off the loan could be redirected to programs and services that directly impact the health and wellbeing of lenders in the residents of Middlesex County.

[1:30:24] And that’s the reason why I’ll be supporting this debt repayment. But I want support getting into the weeds on specific FTEs. I think what’s being said around here, of course, we see, for sure, the important role in the health of the community, that the health unit plays, and fully support that. We also recognize that the challenges that we have in the funding model, funding for the unit comes from three sources, City of London, which is the bigger partner, the county, and then the province.

[1:30:59] We are apparently the second lowest per population of funding. So I think that has to be addressed. Now we’re looking at covering off some debt, which the county has agreed to share. I think it makes total sense to go to the third partner, which is the province and has that. I was going to make a motion directing the mayor do that, but apparently that’s been covered off and the mayor is going to do that. So I will not go down that road. So to sum it up, we’ll not support the addition of a couple of FTEs and we’ll support the pain down of this death with the acknowledgement of the challenges where I would like to see the province address.

[1:31:50] Thank you, Councillor McPhalister. And once again, for committee, I’m doing first round and then I’ll circle back to second round. Thank you to the chair. Appreciate the discussion. I’ve agreed with a lot, it’s already being said. I think we really do need to hold the province accountable. I was part of the delegation we did with Middlesex Health Unit in August for AMO. I mean, ideally, I’d love to be able to come back and say, yeah, the province said that they’ll up their contribution, cannot say that. And I would love to be proved wrong on this. This is one of those cases where I would be overjoyed if the province, no, no, all of a sudden we said, yes, we recognize we have underfunded this and we’ll pay it.

[1:32:29] And to date, I have not seen that on any file and I would love to see it. So again, I think there’s no harm in us going again, asking the province, not holding my breath, but we have to do what we have to do. And public health is something that I take very seriously and I don’t think we should sacrifice it. I think anyone who’s aware of what’s kind of going on in terms of the public health realm, I think the province is slipping back on that front. I think we’re losing ground on a lot of areas where we had previously had successes. When I see the cuts for programming and staff and I think there’s a direct result in terms of what we’re seeing with those losses.

[1:33:08] And this is an area where we can help now retire the debt and be able to put those resources back into public health, which absolutely needs to be maintained and sustained into the future. So I hope we’ll support what the mayor originally proposed. I understand where the council is from coming from with this. But until I see the province come to the table with something, I’m not willing to sacrifice the public health resources. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. So I just had a question about from the perspective of the health unit, does this change?

[1:33:43] If we were to find this, not the two FTE, but the debt repayment, does that change their perspective on our contribution to the average municipal per capita amount? To our friends at the health unit. Through you, Madam Chair, we would need to recalculate the per capita funding contributions. This would be one time funding as opposed to ongoing base, which is what the initial calculations were based on.

[1:34:17] But we can certainly take that into consideration and recalculate those numbers. Councilor Raman. Thank you. Well, I would really appreciate that number because my perspective is when we walk into a meeting with the province and we have an up to our per capita contribution and ask them to up theirs, we’re going in with a weak position. So I would like to get a better understanding of if that’s the perception of the health unit that this then changes our per capita amount and it moves us to a more favorable number to, I guess, in a sense, looking at their per capita versus our per capita puts us at a more equated level.

[1:35:01] If not, I wouldn’t support this at this time. Yeah, so thank you for those comments. Ms. Williams, I don’t know when you could have those numbers, just looking to you to for comment. And I’ll go back to the councilor if she has anything else to add. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you. I did want to provide clarification that while I know it’s not the agenda item, but business case P3 would materially impact the municipal contribution on a per capita basis, but we can do that analysis and have that back to the committee likely by end of date tomorrow.

[1:35:44] Okay, we may or may not be meeting tomorrow, which is yet to be determined, but it looks like we’ll have those numbers before council as well as long as they could be circulated beforehand to give councilors an opportunity to reach out and do any investigative questions they want. Councilor Raman, final comment. Thank you. I would appreciate the numbers on P3 as well as P2 then. I will say that I am rather uncomfortable paying the provinces share. My perspective on this is I don’t think this helps our negotiating position to show that we have available dollars to be able to backfill the province.

[1:36:26] I think that ultimately I’m hearing from residents that they would like us to find ways to better the services we’re providing. I agree, I think this was a good proposal to look at ways to fund instead of paying banks and interests. I completely respect that that’s a perspective, but at the same time, I don’t think it helps to reflect our needs for more staff. And I understand these aren’t nursing positions. I’m just wondering if the health unit can comment on what these positions are.

[1:37:02] I believe from what I read through the package, it’s more about inspections and other potential uses or other staff positions that could be used for other things. I’m wondering if they might be able to comment to the health unit. Thank you for the question. Again, when we look at these modifications that funding, it goes into our global pool where we’re trying to address a whole bunch of gaps, recognizing that we still have global gaps that we’re trying to fill.

[1:37:35] The anticipated positions would be likely public health inspectors supported potentially by some nursing positions depending on exactly how the funding is able to be utilized and as well as some strategic specialists around planning and broader health promotion. So we’d be looking at that type of skill set. We might also be exploring tobacco enforcement again, depending exactly on how the funding becomes available. Councillor Robin.

[1:38:07] Thank you. Again, I appreciate the conversation and the answers to the questions and any supplementary information I can get at this time. I’m likely a no on two, but yes, part of the three. Thank you. Looking for any amounts for first comments before I circle through second. Okay, so I’m gonna go to a Councillor Trowson and then Councillor Ferrera. Very briefly, I just wanna say, I fully support the comments that were made by a number of people putting in the deputy mayor, the mayor, Councillor Lehman.

[1:38:48] I am in strong support of the debt reduction payment that was originally in the business plan. I came prepared today having studied that to vote for that enthusiastically. I am not prepared to vote for the add-on and I should say as much as I would like to see as many additional FTE brought to this unit as possible, I would really prefer to see something come from the board. So I’m not prepared to, sadly, I’m not prepared to support the additional to FTE, although I do think by passing the debt relief motion that’s in the principal package that we’ve been studying, it makes that a bit moot for now and that will give the board and the unit the opportunity to come back with something more specific.

[1:39:40] I understand from the conversation so far that this hasn’t even been through the board, I haven’t heard anybody correct that. So just to be clear, I am fully supportive of the important role that this unit plays and that’s why I’m willing to go ahead and support the debt relief. And when you look at the bulleted list in their letter, these are serious matters of public health concern. And I think that we’re gonna incur a lot more expenses in the long run if we allow these things to slide.

[1:40:20] So that’s where I am on this and thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Chair. Just, I guess, some more comments. Like here in the discussion here, I gotta agree with a lot of the things that I’ve heard as well. I do have my own restraints from backfilling any provincial obligations as far as I’m concerned. But at the same time, I do see that there’s no movement on that on the province side. I do like to hear that there’s the freeing up of money regardless of its admin positions, regardless of its inspection positions or nurse positions, that freeing up of money does allow Middlesex Health Unit to be able to find extra capacity where it has.

[1:41:01] So in the end, you know, am I looking for two? Am I looking for four? Yeah, I’m looking for four. If we can get the opportunity to potentially increase the compliment by four positions regardless of where they are, I’m obviously for that. You know, I hear the concerns about positions of negotiation. I definitely hear those concerns. I, for one, feel like the negotiation with the Minister of Health or with the province may not necessarily be a negotiation. I think it would be more likely a steam role on the province’s side rather than our side.

[1:41:37] Like in the end, I feel like there’s a difference of opinion between us and the province on ideology of what public health is. You know, on the provincial side, public health is something that can be commodified. On my side, on our side, public health is a public good. So that difference of ideology right there may not necessarily help in negotiating any type of negotiation. So I think that the actions I see here, especially with respect to the mayor’s item that he’s put on for the budget, is a bold action. Is something that we need to do because the reality is is, you know, we’re probably not gonna get that funding.

[1:42:13] I see the action or I see this motion here. I’m not in support of reducing or not supporting that debt, but I am in support of potentially having the health unit request from the province if I’m getting this right, those two extra FTEs. So that’s why I’m still on my, I’m still saying I’d like to split up the vote. But in the end, I feel like we just need to realize that we need to take that action now. We need to be bold here because this is a critical time. Middlesex Health Unit has again repeatedly told us that they are having trouble meeting the standards of the Health Act.

[1:42:50] And I think this is a good motion, this amendment, half of it anyways, is something I’d support. I think this is a good direction. So those are just the comments I wanted to put on the floor. Thank you, five minutes. Councilor Layman, could you take the chair for a moment? I have the chair. Who is the next speaker on your list? The less next you probably person’s gonna meet me, ideally. Okay, I didn’t know if, I’m sorry, I thought there was— I should have just gave you the whole list. Gold problem? Okay, I’ll go to you. So that could have been a trick question and it’s yours for the rest of the day. Just a question through you to either our staff, the mayor might know this one as well.

[1:43:26] Just, I’m in support of the, nobody likes backfilling somebody else’s bill. The problem has been a very bad partner in my opinion in this in public health, especially with the rate at which London is growing. We’re meeting their housing targets and yet our residents don’t have adequate access to public health in my opinion. It’s that this business case requests for London’s share, the amount required the outstanding loans is subject to approval of the County of Middlesex, but there are equal contribution. Do we know procedurally, I know you spoke to them this morning, Mr. Mayor, when they’re gonna have that debate within their chambers to know, I know that just ‘cause the lead of a council is in support of it doesn’t mean their members will be of just what that feels like, of the how the vote’s gonna go and when that vote’s gonna happen, Mr. Presiding Officer.

[1:44:16] That was directed to who? Oh, I’ll go to the mayor. So I don’t know the date of the county council meeting where they’re dealing with their budget, but the clerk may know that or you know, the health unit may know that because they have to present to both of us. I’ll go back to the budget, Chair. Ms. Williams has her hand up on screen, which you can’t see ‘cause I have the magic screen view. Oh, please go ahead. Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s December 10th. I’ll go back to you. Thank you, that’s it. Thank you, I’ll return the chair.

[1:44:49] Thank you. Next on the speaker’s list, I have Councillor Frank using three minutes, two minutes remaining. Thank you. I just had a couple additional comments given some of the conversation. I want to point out the logical underpinning of the request to pay down the 2.4 million is to free up $240,000 for two FTE spots, and I’m literally applying the exact same logic to my amendment, and yet there’s comments that this is wrong or it should not proceed because it is no board approved request, even though the outcome is the exact same, which is having $240,000 available for funding for two FTEs. It’s just a different way to get there that doesn’t require lenders to pay the province’s portion of the 2.4 million.

[1:45:30] So the same outcome, just different scenario and different person who’s phoning the bill. Additionally, I just want to remind folks that sitting at the seat as Council provides us the ability to add and reduce funding to other agencies, boards, and commissions budgets, we do it all the time, whether or not it’s been sanctioned by the board, because at Council we make Council-related budget decisions and I’m not wearing my MLHU hat here, I’m wearing my Councillor hat. I was also mentioned we should focus on the origin and the evolution of the business case. The evolution of the business case was that it was supposed to come from a reserve fund or the surplus.

[1:46:02] It was not originally intended to come from the property tax budget, and I think that’s an important distinction because I would have actually been supportive of it coming from a reserve fund. And finally, we have been lobbying the years, for years to have the province fix the health unit funding formula. We have seen zero movement there. So I unfortunately have zero faith in the province that they’ll be responsible and pay their fair share despite how many times we go and ask them. And if we keep pleading and we get nothing, I don’t really see the point in continuing to do that. We can either instead charge the province their fair share of the debt. So we have the ability to force them to pay the debt or we have zero ability to get them to give us cash.

[1:46:38] So I would rather them pay than us pony up the cash. So just wanted to make those additional comments. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. You’ve used two minutes, three minutes remaining. Okay, thanks. I appreciate the discussion on this. There’s a long list of shortfalls in health funding in our city. There’s a lot of desperation out there. We cannot be using property tax dollars to make things right, like the list is long at the emergency room, people not having family doctors.

[1:47:13] I mean, there’s a lot. It was a perfectly reasonable response of the board to make this ask. I think it’s a great thing that they came and asked. But for us, as this council were financial stewards of the property tax base. And when you look at, is it in the London taxpayers’ best interest to pay down a debt where they only owe 21% to pay 84% of it or whatever the exact percentage is. And why pay it all in one year?

[1:47:47] Londoners are saying to us, we’re struggling too. We’re all sympathetic to what the health unit’s going through, what LMCH is going through. But Londoners who we represent are saying the same thing. With our hat on that is just representing the London taxpayer, I have, it’s impossible for me to support paying off this loan. We, they asked us the health unit. And again, rightfully so, they’re doing what they need to do. Asked us to, if they could keep our portion of the 2022 surplus.

[1:48:24] Council voted to do that, 400,000. In the same year that we had an 8.7% property tax increase. And we can say, oh, it’s smart to pay off variable rate loan debt. It wasn’t ours. And the province benefited from that reduction in interest, 70%. We only benefited 21%. Mathematically, it doesn’t make sense. Then we were asked to fund a shortfall of 600,000. Which we are mandated to do. And if I recall, that was not a unanimous vote. Several of us voted no.

[1:48:58] Even though we are legally required to pay it. Now this year, it’s showing up as a budget case. And it’s 700,000. Londoners are contributing to the health unit. Now we’re being asked to contribute even more. And you can’t say, we don’t want to backfill the province, but— 30 seconds. We’re backfilling the province. Hopefully, we get a thank you note for the extra million dollars that we’re taking from property taxpayers in 2026 to pay off the province’s debt.

[1:49:36] Further speakers. Sorry, Councillor Lehman. Go ahead. Thank you. How this reminds me of the conversation we had last term with the Middlesex London Paramedic Service. Whether we like it or not, we’re mandated to cover our share of the health unit. I’d like to ask a question through you, Chair, to Dr. Summers. Being that if we were to pay down the debt, is there a way we can get credit for that over the next 10 years?

[1:50:15] Because now you are not having to service that debt. So Dr. Summers, would you be willing to explore that question to see if we would get credit for paying off this debt over the next 10 years? Thank you to the health unit. Thank you for that question. And I know Emily will hop in on this one too. We have to recalculate these per capita funding numbers with these changes. And I think certainly we can explore how we can acknowledge the 10-year accumulated contribution of paying off the debt and what that would mean for interest payments over time.

[1:50:54] So we just need to look at that. We will commit to getting that back as soon as possible. Emily, I don’t know if you have anything to add on that. No. But yes, I really appreciate the request. And we’ll commit to getting that back as soon as possible. Thank you, Councillor Layman. You have a minute. Thank you, Dr. Summers. That’s it. Further speakers. Further speakers? OK. So this is going to be split into two. The first vote that is going to come up is the Middlesex London Health Unit.

[1:51:29] These requests are submitted additional funding requests for 2026 onward for permit-based funding for an additional two FTEs. So that’s the first vote to come up, and then we’ll deal with the remainder. Can you just remind people of what’s the yes and the no? That’s the next one. So we split it. This is just simply what you see is what you get. OK, now you confuse another Councillor next to you. So opening a scribe, the vote’s about to come up, and it’s split into. So there’s no numbers in the first one besides two full-time staff.

[1:52:02] And then I’ll explain the next one when we get there. Closing the vote, motion fails 7 to 8. The next one to come up is the remainder, which is the numbers. So forgiving the debt isn’t the mayor’s original budget.

[1:52:37] That’s been tabled. The motion before you would be to exclude it, so to remove that debt payment out. So if you want it excluded and the debt repayment removed, you vote yes. If you would like the debt repayment to remain in the mayor’s budget, you will vote no. That’s a fair.

[1:53:31] Closing the vote, motion fails 5 to 10. OK, so I would like a motion right now to receive the communication. And it failed, but we need to receive it. Mover and Councillor Hoffman, seconder, and Councillor Graham-Riburgen, hit call on the question. Sorry, this was a motion to receive the correspondence.

[1:54:09] Councillor Troso. I’m sorry to do this again, but I just want to be clear that my intention was to vote for the mayor’s motion to pay off that debt. OK, Councillor— sorry, we’re having a really good time on one side of the horseshoe.

[1:54:41] A little bit jealous. But Councillor Troso, you did vote the wrong way, but the vote you wanted was still the same outcome. Could you just clerically change it? It would have to be a motion to reconsider and open all the voting again. Yeah, I would like to do that. OK, yep, yep, yep. So motion to reconsider moved by Councillor Troso, seconded by Councillor Ferra. So the first thing’s going to be the vote— the first vote’s going to be the motion to reconsider.

[1:55:14] And then I’ll announce the next vote when it comes up. It’d be so simple, yes. So this is a simple majority vote, and this is just the motion to reconsider the last vote for the Councillor can change his vote for the record.

[1:56:18] All in the question. Closing the vote. Motion carries. Dean Dezio. Thank you, sir, for reopening the last vote. To allow the Councillor to correct his vote. What’s that vote’s opening?

[1:57:34] Closing the vote. Motion fails 5 to 10. OK, so it was the motion to receive. I had a mover and a seconder calling the question. Yeah, yeah. So we can.

[1:58:08] So I would say the first time it failed, it was 5 to 10. We corrected a vote for someone could change it. And once again, it was 5 to 10. Only this time it’s a different Councillor. Councillor McAllister, it’s OK. It’s OK. It’s a day. It’s OK. Would you like a motion to reconsider? So it’s just received the communication. Councillor McAllister, Councillor Lewis, Councillor Frank.

[1:59:02] This is received of the communication. Wasn’t the vote. Motion carries. 15 to 0. At this point, it procedurally keep us together. We had dealt with 4.2, but did not receive it at this time. I’m just going to go back and loop it in just for receipt, realizing whenever we get to the end of the proceedings, we might not remember where we’ve been. So this is going to be a motion to receive the communication that we had in 4.2, a mover and a seconder.

[1:59:40] It was moved by Councillor Graham-Riburgen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, calling the question for receipt. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 15 to 0. I think that’s all we have for the health unit right now.

[2:00:18] It’s just something else come back. We will give you notice in a few minutes to come back in. Our staff would reach out, and thank you for being with us today and wish you a productive day from here out. For those in chambers that moves us on to 4.4, this was a submission by Councillor Ramen and Stevenson. I realize that there’s also been a revised one. So I will go to one of the two Councillors. I believe Councillor Ramen, and whichever one you’re moving, be clear, and we’ll make sure it’s the right one up. And then I’ll go to you to introduce it. Thank you, and through you, I’m looking to move the revised amended motion.

[2:00:57] Would you like me to read it out? OK. That the mayor’s table 2026 annual budget update be amended by increasing the roadway’s budget to implement traffic calming in school zones across the city and deploy more temporary traffic calming devices to mitigate construction-related traffic diversions and neighborhoods during capital projects with the capital expenditure to be funded from the automated enforcement reserve fund. And then you’ll see 155,000 added to the operating to the tax levy in 26 and 27, with an additional capital expenditure of 100,000 in 2026.

[2:01:36] I believe it’s supposed to say in 2027 as well. It’s looking at Mr. McCrae. Yes, that’s what I thought. So it should say in 26 and 27 for the capital expenditure. I just realized that it said that in the letter. Councillor Ramen, it should be in the system.

[2:02:45] If you want to just verify that. OK, and I can find it. Let’s just put eyes on that too.

[2:03:31] It’s been refreshed. I have a thumbs up. Councillor Ramen. A thumbs up by Councillor Stevenson. OK, it’s on the floor. I will commence my speakers list with Councillor Ramen. Thank you. And I appreciate my fellow colleagues hearing the amended version of this motion. And the reason why it’s amended is because it’s directly connected to the Road Safety Initiatives Fund, of which London is receiving $1.291 million to address traffic calming in our school zones.

[2:04:11] This is the result, of course, of the cameras coming out of our school zones and funding being provided by the province. What we have to do now is we need to respond to that funding. And we do that by making sure that we can operationalize these dollars when they become available to us, which is pretty much right away. So with that in mind, and knowing how important traffic calming is to my ward and across the city, I must hear about it almost every other day. I’m moving the motion that’s in front of you today.

[2:04:49] In this motion, you’ll also see the capital expenditure. And that capital expenditure, as noted in the letter, is to address the need for temporary traffic calming, as well as the permanent funding that’s provided in RSIF. The temporary amount is to help with, and we hear this quite often. There are a lot of road projects happening across the city. And what does that cause on our local streets? It causes cut through traffic. And that cut through traffic, we get many requests in neighborhoods to be able to deploy temporary measures for calming.

[2:05:28] I can tell you I’ve had them when Fanchon Richmond was under construction. In my ward, we had a number of streets asking for temporary calming. And the challenge is we need them to go in many locations. This would allow us to have those supplies on hand through that capital amount so that they can be deployed. This work doesn’t get done unless we have the staffing capacity to do it. And wouldn’t it be great to be able to meet the needs of Londoners, especially in our school zones, with this funding?

[2:06:03] Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I won’t be supporting this. And everyone knows I was a big advocate to keep the speed cameras. I will continue, and I’m happy to do whatever is asked to me to continue to work with the province to try and get some flexibility in the funding. When I read what’s eligible under the 1.29 million that Councilor Raman referenced, does say temporary enforcement measures, I think that there’s a discussion to be had about whether enforcement equals deployment as well, which might be a temporary thing.

[2:06:40] I would interpret it that way. And I’m happy to have a conversation with the minister if Council wants me to or the mayor can. But quite honestly, the reason I won’t support this is we are adding another full-time permanent position to city staff at the cost of $155,000 a year. Now, I know we’re about halfway through our school zone, traffic calming deployment. Right now, I believe the current schedule says it won’t be done for eight years, but if we add a staff person, it will be done in about a third of the time, and we could get it done in three years.

[2:07:16] Fine, if we want to prioritize that, then let’s put a moratorium on the neighborhood traffic calming petitions until the school zones are done and then reactivate those. Because in three years, that position will no longer be required, but we are suggesting right now that we are making it a permanent operating addition. So I will not support a permanent expansion to full-time staff in this area. If there was a temporary measure for a temporary initiative, happy to do that. If we can use some of the provincial dollars to speed up the process on a temporary three-year contract, happy to do that.

[2:07:53] Actually, I guess it’d have to be two years ‘cause the province said we have to spend the money by the end of 2028. So happy to do that. Happy to use that 1.29 to get additional traffic calming measures paid for as well. But that’s not what’s in here. This is an addition to the capital expenses. It’s the addition of another permanent full-time staff person. And I will not support that. I think we have to work smarter with the resources and staffing we have, not just look to continually add staff.

[2:08:28] Thank you. I’ve Councillor Stevenson and then Mayor Morgan. Thank you. I just wanted to thank Councillor Ramen for her work on this. We’ve been talking about this since the summer, trying to come forward with some way to answer Londoners call for more traffic calming measures. I know it’s across every ward. It’s a safety concern. It’s an ongoing issue. Londoners are frustrated that they’re please go unanswered in this area. And so as much as I don’t want to be adding to our budget, I do want to give Londoners what they want.

[2:09:02] And we’ve heard loud and clear, they want it. I wish that I believed that this position wouldn’t be needed a few years from now. But with the plans for road construction and expansion and everything else, I am the need. I don’t see that going away. And if it does, I’m sure there’s something that we can do. But I think this is going to be an ongoing issue that is a top priority for Londoners. So thanks again to my colleague and I’m happy to support this. Thank you.

[2:09:35] I have Mayor Morgan, then Councillor Trove. Yeah, just a quick question for our staff. How much is remaining in the automated enforcement reserve fund? Staff. Through you Madam Chair, the current balance is approximately $7 million. Mayor Morgan. Okay, so I am on this. I’m happy to support the capital expenditures because coming from the automated enforcement reserve fund, I think Councillor on makes a good point about the need for temporary measures, particularly during construction and addressing cut-throughs and those sorts of things.

[2:10:10] I’m not supportive of the operating dollars. If the purpose of this is to deploy more money, I don’t need $150,000 to deploy $200,000. If the purpose of this is to support the province’s new money, then I think we can find other ways to do it by either seeking permission to use some of that money for deployment, whether it’s clear or not. Or if we have $7 million in the automated enforcement reserve fund, maybe we hire a temporary person out of that fund for in our period of time to help implement the provincial program. But I’m not supportive of the operating piece permanently this time.

[2:10:46] I am supportive of the capital piece. So I guess I want to ask the Chair if we’re able to divide those two because I hear what’s being said, okay. Okay, to finance, does it create an issue in your magic numbers separating out to calling operating expenditure line first in capital a second? I’m seeing it, and Kyle’s good. Mr. Murray’s good. Ish.

[2:11:18] Through you, Madam Chair, what I would suggest if we’re doing that is we tie the operating expenditures and the tax levy pieces together. The tax levy impact relates to the operating expenditures. So I’ll group those two together, keep the capital expenditure separate. Okay, we’re going to change an e-scribe how that appears then. They’re just going to correct that wording now. While I continue on with my speakers as I head Counselor Trous out next. Well, I’ll keep this very brief through the Chair. I’m fully in support of this.

[2:11:52] I’ve made it very clear that this is a major issue in my ward. And we only need to look at the most recent resident satisfaction survey to know how important traffic is. Let’s not make the mistake of thinking this is a temporary inconvenience because of road construction. This is a permanent change because the intensity of our development, which I’m not going to debate today, but the intensity of the development increases, increases the cars on the road.

[2:12:27] And in particular, it increases cut through traffic. And I feel it very, very acutely in my ward. So I’m going to support this. And I thank the Councillors for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins and Frank. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I too thank the two Councillors for bringing this forward. I represent a ward that is all about development and the challenges of moving around have become greater and greater throughout the years that I’ve been on council.

[2:13:02] Safety in our neighborhoods is the number one issue I hear constantly in half for years. So I am all for a permanent position. Whatever we need, we’ve had the tools taken away from us, automated speed cameras, that did work. Now we are going to be responsible for creating the safety in our neighborhoods. And in particular, within our school zones and community zones, it is an ongoing concern not to do anything.

[2:13:34] I think my residents would be floored if I did not support this. So thanks again for bringing this forward. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I’m generally supportive of this for all the reasons why folks who are supportive of it have already said. I do have a question through the chair to staff. I’m just wondering, at this point, when we go into queue for the process to get either traffic calming evaluation for speed or for a crosswalk or for an intersection, right now it can already take a couple months, which no shade on staff.

[2:14:08] But I’m wondering, are we at the point already where staff are at like max capacity in that department? And so regardless of whether or not there’s funding from the province, would it be an opportune time to try and add some staff capacity to that department to alleviate what I assume is the flooding of requests from Councillors and from residents. Staff. Madam Chair, I believe that is a very correct assessment. We are at the maximum capacity we’re able to deliver with our existing resource. This is one new position to deal with the expanded scope of work and the incredible demand we see across the city, as well as the reclassification of an existing position to provide additional bench strength and capacity to the new program and existing programs.

[2:14:50] Councillor Frick. Thank you, yes, and for those reasons, I will be supportive of the operating expense as well. I’m regularly in receipt of requests from residents for these services and again, knowing how long they take now to perform and having capital money, but not more staffing operating money to be able to execute it. I don’t think we’ll really alleviate the backlog. So I think it’s prudent fiscally and for residents for us to move forward with this. Councillor Lehman. Yeah, thank you.

[2:15:22] I see that the province has provided funding for speed mitigation given that they’ve canceled the cameras. I think there’s some concern around here about adding more personnel on a full-time basis. However, I share the concern of getting this up and running as fast as possible. So to balance that concern of a full-time, even after the project’s completed, what I would like to suggest is that we just change the source of funding from the taxpayer levy to a reserve fund.

[2:16:01] So I would like to have this move, this following amendment that the 155,000 be funded for three years from the automated enforcement reserve. At the moment, we’re clerking stuff. But Councillor, was that 2026 for three years starting?

[2:16:44] 2026 and then for three years. Correct. Mr. Lehman, if you refresh your screen or anyone, it’ll be there looking to see if it’s correct before I look for a second.

[2:17:37] Yeah, that’s fine. Second by Deputy Mayor Lewis going to finance that wording work for you. And we already heard that there’s 7 million in the fund. Through you, Madam Chair, just to be superficial on this one, it’s actually the automated enforcement reserve fund. So fund just tech the word fund on the end. Okay, fixing that clerical thing. I’ll start my speaker’s list. It’s a new list.

[2:18:11] If you’d still keep it concise, Councillor Lehman. Yeah, I’ll be brief. I think it’s hopefully you can find some consensus somewhat where we’re trying to achieve here. So I hope you will support the amendment. Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Chair. I was just wondering if I could get with the balances in the automated enforcement reserve fund. Give us 7 million. 7 million. Okay, thanks. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I can support this. It’s not a permanent addition of staff at this time. And should staff after three years feel that they need to make it permanent, then they can come back with a business case at that time.

[2:18:51] But if the school zones are done in three years and the position doesn’t need to continue, then it shouldn’t continue. So I am much more comfortable with this than a permanent addition. Thank you. Maybe I’ll go to staff for their comment of, how would you handle this where it’s funded this way for three, would it come back? Or it’s operational and it’s a handle behind the scenes, just to make sure that we’re on the same page based on the comments that we’ve heard. Madam Chair, that was unusual. Madam Chair, finding qualified transportation technologists on a temporary basis is extremely challenging. We’re also limited to a two-year maximum temporary term under our collective agreement with QP Local 101.

[2:19:27] We believe that a permanent demand will be there for this work well beyond the three years, unfortunately. That said, we also do evaluate our staffing levels. And if there is a need to make a reduction in the future through attrition and through retirement, we would certainly manage that in the future. But obviously we’d be happy to have the resource. I think we will do better recruiting a great person to do the work if it’s a permanent opportunity. And I think, unfortunately, as I said, the demand for ongoing traffic calming throughout the city is unlikely to abate in three years.

[2:20:03] Thank you, I appreciate that. And then being made aware of union contract parameters set behind the scenes for employees. Deputy Mayor Lewis, having heard that, if you want to add comment, I’ll just go to the next speaker. Or on an amendment. So hearing Ms. Share’s response, then I’m happy to amend the amendment to two years. Okay, I believe that. If the collective agreement is an issue, I’ll amend it to two years. Realizing that is what we heard from staff.

[2:20:35] If it’s the collective agreement, for nothing to be hired with outside the two years, Ms. Share for confirmation, and then I’ll look for a seconder. Madam Chair, that is correct. So technologists are part of QP 101 and our maximum temporary contract for employment is two years. Okay, I have a seconder and counselor, layman. So we’re on the amendment of the amendment. So that’s our maximum amendments in the floor in layman seconded it. So just getting that up for the revision of three years to two years and we’ll split talk if we need to just ever so briefly to three years versus the two years based on the union contracts of QP 101.

[2:21:19] And then we’ll get back to it as once it’s amended, we’ll get back to the speaker’s list. We’re just getting it up just a moment. Okay, if you refresh, it should be there. That would be number five that you’re scrolling down to.

[2:22:04] Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’re good. Layman, good. The speaker’s list for Eira. I guess I’m just gonna go back and maybe ask some questions that was already asked. ‘Cause where I heard Ms. Share say that it would be very hard to find someone to fill this position in a temporary basis. And from what I understood, we would need to have this type of funding and perpetuity to ensure that we do have a great candidate to be selected for the fit.

[2:22:37] So going from the three years to the two years and going to a temporary position, I just wanted to go back. Would, just to confirm, two years would further inhibit us to potentially find a good personnel member to be able to fill this position. Okay, Ms. Share. If any term you wanna answer that, realizing you. Yeah, Madam Chair, I think it’s, recruiting for temporary positions can be challenging in tight labor markets for in-demand professions.

[2:23:12] Certainly, I couldn’t speculate if we would or wouldn’t get somebody based on two years or three years. I think we always have great success and we can commit to people being part of our team in the longer term. I don’t think there’s a lot of risk there won’t be work for people in the future. However, should counsel instruct us to do a two year position, we will do our best to find somebody great to do that work. Councillor? Okay, appreciate that. And I do understand that instruction will be going beyond a two or three year horizon. I do appreciate trying to find other sources of funding so it doesn’t come off the taxpayer base, but at the same time, just knowing of how that will actually apply with the reality of things, I wouldn’t be supportive of this just because of that.

[2:23:53] I will support the original motion. I guess I’ll speak on that ‘cause I do appreciate the motion as it is, but I wouldn’t be supporting the amendment. Further speakers? Councillor Pribble, sorry. Yes, this is just strictly on three to two. You get your chance to do their comments when we get back to that list. Councillor Pribble, do you want on this list or the next list? Okay, go ahead. Thank you very much. No, I will certainly support the two years and it’s not just for the QPA agreement.

[2:24:26] It’s also for our multi-year budget. We did hear from the staff that it will be challenging, but it’s not that it will be impossible. And I think that challenges as we face here every day. So I think it’s, again, another challenge to be added to our list. And I do think that is my preference, then again, automatically predict future with a full-time person on an ongoing basis. And as staff mentioned also that they do have a, as a manager director, they manage their staff and there potentially could be things like retirements, et cetera.

[2:25:03] So this person could be incorporated within the next multi-year budget. So I really think that we are all in agreement. We think that we want this to go forward, absolutely. It’s a very positive initiative and how do we fund it? Let’s fund it through the capital. So we don’t have additional increases. We heard quite a few times already that we don’t want to add any percentile to the tax levy. And I don’t think that is necessary. And the only challenge is to find a person. And I’m quite sure our management staff directors are so qualified that will overcome this challenge.

[2:25:37] Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Trousal, just note that I think Councillor Farr, I stepped out for a moment for the clerks noting. Thank you, if you have a chair just on this amendment, I’m going to vote no on this amendment. The reason for it is, I think it’s important that our staff in the traffic division understand the dynamic and different neighborhoods and understand who the associations are and understand the particular challenges that we’re facing.

[2:26:14] And I’m not saying that you’re not doing that. But I think just going from part-time staff to part-time staff does not serve the neighborhood interests as well as having a permanent member of the staff. And I’m hoping that if we add another permanent member to your group of people that deal with this, maybe we could start to specialize a little bit in terms of what parts of the city people take on. That’s getting ahead of ourselves. But it does speak to my desire to have this be a full-time person who is going to be making a long-term commitment to understanding the needs that Londoners are demonstrating in terms of traffic mitigation.

[2:26:55] And while having a part-time person would allow someone to come in and run numbers, I think we need to do better than that. I want permanent people who are going to learn the landscape because it’s a changing landscape. And the landscape is more complex than simply looking at numbers. Thank you. Thank you, further speakers. Seeing none, calling the question on just the amendment of going from three years to two years. Closing the vote, motion carries, 10 to five.

[2:27:43] Okay, so I need to move in a seconder for the amendment as amended. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor van Merbergen, just clicking that to get it up. I’ll note that the speakers list will, your time starts again, it’s been amended, but do you keep it concise if possible? So this will incorporate Councillor Lehman’s change of the source of funding in a two-year time period for the employment versus the three that was just decided on.

[2:28:28] We’re still getting that up, I’ll check in a minute, but is anyone okay starting the speakers list while we wait for the parking? Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to say I appreciate the intent of the amendment, but I’m not gonna be supporting it. I like the original motion. This is a top priority for residents. I don’t believe it’s gonna be a short-term need. And staff have indicated that if that were to be the case, they can manage it through attrition and other things. I, as I said, I’m reluctant to add to the budget, but this is a much needed, across our city, high priority, giving residents what they want with their tax dollars.

[2:29:10] Next speaker, Councillor Trasso. I’ll make this exceptionally short short. I fully agree with what Councillor Stevenson just said. Thank you. I think that was a record, Sam. I think that was about eight seconds. We might get some lunch on time today. Next speaker is looking to the right, looking to the left, Councillor Ferri.

[2:29:45] Thanks Chair, this is the main motion, correct? As amended. The amendment as amended. Okay, I’ll wait. I’ll take that back. I’ll wait for the main motion as amended. Not quite there yet. Okay, so we’ll call the question on this and get back to the main motion as amended and then everything. Okay, call on the question. Using the vote, motion carries eight to seven.

[2:30:46] Question of committee. Originally you wanted the vote split when it was the tax levy portion. So operating versus capital, the source of funding has changed. Do you still want those two split apart? No, I don’t think it’s split apart anymore. Okay, okay. We’re just clerking and putting that together before it goes on the screen, then I’ll start the speaker’s list. Finance, can you take a peek?

[2:31:47] And I will need a mover and a seconder. Councillor Lehman, Councillor Cudi, finance, are we good? We got the thumbs up there. If you refresh e-scribe, it’ll be there. Move seconded, Councillor Staff, thumbs up, speakers list. Okay, if there’s no one on the speaker’s list, Councillor Ferri.

[2:32:21] Thank you, Chair. Just briefly, I do appreciate the motion that I was brought from the mover and the seconder. Obviously I wasn’t in support of the amendment. However, I guess this is better than nothing. I would have liked to see this done in perpetuity so we could get the best candidate as possible and just kind of to get around any types of issues that a temporary position may run into. But I will support this because I do believe that this should make some impact, not maybe not necessarily the full extent that the original motion would have brought, but still it will bring some.

[2:32:58] So you’ll see my support on this one. Next speakers, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, just as a follow-up, I’ll be supporting this reluctantly. I think it’s better than nothing but disappointed in the motion that the Councillor’s brought forward that it’s not going forward for a permanent position. Thank you. Next speaker, Councillor Troso. Yes, through the Chair, similarly, just like with the last two speakers said, I’m gonna support this.

[2:33:39] I would have preferred to have seen this permanent. I will be coming forward to the Infrastructure Committee. I’m not gonna make an amendment now ‘cause it goes beyond the budget. But I think we need to really look at the protocols for handling these requests. And I will be coming to infrastructure and corporate services with some suggestions for doing that in the interest of moving these requests forward having them be uniformed and giving the residents of the community who make these requests a shorter time frame and more better understanding of the criteria that are being used.

[2:34:15] But I will support this and thank you again to the makers of the original motion for bringing this forward. Thank you. Further speakers, call on the question. Sorry, Councillor Peruzza. Thank you, Chair. And I do have a, I don’t know why, but I don’t have to last one coming up and I just wanna make sure we took out the tax levy, sorry, through the chair to the staff. We took out the tax levy to zero, but did we top up capital for the two-year financing? Or are we gonna finance it?

[2:34:50] Sorry, I don’t have the last motion. I just wanna make sure that it’s in order. Finance? Through you, Chair. So the capital expenditures are to be funded from the automated enforcement reserve fund. So there’s no tax levy impact associated with them? No, sir. I do understand that, but in terms of the tax levy are supposed to be funded for that extra additional person on an ongoing basis, we took it down because it’s gonna be only on a temporary basis now.

[2:35:29] And as I said, I don’t know why, I can see it there and I can see my last one. Are we covering it that this person we do have for two years funding? Is it covered there? I don’t see it from here. I mean, visually I can see it from here. Yeah, if you refresh e-scribe, it will come up and you just gotta scroll down to the right. You will hit the refresh and scroll down, we are on, it’ll come up and say seven.

[2:36:05] Finance? Three, Madam Chair. So the both the capital piece as well as the staffing resources for a period of two years will be funded from the automated enforcement reserve funds. So there is no tax levy impact associated with any component of this. Councillor Prabell. Thank you. Hey, last call before I call the question. Opening the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries.

[2:36:56] 15 to 0. So that supposes that item and the reiteration of amendments we did to it procedurally were onto 4.5. This was amendment contemplated by Councillor Stevenson going to the Councilor now to see if you’d like to table it, receive it or what your intention. Thank you. I’d like to move a motion to receive. I haven’t heard any support on Council. So I’m just gonna receive it. If somebody would like to work with me on it for Council, we can bring an amendment.

[2:37:28] But right now it’s a motion to receive. Okay. If someone’s super eager to second and get in it to now, do something different. I prefer that we don’t do this at the special Council budget meeting. But currently right now, the Councillor is looking to have the correspondence and 4.5 received. Is there a seconder for received? Sorry, you’re asking for receive? Yeah, receive it. I’m saying receive, obviously I’m the Lord.

[2:38:03] We have a seconder to receive the communication in Deputy Mayor Lewis looking to see if there’s comment. If not, we will call the question. Okay, just a moment while it loads into e-scribe, call on the question.

[2:39:17] Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you. This item moves us to 4.6, which is a budget case amendment for P-12. P-12 is the resident satisfaction survey frequency. Councillor Stevenson will be moving it. I believe there’s a seconder in Councillor Pribble. Both have indicated that’s correct. Yeah, Councillor Stevenson, just gonna see which one you would like. Yeah, I’ll move the revised version. Okay, and if you wanna read that out, and then I will go to the speakers list.

[2:39:50] Yes, that the mayor’s 2026 annual budget update be amended to remove business case P-12 resident satisfaction survey frequency. 2026, sorry, 2027 operating expenditures, 28,000. 2027 tax levy, 28,000. So it should be there in e-scribe. I was up, we were in seconders a thumbs up.

[2:40:25] I will start my speakers list with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m not gonna talk about this too much. I just really want to let Londoners have their voice. I think every two years isn’t frequent enough on a four-year term to get that updates from residences to how we’re doing and what it is they’d like to see more of or how we’re doing. So I’d appreciate support with this. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m gonna respectfully disagree with Councillor Stevenson. It’s a small amount of money, but to me, when you look at the frequency, when you look at the changes, and not just last year, but over a number of years, they’re not significant year to year.

[2:41:09] If you start looking over a longer timeframe, yes, some things change. Pop issues, percentage of people identifying with top issues, there’s relatively little change on an annual basis. The other thing I would say is, this is far from the only input residents have. And so if we put this back, I mean, I’m gonna say this if you put this back in 2027, you’re giving the next council a resident satisfaction survey based on work they haven’t done. And then, you know, moving forward every other year.

[2:41:43] So I’m not sure that that’s all that helpful to a new council coming in, considering all of just spent time campaigning on every doorstep. I think a lot of us, I mean, I held a budget one last weekend at East Lions. Councillor Stevenson, you hold many. Councillor Truss, I know you’ve held many town hall meetings to talk about issues about various residents. We all hear through social media, through emails and phone. I don’t think a satisfaction survey is the end all be all of resident input. And I think every two years is fine. I will also say, I actually have a little bit of a concern about how the survey asks questions sometimes.

[2:42:24] You know, when we heard back last year that high interest rates were concerned. I’m not sure how that helps us as a municipal council because we have no control over the Bank of Canada’s interest rates. So, you know, even there, I think there’s some details that need to be improved in this system, but I think every other year is fine. So I’m just gonna end it there. Like I said, it’s a small amount of money, but I don’t think that this represents, particularly when you’re looking at a survey size of 500, I suspect we’ve all talked to well over 500 people in our town hall meetings over the course of just this last year alone.

[2:42:57] So I don’t feel the need to continue to fund this on an annual basis. I think every two years is fine. Okay, once again, doing first before seconds. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you to the Councillor for bringing this forward. It’s a small amount of money. I quite agree with the Deputy Mayor, but it is important. Unfortunately, I don’t get up to 500 people at my information sessions throughout the year. I wish I did, but this gives me another tool. When I look at the survey, I do more or less confirms or questions the emails, and I do get significant emails throughout the year, but it’s information that I find valuable.

[2:43:43] It’s information I can share with the community. And the issues are quite different. Last year, we heard interest rates, which were quite high, quite significant a concern in the community, but this year, not as much. Obviously, we know why, but it’s also understanding the other issues that are coming forward. So, again, supportive of doing this, it is such a small amount of money as well. Councillor Trostau.

[2:44:16] Thank you, Chair. I am in support of the amendment. And the reason for that is, I think we send a good signal to the taxpayers, to the residents. When we tell them, we’re really trying, we don’t, doesn’t always seem that way, but we’re really trying to listen to what your concerns and preferences are. And given the small amount of money that’s here, I mean, yes, it’s true. We can hold our ward meetings.

[2:44:50] But I think that what this survey does is, it broadens the scope of respondents. It really, from a statistically significant point of view, it broadens the scope of the respondents. And I think it creates a more reliable measure. The other thing it allows us to do is, sort of gauge from year to year what’s working. And I think that there are some of the shifts. Yes, the library and the water is at the top, public housing is at the bottom.

[2:45:25] But there are shifts in between, that I think are worthwhile paying attention to. And I hope that by doing this, we’re signaling to our residents that this is an important survey, and that they should take it very seriously. And it is something that we listen to. So with that, I’m going to be supporting the amendment. And I’m looking forward to getting this every year. Thank you. Thank you, I have Councillor Ferris and Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Chair.

[2:45:58] So I hear the comments. I am for one, you know, I like to keep my finger on the pulse as much as I can, and every single channel communication is a critical one. Like I would say, you know, we saw 21 people show up at the public participation meeting for the budget. That is alarmingly low. And I think it was like 37 people communicated to the budget agenda or something like that. And, you know, I myself am going to extreme lengths trying to hear what people say I go to where people are in my constituency. I think I’ve had upwards of 20 town halls this year alone. And I really appreciate when we have those extra channels open so we can get as much communication as we can.

[2:46:38] Regardless if this is information for the next term or not, it’s always good to have something officially on the record that we can refer to. And it’s always good to make sure we have that information available. From what I’ve been hearing when I go out is people are telling me they feel like they’re not heard. And I think shutting this down would just confirm that. Now, I did see on the communication that there is no material impact, that’s not true. It is 28,000. It’s a very low material impact. But in the end, I don’t think it would be prudent to remove this from our expenses.

[2:47:14] We need to keep that open. The signal that it will carry just on its own will show that we have our ears open. We have our eyes open and we’re hearing you. So I’m going to support the amendment to exclude that. I think it’s a wise choice. I would hope that we all support it as well. But that’s where I’m going on my vote. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, and then Councillor Pergill. So I’ll be super overly practical about this one, because that’s what I do sometimes. I totally understand the idea that you want to get lots of feedback.

[2:47:49] But just be careful not to project too much on to how the survey is actually working. There’s a really good portion at the end that talks about the mitigating factors, because it’s great to have data lots. But if the data is not actually telling you anything new from the data you had before, you don’t actually need that much data. So the report says, after a review, only 18% of the year-over-year changes— so only 18% of the differences were even statistically significant to the year before. So you’re actually getting 18% new information year to year statistically significant.

[2:48:21] So if you want to get the pulse, just look at the previous survey. And then that’s it. And so what you’re really trying to find out is, is there a big enough difference in those 18% that you want to justify the expenditure on an annual basis? And so to me, you know what? Council wanted to find opportunities to save. I think the way the staff structured this every two years and the years that they picked makes a lot of sense from the things that happened on the strategic plan, from the election cycle piece. And I think you’re going to get pretty much the same information for this one piece— one source of all of the sources of information that you should be gathering from.

[2:48:56] And we know that a survey is just one piece— all of your ward engagements, all of the emails that come in, all the times you get stopped in the grocery store, all those things matter, and that’s where I hear more about when interest rates matter and when they don’t, and how things are changing in different ways. So I’m not saying there’s not value in the survey. I think there is. What I’m saying is, is there value in the survey given how much the data fluctuates every single year? I mean, the other thing you could do is you could do it quarterly if you want, but you’re probably not going to get it. So finding that right balance, I think, is the debate. I appreciate that some Councillor’s think the right balance is annually.

[2:49:30] I tabled this way because I think there’s an option here for us to have bi-annual surveys, or every other year surveys, and make sure and still have relatively the same amount of data. And the report shows that. But again, on this one, I think people have differences of opinions, and we’ll make a decision to move on. Councillor Peril. Thank you. And as a seconder, I certainly support this to be on an annual basis. I do want half a million of Londoners to have this opportunity to come back yearly back to us. And the three issues, I just heard, kind of survey issues, involve low involvement, significant changes.

[2:50:05] I actually think that those are the three things we should think about, and how to improve them, how to get higher involvement, how to improve the surveys, how to make the significant changes. And I think that should be our focus instead of going the other way and delaying it, or sorry, or making it less frequent. So I’m very much in support of it, and thank you. Thank you. Further speakers? Further first time speakers? Seeing none, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to say I understand the logic that’s been expressed here, but there’s also the perception.

[2:50:38] And on the heels of a 35% salary increase to cut $28,000 on a bi-annual basis for the residents to be able to give feedback on our performance, I just can’t do it. So I’m hoping to get support. Thank you. Further speakers before calling the question? Seeing none, opening the vote. Can you just explain the vote again? OK, yep. So this is one of the other ones that it’s currently a cut.

[2:51:12] So you need to vote. Just put the wording myself. So to exclude it, if you vote yes, it comes out of being cut. Madam Chair, maybe it’s easier to say, if you vote yes, you want it every year. If you vote no, you want it every two years. Hired. We all switch chairs after lunch. Look what you’ve done. So what he said, votes open. Closing the vote.

[2:51:54] Motion carries. 10 to 5. OK, thank you. At this point, we’re essentially 12 on the dot. Lunch is ready in the Councillors’ lounge to shape us up for this afternoon. You’ll see 4.7 to 4.11. Only one of those has a seconder noted within the agendas. I would say if you are interested in seconding one of those, as there’s several from Councillor Stevenson, several from Councillor Ferris, and something from the mayor, if you’re interested in seconding one of those, go talk to the person who’s submitted to make sure that you know that you’re interested.

[2:52:35] We’ll just help procedurally move things along faster this afternoon. Looking for a 30-minute recess to go refresh ourselves and come back, moved by Councillor Van Merberg and seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We could do it by hand, we’re told, all in favor of 30 minutes. Any opposed to Deputy Mayor Lissa Blues with votes? Motion carries. 30 minutes, 1230, be back here. OK, if we all come to your seats.

[3:27:07] OK, Mr. Newcomb has joined us. We can now commence. I think everyone’s back in chambers. We’re good to go. OK, so this moves on to 4.7. This is Amendment for Business case P-20. P-20 is the portion of the 2024 surplus allocated for tax mitigation. I’m going to go and deal with A first, which was a communication from Councillor Trousseau in Ferris.

[3:27:42] Which one of you would like to do the moving in the seconding? Someone has to do it. Moved and Councillor Trousseau, seconded Councillor Ferris. I believe you’re moving the one that was already circulated in our package. OK, the clerk is getting it on the screen for us, and I was going to go to Councillor Trousseau first. If you want to read it out, unless you want the clerk to read the motion. Yes, if the clerk could do it. OK. [INAUDIBLE] Councillor, we need your mic.

[3:28:50] There are two P-20. Yes? Your mic, please. At the Mayor’s table, 2026 annual budget update be amended by redirecting a portion of Business case P-20, 2024 surplus allocation for tax mitigation to increase funding for the housing stability bank program for 2026 and 2027. Being noted, this funding and expenditures are non-permanent. 2026 operating expenditures of 700,000. 2026 tax levy 700,000, 2026 capital expenditures 0.

[3:29:26] The same for 2027. Operating expenditures 700,000. Tax levy 700,000 and capital expenditures 0. OK, I’ll start my speaker’s list. Councillor Trousseau, would you like to speak first? Thank you very much, and through the chair, this matter has come before this council on several occasions. And it’s typically the same issue. The reason I’m raising it right now is because this fund is not being replenished. Now, I understand that this is in addition to the levy.

[3:30:01] However, when you look at the alternative, what we’ll be doing is we’ll be allowing more and more very vulnerable tenants to fall into homelessness. That is not cost-effective. So I know that some people’s first reaction to this will be, oh, my, another 700 and another 700. But I want to put this increased expenditure in the frame of, what is this going to mean in people’s lives? And if you’re on the brink of being a victim, because you can’t make your payments, you are not going to be able to replace your rental housing at the same level in today’s market, especially if you’ve been in your unit for a long time.

[3:30:54] Now, I could appeal to people’s sense of compassion. I can appeal to people’s sense of fairness. And I will do all of those things. And you’ve received the letter from Lifespin. You’ve seen the letter from Lifespin. And you saw the original letter that came to us from neighborhood legal services. Neighborhood legal services, they’re the front line, legal aid office that serves the residents in this city who are facing these evictions. But in addition to appealing to you on the grounds of compassion, fairness, equity, I also want to appeal to you in the interests of not adding to our homeless stock.

[3:31:40] We do, we go to great expense. We go to great trouble. We have great debates. We have many differences of opinion over the question of how to deal with a homelessness crisis that this city is facing. But the last thing we need to do is sit back and allow more people to be thrown into this very difficult situation. So I’m appealing to you on a couple of different grounds, one of which is the fiscal reality of not adding to our homelessness stock.

[3:32:16] And I’m asking you to support this measure. And rather than vote it down, if you think it’s too much, please feel free to make an amendment. But like we need this, we need this, thank you. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair. And yeah, I mean, I agree in terms of a lot of what Councillor Trusso said. Personally though, I mean, I will put forward an amendment and people can change it as they will.

[3:32:49] I guess my first question before I put the amendment, I’m just curious, I don’t know if this is the best place for it to live, but what the community investment reserve funds sits at right now. Hey, we’re seeing that answer from Mr. Murray and his team. Thank you through you, Madam Chair. The community investment reserve fund has a current low point balance of a little shy of 1.5 million, 1.48 million to be exact.

[3:33:26] Thank you, Councillor. I will put forward an amendment that there not be a tax impact and that this would come from the community investment reserve fund if people think perhaps another place is better suited, happy for an amendment to the amendment, but I’ll put that on the floor. Thank you, I appreciate that. Councillor Ferris, were you seconding or you’re just on the speaker’s list? Okay, no questions right now. Okay, to staff, you were signaling for information or? Okay.

[3:34:01] Thanks, Madam Chair. So I just want to flag for committee as well that the community investment reserve fund also is, you know, very, very not too far away from being in danger of dropping below a million dollars, which was the threshold related to the previous decision related to community grants. So just keep that in mind to be mindful of that in your decision-making. Thank you in the spirit of the conversation. Would staff be able to tell us what the other balances of the city’s reserve funds are at this time as well?

[3:34:39] Madam Chair, we would need some clarity on which one specifically you’re referring to. Ones that might be applicable to the situation that we could draw on that have unallocated balances. I’m sure there’s not really a particular fund that aligns with that. We could go and look at it again. We haven’t really had the opportunity to do so up until now, but off the top of my head, nothing really comes to mind. Thank you.

[3:35:10] So once again, this fund has a current balance of 1.5. There is a motion moved by Councillor McAllister. Our amendment, looking to see if there’s a seconder seeing nothing at this time. Councillor, the floor is still yours. Could I amend it to 500,000 from the community investment reserve to keep it at a million? Okay. We heard the balance is 1.5. Don’t, anything under one would be a concern for them. The Councillor’s moving 500,000 from the community infrastructure reserve fund as an amendment.

[3:35:47] Seconder and Councillor, is that a question or a seconder and Councillor Ferra. It is on the floor that we’re going to clerk to numbers correctly, Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair.

[3:36:25] I’d just like some clarity on whether it’s $500,000 for each of 2026 and 2027 or just $500,000 in total. Either way, that does though still risk bringing that community investment reserve fund slightly below a million dollars. 1.48 million is the projected low point on the community investment reserve fund. So taking 500,000 would bring you below a million. Mr. McAllister, was your intention 2026 and 2027? Split it between the two years.

[3:37:02] So 250 per, per those? Okay, yeah, sorry, my mic’s still on 250K for the 2026 and 250,000 for 2027. Was the intention. Councillor Ferra, we’re just still trying to get the right clerky wordy up for it. Comment on that. I will, I guess, continue with my second.

[3:37:36] I do have some questions, but let’s hash this one out. Okay, so moved and seconded. It’s there. Clerk, please let’s look into your feedback for what’s on the screen. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. I’ll just, I will flag that by changing the funding source of this nature, that essentially delinks decision point from business case P20, P20 specifically relates to the 2024 surplus that was parked in the operating budget contingency reserve.

[3:38:26] Effectively, this is changing the funding source on that so effectively delinking it from that business case. I’ll just flag that for probably from the clerk’s benefit, just as we amend the wording, perhaps, of this proposal. So procedurally, I appreciate if Mr. Murray’s points are that originally P20’s, I put the tax surplus reserve, this is pulling it from a reserve fund, which isn’t this, so it would not be related to P20, that procedurally, this wouldn’t be ordered at the time.

[3:39:27] We could go back to the original motion and see what’s happens with it. This would be completely in order, though, to bring us a new item, ‘cause the housing stability bank program was part of the original multi-year budget, so it’s still in our background documentation, still on the floor, and still procedurally, later in the meeting, could be brought forward, depending on what happened with the original one that was tied to P20 with the change in funding, it would not be tied to the surplus, does that accept? Well, that’s what I’m ruling. If it’s deemed not, you’re welcome to challenge the chair, but just procedurally, when we change the funding source, it’s not tied to that surplus anymore.

[3:40:18] Okay, so that would put us back to the original P20 then, that sought the $700,000 from the surplus allocation for tax mitigation. Councillor Treso. Just to ask, how much is in that fund right now? From the original motion. The surplus allocation for tax mitigation? Mr. Murray.

[3:40:54] Thank you, Madam Chair. I just need some clarity on whether the Councillor is referring to how much is allocated to the housing stability bank program, or if he’s referring to the amount of the surplus from 2024, specifically in question here. The latter, the latter, thank you. So 2024 surplus, please, Mr. Murray. Thank you, yes. So the total 2024 surplus, that is the subject of business case P20 is $16.9 million, approximately spread between the two years. So up to $16.9 million over two, spread over two.

[3:41:30] Okay, Councillor Treso for a question, are you okay? Yes, and no, that answers my question. That’s a healthier balance in that fund. I guess my only other question is, how is the smaller fund that’s gonna go under a million dollars? How is that refurbished, or does there have to be a specific allocation to that? Mr. Murray, I believe that’s a surplus deficit policy, but for clarification. You are correct, Madam Chair.

[3:42:02] The only funding source for the community investment reserve fund is through the surplus deficit policy, and any 3% of any year-end surplus ends up in the community investment reserve fund. Councillor. Thank you. Quite frankly, I’m not as concerned about which of the reserve funds it comes from, but that we do it, especially, and if Councillors want to cut back the amount, especially for the first year, because it is in this first year that we’re gonna start seeing people falling through the cracks and entering the ranks of homelessness.

[3:42:41] So I would be, I mean, I’d like this to go through the way we proposed it, but if that’s not satisfactory to Council, I’m willing to make any sort of compromise to at least have money going forward for the next year in this fund. And I’ll leave that to other Councillors. What I will find unacceptable and very, very unfortunate and sad is starting to see people lose their housing because this fund has been depleted.

[3:43:19] Thank you. I have Councillor Roman on the list, Councillor Ferrer on the list, and I’ll build my list out from there. And just to reiterate, we are in the original, when you refresh and what’s up there at the original $700,000 as moved and seconded in their letter and on the floor. Councillor Roman. Thank you, my question was clarification on where we were going with the amendment. Thank you. It’s nice when we’re going the same direction. Councillor Ferrer, and then Mayor Morgan-Mash, okay. Thank you, Chair.

[3:43:52] So I’m, same opinion as Councillor Truso. I’m looking for anything we can get for this because this is something that’s proactive and it is something that keeps people, you know, on the other side of the door with respect to homelessness. So for the funding source itself, so I’m looking at the sheets here that we have in the budget for the Community Investment Reserve Fund. And I understand that there’s that low point that I think Mr. Murray was referring to at 1.48 or 1.8. Councillor Ferrer, just for clarification, that’s not the one that’s on the floor. The Community Infrastructure Reserve Fund is no longer part of the conversation ‘cause it wasn’t tied to the surplus allocation of tax mitigation.

[3:44:29] Okay, cycle back to me. Yep, yep, I used to go through my speaker’s list, let you refresh your screen. Clerk said the correct one is up now. I’ll go to Mayor Morgan and I’ll circle back to Councillor Ferrer later in the meeting. So I appreciate the discussion so far and I appreciate what Councillor McAllister was thinking of doing. On this, I’m not supportive of the way it’s currently constructed out of this portion that we’re trying to do a specific thing with. As well, I wanna remind colleagues that this is a program that the business case was a top up to, it was an addition to.

[3:45:09] There are other municipalities who have had uncapped programs. Windsor is one where they have a program to cover the first and last month’s rent from people who might be facing eviction. And that program went from a cost of $550,000 in 2022 to 2.3 million in 2024. And they were credited with the rapidly rising costs of rent as one of the challenges. So here is the challenge we face is we’ve got a program. There’s a desire to expand it and that probably makes sense because there’s a need.

[3:45:44] But there could potentially be a very large need here. And I think part of what we have to do is have a program in place of a certain level to do something. But we also need to advocate on the root causes of the need for the program, right? There’s been bills proposed about potentially removing rent caps and those sorts of things. And we know that there are decisions that other levels of government can make to stop kind of the need or at least the increase need for these types of programs. And that level of advocacy is also important as part of the discussion.

[3:46:18] So I’m not supporting the motion as the Councillors have constructed it. I wanted to provide a little bit of context on these programs can be, if they’re uncapped, can go to a very large level in a short period of time. We have a program, this is an ask to expand it. And I think we have to think about do we want to do that or do we want to continue to do the advocacy because we could expand it and there’s still be a need and we could expand it and there’s still a need and we could expand it, there’s still a need. And the root causes discussion is important. On the possibility of any future motions and I’ll be very tight for the chair, I would just note that if someone’s going to use the Community Investment Reserve Fund as a source, that can happen at any time during the year.

[3:47:00] It doesn’t have to happen at the budget process. So there can be a discussion about that in the future. It need not be tied to the budget process, it can be, but it need not be with that source of financing. Thank you, Councillor Troso. You’ve used four minutes and 20 seconds. I’m going to be very direct by saying, and I mean this with all due respect, advocacy doesn’t put food on the table. Advocacy does not keep people in their units. And I don’t hear anybody saying that there’s no need for this.

[3:47:37] So I think if we’re not going to adopt this motion right now, I would like to before we end this session today or tomorrow, at least have some type of stop gap bridge funding in place. So going forward, we’re not going to start seeing people on the street. And I’m very worried about that. And this is not uncapped. 10 seconds. There’s a specific number in here. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. Just to give you the heads up, I would still like in terms of the order, looking into the schedule, if we get out of 4.12 to have this come back.

[3:48:16] And it’s current iteration. I won’t be supportive of it, but I do think there’s an opportunity to use the reserve fund recognizing the need in the community. I know this is one, I get frequent questions about it for people how to access it. My particular fear right now, and I think why it’s important again to add to this with the debate going on with Bill 60 right now, I do worry in terms of the ability of tenants to stay housed. We’ve heard about the provincial wide increase of 25%, 19% here. And I think we do have to look at opportunities to keep people housed.

[3:48:49] And I think this is another one. Again, I think there can be debate amongst council in terms of what that level should be at, but I think this is going to be an ongoing issue. And as we go into the next multi-year budget, I think that number will have to be looked at again, just based on what’s going on in the province and the city at the time. But right now, I won’t be supportive of this, but I’m happy to bring it back later in the meeting. Thank you. Further speakers? Councilor Perot, I’ll come back to you still doing first. Deputy Mayor.

[3:49:27] So, whether it’s this one or there’s the original motion, I’m gonna be really clear with everybody where I go to the gate, I’m not supporting it. We did not eliminate the program. We funded it in the multi-year budget. We simply did not choose to add an expansion. And now, similar to the health unit discussion this morning, we’re suggesting an expansion based on a letter from an organization that doesn’t actually provide the service. Neighborhood legal services is not the arbiter of the housing stability rent bank.

[3:50:05] That’s done through the Salvation Army. And they didn’t come asking us again to expand the budget. In fact, the Salvation Army right now is assisting with stand-up of the heart hub with CMHA and creating 60 spaces through that heart hub to deal with a homelessness issue. Our staff are in the middle of rolling out a 60-unit micro shelter, south of the 401, at another cost. We are taking action on some of these things. The municipal budget will never, ever, on its own, single-handedly be able to address homelessness.

[3:50:43] It can’t. We would bankrupt the city in a year. It’s just too expensive. It has to be funded provincially. So, I’m not putting more money into a program that not only do I think we haven’t even heard from the operator of, but that we have chosen alternatives already. We chose the micro shelters. We chose to do a winter response. We’ve chosen to do a number of things. We’ve chosen to invest in LMCH and open a new building there. This program has funding at its base level that did not get cut.

[3:51:20] I’m not prepared to put more into it. It does come down to choices at the end of the day. And I think our staff have brought forward some choices we’ve adopted. I’m not prepared to add to this at this time. Concerns about bill 60 while they may be legitimate are not outside our scope. And this would, not if we use the reserve fund, but that’s one-time funding. If we’re taking it from the surplus allocation, it would have an impact on the property tax levy. And we have one person in the gallery who actually spoke at the public participation meeting who reminded us that every time you add to the property tax base, you’re also adding to people’s costs, including rent.

[3:52:02] ‘Cause the landlord passes that on. They don’t just absorb it. So I’m not going to do what is in my opinion, and I know other Councillors will have a difference of opinion on this. I’m not gonna rob from Peter Paypal. I’m not gonna support this one. I think we’re doing lots on the homeless front. I think we’re doing lots on the housing front. We cannot fill every gap. Thank you. I also like that we have a Peter and Paula on council for a reference. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I appreciate the Councillors’ intent in bringing this forward.

[3:52:34] And I am a big believer in prevention. I would not be opposed at all to adding funds to the Housing Stability Bank, but not on the tax levy. We’ve got, again, because it’s a regressive tax, we can’t take from the people who are on borderline homelessness to give to other people who are on borderline homelessness. But I would be very willing to discuss that committee reallocating outreach funds to Housing Stability Bank. And that’s something that we could do outside of the budget season, but I’m not gonna be supporting any addition to the levy for this.

[3:53:13] Thank you, Councillor Ferra. Thank you. So I hear what’s being said, and I agree. Like we don’t have the funds to solve homelessness in the city. Of course we don’t. And that’s not the intent of the goal. The intent of the goal is to meet where the demand really is. I hear about the micro shelters and Sallyann and everything and outreach agencies, but that’s on the other side of the door. That’s on the outside of the door. This is a motion that’s focused on the inside of the door. It’s about prevention. It’s about keeping people in their houses.

[3:53:47] A good point made by Councillor Trusso is it’s also something that secures and maintains affordable housing, the affordable housing stock that has naturally just been part of our housing stock because there’s tendencies in that housing. So there’s a few different areas that this is going to impact. It’s going to maintain our affordable housing stock when we use these extra funds. It’s going to keep people in their housing. It’s obviously financially prudent because we all know it costs way more to work on our response to homelessness when people are already outside on the street than it does to keep people inside.

[3:54:22] So the financial argument is there. But the social argument is also something that should be made as well. People who are at risk of homelessness are people that actually lose their housing. That is a lot of trauma that goes on for a long time. And that will degrade the social fabric. And it’s very true. So there’s a lot of good measures that this type of increase will allow. We do have the Housing Stability Bank program as it is, but the need is increasing. And governance should be dynamic and we should be able to pivot and move and be able to address as much as we can.

[3:54:58] Are we able to put this on the tax levy? I don’t know of any other areas we should be able to put it. Do we have reserve funds? Maybe, I’m interested in that, but I’m hearing from our finance team that we might be a little thin on the Community Investment Reserve Fund. But in the end, we did set out a strategic plan that has this as an area of focus. It is also a good governance move if we were to pursue it as well. So the funding conversation is obviously the one that we’re having right now. But in the end, the need is there.

[3:55:30] So we should move those mountains and find where we can get the funds to be able to support this program. Is it 700,000? Is it 500,000? You know, I am willing to compromise, but we need to increase that as much as we can. Because in the end, we need to make sure that people stay in their housing. We have to stop the bleeding. How do you respond to homelessness? First things first, you stop people from falling into homelessness. Then you start working on the response to homelessness for the people who have already fell into homelessness. So this is something that we need to do.

[3:56:05] We all have endorsed this through the strategic plan. We’ve all had this discussion many times over. And this is going to be a very impactful business case, or not business case. It’s going to be a very impactful amount of funds if we bring it through. So, you know, the argument is there. We need to just make sure that people stay housed. And the costs are beyond financial. So I would hope for the support on that. If we need to find a way, a source of funding somewhere, I think that’s where the conversation needs to go.

[3:56:37] Like I said, I’m willing to compromise, but this is a very big thing that the city needs. Thank you further speakers. Call on the question. Survey on Mayor Regan, closing the vote.

[3:57:26] Motion fails five to 10. So procedure is going to do a motion to receive that correspondence. Now, and then we’ll go to the next one dealing with the same topic. Motion to receive that correspondence by Councillor Hilliard and Ferra calling the question once it’s open. Yes, again, this is just receiving the communication.

[3:58:17] Councillor Chaucer. Councillor van Mayeburgen. Councillor van Mayeburgen, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Thank you. 4.7B is a communication that was submitted regarding business case P20 by Councillor Stevenson. Turning to the Councillor to see your intentions.

[3:58:53] Thank you. This was a motion that came out of the delegation at the PPM about giving all of the 2024 surplus back in 2026 instead of spreading it over two years unless there’s last minute hand going up, I will move a motion to receive if there’s no seconder. So procedurally, the Councillor would like to move it looking to see if there’s a seconder. As ideally, these conversations happen at committee, not when we get to council, should someone change their mind? Seeing no seconder in chambers at the time, would you like to move receipt of it?

[3:59:27] Yep, I’ll move receipt. Okay, so this is receipt of the correspondence regarding business case P20 from Councillor Stevenson a seconder to accept the correspondence. Councillor Chaucer has second receipt with the correspondence looking to call the question if there’s no comments. Okay, calling the question on receipt as it was moved by Councillor Chaucer. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[4:00:06] That would move us on to 4.8, which was a potential amendment regarding business case key 13, which is the funding of development charges act statutory exemptions reduction. Looking to the mover, which would be Councillor Stevenson to see which one would you like to see the seconder to have moved? Thank you, so this one has, I have a new one that is only 20, 25, because 2024 was already committed. So it’s, I think it’s 4.3 million.

[4:00:40] I’ve just lost it on my phone. So if there’s a seconder to give back the 4.3 million. Well, have you hold the clerk’s gonna get the right one up and in the system so it can be read out while you speak to it? And then just thought we were on the same page to see if there would be interest in a seconder. Just for fairness, we’re just gonna pause for a second to make sure we got the right one for people to actually see it. Mr. Murray, I believe you would help to review this one as well for language.

[4:01:32] That’s a thumb up from finance that they believe it to be the right one. If we refresh our e-scribe, it should be in there. Councillor Stephen, would you like to read it out or? Okay, yep, there. That the mayor’s table 2026 annual budget update be amended to utilize previously budgeted 2025 tax supported funding for statutory development charges, DC exemptions for tax levy mitigation. It being noted that these funds were budgeted in 2025 and have not been contributed to the tax supported DC exemptions reserve fund nor subsequently transferred to the obligatory city services DC reserve funds.

[4:02:17] Whereas 2024 contributions have been completed based on council direction and the adopted budget and therefore cannot be utilized for this purpose per section 35(1) of the Development Charges Act. It being further noted that this would reduce the projected 2025 surplus to be finalized in April 2026 and subject to external audit and the corresponding surplus allocations per the surplus deficit policy. So this would reduce the 2026 tax levy by $4.8 million. It further being resolved that the city treasurer be authorized to contribute the above noted amount to the operating budget contingency reserve in 2025 to be utilized in the 2026 city of London operating budget to offset the general tax levy.

[4:03:08] Thank you. So it is on the screen for the public. It is an e-scribe if you haven’t refreshed yet. The council would like to move it looking to see if there’s a seconder. Okay, seconded by Mayor Morgan. It is on the floor. I will start my speakers list with, okay. Yeah, we will start the speakers list with Mayor Morgan. Yeah, so I’m seconded to this and I just want to be clear. I seconded this because this is the same principle that I applied with the DC exemption study. I pulled it out of the future budget and what the council is doing here is saying, in the surplus, we said, you know, we’ve contributed in the past.

[4:03:46] We can’t take them out of the DC fund authority in there. But basically, for the ones that we haven’t deposited in the DC fund because the surplus hasn’t been allocated yet, let’s use that as well in the same way that essentially I used it when I pulled it out to provide some tax relief. So I’m not opposed, I seconded it ‘cause I’m not opposed to having that conversation ‘cause I think it’s a fair conversation for us to have. And if we want to look at ways to lower the budget that I tabled, I think this is one of the ways that we could look at it. I would say to the council, I seconded the motion, but my preference is to do it as I did it and spread it over two years because the way that is structured now would be a down in 2026 and up in 2027, and I’d much rather use it to smooth us to the next multi-year budget.

[4:04:28] So I’m gonna reserve some speaker time to hear what people think I might amend it later to spread it over the two years. But I wanted this on the floor ‘cause I think this is a fair discussion for us to have as one of the additional ways for council’s desire to lower the tax rate. Again, I fully respect people might have differences of opinions, but I think this one’s really worth a debate. For clarity, is your second contingent upon you’d like to do that now that it’s fed over the two? No, I’m happy to hear what people want to say. Okay, I was just trying to- But I’m saving time to amend it later. So I just wanted to be clear that people want to do that, they can amend it before me, but that’s gonna be my preference by the end of the debate.

[4:05:05] Okay, I’ll build up my speaker’s list, Councillor ramen, Councillor Layman, and I’ll continue it from there. Thank you, through the chair. I just want to ask some questions and then I’d like to move the amendment to smooth it out over that two year period. If staff would indulge me on their thoughts on what this does, I know the mayor’s shared his thoughts, but I just want to hear from staff around any concerns or issues they may have just with this approach.

[4:05:39] Mr. Murray, and I’ll also note, once you’re done your questions, we’ll check with the clerks to smooth it out. They’re also making sure with the mayor, and then I’ll go back to you before we leave you as a speaker. Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So a couple of things in particular that I’ll note. First and foremost, it’s, I think, important to reiterate that this represents one-time dollars or one-time reduction, and when I say one time, it could be either for one year or two years, but it is time-limited in nature. As currently constructed, I’ll speak to that because that’s what’s on the floor, but as it currently stands, $4.8 million would reduce the 2026 tax increase from 3.6 to 3%, but you’d see a corresponding increase of the same amount in 2027.

[4:06:31] So that would see 2027 go from the current 4.7 up to 5.3, so just be aware of that. If it were spread, you would obviously lessen the benefit that you’d pick up in 2026, but you would then lessen, of course, the impact whenever that funding comes out. So just be mindful of the one-time nature of this. I think the other important thing to note here is that, of course, the 2025 surplus position is not final at this point.

[4:07:04] We reported preliminary projection back in September, but certainly things can change between now and when we finalize the surplus in April. So the allocations and the availability of surplus is still not finalized and not certain, so just be mindful of that, that the amount of the surplus and the corresponding allocations could very well be different than what was reported at mid-year. Councilor Roman.

[4:07:36] Thank you. And just to further push the math for you here, if it was spread 2.4 million in the 2026, it’s a reduction in the 2026 tax levy and then 2.7 or 2.4, sorry again, in 2027, can you comment on what that does? I mean, we can get the visual up. Yeah, you got your nice visuals and realize we’ve had a couple of things that passed today too and came back in. If it’s all up to date, is your graph, your magic graph ready?

[4:08:13] Who doesn’t love a graph? Madam Chair, we are working on it. What I can say, and I can tell you verbally first and then we can certainly put it up visually as well once it’s ready, but if we were to spread it over two years, that would reduce the 2026 tax levy increase from 3.6 down to 3.3. So basically having the reduction in 2026, there’s no very little impact on 2027. You would then start the next multi-year budget cycle with a pressure of about the same 0.3% give or take.

[4:08:51] So we’ve got it up on screen now. We can, I believe, show you, so we’re 3.6 currently. Actually, what that’s showing there is bringing the full amount all at once. We could certainly model though the splitting of it or the dividing of it in half, so. So can you model it in half, please? Split it. Just bear with us here as we do this on the flight. Members, the committee, again, if you hit the toggle button on your screen, you could watch his graph as they display it.

[4:09:38] So Madam Chair, the splitting in half is now modeled up on screen. So you can see that the 2026 tax levy increase is reduced down to 3.3% from 3.6. There’s no impact on 2027 as I noted, but however you would have that pressure coming up in 2028, which you don’t see on this graph. Thank you for that, Councillor Rama. Thank you. If the clerk has that drafted, I will move an amended motion. Hey, I got Councillor Lehman as a seconder.

[4:10:12] We’re just gonna put it on the screen to make sure it reads right for finance. You subscribe his froze.

[4:10:49] So we’re gonna work on that, but it is separate between two. Okay, it is unfrozen. If we refresh, it should be there to finance. It’s on the big screen. It thumbs up if the numbers are numbering. Perfect. Councillor Rama, you’re good with that. Councillor Lehman, you’ve seen it and you’re good with it. Okay, so there’s amendment. Councillor Rama, the floor is still yours. I can go to other speakers and I will build up my list. Thank you. And just on the amendment, I will just say thank you to Councillor Stevenson for presenting this item and for Mayor Morgan for seconding it.

[4:11:29] I do understand that your intention was to put the bump in 2026. I am more comfortable in supporting this if we spread it. I do realize that it does create pressures in 2028, but I do think that it is something that we can look to mitigate in the future. And it gives us a little bit of runway to do so. Thank you. I had Councillor Lehman, Councillor Ferrera, then Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, pretty much similar. Thank you to Councillor Stevenson for bringing this forward. I just want to, I apologize, I want to be crystal clear here.

[4:12:08] We did it as originally through chair to Mr. Murray originally proposed. We would see a reduction in the tax levy from 3.6 to three for 2026, but then the corresponding the following year from 4.7 projected to 5.3. Okay, he’s nodding, yes. And I wouldn’t be okay with that ‘cause I think that’s a false reduction in tax. However, what I’m seeing with this amendment by splitting it, and again, I need to confirm through you chair to Mr. Murray, we go the direction by splitting it that this amendment proposes.

[4:12:49] We would see the tax levy go from 3.6 to 3.3 in 2026. No change to 2027, but the first year of the following four years, you know, a multi-year budget, there would be some challenges, but that would have to be dealt with in that four year plan, terrific. So I definitely hope people will support this. I think it brings some of those finances back again. As we heard, you know, we heard a lot about the budget impact on taxpayers. We know we’ve been through some challenging years ‘cause we had some work to do, and I think now going forward, we really have to focus on bringing some really for London taxpayers.

[4:13:34] So I think this is a way to do it without it affecting next year’s budget. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ferris. Thank you, Chair. So I have a different opinion. We did have, I was really hesitant on the last direction we had when we were looking to take some of the surplus that we were gonna put from, I think it was last year, 24, where we used it to kind of depress the property tax rate, which we knew would have an increase in subsequent years for that.

[4:14:07] So before I kind of go on with some of my comments, just wanna go to finance and just see if we can get how much of that temporary surplus dollars that we used, how much pressure are we gonna see from that resulting when we don’t have those monies anymore to help us reduce the property tax rate? Mr. Murray. Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So with the application of 2024 surplus to 2026 and 2027 spreading it out over the two years.

[4:14:42] And I’ll remind committee as well that there was a similar motion in last year’s budget to utilize, at that point, the Community Investment Reserve fund for a million dollars per year for 2526 and 27 as well to reduce the tax levy. So even before we get to this particular motion here in question, we will have a pressure of in the neighborhood of 1% from 2028 in the form of one time funding that is no longer there to offset taxes.

[4:15:21] It’s been used, it’s been exhausted and it will come out of the budget as a funding source. So just, it’s important that the committee is mindful of that impact and mindful of the pressure that will need to be addressed come 2028. Councillor Ferrell. Thank you. So we’re already dealing with an artificial increase for the next multi-year budget with that 1%. And now we’re talking about potential doing the same thing at a much lower amount, but still something that is going to come back. We’re gonna have to pay for it.

[4:15:55] Like I hear council saying, we don’t wanna rob Peter to pay Paul, but here we’re robbing Peter two years from now to pay Peter today. And I don’t think that’s a very fair or wise way to move forward. Also, we would be tying the hands of the next term of council with their ability to fund certain initiatives or certain business cases. And we don’t know that what’s coming down the pipe. I just don’t think it would be a wise choice or a prudent choice to go further. Like I said, it was very hesitant on the first one, but the property tax rate was quite high. Right now we’re at 3.6% talking about a reduction of 0.3% for this year.

[4:16:30] No change on the next year, I believe. But it’s just not, I just don’t feel comfortable moving in that direction because we are gonna pay for this in the end. And a 0.3% reduction on today’s property tax rate is how much to the average household? Mr. Murray. We’ll have to calculate that. I mean, your 0.3 represents 2.4 million dollars on the budget.

[4:17:04] We can do the math to determine if you give us a second, the impact of 0.3 on the average household. Thank you, appreciate that. If you do have that number, please just chime in and let me know. But I just don’t think it’s a wise choice to do that. Like I understand the reasoning of reducing our property tax rate. I understand the reasoning of reducing the financial pressures of London, but we are going to pay for it eventually. So those are my concerns. And I know that there are going to be items on the next term of council.

[4:17:36] How are we going to reconcile that when the time comes? I don’t want to kick the can down the road. So I’m not going to be supporting this. I appreciate the emotion coming forward. I appreciate the work from other members of this council working on it to make it work. But in the end, we’ve already done this once. I’m not willing to do it again because at what point does it stop? The slippery slope is a true statement here because we’re getting more. And I think it’s time to just say no to these kind of measures.

[4:18:11] And I’ll go back to Mr. Murray because I think he has the answer. Okay, Mr. Murray. Through you, Madam Chair. So the impact of 0.3% in 2026 is in the neighborhood of $11 to $12 for the average property owner. Thank you. All right, Councilor Hopkins, next on my list. Thank you. And as much as I appreciate the mayor and Councilor Stevenson’s intent here, I’m not convinced that this is the way that we should go. For me, it’s become a numbers game and more or less we’re just pushing it down the road.

[4:18:51] The number that I’m very interested is the four year budget and the increases. Over four years, we were at 6.1. And with this change, we’re down to 6%. It’s not a huge amount. It’s something that to me is gonna be concerned down the road. But what I think is even more important is that we don’t even know the final number here. And again, we’re playing with numbers that are concrete even and then expectations for the next Council.

[4:19:33] So as much as I understand where they’re coming from, the moves and the seconders and the changes and the amendments, I don’t really see much of a significance here. And for now, always open to being convinced to change my support for this, but I will not be supporting. Thank you. Don, this item, but overall, I know that as you look at your agenda, we’re on 4.8 and you believe it goes to 4.11. I also have two more emotions behind the scenes as well.

[4:20:07] Just as you budget your time and speaking that I am aware of two more things at least coming today, potentially. Following on my speakers list, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis, Mayor Morgan, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Frank, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Madam Chair. So development charges and the back feeling of these provincial exemptions. Development charges are there to pay for new growth and new infrastructure. So through you, Madam Chair, to our staff, and I don’t know if this one’s more appropriate for Mr. Mathers or Ms. Chair or whom, but if we recognize that we haven’t allocated these projects yet, but if we withdraw this money from the D.C. Reserve Fund to lower taxes, what does this mean for our ability to continue to meet our housing starts and our infrastructure commitments that have been made in terms of, you know, we’ve approved, we’ve hit our 47,000 targets permission for housing starts, but without these D.C. charges, we know we have an infrastructure gap.

[4:21:15] What does this mean for our ability to build out the infrastructure we need for those housing units? Could go be for everybody. I’m not gonna play favorites if Mr. Murray wants to start off and hand it to the back row. You go right ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’ll start and I just wanna clarify that these funds that are being discussed here in the $4.8 million, they have not been contributed to the city services, D.C. Reserve Funds.

[4:21:47] They will not be contributed to the D.C. Reserve Funds based on that clarification that we’ve received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The 2024 contributions are done and dealt with, but for 2025, those contributions are not happening. Right now, that amount was projected as part of the mid-year surplus. So in absence of any direction here otherwise, that amount would make up a component of our 2025 surplus and would get then allocated according to our surplus deficit policy.

[4:22:22] So this is not being contributed to our D.C. Examsions Reserve Fund and then subsequently to the city services Reserve Fund, it is a component of the projected surplus for this year. Deputy Mayor. Okay, so that’s helpful because I would be really hesitant to slow down housing starts. If it were going into the D.C. Reserve, knowing that’s not where it’s going, that’s somewhat helpful. I share the hesitancy. I also appreciate the idea of looking for some relief. So I’m kind of torn and I’m listening to what folks say.

[4:22:58] And I’m going to share that my biggest fear right now is that as we move some things down the road, the ticking time bomb for residents really at the end of the day is the fact that the province has had impact assessment rates frozen since 2016. And when that freeze comes off and it’s going to have to come off eventually, we have no idea what that’s going to mean for reevaluation of residential properties. I can tell you in looking at some data that some realtors have provided me, I’m very concerned about what it’s going to mean for more modest homes.

[4:23:40] Because those have seen a greater appreciation in overall value than higher end luxury homes who’ve seen an appreciation, but not at the same percentile. So I’m worried about what that means for people in my neighborhood, because we do have mostly more modest homes in Ward 2. We don’t have a lot of homes that are in the $900, $1.1 million range. We are in that $500, $600 range. And hopefully we’ll see those prices come down a little bit, but I’m not holding my breath on that too much, even though we’re adding more inventory.

[4:24:12] So I’m really hesitant to go further into the A it later sort of scenario, but at the same time, I do recognize that there are pressures today. And so I’m really trying to weigh those two choices out. I’m really hesitant on that. With the surplus, if it goes to the surplus and it’s just allocated that way, the one thing that it does is we know our surplus policy automatically puts the numbers changed.

[4:24:50] So I forget what the percentage is into debt reduction. Can I ask you, Madam Chair, to just get that on the record from our staff? I think it’s 60% right. Yes, Madam Chair, that’s correct. 60% of the surplus now goes to debt substitution. 20% goes to the infrastructure gap. 17% goes to the unfunded liability reserve fund. 3% to community investment reserve fund. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So I’m not sure how much time I have left. Min and a half.

[4:25:22] Okay. So what I like about leaving it in the surplus piece is that 60% of that goes towards debt avoidance reduction, which takes longterm pressure off the budget in years to come. That’s why I’m more comfortable applying surplus to some tax relief, knowing that what’s left in surplus is going to provide some longterm pressure relief. I know that doesn’t help as much today, but I am thinking about what it means in 2027, 2029 as well. So I’m gonna listen to what other colleagues have to say.

[4:25:56] I’m really on the fence on this one ‘cause I’d like to get 3.6 lower, but I don’t wanna get 3.6 lower at the expense of, you know, an extra 1.3 in 2028 on top of whatever the pressures are in 2028, especially if we’ve seen the MPAC assessment lift at that point in time too. So I think we’ve got a lot of hand grenades, we’re juggling right now and we’re not sure what pins have been pulled in which ones. Mayor Morgan. I’m not sure how to follow that.

[4:26:32] Let me see if I can put some pins back in some of the grenades. So I just wanna be clear about the challenges this causes and then some of the approaches because, so first off, I do support dividing it, which is the amount we’re on, dividing it and spreading it out. Gives us more run way to deal with it. It gives us less of an impact to deal with, right? Rather than dealing with which very clear next year, a 6% or 0.6% problem. It’s a 0.3% problem two years from now. So we have about a 1% challenge, as Mr. Murray mentioned, with all the things we’ve done if you include this.

[4:27:09] So I would like to be able to table that budget, but I gotta go through a performance review to be able to get there. But let me tell you how I would approach it, should I have that opportunity. One is we need to continue to pay down debt, right? So when surplus report comes, we cannot shy away from making sure it gets allocated towards debt because debt relieves future principle and investments and takes some of that pressure off. We also are gonna have to realize that as we ask our staff to find service review dollars, we may not be able to allocate all of it towards tax relief.

[4:27:41] We may have to allocate some of it towards backfilling some of the things that we’ve done. So some of the efficiencies that are found in the future may have to go towards filling this. This 1% gap back up. And of course, there’s time between here and there. So the level of programs and services and whatever we do, there’ll be a whole election. I think there’ll be a whole set of new priorities and viewpoints from the public that Council will have to deal with including this. And being transparent about it now allows people to address it at that time and think about the service levels and the different things that the public needs.

[4:28:15] So we’ve got some runway. Yes, there’s a challenge, but I’ve heard multiple people around this room say, people need relief now. This is a way to give people relief now. And we got some work to do to figure it out. The other piece we have to figure out is the DC piece, right? This was not gonna go into the DC fund, but we know the DC fund will be underfunded. We know we don’t have to put in the money on behalf of the province anymore, which is great, but no one’s funding those exemptions currently. And there’s going to be a continued need for advocacy on infrastructure dollars to get the development projects we need as the deputy mayor was suggesting to build the housing that we’ve actually permitted.

[4:28:54] So all of those are things that we have to meet. It’s not an easy job to do what we do, but these are challenges that we meet. And I think that this is a reasonable risk that we can take with some runway to try to mitigate it, to provide the type of relief now. And to counsel Ferra through the chair, of course, I’ll say this, frankly, you got a number of asks in the budget that you’re coming up, your motions are coming up next. Creating some room is probably to your advantage. So I know you don’t wanna create a problem down the road, but it’s gonna be difficult for me to support some of the things you put in there if we’re not creating a little bit of space from where we started from.

[4:29:30] So I’ll leave it at that and I support the amendment. Councilor Stevenson and Councilor Frank. Thank you. I just wanna thank the mayor for seconding this motion. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about this. I’m not gonna support the amendment just because I prefer to see it all come in one year, but I’m not gonna be unhappy with the amendment either. I just want us to, look, it’s interesting. I understand completely why we have this talk of the bump that happens.

[4:30:04] But I just wanna give you a sort of a weird example or an exaggerated example. It’s like saying, I don’t wanna decrease your insurance by 50% because then next year I’d have to explain why it went up by 50. So from the taxpayers perspective, it’s like they don’t wanna give us money because then it’s gonna make it higher next year. Like the reality is we focus on tax increases and the impact is there.

[4:30:36] But on the other hand, this 4.8 million, we debated and discussed this at the time. We added the money to the levy. We’ve since stopped doing that. So the plan was to do it again in 26 and 27. We stopped doing that. The 4.8 that we added to the tax levy when we approved a 7.3% tax increase didn’t have to be done. So to give this back is consistent with the mayor’s budget for this year. It looks good from the public because we’re willing to give back that money even though it causes a little bump later.

[4:31:15] Otherwise we’re saying, sorry, we’re not gonna give it back to you because there’s gonna be a bump we have to deal with later. We’re confusing our problem and their problem. So I do think that’s important. And I heard reference to, I don’t wanna do it all in one year because then the number for 2027 is false. The number in 2027 then would actually be real. When we split it over two years, they’re actually both false because they’re both impacted by one-time adjustments that aren’t real.

[4:31:49] So that’s why I would prefer to do it all in one year. That’s why I’m gonna vote no on this amendment. I wanna do it all in one year so that we are presenting the real numbers going into the next term of council. It is going to be challenging. And the 5.7 or whatever it was is actually the number we’re looking at going forward without the one-time adjustments. So I would prefer to give it all back and then be able to say to people, hey, look, we’re down to 3% knowing we hit you guys hard in the last couple of years. And then the reality is we are dealing with pressures going forward.

[4:32:24] Rather than smoothing it, I think helps us. We like the flat numbers, but we kind of dilute the benefit of giving it back. So I’m gonna vote no to this and I’m not gonna be unhappy. Like I said, I appreciate the support from the mayor and hopefully we are giving this money back to taxpayers consistent with the mayor’s direction in this budget. Councillor Frank. Thank you and to the chair, a couple of questions. I heard some references that, you know, we can use some of those funds to prepaid debt.

[4:32:58] But my understanding is our debt’s not callable. It’s on like 20 year fixed terms. So I’m hoping to get a bit of clarification on that. Mr. Mary. Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So when we refer to debt substitution, that is avoiding the issuance of future debt and avoiding therefore the future debt service and costs that go along with that debt. Councillor Frank. Thank you, appreciate that. Additionally, and maybe this is a statement and shake your head if I’m wrong, but my understanding, so the finding that we collected for this, we collected under the assumption we had to put it into this fund and we don’t.

[4:33:30] We clarified that with the province. So I’m comfortable with returning some of this money, if not all to the taxpayer as it was incorrectly collected. For me, development charges are supposed to be paid by developers, hence the name. And this was something that the province imposed upon us. And I don’t feel any blame in not filling it up. I think it will delay some development, but I think that the province’s fault and responsibility for giving us money to fast track development. So I don’t see any issuance there and I know that we weren’t talking, we were originally talking about allocating it into that fund and now we’re not and it’s gonna go in a different one.

[4:34:10] But I’ll say, I don’t mind giving it back to the taxpayers in that we didn’t need to collect it in the first place and the province should just give us more money. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor, let me get the chair for a moment as I’m the next speaker. I recognize Councillor Palazzo. Thank you. I’ll be brief on this one. I appreciate the original recommendation that was circulated in it being revised to make sure that it was viable for today. I appreciate the amendments smoothing it out. Also following up on Councillor Frank’s comments that we were in need of collecting it for provincial direction.

[4:34:48] The direction has changed if they’re gonna make us whole and come back to the table being a good partner. I’m waiting for that and hoping for that. But it was collected under those premise which we’ve now been alleviated of and I know we have unfunded liability and things coming up but that wasn’t a premise we collected it under. I know we’d still be responsible with it either way but my promise this time is to actually return it to the taxpayers and reduce the levy. Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you. I’ll return the chair to you. Okay.

[4:35:21] Councillor Trousa, I had you next. Anyone else let me know ‘cause then after that, my list would be exhausted and I’d call the question. Thank you to the chair. I’ll simply incorporate the comments that Councillor Ferrero made before. I’m not gonna repeat them. What this must sound like to people at home. We have demonstrable needs in terms of people’s lives on the table. We don’t deal with them ‘cause we don’t have enough money in reserve and there’s no discussion here about how we can fill some of those human need gaps.

[4:35:56] So in terms of the amendment, the amendment, but I just think this is probably a problem with the overall structure of how we have to do this budget. So I think those are comments that probably shouldn’t be made in the course of debate on an amendment and I’ll save them for later. But I have to say I’m just not happy with the way this entire discussion is going in terms of looking at things from the perspective of what do our most vulnerable residents need, but maybe that was to a different motion.

[4:36:37] So thank you. Thank you, further speakers on this? Call on the question. Hold up. Okay, nevermind, it’s momentarily panicked, but we’re good. This is on the amendment of the original one. Closing the vote, motion carries, 11 to four.

[4:37:23] Main motion as amended, same mover and seconder. Councillor Stevenson, you’re still willing to stand as the, okay, Councillor Stevenson, is it yes for the mover? Mayor Morgan is a yes for the seconder. Am I able to call the question? It’s in the e-scribe? It’s in the e-scribe? Okay, we’re opening it. Closing the vote, motion carries, 12 to three.

[4:38:17] As we move on, I’m gonna note that the rate at which we’re moving, we will not complete budget today. Just as we’re mindful, making our comments, just how much we’re speaking per item, knowing what’s coming, we’re not gonna make it unless we’re a little bit more efficient. It’s up to you. Tomorrow is bookmarked, but many say they do. They prefer not to be in each other’s company tomorrow. So keep that in mind while we move forward. Councillor Ferrer, the next one is yours. This is 4.9 on 26th, the added, and this is regarding parking. Looking to you to move it, if you have a seconder, please identify them and we’ll get up in the e-scribe.

[4:38:58] It’s okay, make your pitch and we’ll see. I believe Councillor Ferrer is gonna be looking for a seconder, so this might be for you. Can I speak to it? You can introduce it and read out what you wanna do. You can’t go much farther than that. Okay, this is a two hour parking motion, on street core area, I guess as far as I can go. Looking for a seconder. Okay, you have a seconder and Deputy Mayor Lewis. I will start speaking time now, if you wanna be first. Thank you. Okay, so we had that conversation about stickiness at the downtown plan just a couple of days ago, and this is exactly what it is.

[4:39:33] If we are wanting to revitalize downtown, bring more feed on the street, bring more commerce to our local businesses, bring just more people so more businesses are interested in coming in and just starting hitting the ground running as much as we can. We do have the downtown plan stuff coming Q2, 2026. We’re gonna be talking about that for any business cases that might be associated with that in the multi-year budget, the next one, but I think we should start now. So this is what it is, just small little moves that we can make that allow us to open up the downtown for the city at large as much as possible, and this is a motion that I thought we should bring.

[4:40:12] We have continually moved parking again and again, I have anyways in the last little bit. For one hour, we went down from the two originally, I think it’s time we go back to the two. If someone’s coming for an appointment, one hour is not enough. Someone’s coming for a lunch, one hour is too tight. Someone’s coming to lock for, to shop. That one hour march is to limit their time being here. Pretty much directly translates in a limiting of time of people being able to spend their money downtown. So this is the motion that I put for us. I’m hoping that I can get support for it.

[4:40:51] Deputy Mayor Lewis, I don’t know if you want to hold, you were the seconder procedurally as being looking to you. If not, I have Councillor McAllister in the mirror. I’ll hold and maybe— Okay, we don’t. Councillor McAllister. Thank you to the chair. You might see a theme with my amendments, but before we put forward amendment, question in terms of what’s our economic development reserve fund at? To staff. Through you Madam Chair, the economic development reserve fund balance is currently $7.5 million.

[4:41:27] I will note, however, for a committee’s benefit that this initiative or variations thereof have been funded through one-time funding sources since 2020. So we’re north of five years now. We are not comfortable as staff with the continuation of utilizing one-time funding sources for an initiative of such duration. So hence, the recommendation to utilize tax levy on a permanent basis for this. Okay, yeah, I’ll note this motion’s ongoing and perpetuity, not just a specified time to the next MYB.

[4:42:01] Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair and recognizing that, just as we’re in kind of the tail end of a multi-year budget, I would also like to see it on a more permanent basis. I think this is a discussion we need to have the start and ensure that funding is there. But recognizing again, the pressures we have on the tax base right now, I still think for the two years, if we can put it on the reserve fund. I think, and I hear staff’s reservations, but I think we’re all aware this is a conversation that needs to happen at the next multi-year at the start of that cycle.

[4:42:34] So I am still willing to move that amendment for the two years from the economic reserve. Are you moving that now? Yes. Okay, is there a seconder now? It’s an amendment to make this for a two-year timeframe instead of ongoing. Okay, I have a commissioner and Councillor Stevenson. We’re getting that clerked in Councillor. That was the act I would reserve fund was your intention versus the tax base. So we’re getting that in there as well. I’ll say, as well, I dug into this one a little bit as well. Mr. Mather’s and his team also has the differentiation between poor area and downtown and the one year versus the two year.

[4:43:56] Looking to the mover, seconder and Mr. Murray, it’s up. I think I’m a head nod from Councillor Stevenson, a head nod from Councillor McAllister. Finance is also a nod and I’ll reiterate as we’ve looked at changing the funding source. It’s the economic development reserve fund with the balance of 7.5 million.

[4:44:35] I will come in. My speakers list, I will go back to Councillor McAllister. The floor was yours. Thank you, through the chair. I got to use my comments on putting forward the amendment, but yeah, just to reiterate again, with the tax pressures we’re facing, I still think that there’s value in this as to what Councillor Ferri was saying. We want people to come down downtown, all these village, want them to spend more time in those areas, just recognizing where we’re at right now. But again, I think this is a conversation that definitely is happening at the start of the multi-year to ensure that we do have that stable funding throughout. Don’t love the piecemeal approach we’ve had, but I think right now this is appropriate and I think this is an appropriate source ‘cause I do think this drives economic development.

[4:45:13] Thanks. Thank you to Mayor Morgan and Deputy Mayor Lewis. So I’ll just put all my cards on the table on this one. Now I support free parking in the downtown. I support one hour, as opposed to two. So I’ll make that amendment when we get back to the main motion. And we’ll see where people wanna go with that. And I support making it permanent. So I support the tax levy piece. So I appreciate what the Councillor’s trying to do if I get the conversation later. I can’t contemplate a time in the future where we won’t wanna provide at least one hour of free parking in the core area. So I’m gonna vote against the amendment. I’m gonna potentially make an amendment later to one hour.

[4:45:49] Ultimately, I wanna support parking downtown though. Thank you. I already used my outside voice when I said Mr. Mathers has the one hour versus two hours in core versus just downtown. Yep. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, in the spirit of the mayor showing all his cards now, I’ll play the left power since he played the rights. I will support this. And I also think that it needs to be now on the tax levy moving forward.

[4:46:24] As we heard from staff five years, we’ve been cobbling together various sources of funding to do what I think is very clearly something we are going to continue to do for a long time. Maybe there will be a future council that says, okay, it’s time to reduce this to one hour or maybe it’s time to ditch it or whatever. But I think the state of our downtown right now absolutely requires this. I agree with the comments about the stickiness. I would find it very hard to go into Jill’s table and then grab lunch and be done in two hours and get back to my car.

[4:46:58] I think two hours is I would be hard pressed to, you know, go into Tobog and then walk down to heroes or anything like that. And if we want people to come and spend some time, I think we’ve got to let them park their vehicle for more than an hour. I do think it is a neck dev. If not long-term strategy, I think it’s a recovery piece. And I think downtown is still in recovery. And so as we move forward on that, I don’t want to have the conversation again in two years. I want to put the source of funding in now.

[4:47:32] So I’m going to support this on the levy and I’m going to support the two hours. I think that that’s right. Now, I will say I was more inclined to only support the downtown, but I did ask for numbers as well. And I see that the difference between downtown and core area is fairly minimal. And so if that extends a little bit of benefit to the businesses in Midtown and OEV as well, I’m okay, including the entire core area. I was a little hesitant, but the numbers actually are not that significant to change my mind that the two hours is valid.

[4:48:05] So especially now that we’re down to 3.3, I’m okay to do 3.4 to provide downtown vitality. I’d like to hand the chair to Councillor Lehman. Thank you and I recognize Councillor Palazzo. Thank you. Having heard comments of potentially a long discussion ahead on this one, I would like to call the question. Okay. I’ll ask the clerk if we’re able to call the question. I presume to the amended rules under 33.15, the motion to put the question can be put at committee.

[4:48:50] There’s no amendment, no debate. The financial threshold is 1 million or a greater. That bars it, if it’s less than that, then the motion can be put at committee. Okay, upon advice of the clerk, I shall call the question. Sorry, Mr. Presiding Officer, just a point of order. Councillor Palazzo is calling the question on the amendment to the Act to have reserve fund, not the main motion. Thank you, that is correct. Yeah. Didn’t mean to apply otherwise.

[4:49:32] What’s showing is not the amendment. Call a point of order. Point of order, go ahead. I think when accounts, so this, I see the amendment up, but I believe we have to vote on the, that the question should be put first. And then if that passes, then we immediately vote on the amendment.

[4:50:07] So I think we’re missing a step here. Okay, I want to go to the clerk here for, can you please be clear in the procedure here? Yes, through the chair or through the presiding officer, yes, the motion to put the question is first put. It’s much like a motion for leave to introduce a motion. So a motion should be put to put the question, then if that carries, then the question is put. In this case, it would be the amendment.

[4:50:45] So we’re going to vote on whether this should go directly to a vote, we’ll do the question, correct? So that’s what we are voting on right now, okay. Through the presiding officer, under 33.16, the motion to put the question, if that is decided in the affirmative by a 2/3 vote of the members present, then the motion is voted on immediately without further debate or comment. Okay, so we will need 2/3 and we will need that wording in the ascribe that we see when we vote.

[4:51:24] And I will call that question to permit the question. We need a seconder, I’ll second that. Councillor Van Merebergen, closing the vote, motion carries 13 to 2.

[4:52:09] Okay, do we have enough to call the question? Can you please respond, I just want to hear that. That’s correct, Mr. Presiding Officer, that reaches the 2/3 vote threshold. Okay, thank you, then I will call the question on the amendment, thank you. Councillor Hopkins.

[4:52:49] I vote yes, I’ve been kicked out. Closing the vote, motion fails, 7 to 8. Thank you, and I’ll return the chair to budget chair. Thank you, that puts us back to the original one, having heard comments about ongoing sources and operating expenditures from the tax levy that speakers list only had one person speaking to it. I’ll start, continue that list as Mayor Morgan was on it and I’ll recognize Councillor Frank after that.

[4:53:24] Yeah, and I don’t think this needs to be a long debate. I think it should be one, people might think it should be two. I think we should just put it on the floor and have a vote about it, so I’ll move a motion to make it one hour. One hour is an operating expenditure for core area and downtown? Correct, and I know our staff have numbers, I think it’s 300 and some odd thousand, I can’t remember the exact number. Can I do a point of order? Just one second. In one moment from Mr. Mathers and the team, it was $330,000, we’ll look for clarification once that was up, but that’s what I had received in advance.

[4:54:46] Yeah, so just looking to Mr. Mathers and Mr. Murray of this was the head nod from both teams. So staff have confirmed that’s correct, the mayor was moving it, there was gonna be a seconder. In Councillor Pribble, Councillor Frank had called a point of order, I believe. Yeah, I was gonna say we should put the word core area in and I see it, so thank you. Perfect, yeah, if you refresh, it’s there, so it’s both areas still.

[4:55:21] Just the one year ongoing would be the change. I know this conversation comes up a lot. Speaker’s list-wise, I’ll start with Councillor Frara and then I’ll go to Councillor McAllister and then I’ll work around. Councillor Frara. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, my original motion, my original intent was to have the core area and I believe that before the downtown and all these village parking when I got these numbers, ‘cause I did look into the one hour, so the exact numbers that I have was exactly that. So I just wanna ask staff, the two hour relative to the one hour, was core area supposed to be involved on both?

[4:56:00] Staff. Through the chair, yes, the original value that was shown us for the entire core area. Thank you, interesting that it wasn’t there. I guess, you know, when it comes to the two hour, like that stickiness is really kind of what I wanted, that’s why you saw me bring in the two hour idea. The two hour itself would allow people to be here longer. Now, I’m not gonna say no to one hour. I’m gonna take what I can get, but I do gotta comment on some things. For me, you know, I’m a city builder, I’m not a politicker and I’m looking to make motions that help with our downtown and help with just this revitalization.

[4:56:41] So, you know, I have some motions here that are gonna be spending some monies of ours, but at the same time, if you look at these motions, like the Housing Stability Bank, that is a proactive thing. That is something that reduces our costs in the long run because it helps people before the door. If you see with my parks operation motion, that is after the fact, that costs a lot. I don’t wanna do that. That’s why you see some of the things that I’m doing. When it comes to this, this is about improving the downtown and investing in the downtown because the return on investment will pay dividends to the rest of the city. The more we invest in our downtown, when you consider the revenue that it generates per square foot geographic area, will actually subsidize the rest of the city.

[4:57:21] So, the more we invest in downtown, the lower your property taxes are gonna be city-wide. So, motions like this, that invest into the downtown, that help with that economic vitality, that help with that revenue generation, the more we put in, the more we’re gonna get out. So, when you see some of the motions that I bring through, I can hear that it’s gonna cost a little bit, but city building costs money. That’s just how it is. Everybody knows that. And other levels of government are doing the same thing. You have to put money down to invest in what you have, if you want to realize return out of it. So, the motions that I bring and the monies that I’m asking for to invest in certain areas, especially when it comes to downtown, is about that reinvestment.

[4:58:02] It’s about ensuring that people are there. It’s about ensuring that businesses are able to operate. It’s about ensuring that it is a place that people wanna go. And as you kinda get that momentum going, you’re gonna see it start building on itself, like a snowball going down a hill. So, the return on investment is really what I need council to think about because in the end, this will provide more money for the rest of the city, regardless if someone goes downtown or not, they’re gonna benefit from the revenue from downtown. So, the more money we invest here, this is our best asset. This is our flagship of the city.

[4:58:36] It’s the face of London. So, anything that we do and any action that we bring to the core of the city will benefit the city at large on every single level of metric that we calculate. So, I really wish we could have the two percent or the two hour, but I’m gonna take the one hour. Eventually, we are gonna have to switch it up because we are in a critical time. And like the deputy mayor said, I don’t believe we’re gonna need free parking forever. As we build out our transportation, you know, eventually we might not even need parking, but this is a temporary measure, temporary gap. I just don’t know how long it’s gonna take.

[4:59:10] So, in perpetuity, two hour, one hour is something that we need to do. And we will adjust when we see that the downtown is not in the critical need that it is right now. So, you need to think about this as investing in our core and what the return on investment is going to be because it will be large and it will help the city at large. We want lower property taxes, invest in your downtown. Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair. I just wanna explain my reason why I won’t be supporting the one hour ‘cause I do believe in the two hour, you know, trying to put this to a reserve fund, recognizing obviously we want the ongoing funding.

[4:59:47] So, totally get that, but I’m still fully supportive of the two hours and just anecdotally, just to speak to my own experience, I had to do one appointment yesterday, popped in a service, Canada, shout out to them, probably the quickest time I’ve ever gone in there, maybe 15, 20 minutes max, then tried to have breakfast downtown and it was tight. Like, it was like 59 minutes on the nose to get out. And not that, you know, I’m not trying to be a penny puncher here, but like, I was trying to stay within my hour allotment and not to slight that COVID-garde market, but I still think they should have two hours, weekdays and weekends.

[5:00:23] And I just think you’re putting too much of a pressure on people to do things in one hour. I honestly think it’s a bit of a discouragement. I think if you’re gonna offer it, it’s gotta be a serious offer and I think two hours is fair. People might stay longer than two hours. It’s encouraging them to maybe buy a bit more when I’ve had meals downtown. Again, you are hard pressed at a restaurant to sit down, have a meal in an hour and be in and out. I think it just kind of encourages people to drop into these areas when we want them to actually stay and spend a bit of money. So I think if we’re gonna do this, we should do the two hours, and it should be the full whack to the levy.

[5:01:00] So I won’t be supporting this, but it’s because I believe the two hours is the appropriate time. Thank you. Can you? I’ll take the chair and I’ll go to Councilor Plaza. Thank you. For me, I couldn’t do the two hour. I can’t. If you have a vehicle and you’re going downtown to shop, you have money. I also acknowledge where we’re at in things. I can continue on the one hour.

[5:01:34] I do use it. The honk app’s usually pretty good. Sometimes I’ve used the one hour free. It gives you your notification. You know you need to pop a little bit more coin in it to finish up what you’re working on. Sometimes I also want to move the car between different great locations in downtown and you can easily do that with the app. Just for committee’s information, I was digging into a core area versus just downtown. For me, I recognize we just gave two free parking lots worth of parking to Aldi’s Village, but just for everyone’s information, the core area, including is $330,000. The variation of downtown was 307.

[5:02:10] So for me, it wasn’t that big, that big gap of funding. And sometimes it’s hard to differentiate like where does one section begin? Where does the next one go when you’re already out working your way down a road to hit up businesses? So for me, I could, I can do this one. I’d also like to revisit it one day that they don’t need it, that it’s such high demand and everyone’s a great economy that we’d be losing money not to do it, but right now I do believe they need the help of the business, I can support this, I can’t do to you. I will return the chair to you, budget chair with Councilor Pribble on the speakers list.

[5:02:46] Thank you, I’m gonna go to Councilor Troso first and then Councilor Pribble. Thank you and to the chair, this won’t come as a surprise, but for me, the issue is not whether it’s one hour or two hours, the issue is, and we’re going around in a spiral. We’ve had so many discussions about, are there other ways to get people to come downtown besides encouraging people to come down in a single occupancy car? And whether it’s one hour or two hours or the discount on honk or whatever it is, there are only so many parking spaces without going into the private lots.

[5:03:28] And I think what we really should be doing, and I agree with the direction that Councilor Pribble wants to take this in terms of creating a good return on investment to get people to come downtown. But I don’t think it’s going through yet again, the same discussion about subsidizing single vehicle passenger cars. Now, I think this money could be better spent doing other things. And before we put this money into that subsidy, I think the other day when we were having the discussion about the downtown plan, I talked about maybe creating a remote lot, having a free shuttle that runs through downtown.

[5:04:10] I don’t know what that would cost. I think that would be a much more creative way of getting people to circulate through the downtown and take as much time as they want. Also, maybe working with LTC a little bit to say, look, we know it’s asking you a lot, but how about running a free shuttle downtown that just goes on a certain route and we’ll subsidize it? Would this money pay for that? So again, I totally agree with the downtown Councilor that I want to create transit opportunities for people to be able to go downtown and spend as much time as they want instead of having to have their mind on the clock while they’re trying to eat there.

[5:04:58] I’ll just say sandwich, I won’t talk about how expensive it is. But let’s try to think out of the box a little bit and talk about other ways of getting people to come downtown and not have to park right in front of the store that they’re going into. ‘Cause in all likelihood, that parking space isn’t gonna be there anyway. Thank you. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, and I have a couple of things. I will support the one hour. I do believe it increases the turnover and higher frequency.

[5:05:32] And I think especially when we look at on-site parking, I think it’s the benefits to the stores. And so bottom line is I do support the one hour. I do want to ask staff though for the calculation because we added core area and we decreased it by one hour which is in front of us. And when I look what was for two hours which was only for downtown, all these village, it’s kind of more than half. So if you can clarify the amounts for me, please. Sure, that’s a Mr. Mathers.

[5:06:13] I’ll take a crack at it, Madam Chair. And if Mr. Mather wants to jump in, he certainly can. My understanding is that the previous figure that was provided was including core area as well. So it is an apples-to-apples comparison of numbers. The difference in the amounts and the reason why the two hour was more than double, the one hour was I understand based on past experience, the previous two hour programs have been more popular than the one hour program. So there’s been greater take up on two hours versus one. Councilor Provost.

[5:06:44] Okay, thank you for that. And in addition, I just want to say that we will have, I do think there’s a good benefit. Thank you for introducing it. But I do think that we will have a lot of additional pressures to invest more money downtown. When we look at the downtown plan economic plan. So I really think there’s a very positive start. We are continuing on it, it’s going to be on a continued basis. But there will be, I believe, much more valuable things. And if I look at right now, difference of three, three, 50 or 400,000, I do believe the 400,000 will be able to spend for some quick actions.

[5:07:22] There will be more beneficial to downtown than the additional hour and bottom line in bottom line. It will bring more people downtown. Thank you and I’m supporting the one hour. Thank you Deputy Mayor Lewis and the Councilor Roman. Thank you. So I do want to finish today. So I’m going to try and be really brief. Listen, if you can’t support two, please support one. I’m going to say I’m not supporting one because I really believe two matters. And if we can’t get our heads around two hours of free parking, I don’t know why we’re doing a downtown master plan.

[5:08:00] Because I don’t think that whatever is in there is going to succeed if we don’t bring people who aren’t coming downtown for whatever reason back to the downtown. And one of the reasons they tell us that they go to the suburbs, that they go to the big box malls is the free parking gear and simple. We have bike lanes that come to the downtown that very, very few people use. We have good transit service that comes downtown that a lot of people are, no matter how much we talk it up, if they have a car, they’re not going to take the bus, especially if they’ve got kids in tow, if they’re going to make a big purchase, especially of some specialty items out of place like Joe’s table, they’re not carrying that home on the bus.

[5:08:44] That’s just the reality. So I’m going to be no to one because I want to support two, but please, please, if you’re not going to support two, then at least support the one because we do need this. I agree fully with Councilor Ferra on this, but I want to do two. I think that the downtown needs the two. Councilor Roman, thank you and through you. Does staff have available the 2024 amount for the one hour? How much have we actually spent somewhere? I thought I had 150,000 that we had spent in 2024.

[5:09:17] Let’s talk about that. Stop, need a minute. Through the chair, I’ll just need a minute. So that’s from a previous report that was— Okay, I did keep speaking while he digs. Hold it again. Yes, thank you. So we just received the downtown master plan background study and in it were some itemized things around what we should be doing on Quick Start. I do realize that part of the Quick Start discussion did have some parking in it as well, but that was really just ‘til the end of December.

[5:09:55] I guess I was anticipating that there is going to be a future request for additional Quick Start dollars, which I assumed would come out of Ekdev Reserve Fund. So I do see these as different because this is coming now out of the tax base. I personally find that the one hour doesn’t do much for people. I do think that the two hours of somebody’s coming downtown from my ward, they’re looking for two hours of parking and not one. So if I was supporting it, I would be supporting two hours.

[5:10:29] But I do think this is something where we’ve got the funding right now until the end of the year. I understand about making this permanent. I understand the concerns around using reserve fund again and all those things, but I really wanna see what else the consultants come back with before I make decisions on long-term spending on downtown. And I wanna see what they tell us we should be prioritizing. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Are you still digging or do you have the number? Through the chair, so the current, the program as it sits right now began in April 2025 because that’s when it was changed to the one hour program.

[5:11:10] So we currently, that $330,000 was based on that current program and what we’ve seen in 2025. And so if you need information on the previous program that had, it’s a little bit more difficult to slice and dice, but the values that we provided for the two hour program were based on 2023 values. And those values were then taken at that program included both the on-street parking and the parking lot.

[5:11:46] So we’ve removed the parking lots portion, but that was the basis for the estimate that we provided for the two hour parking. Councilor Ramana, you. Thank you, Councillor Frink. Thank you, I’ll just speak to the amendment. I will support it, but then when we go back to the main motion, I’m gonna vote against it and I will explain why at that point. Thank you, Councillor Ferri, I’ve missed timed you along the way at some point. So I’m gonna recognize you again, just. I’ll be very quick.

[5:12:18] For this one, I do see a little bit of redundancy in the language. I’d like to clean it up and make an amendment. If we’re gonna have core area downtown and old East Village, it would only be wise to include Midtown in that ‘cause I know they would appreciate that. So I put an amendment to stick Midtown right between core area and downtown. We’d need a seconder on that. We’d also likely need to know from Mr. May, there’s what the updated numbers would be if this was already Midtown’s kinda already squished in here. Not to get disrespectful to Midtown.

[5:12:50] Through the chair, just to be very clear, it includes Midtown. So core, I think the reason to provide that additional language of downtown and old East Village was just to be very clear what was included in the core area, but the core area includes Midtown, downtown and old East Village. So you good, David? Councillor Ferri? Thank you. Well, originally in my emails, I was just going through them. I did request core area. So I do see that it was dropped at some point. I don’t know where. I’m not gonna ask why, but I would like to stick Midtown in there and keep it wholesome. So I’m looking for a seconder from Midtown to add into the language.

[5:13:37] So I’m here from staff. It’s already included. It seems to be a request from the Councilor that it’s just written in in Midtown for clarification. Administratively, the clerks, they could do that administratively. Does anyone on council have an issue with them just administratively? Kind the word that’s already included being Midtown? Hey, I see no objections. So you don’t need an amendment administratively. They’re just outlying that that is encompassed and the numbers are already given for Midtown. Okay, is that end of your speaking?

[5:14:12] Just one more thing. The background study of the downtown plan does say that items are urgently required to bring it through, maybe not in that language, but it does have that in certain areas throughout the document itself. So regardless if it’s parking, regardless, if it’s any of the quick start actions, I do know that we have our staff recommended quick start actions which are separate from the ones that we’re gonna appendix, forget we would appendix at the end of the report. And we are, we’re gonna be reviewing that as well, but there is very clear calls throughout the document that anything that council can provide to help with anything with downtown with respect to parking, with respect to land acquisition or property planning or anything like that, we should do.

[5:14:53] So this is very well in line with the background study as it is. Okay, Councilor, you’re good. Okay, further question or comments before we call the question? Okay, opening the vote. Councilor, I was calling the question, sorry, so we’re gonna stop the question then.

[5:15:31] No, no, okay, for the as amended. Okay, thank goodness. Okay, so given voted do so. Closing the vote, motion fails seven to eight. Okay, so we’re back to the original one, looking for whatever speakers list that was. Councilor Frank, we’ll start with you. Yeah, okay, so the clerks are also doing that administrative change of putting midtown in here just for be really descriptive that they already numerically included in that number.

[5:16:15] Councilor Lehman, can I have you come sit in the nice chair? Sure. Or you do it from there too. I’m gonna ask for double pay for this. Okay, so next for Brownie. Sorry, I just need to step out for a moment. Nice try. And then you can time on your phone and the clerks are also. Please, Councilor Plaza. Oh no, I’m not speaking. You’re running this for a moment and you’re recognizing Councilor Frank. That’s why I offered you the big chair. Could you tell me why I’m— Why you’re chairing? Yeah.

[5:16:47] I need to step out for a minute. I need to use the— Okay, thank you. Yeah, I didn’t hear that. Thank you. Thank you. Any further details? It being noted that you’re taking you today. Councilor Frank is next on your list and you’re back to the motion. Okay, I’m the chair. Councilor Frank, let’s go ahead. Thank you, yes. I just wanted to make a couple of comments and I’m sure it will come as a shock to no one. I won’t be supporting this. I see this is tax subsidized parking, not free parking.

[5:17:22] And I already see lots of tax subsidized parking in downtown on the side streets, common garden market has one hour free during the week, two hour free on weekend, if you get it validated. And I understand the rationale that some folks are given, although I think maybe we disagree on the reality. I’m using a bit of air quotes there. I see tons of people in the bike lane on bikes, including myself and many friends that I chat with on my way to work. I also see many families on buses, including myself and my child. And I actually find that we spend more time downtown because it takes longer to get back.

[5:17:55] So we spend tons of time hanging out. There’s no two hour cut off or one hour cut off for parking. So if we’re trying to bring people downtown to hang out for long sticky periods of time, then having people take bus and bikes actually makes people stay a little bit longer. So I’d be more amenable to seeing $700,000 spent on more bus service downtown. There’s more people can fit on a bus. So we’re talking about trying to get volumes of people downtown for long periods of time. The bus is definitely the best ROI. I also heard that there is a return on investment, but really this is nonexistent for folks who don’t drive.

[5:18:29] So we’re taking taxpayer dollars from Evan across London, but folks who don’t have a car don’t drive do not benefit. So no walkers would benefit cyclists, bus riders. They’re paying for other people to go and park downtown. And additionally, the downtown master plan, the quick start actions have been referenced a few times. I’ll highlight that in that they only recommended one hour, not two. Additionally, if you read the parking section on page 22 with map four, it highlights the extensive supply of parking facilities, the consultant words, not mine, which support London’s reliance on private automobiles.

[5:19:04] And the prevalence of parking has important spatial and urban design implications for the downtown. Large surface slots and on-street parking consume considerable amounts of valuable land in the core, interrupting the continuity of the built fabric and reducing opportunities for more active and intense land uses. While they provide convenience for drivers and support downtown businesses, they also reinforce car dependency and limit the area’s ability to fully realize it’s potential as a compact, lively and urban environment. So based on what the consultants are saying that we’re paying and my reality of seeing lots of people using the bikes and buses, I will not be supporting this.

[5:19:41] Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go to Councillor Ferrer and then Councillor Rowan. Thank you, presiding officer. Thank you, Councillor Frank for that. The return on investment, you don’t even have to come downtown. It helps with property tax reduction ‘cause we subsidize property taxes city-wide. So the more investment we put into downtown, regardless if you’re visiting or not, you benefit. So I just need to clarify that. Also, it’s on-street parking. I agree with the downtown plan’s background studies items that they have highlighted with the surface level parking lots and how to change that land, change that area to make it more, just activate it and program it better.

[5:20:26] I agree with that, but this is on-street parking that we’re talking about. So I just wanted to make some of those clarifications for that. Thank you, Councillor Rowan. Thank you and I was just trying to flag your attention to get Councillor Ferrer on the speaker’s list as well, but I will say thank you to Councillor Frank for reminding me of what was in that report on the background study. This is just not something I will support right now. It’s something I haven’t consistently supported either. Although I do see the benefit of two hours versus one for consistency in people having more time to do things downtown, if they are driving downtown, I do know that majority of people that are coming down aren’t able to find on-street parking if there is a large-scale event anyways.

[5:21:16] So with that, I will not be supporting it. I will look forward to those quick-start actions that do not involve parking to support the downtown. Councillor Preble. Thank you. I hope colleagues that you will support this because downtown still does need help. Having said that, I hope in future we will listen more to the advisors consulting companies that we hire because the one hour was recommended by them and it was based also on the frequency and also on the hard turnover.

[5:21:50] If I look again, we are making a decision. Again, it’s gonna be paid by tax levy, tax payer, and we are spending additional $450,000 that could have been spent potentially that if we waited a few months, we could have come up with something that’s gonna be more beneficial to downtown London. We haven’t done that. I hope it does pass. And there was also one of my colleagues stated that is one issue, but the second issue is in terms of the private parking lots because the rates are very high. We cannot control that, but again, it goes to supply and demand.

[5:22:25] And I do think that, and I hope in both plans, economic one and downtown, there’s gonna be together with our staff, bigger picture, our parking future plan, and that does mean both for residential when our residences are trying to rent units.1 and point two for visitors to London. So again, I would have preferred the one hour, would make more sense to me. It is two, that’s what’s in front of us. I do ask you to support it because downtown still does need help.

[5:22:57] Thank you. I’ll return the chair to the budget chair. I don’t have any money on the speakers list. Thank you. Thank you for their speakers. Councillor Perulee, you just had your chair. I just finished, but I just wanted to make sure I kept saying downtown, downtown. I mean, the core era, all these villages. Yes, thank you in midtown, yes. Thank you. I’ll recognize Councillor Layman. Thank you. I originally wasn’t, to be honest with you, it wasn’t gonna support this.

[5:23:31] There are many, many businesses downtown with their own private parking lots that have further customers and their staff. However, considerable amount that do not have that. And especially now that this includes old East and the core and downtown, all the way downtown, all over the area. I was impressed by the arguments by Councillor Ferrer. I think he’s right on. And we’re looking at making a clear effort to revitalize downtown. We’ve made some important steps with public safety, I believe, but we have to continue that.

[5:24:07] And I think the comments by the deputy mayor is baying on. There’s free parking at the malls and other areas around the outside of the suburbs that people perceive that. When I hear why do you come downtown, one of the reasons is, well, there’s no free parking. While there is at certain and business establishments and retail shops, many don’t have that. So I want to see downtown relied. I think it’s an important heartbeat of the city. And I think coming out of COVID, there’s a far way we have to go to get folks to come back downtown to shop and do their business.

[5:24:47] So I will be supporting this. Further speakers? Seeing none, calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries. 11 to four, tourism and exit. That moves us on to 4.9, which is, sorry, 4.10, we’re on page 27.

[5:25:34] This is one from Councilor for as well. Councilor Notch, if you have a seconder, if you want to briefly introduce it, we’ll look for a seconder, and then we’ll deal with it accordingly from there. Here, just a second. So I don’t have a seconder for this, but I do want to introduce this motion. This is again, you know, this is on the other side of the door, on the outside. It costs us more for these type of items. But before I speak to it, do you want me to read the motion? That you’re reading the motion, you’re not speaking to it. Okay, you need to get the motion.

[5:26:07] Do you want me to read it? Please. That the mayor’s table 2026 annual budget update be a minute to include funding to establish a dedicated year round hotspot crew to proactively monitor and respond to sharps and biohazers in public parks and open spaces. It being known that the crews would also support other urgent park operations maintenance need and winter operations when capacity allows 2026. This includes 2026 operating expenditures, tax levies, and capital expenditures for both 2026 and 2027. As noted in the circulated motion and going into eScribe, Councillor Faire is moving it.

[5:26:42] He’s looking to see if there’s a seconder. I don’t see anyone at this time. So at this time, I would look to see if you want to move a motion to receive your correspondence and then I would look for a seconder for that. I will do that. Okay, so we have a motion to receive the correspondence moved by Councillor Faire, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Comments are in order or we just call the question. Okay, I have comments, but I won’t. It just received and just leave it like that.

[5:27:23] Okay, the vote is open. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Chauceau? I vote yes. Voting the vote, motion passes 14 to zero, noting Councillor Chauceau’s absent.

[5:28:02] Thank you, that moves us on to 4.11 of the added. This is a communication from Mayor Morgan, also noting that a business case is recommended, a few 25s in there, a look to the mayor to speak to the motion, and then we would need a seconder if he has one, he’s welcome to identify it. Also procedurally behind the scenes, I believe there’s something behind the scenes from Councillor Stevenson and Hill, you’re looking to see if you’re gonna do that now, like once we get done, the mayor’s, and then there was one earlier about the housing stability bank, in which case that would be time for that.

[5:28:39] So just to queue up everyone behind the scenes right now, the floor is Mayor Morgan’s. Yeah, so I’ll say I’m putting us on the floor based on the heels of the report that went to committee. What we know is what was contemplated, and I put this in my table budget, was contemplated to be a program that we could fund at this level, is not what would exist. A whole new program would have to be designed, this program would end. So I’m suggesting we at least have a vote all this out of the budget, because it’s not gonna be at this level anyways. So it’s unfortunate because I put it in there with the hopes that we could continue this.

[5:29:15] But I just, I think our staff have been clear that it’s not a functional program at the current level of funding. Could you read what the motion is? And then we can— Oh, at that business case, P-25, stop collecting blue box materials from non-eligible sources be included in the mayor’s table budget. So it would be a reduction of $250,000 starting in 2026. I will second that. And then the floor with Mayor Morgan’s to, from conversation and go for to staff when you wish. I don’t have a lot to say, Mr. Staff produced a whole report for committee on this. Again, just to reiterate, what was contemplated in this business case is not possible, like a whole new program is what would have to be designed.

[5:29:55] It would not be this cost. It would be something completely different. So I suggest taking this completely out of the multi-year budget. Ms. Chair, are you available for comment on that, as realizing there was some background information that could be evaluated? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that is correct. We are unable to continue this program at the end of the year. We are unable to enter into negotiations related to capacity for processing materials from this sort of program until sometime after January 31st of next year, which means we’re unable to really return a new program any time next year. Any sort of new program will be significantly more expensive than this value.

[5:30:31] So if there is a direction from council through the future committee, we have some direction from CAPS. I understand there’s a motion for ICSC to redefine a fully funded program. It’d be best to bring that back as a separate business case in the future. So council can make a decision. Holding the 250 in 2027 is likely quite inadequate and doesn’t provide a lot of benefit for us. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, for their comment before I start the speaker’s list. No, I think staff covered it well. So happy to listen to the debate. Okay, thank you, Councillor Frank.

[5:31:04] Thank you, yes. I understand where this is coming from. I’ve had numerous discussions with staff, so thank you for answering my questions. I do have one, so I am working on something as some stopgap measures for next year that would likely be under, let’s say, $50,000. I’m wondering, given this is being taken out, and I was hoping to use some of these, this money that was gonna be floating there because we’re not using it to be able to pay for that, I’m just wondering procedurally, then are we able to bring forward something, let’s say, in January to provide some stopgap services for businesses and nonprofits?

[5:31:39] By then, this budget committee business will be wrapped up, turning to Ms. Sharon, her team of hearing that, and if we release the funds of what that process would look like. Madam Chair, it would depend on the nature of the fund of the ask, the amount of it, is whether it be absorbed in some existing operational budgets. I think it also would require a discussion with legal counsel about providing incentives to certain businesses where competitor businesses of similar size may not receive that bonus as well. Councillor Frank.

[5:32:11] Thank you, okay, I’ll just highlight that I was told not to bring it to budget. So, if I’m not able to bring in January, I’ll just be a little bit upset about that, but that’s okay. Councillor Trusser. Thank you, and through the chair, to follow up on what was just said by Councillor Frank, I would very much like to keep open, and I’m not putting anything on the table that’s specific about it today, but I would like to keep open along the lines of what we talked about at the last committee, in terms of the option one in the blue box report.

[5:33:00] I would like to keep open the possibility of some type of stock gap, creative, even small, amelioration measure. And my question for Steph is could this, if we didn’t want to take this $250,000 out of the budget, but we weren’t ready to allocate it, would there be an appropriate reserve account that this money could be put in? Steph, you’re welcome to share the speaking time.

[5:33:46] Thank you, Madam Chair. So, if this motion is defeated, the funds in question here would simply remain in the budget, would be available as part of the budget next year. If those funds were ultimately unspent next year, then they would flow through our year end surplus process and be allocated according to the surplus deficit policy, unless Council directs otherwise. Councillor Truss.

[5:34:18] If I understand the answer to that then, when you say unspent by next year, you mean by the end of 2026? Mr. Mayor. That is correct. Okay, so I was thinking of putting an amendment on the table to put this into a particular reserve account, but based on what you just said, I think it would be more direct for me to just vote no on this, and I would urge people to vote this down. And I appreciate the intention here to sort of save money on something that we really can’t spend based on the provincial situation, but things are so fluid right now.

[5:34:58] And I think the public is looking, especially the nonprofits, the churches, the small businesses, they are looking for some type of minor relief. So I’m going to vote no on this in all due respect. And ask others to vote no, just in the interest of keeping that money in the budget to not forestall our ability to come up with some other stop gap amelioration measure. Thank you. I’m going to do Councillor Hopkins first, but in the back to the mayor, he’s already head first.

[5:35:39] But yeah, I’d be interested in hearing what the mayor has to say before I make a comment. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Yes, so I don’t want to have a debate outside of the budget cycle here, but Councillor Frank and I have written a letter to future meeting with some stop gap measures to try to address some of the need in the short term. I feel we can deal with that either within existing budgets or a small draw from a reserve fund, like say the community investment reserve fund, which we just said had extra money in it, we didn’t spend it today. But I think we can do this and create some stop gap measures that might not solve every problem.

[5:36:15] But again, this isn’t the place to have that debate, but Councillor Frank have already submitted a motion to a future committee to try to deal with this in the short term. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I do appreciate the mayor’s comments. I understand where Councillor Chor so is coming from. Given the fact that I’ve heard from the community that we need to find money for this program, so I’m glad to know that there’s a motion and there’s a possibility of finding money for this, so I’ll be supporting this amendment.

[5:36:50] Further speakers, call on the question. Let me know before we start the voting. This is one of the ones that it’s not currently in. We were trying to maintain it, but legally there’s no parameters too, just you gotta vote yes to put it in or we can cut it. If that, the vote’s still open. If you’ve had a whoops, you can change it or can you close?

[5:37:40] Yeah, so this is one that the mayor was trying to maintain, but legally we can’t with provincial guidelines right now, so we had need to vote yes to put it in to make the cut. You have to vote yes, if the money in the account or just kick it out of it. Yeah, yes means we get the money to go against the levy that we can’t spend anyway. No means we wanna not give the money back and the money’s gonna end up in the surplus. That’s accurate. Yes, it’s agreeing with me, no, it was against me. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

[5:38:31] Thank you, anti, yeah. Okay, so we’re good. That is the ones that were pretty strictly on the agenda, as I said behind the scenes, was anticipating two more. The next one up would be, we’re just finishing with the words of it. This was the— - P24. P24, this was one from yourself and Councillor Hillyer. Councillor Hillyer, were you moving it?

[5:39:06] Okay, so Councillor Stevenson’s gonna move it. Councillor Hillyer’s confirmed as a seconder, we’re just getting it loaded. Thank you, I’ll read it out. Just two seconds. Councillor Stevenson, if you want to read it out, we’re still loading any scribe, but we can do that.

[5:39:50] Thank you, yes. The business case, P24, eliminate climate change, reserve fund contribution, be included in the mayor’s table 2026 annual budget update. 2026 operating expenditures, reduced 192,000, 2026 tax levy, reduced 192,000, 2027 operating expenditures, reduced 192,000, and 2027 tax levy, reduced 192,000. I believe Mr. Murray got those numbers for you. He did.

[5:40:23] Okay, thank you. So just was worrying about the load. Anyone following along, this is on page 230 of your budget, do a tang. Okay, if we refresh, it should be up. I will start my speaker’s list in a moment with either Councillor Hillyer Stevenson, if you want, and if not, I can go to others, but as it is your motion.

[5:41:05] Like I said, page 230. Councillor Stevenson or Hillyer would like to speak to it before I go to the rest of the speaker’s list. Okay, I will start with Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I won’t be supporting this motion that would reduce the contribution to the Climate Change Reserve Fund to zero. You’re welcome. And for the reasons of which on page 233 and 234 of the budget document we have, it explains all of the commitments that we’re trying to achieve and use the use of the Climate Change Reserve Fund to achieve those commitments.

[5:41:48] So there’s outlining in regards to the approved Smart Commute London program, increasing bike racks, signage, and other community amenities, as well as completing a citywide assessment and community energy system opportunities, as well as the creation, hopefully one day, of a green development framework. And there are about six or seven other additional bullets that highlight opportunities that we require funding for. Additionally, I think having this fund set aside allows for staff to do better planning for long-term planning in order to leverage this funding from places like the Green Municipal Fund, because then they have access to funding that is a set aside for this purpose.

[5:42:25] And I also think, additionally, we are actually not putting enough in. But I would like to at least keep our meager contribution of $192,000 a year, demonstrating that this council is planning for the climate impacts and trying to plan for projects to address it. So I won’t be supporting this reduction, which would take us down to $0 being contributed. Thank you, further speakers? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I won’t be supporting this. We’ve already reduced this fund by about 80%.

[5:43:00] And we know it’s important to have something in the fund to meet our targets. I’m always amazed when, especially young people, when we have the public participation meeting, when I speak to residents in my ward, be them young or old, this is important to Londoners, so I won’t be supporting this. Thank you, further speakers? Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m just gonna say this was a business case presented here for our consideration, that there is a million, $200,000 in the fund with some projects planned, so it’s not that work won’t continue, and I think given the prioritization that I hear from residents around reducing tax rates, I’m hoping for council support here.

[5:43:52] Further speakers? Mayor Morgan. Just briefly, I’m opposed to putting this in, I didn’t put it in the budget, I’ll say, we’ve really shrunk the contributions quite a bit, but we need to have at least some money going into the fund because there is leveraging opportunities, FCM’s Green Municipal Fund, other places often require some level of contribution from municipalities, so I think I wanna keep a little bit in there at the very least, even though it’s not a very large contribution, so that we can leverage it for other available opportunities at the, mainly the federal level at this time, but future provincial and federal opportunities.

[5:44:26] Again, there’s already some projects allocated with the existing funds, those could continue, but I think some level of inflow allows to continue to leverage in the future, and I think that’s good for London taxpayers. So you will be clicking no in eScribe when this comes open, just to help clarification as we go. Further speakers? I’m seeing none, last call. Call on the question. Sir Ferra, closing the vote.

[5:45:15] Motion fails, four to 11. So I need a motion to receive, okay, since that didn’t pass, the clerks to proceed to clean it up would like that it being noted that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to include business case P24 in the mayor’s 20 tweaks annual budget, so it’s just it being noted, looking for a mover and a second ribbon, it being noted by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Stevenson, calling the question on it being noted as mover by Councillor Frank, and seconded by Councillor Stevenson.

[5:46:43] Sir Hopkins, Councillor Veenovergan, closing the vote, motion carries. Thank you, 4.13, as loaded in eScribe, if you hit refresh. This was captured from comments made earlier. If you would like to respect in the comments made earlier, I said this would be the point in the agenda, we are at it, so it was Councillor McAllister’s idea. It is in eScribe if we refresh.

[5:47:19] Councillor McAllister will let you read it over, see if it’s what your intention was, before we look for a seconder, if you want to read it out, should you agree with it? Okay, yeah, I’m happy to move it, I’ll read it out. The mayor’s table 2026 annual budget update admitted in order to fund the Housing Stability Bank, 500,000, 250,000 for 26, and 250,000 for 2027 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund. And then you can see the corresponding numbers there, it’s the $250,000 impact on the operating expenditures for 26 and 27. Thank you and finance, I think these numbers came for you probably, so you’re still good with your own numbers.

[5:48:01] That was the Councillor’s intention from earlier. I’m happy to second it. Okay, I’ll second it, it’s on the floor. Looking for discussion, I know we had a bit of a discussion earlier than we backed it off, I’ll also pause, does anyone else have anything in the background that they’re contemplating to do after this one? I have five more. Make it four and you have a deal. Okay, if there’s anything, just let me know, just text me, if you have something, just in her email it to the clerk, she’s got the e-scribe powers today.

[5:48:44] So it’s moved in second, it’s on the floor, I will start timing, but I will give the opportunity to Councillor McAllister to speak to it first, and then I’ll build up my speaker’s list from there. Thank you through the chair. Appreciate the opportunity for this to come back. I do think it probably better suited kind of as its own thing because it’s not tied to a business or budget case. I do think, again, there’s still value in adding more money into this, just recognizing the reality we’re facing. Again, with the provincial legislation, I think adding more pressure in terms of tenants.

[5:49:19] Again, we had the discussion earlier, don’t love having to be in damage control for decisions made Queens Park, but fortunately that’s reality, and I honestly think keeping people housed with a program like this in the long run will still save us money because I’d rather keep people housed than have them on the streets, which we know is still an ongoing issue. This is, I think, still a modest amount, it’s coming from a reserve fund. I think this is, again, something that we need to come back and look at in the next month of your budget, have those discussions with Salvation Army to ensure that it’s at an appropriate level, but for right now, I really do think we need these added dollars ‘cause I just think it is, unfortunately, going to get tougher for people out there.

[5:50:03] So happy to have a discussion here right now in terms of what people think is an appropriate amount, but I think based on what staff have told us and the amount in the reserve account that this is an adequate starting point for now. So I’m happy to hear what my colleagues have to say, but I will be supporting this. Hey, I believe I saw Deputy Mayor Lewis’ hand go up as well. Okay, and then building up my speaker’s list. Yeah, so I’m not gonna reiterate everything I said before. I stand by the earlier comments. I’m not adding money to expand this program.

[5:50:38] We didn’t cut it. We just didn’t approve an expansion in the multi-year budget, and I am fine with that decision. I’m gonna reiterate all the other projects we’re working on around homelessness and housing. We can only do so much, and especially pulling from a reserve fund, what’s going to create the expectation when the reserve fund runs out is that they’re gonna be knocking on the door saying you need to make this permanent. So I’m gonna be a no one drawing from the reserve fund for this. Also, should the surplus not come in as high as it is, it will actually still potentially drop the investment reserve fund below the $1 million threshold.

[5:51:16] And as much as I’m not a fan of the London Community Grants, that that was a program that Council voted to keep in the multi-year budget. While I didn’t support that, I’m respecting the Will of Council on that, and so I’m not going to draw money from a fund that may potentially drop it below that threshold. Thank you. Further questions or comments on the motion on the floor? Councilor Fair, a comment on the motion. Just commenting, I’m in full support of it.

[5:51:49] Obviously, I would have liked to see a little bit more, but any amount will help. I understand it’s coming out of the Community Investment Reserve fund. I understand that does bring the balance down a little bit low, but still above the threshold, I believe that Mr. Murray was speaking to. I guess maybe I should just confirm that. Mr. Murray. Through you, Madam Chair. So the current projected low point in that reserve fund is approximately 1.48 million. So if nothing changes that I should mention, that’s by 2027.

[5:52:28] So if nothing changes between now and 2027, there is the possibility that we are very close to that line. I will note, however, and it was mentioned by the Deputy Mayor just recently, that projection does not include any assumptions around any surplus amounts going in at the end of the year. So there is no assumptions baked into that that may not materialize. In other words, if there is some surplus money that goes in there in accordance with the surplus deficit policy, that might bump that reserve fund up a little bit, but 1.48 is the current projected low point.

[5:53:08] Councillor Ferriero. All right, thank you for confirming that. I will just say, ditto to everything Councillor McAllister just said, and I’ll be in support. Thank you. Further questions or comments? Seeing none. Oh, sorry, current. Councillor Robin. Please, the floor’s yours. Yes, thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if staff might be able to remind us that the last time we had a report on this fund, a moment to confirm. Through you, Madam Budget Chair, I would have to dig back through our reporting cycles.

[5:53:47] Let’s see when the last time an HSB report came forward. We do know through our regular monitoring on the civic administration side that this is a well used fund. And in 2025, they’ve had to close their application seven out of the 10 months year to date. Councillor Robin. Thank you. Do you happen to know if there’s any plans for review of the program, Mr. Dickens? Through you, Madam Budget Chair, we would need to check with Salvation Army to see if there’s any planned reviews on their end of the program.

[5:54:28] We do regular reviews when we get our reports on a monthly basis. Councillor Robin. Thank you. So I have supported this in the past and my hesitancy today is because I don’t have anything from Salvation Army directly asking us for this increase today. And I’m not saying that they don’t need the money and I’m probably saying that they’ve just been too busy to come and ask. But I would prefer to make a decision like this having received some information from the organization that’s delivering this service directly.

[5:55:04] I also would prefer to have some correspondence with how they’re using it right now. I agree that the seven out of 10 months is very helpful in terms of understanding the level of usage. But I mean, I just, I would like to have a little bit more information. So I may not support this now. I might support it if it comes back up at council, but I’m not prepared to without further communication at this point. Thank you. Anything further? Pull on the question. Closing the vote.

[5:55:48] Motion fails. Seven to eight. Thank you. I’ll leave it to perhaps Councillor McAllister if he wants to reach out. Maybe that letter can swing the vote come council. So we’re going to do that. It being noted clause of discussion was had to hold that placeholder in the council agenda. So looking for the, I can read it out. I can see your screen. It being noted the budget committee considered an amendment to the mayor’s 2026 annual budget update to fund the housing stability bank program for $250,000 in 2026 and then $250,000 in 2027 in the community infrastructure reserve fund, a mover and a seconder of the receipt of it being noted, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by myself.

[5:56:37] Calling the question. Councillor Lewis. My ESOC bribe seems to be stuck on the previous vote. Like I still have the housing stability bank amendment up.

[5:57:10] So I’ll vote yes on the receive. He just refresh. Deputy Mayor Lewis, you voted yes on receipt. Is that accurate? Well, the machines don’t get to tell me if I should change my vote or not. So, okay, that’s, I’ve got it now. So I’ll vote in the scribe. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. There was a question just for everyone’s information of voting separately on some things that weren’t discussed today as I read or you’re at the beginning and I’ll do it again.

[5:57:54] That the mayor’s budget is the budget and we are amending it if we wish. So if there was something already in there that you don’t like, it would be changed through an amendment to remove it and/or put it in. That is the step of the process that we’re at and procedurally how this process works. So we had exhausted the published agenda. There was two things behind the scenes that have been dealt with. Looking to see if there’s anything else that we were aware of that needs to be dealt with today.

[5:58:29] Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m gonna move a motion to adjourn. Okay, I appreciate that that we’re trying to go. I’m just trying to make sure that there’s nothing somebody’s sitting on that to save time at council. I will note that next week you have the enjoyment of two council meetings. There’s the normal Tuesday council meeting and then this budget is passed at a special meeting of council on Wednesday, November 26 at 1 p.m. So anything further needs to be in prior issue there should you have something.

[5:59:02] So we have a motion to it. So I appreciate your motion to adjourn, but we’re not deferred matters in additional business. Mayor Morgan, you had a deferred matter? I just, before I’m happy to get the meeting over with because I think it’s gone quite well. But given we did some ups and downs, I just couldn’t, could we end the day with knowing where an action landed? Yeah, we can. So Deputy Mayor Lewis, we’ll get to you in a moment if the finance team can make their projections of the screen of where we started, where we’re at. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[5:59:35] So we have put the graph up on screen. You’ll recall we started the day today at 3.6% increase for 2026, that has since been reduced to 3.4%. We started the day for 2027 at 4.7%. That is unchanged. The four year average has been reduced from 6.1% to 6%. In terms of the average impact on the average residential taxpayer, we started the day at a projected $137 increase for 2026.

[6:00:16] That now stands at $130. Looking at the committee to see if they need any clarifications or expansion of that information. I see none. Thank you for that, I do love the visual. Deferred matter is an additional business. I am not aware of any confidential. We have none. A German, we had a mover in Deputy Mayor Lewis. We have a seconder and Councilor Van Merbergen. A hand vote is adequate of those for a German.

[6:00:54] Any opposed? Motion carries.