February 3, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillor E. Peloza (4:55 PM) and Mayor J. Morgan (5:42 PM) were in remote attendance.

That it BE NOTED Councillor S. Franke discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2.3, having to do with Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update by indicating that her spouse is employed by the TVDSB.

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.5 BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 2.3 and 2.4.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.1   Development Charge Institutional Discount - Policy Review and Proposed Transition Approach

2026-02-03 Staff Report - DC Institutional Discount Policy Review

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove the Institutional Discount from the 2028 Development Charges Background Study; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a transition plan for the development charge Institutional Discount, including exploring the alignment with the City of London Community Grants Program.

Motion Passed

2.2   Confirmation of Appointment to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association

2026-02-03 Submission - HPBIA Appointment

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Ashleigh Patterson of Montana’s Fanshawe BE APPOINTED to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management for the term ending November 15, 2026; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated January 7, 2026 from D. Szpakowski, General Manager/CEO with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

2.5   Micro-Modular Shelter Site Update

2026-02-03 Staff Report - MicroModular Shelter Update

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager and Deputy City Manager Social and Health Development, the report regarding the Micro-Modular Shelter Site Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update

2026-02-03 Staff Report - Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken:

a)    the staff report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update” BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update” as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to:

i) the Memorandum of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and the Thames Valley District School Board and the London Transit Commission for the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project ( the “MOU”), as appended to the proposed by-law as Schedule “1” , BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED;

ii) the Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Thames Valley District School Board and the London Transit Commission for the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project (the “Agreement”), as appended to the proposed by-law as Schedule “2”, BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED;

iii) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute the MOU;

iv) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement;

v) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to administer the Agreement;

vi) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to approve and execute agreements to amend the Schedules to the Agreement;

c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the required financing to a limit of 1.04 million from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for the costs of the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program for September 2026 to June 2028, as required; and

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove the summer months of July and August from the program.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended in part c) to read as follows:

c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the required financing to a limit of 1.04 million from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for the costs of the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program for September 2026 to August 2028, as required.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor C. Rahman BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 2 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part d) to read as follows:

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove the summer months of July and August from the program.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (7 to 4)

2.4   Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

2026-02-03 Staff Report - Mayoral Direction 2026-001

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect the Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program:

a) in response to Mayoral Direction 2026-001 ‘Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program’, the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Council Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1545-41, being “A by-law to established financial incentives for the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Project Area”, by:

i) ADDITION of a NEW Schedule “6” to the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines – “New Home Ownership Incentive Program”;

ii) APPROVE the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines – New Home Ownership Incentive Program template agreement;

iii) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to amend, enter into and execute the above-referenced agreement provided the terms of the agreement conform with the applicable Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines – “New Home Ownership Incentive Program”;

iv) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute amending agreements provided the terms of the amending agreement conform with the applicable Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guideline – “New Home Ownership Incentive Program”;

b) it BE NOTED in the revised proposed by-law as appended to the Added Council Agenda, the program is restricted to first-time buyers, the term of the loan is extended from five years to ten years, and the program eligibility is restricted to current residents of the City of London;

it being noted that the Civic Administration, pursuant to section 284.3 of Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001 c. 25, received Mayoral Direction 2026-001 on January 26, 2026, and the report has been prepared for Municipal Council’s consideration;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal presentation from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;

it being further noted that the communications as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association and Councillors S. Trosow and D. Ferreira with respect to this matter, was received.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the delegation request from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders Association, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Mayoral Directive 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for a report back on the following matters:

a) if the program can be expanded to existing housing stock (previously lived in) in addition to new homes;

b) further limiting the definition of eligible persons to first-time home buyers;

c) further limiting the definition of eligible persons to persons with a household income below a particular threshold;

d) providing other sources of funding available to fund a program not limited to new construction;

e) identifying funding options for this program other than reallocating the Housing Accelerator Fund’s (HAF) housing related infrastructure category;

f) providing a more detailed budget for the program including anticipated staffing and administration costs;

g) if the goal of assisting purchasers of homes be accomplished through an expansion of the City’s Homeownership Down Payment Assistance Program; and

h) providing an environmental scan reviewing similar programs in other Ontario jurisdictions;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal presentation from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;

it being further noted that the communications as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association and Councillors S. Trosow and D. Ferreira with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the motion BE AMENDED to direct Civic Administration to restrict the program eligibility to first-time home buyers.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion BE FURTHER AMENDED to extend the term of the loan from five years to ten years.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE FURTHER AMENDED to restrict the program eligibility to current residents of the City of London.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED; it being noted that Civic Administration will bring forward a revised by-law to the February 10, 2026 meeting of Municipal Council.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recess at this time, for 15 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recesses at 4:36 PM and reconvenes at 4:55 PM.

None.

4.1   Consideration of Appointments to the London Transit Commission (Requires 5 Council Members)

2026-02-03 Submission - Council Resolet 4.2-2-SPPC

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the following Council Members BE APPOINTED to the London Transit Commission:

  • Councillor S. Franke

  • Councillor C. Rahman

  • Councillor S. Lehman

  • Councillor S. Trosow

  • Mayor J. Morgan

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.2   Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) - Request for Direction

2026-02-03 Staff Report - (4.2) DIACAC

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) – Request for Direction:

a)    the report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) – Request for Direction” BE RECEIVED; and

b)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to carry out all necessary actions to implement Option 1 as outlined in the above-noted report.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) – Request for Direction” BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to consult further with DIACAC.

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to section 33.8 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

None.

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes In Closed session to consider the following:

6.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, with respect to the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

That Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes In Closed Session, from 2:54 PM to 3:23 PM.

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:48 PM.

Votes

13 substantive votes at this meeting (7 contested, 6 unanimous). Procedural motions excluded.

2.3. Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update

That the motion be amended in part c) to read as follows: c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the required financing to a limit of 1.04 million from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for the costs of the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program for September 2026 to August 2…

✅ Motion Passed (10 to 3)

View roll call

Yea (10): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Elizabeth Peloza

Nay (3): Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, David Ferreira

Absent (2): Skylar Franke, Steve Hillier

2.3. Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor C. Rahman BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 2 minutes with respect to this matter.

✅ Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Unanimous (12-0)

2.3. Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part d) to read as follows: d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove the summer months of July and August from the program.

✅ Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Unanimous (12-0)

2.3. Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (7 to 4) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (7): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen

Nay (4): Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, David Ferreira

Absent (4): Sam Trosow, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

2.4. Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That the delegation request from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders Association, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Unanimous (14-0)

2.4. Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That Mayoral Directive 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for a report back on the following matters: a) if the program can be expanded to existing housing stock (previously lived in…

❌ Motion Failed (7 to 7) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (7): Susan Stevenson, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, David Ferreira

Nay (7): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Jerry Pribil, Paul Van Meerbergen, Elizabeth Peloza

Absent (1): Steve Hillier

2.4. Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That the motion BE AMENDED to direct Civic Administration to restrict the program eligibility to first-time home buyers.

✅ Motion Passed (12 to 2)

View roll call

Yea (12): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza

Nay (2): Sam Trosow, David Ferreira

Absent (1): Steve Hillier

2.4. Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That the motion BE FURTHER AMENDED to extend the term of the loan from five years to ten years.

✅ Motion Passed (12 to 2)

View roll call

Yea (12): Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

Nay (2): Josh Morgan, Steve Lehman

Absent (1): Steve Hillier

2.4. Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That the motion BE FURTHER AMENDED to restrict the program eligibility to current residents of the City of London.

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Unanimous (14-0)

2.4. Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED; it being noted that Civic Administration will bring forward a revised by-law to the February 10, 2026 meeting of Municipal Council.

✅ Motion Passed (8 to 6) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (8): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen

Nay (6): Susan Stevenson, Sam Trosow, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

Absent (1): Steve Hillier

4.1. Consideration of Appointments to the London Transit Commission (Requires 5 Council Members)

That the following Council Members BE APPOINTED to the London Transit Commission: - Councillor S. Franke - Councillor C. Rahman - Councillor S. Lehman - Councillor S. Trosow - Mayor J. Morgan

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Unanimous (14-0)

4.2. Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) - Request for Direction

That the report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) – Request for Direction” BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to consult further with DIACAC.

❌ Motion Failed (4 to 10)

View roll call

Yea (4): Hadleigh McAlister, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow

Nay (10): Josh Morgan, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

Absent (1): Steve Hillier

4.2. Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) - Request for Direction

That pursuant to section 33.8 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Unanimous (14-0)

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 (5 hours, 0 minutes)

Hey, good afternoon, everyone. I am going to call the third meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to Order. And we begin by recognizing that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwok, and Adawanderin peoples. And we honor and respect the history, languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. And 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 also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. And to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

Colleagues, I will begin by looking for any disclosures of pecanary interest, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’ll have to declare an interest when I am 2.3, the secondary school transit pass program, as my partner works at the town’s Valley School Board. Looking for any others. Seeing none, I just wanna note that all members of council are with us in chambers today.

Councilor Hillyer will be absent for a family health issue that he’s attending to for a family member. So I know we all send him our best thoughts. Moving forward with consent agenda. We have five items, item 2.3 and 2.4.

I’ve had requests to pull. So we will deal with those separately under items for direction after we deal with those. Which leaves three items. The development charges, institutional discount, the confirmation of appointments to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association and the micro modular shelter site update.

I have asked, first I’ll look to see if anyone wants any of those dealt with separately. Seeing none, I have asked staff because of the speed that the micro modular shelter initiative is moving at. Obviously by the time these reports come to us, they are a bit dated and stale. So I have asked for a very brief verbal update beyond where we are in the report today.

And so I’m gonna give Mr. Green an opportunity to provide us a quick update. Thank you and through the chair, good afternoon. So we are happy to inform you that there has been move-ins take place yesterday and today.

At the end of the day, if everyone who’s been invited to come out arrives will be at 12 this evening. With a continued pace of that four to six a day, as the capacity of the CIR team who is involved in finding folks in community and bringing them to site. So if we remain on that pace, we’re looking at about 20 this week and continuing that pace through the month to hopefully reach capacity by mid month. There is some electrical operation still going at the site.

So we’re working with the Wilson’s Electric to complete that, but that is localized to specific areas of the site. So participants and staff are safe as that is completed, which we anticipate will be done in the next few weeks as well. All other services we continue to grow that is part of why we do the pacing to make sure we’re keeping up with food services and any other needs of the participants, but so far so good. And this is our second day of intake and we’ll just continue to make adjustments as needed.

Thank you for that, Mr. Green. So before we go to any questions or comments on any of the consent items, I’m just going to look for a mover and a seconder for the consent. Councillor Layman and Councillor Cuddy.

Thank you both. So looking for any questions or comments. Go to Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Raman. Thank you.

Just a question on the micromodular shelter site and any updates on how we were managing those with substance use issues and those on a recovery path. Mr. Green or Mr. Dickens?

Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through you, Chair. So the intake, as Mr.

Green has said, continues to happen in real time. So as individuals are being matched, some of those, some of that information is known. We understand though, and I think everybody probably understands that the desire for recovery is not static. So we may have folks who enter the space this week who are not contemplative or even pre-contemplative as part of the recovery journey and that may change over time.

The site, of course, is trying to meet every person’s individual needs the best we can. So if that is supporting them on site in terms of in their recovery journeys, then we will do that. If it’s referrals out to other organizations, then they will do that as well. We are working with the onsite operator and informed through community partners who have assisted with some of the policy guidance as well as our staff report indicates best practices from other municipalities when it comes to folks with active addictions and substance use.

So we wanna make sure that of paramount, everyone’s safety is at the forefront. So understanding that people who may be actively using drugs that are doing so in a way that is safe, we are not in a position to promote it and endorse it and support it, but we are not also naive to the fact that people are coming out of some pretty harsh conditions and have varying coping mechanisms. So we wanna help those people feel like they’ve come to the right spot that we keep a safe environment and it will be very nuanced on a person-to-person basis so that we can manage the site accordingly. Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you, just one more follow up. Once the site is fully occupied, will there be any reporting to council regarding critical incidents and the need for emergency response, that kind of thing out at the site? Mr. Green.

Thank you through the chair. That will be part of our metrics and reporting. So based on what council requests, that can be something we provide back. So expira will be involved with incident reporting on a regular basis.

And if incidents reach a certain threshold, they are to contact the city partners and let us know immediately, Councilor. Thank you. One is, I don’t recall what the reporting frequency will be once, ‘cause I’m assuming we’re getting these updates now, but once it’s up and operational, when would be be getting reports? Mr.

Green. Take that one, Mr. Chair, my apologies. Yeah, so right now the frequency is monthly.

As you’ve noted, and this is why we give a verbal update, each cycle is that the work happens outside the pacing of committee meetings. So sometimes we’re bringing you reports that are outdated, but that is the nature of the requirement. So at this point, we remain monthly. When it’s fully operational, this would be no different than the many other sites in the community.

And we would look to council and committees direction if they wanted that pacing to change. I’m sorry, you could. Well, thank you, but actually that is sort of my point is when I looked at our other shelter sites, we haven’t seen any data since March of 2023. So I’m not sure maybe that’s something we can bring up through another committee, but more regular updates on those would probably be good.

Councilor Roman. Thank you, and this is on all items that are under consent. Okay, just wanted to confirm. So I wanna start with the DC institutional discount.

And my question related to that, I agree with the direction that the changes to this institutional discount are going to change the framework for 2028. And for that reason, I think it’s important to look at options or sorry to remove this so that we can have this come through community grants potentially. But in the meantime, I just wanted to understand how our organizations being made aware that this may not exist in the future. Ms.

Barbone, is that to you? Thank you through the chair. So certainly this was the first conversation to see if this is something that Council will support. Because this would not apply until the next DC study, or we have quite a long runway until the beginning of 2028 to be able to work through the transition plan.

So there’s a whole community engagement process involved through the DC background study as well that will begin throughout next year. So that will be the first opportunity as well subject to the approval of this. We’ll have the opportunity to go back and look at the community grants approach. And as we start to develop that process and bring it through Council and come up with that plan.

So we’ve got more than a year and a half’s runway to be able to lay all of this out in preparation for the 2028. So that’ll be the next step is to look at the communications plan, look at the community agencies, look at all of the different ways in terms of how we support the community engagement also for our DC background study, which will be another opportunity that will come forward with PPM as well. And that does come out and then entirely through all the communication vehicles that we use for the community grants process as well. So we’ve got some time to develop that.

And certainly that’ll be part of the reporting back with the transition strategy to the Council. So that’s very clear and everyone understands how we will be communicating that to everyone. Councilor. Thank you.

And through you just follow up to that. So if this were to be considered, well, if one, and if this goes through the process of community grants instead of the DC exemption, I guess my question would be how we would update the criteria for community grants effectively so that nonprofits, for instance, that receive other funding through the city would be eligible for DC exemptions, but right now under community grants, they’re not. But I do understand we are looking at updating community grants in general, so we’ll have that opportunity to have those types of discussions. But I’m just wondering if we’ve given a forethought to that because some of the folks that may have received this DC exemption in the past under the criteria right now would not be eligible.

Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair. That’s a very good question.

And we’ve been working with Ms. Barbon in her area to align this exactly, bring this forward as for your consideration. And then my team and Ms. Barbon’s team will work together so that when we bring you back next year are revised, our proposal for a revised community grants policy, we will ensure if this passes that our capital grants program aligns with all the requirements in this.

So we will make sure everything aligns when we bring that policy forward so that timing is 2027 for both. Councilor. Thanks, my final question is within the DC exemption, we never applied an equity lens, right? It would only been through the community grants process.

So I guess one of the questions I have is that how will we decide, prioritize, et cetera on criteria for this under the community grants, will we still use that same criteria because now we may be in a different position since we’re trying to in a way repurpose and reuse this money in a different way. So I think it’s something we’re gonna have to think about in terms of our process because right now if you’re an institution that falls under places of worship cemeteries, not for profits, you don’t have any criteria that may discern one coming before the other. But if you’re in the community grants process, you do. So I kind of like what’s in the DC process for the way that we’ve enacted it.

I have a little bit of a challenge when we are in the community grants process around how we apply that 25% lens on that work as well and wondering how we will make sure that we’re still meeting the objectives that were under the institutional discount by moving it to that new grant. Smith. Thank you and I appreciate you raising that. It doesn’t preclude us from having different policies or different pieces of policies for multi-year funding.

Maybe we come back with one year seed funding. We come back with a capital program. We can have separate requirements and different parts of the policy for each grant. They don’t have to align.

Councillor. Thank you, that’s fair. Appreciate it, looking forward to getting that report. My next question was about 2.1, not my question.

Sorry, my statement around 2.2 is a confirmation of appointment to the Hyde Park. The AA just wanted to thank Ms. Patterson for putting your name forward and looking forward to supporting that appointment. That’s all.

Thank you, Councillor ramen, any other speakers? Seeing none, then I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote on the consent items. Vote, yes. Councillor Trossau, closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So we have two items for direction. We also have two items that have been deferred from the consent agenda.

We do have a request for delegation status on 2.4. So I’m just looking to see if colleagues want to dispense with 2.4 first so that we can let the delegate go about their business or whether we want to stay with our traditional practice of dealing with those as deferred matters after we deal with the items for direction. Items for direction, we have the consideration to the LTC and the path forward for the diversity, inclusion, anti-oppression, community advisory committee. So just looking to see if we’re okay with the regular process, the regular agenda.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’m fine to do an outstanding agenda. We move the delegation up just to free up some time for the delegate for their afternoon. I see a seconder in Councillor Stevenson.

I see some nods. I’m just going to ask for a consensus then rather than do a formal vote. Are there any objections to a change of order? Seeing none, then I’m going to deem that in order and we are going to deal with 2.4 first.

Then we will deal with the other items on the agenda. So I am going to look for a motion to approve the delegation for item 2.4. And that’s moved by Councillors McAllister and Cutty. I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Housing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So I know we have, I’m just going to explain how I’m going to handle this process-wise. Councillor Trussau and Councillor Ferra had filed an alternate motion.

I’m going to hear the delegate so that the delegate can comment. I believe the delegate may have seen the alternate motion. So he can speak to either or both parts if he wishes to, but we’ll get him to share his comments. Then I will look for a motion because Councillor Trussau did file something.

I’ll go to you first to put yours on the floor and we’ll take it from there. So Mr. Zafeman, if you’d like to go to a mic that’s working and I know you know how this process works. So when you’re ready to give us your name and your five minutes, go ahead.

Thank you very much. And Jared Zafeman with the London Home Builders Association and very much appreciate the opportunity to delegate to you today and appreciate the opportunity given this is a consent item. So this is certainly an item we are quite excited about at the Home Builders Association. That’s something that we have been chatting with, Councillor and the Mayor for some time as far as what opportunities there could be for development charge incentives, specifically for ownership housing.

And I would say highlight that specifically because for a long time now, for some years, there have been incentives for purpose-built rental opportunities and we have seen a significant growth in the percentage of what has been built in London over the last few years where about approximately 90% of what has been constructed for residential units in the last two years has strictly been purpose-built rental in large part because of incentives which have been offered by levels of government for those types of construction. And I wanted to highlight and say that we really can’t think of a better use of these funds and just wanted an opportunity to highlight some reasons for that. With the dollars that the city will be putting into this program or intended to from other levels of government, this will be leveraging dollars from the builder community. So that’s I think a really important part I wanted to highlight here is that for money that the city will be putting in, builders will be putting their own money on the table for this program.

So if the program is maximized and $5 million are used, that would mean over $3 million is being contributed from builders in the London community to help reduce home prices, new home construction prices. This will be a very significant way in helping clear the backlog of inventory homes that exist in our community right now, likely in the hundreds at this point over the last couple years. This will help spur on new home construction as well as helping keep me many employed and many businesses going in our community that are struggling right now for the last two years, and will continue to struggle if nothing is done. This will be significant as well, because it will also mean that if nothing happens, if nothing changes in the next little while, we are likely to see the construction industry in London slow down over the next year, which will likely mean that the significant growth and contributions to assessment growth, which have been instrumental for helping support other city services in the last few years, likely will taper off.

So if we’re able to clear that backlog, it allows opportunities for builders to start building new, have that opportunity and be able to contribute again, both to assessment growth, permit dollars, and future development charge infrastructure dollars as well. I also wanted to highlight as well that London has been bucking the trend as it relates to new home construction in the last couple of years. With that potentially tapering off this year, this could be a huge benefit in helping continue towards provincial housing targets and future provincial housing infrastructure dollars, which again may otherwise be at risk. And one last point on why I think these dollars could be so instrumental is that if all of these homes or many of these homes are going to be occupied this year, it also means that the city will be recouping and starting to generate full tax revenue from these homes, which currently are not contributing that as they are not fully occupied at this point.

As mentioned in my letter, I did want to highlight one specific ask of council if the motion as it stands is put forward, and that would be to be able to have the most ability for Londoners as possible, and the most number of options as it relates to new homes, that there be consideration that this program, the eligibility begin at the start of the housing accelerator fund agreement, where some of the dollars will be coming from to align best so that the most number of inventory homes that are still on the market, and there are some from the end of 2023 that are still sitting, not occupied, that those be eligible for the program as well. I did want to highlight one specific item, and I think again that this program suits very well for new home construction, because it does target development charges which only apply to new homes. This would be at first of its kind program in Canada, nothing else exists in the country currently, but we do know that in conversations with other levels of government, both federally and provincially, they are looking at new ways of funding development charges and a new model that could exist. And frankly, this could be one of those models that potentially the best example to give other levels of government an idea of how this could be done in the future, and we know they are looking at something in the very near term.

I also want to encourage, and I recognize that this is something new for council to look at and consider, but I would encourage as well some expediency here. And I only say that because the federal government last year talked about introducing a first time home buyers rebate for new home buyers. That was announced last May, it still hasn’t happened yet. That has resulted in approximately a year of buyers sitting on the sidelines waiting to purchase a home because they know that incentive might come.

The other chance here today to create an incentive that could certainly get people off the sidelines and get buying in the market again at entry level prices, which is something we certainly need here in London. I’ll finish from around there. Thank you, sir, it was a thank you. We do appreciate you taking the time today.

Sorry, I didn’t give you the 30 second warning, but we do thank you for your time. And now I will look to Councillor Trussow. Thank you very much and through the chair, I have with my colleague, Councillor Ferrara, prepared a motion to refer item 2.4. And what we’re asking, what we’re saying here is item 2.4, with respect to mayoral directive 2026-001, creation of an affordable home ownership and center program, the program, be referred to civic administration for a report back to a future meeting of the SPPC to provide further information on the following questions.

Presiding Officer Chair, would you like me to read the nine or can I assume people have that in front of them? Sorry, what we, sorry, Councillor Trussow, what we have in our package is eight. Yes, I mean eight, sorry. Okay, I’m just gonna see if colleagues want them right out.

They were, they are also up on the screen so that folks in the gallery can see them. Councillor, I don’t think we need you to read out all eight of those right now. I think we can move into debate on that if Councillor Ferrera, you’re seconding, seeing the thumbs up from Councillor Ferrera. So we have a mover and a seconder and now we can engage in some questions, comments, debate on the referral.

I will note though, Councillor, some of the questions that you have might be directed to the mayor and not to civic administration. So I would just ask colleagues to keep in mind as we have some questions and comments. There may be some answers to some of these questions already today and some of those might be the mayors and some of them might come from staff. So just wanna advise it because it’s a mayoral direction where we don’t typically have cross debate.

The mayor may be answering some questions on this one because it is his direction. So it’s gonna look to start a speaker’s list. Councillor Trussow. I’m going to start briefly and not use all of my time ‘cause I’m really interested in hearing what else comes up and it might include additional suggestions for other questions that could be made.

Let me start by saying that rather than just make a bear motion to refer, I thought it would be best to try to lay out the reasons for the referral and while we might have overdone it in terms of asking so many questions, I thought that that was better than just a bear referral. So there you go with the questions. I wanna acknowledge that I appreciate the mayor looking at this area in general. I think it’s a very legitimate and useful and necessary municipal purpose for us to assist people who are finding that they’re in a difficult situation with respect to being able to purchase their first home.

And I agree with that and we were doing things for people in other stages of their housing journey but I think this is appropriate. I think there are a couple of basic clarification questions that could be asked here but things like the definition of the eligible person and whether the eligible person definition could be further limited to persons with a housing and a household income under a certain amount and I’m not specifying what that amount is. We would have ways of doing that. Maybe I should just start with that one.

Okay, so a pause your time there and I’m going to, I think this one’s probably something Mr. Mathers or Mr. Macaulay can answer right now with respect to, there’s two questions in there. Are the eligible persons be limited to first-time buyers?

Can eligible persons be limited to persons with a household income below a particular threshold? So Mr. Mathers or Mr. Macaulay, whichever one of you is more appropriate to start with that one, go ahead.

Through the chair, so there’s always many opportunities to add different criteria. There’s no restriction on the number of criteria that you may wanna add. The only limitations is that if noting if there’s a deferral that’s on here, so if that was a deferral, we’d come back with a report just highlighting what that would might look like and how we would define those aspects. But if the report does move forward, we would have to make any kind of changes to the bylaw prior to council.

So if it was something like adding in a first-time home buyer opportunity, that’s a fairly easy thing to add. If it’s an income-based requirement, that would take some more research to be able to ascertain that and likely would require another council cycle to be able to update the bylaw. So yeah, absolutely, there’s always opportunities to add criteria and it would be up for council to direct those. A related question, thank you.

A related question through the chair is with respect to the definition of eligible persons. I assume that since its principal place of residence is mentioned in the bylaw, that we intend to include that as a requirement in the motion. Is there an express disabling of non-persons that is numbered corporations and other entities from engaging in this program if it’s going to be occupied by a person? Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair. So as noted, there’s a requirement that this be a primary residence. So from our perspective, that does limit the opportunities for a corporation to be listed.

Also, within the bylaw does speak to a registered owner of a new home and there’s a definition of what a new home would look like as well. But from our perspective, we feel that that primary residence requirement, especially for the five year period, would limit anyone to put forward an application as a number company or a corporation. Councilor. Thank you.

And I think the most significant of the questions we’ve asked here is can this program be expanded to existing housing stock, which has previously lived in homes in addition to new homes? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair.

So the mayoral direction and the program that’s outlined there is supporting the development charges related costs. So if it was a resale home, those costs wouldn’t be required because there would be no development charge related to the purchase of the home. And in addition to that, our housing accelerator fund requirements are very much a link to creating a new housing unit. So it’s unlikely that the CMHC would approve the use for resale homes because their focus is on building new units.

I’m just, Councilor Trusson, I’m just gonna hold you there for a moment because this was part of the mayoral direction. So I’m gonna give the mayor an opportunity to provide his on the resale homes versus the new homes question that Councilor Truss I’ll post. Yeah, I don’t have anything to add to it. Mr.

Mathers said development charges don’t apply to resale homes. And so given this is a development charges and center program where the DCs are still paid into the fund, an alternate program could certainly be developed to address that. But right now it’s focusing on lowering those costs of DCs in partnership between the city and the building community. Councilor.

Thank you. One more question that I’m gonna yield for a while. Question four is related to that. If we’re not gonna base this program on development charge issues, what other sources of funding would be available to fund the program that is not limited to new construction that would assist buyers trying to get into a home?

I’m not sure whether Ms. Barbone or Mr. Mathers, you put up your hand so you get to go first and then you can pass it off to Ms. Barbone if you need to.

Through the chair. So there is a number of different opportunities that we have of course right now which is building faster fund and then also housing accelerators as far as upper tier government funding that’s available. At those currently wouldn’t allow for the resale aspect of it. The our new program that allows homeowners to be able to have a portion of their down payment paid that does allow for the resale elements of it.

If there is any programs that come forward in the future, we absolutely would be very interested in being able to provide those, but we’re not aware of any other programs that are available from a senior level of the funding. And so if there was a program that was established, we would have to look at some other sources including possibly property taxes if that’s something that’s in this council which is to proceed with. So why will you look for now? Thank you, Councilor.

So I’ve got Councilor Ferreira and then the Mayor on the list. Councilor Ferreira, go ahead. Thanks Chair. First I’ll recognize the Mayor for his work on this and bringing this forward.

I do appreciate that and I do think that we, if we can find any measure that we can bring some more affordability to the City of London, that would be great. Recognizing Councilor Trusso’s questions, you did ask a few of mine. So I’m just gonna see if I can follow up on some of that. With the, I guess, focusing on the ability to potentially find the existing stock.

Like I do understand that this is a development charge program we’re gonna be using DCs and they don’t apply to existing housing, or I should say housing stock where people have previously lived in. And the housing accelerator funding money is not able to apply to that type of stock as well. I did see staff show or present kind of a rearrange between money coming out of the investment stream for the housing accelerator fund and putting it into the action plan initiative for the accelerator fund just to free up some money and then moving some things into the building faster fund. With this referral the way it is, would staff take this as a way to look into other mechanisms or other abilities where we can look into different pots of money and how things are placed in those pots of money to see if we can maybe put an injection into the Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program?

Like would staff take this referral in this direction to seek the same type of means that we saw with, I guess, moving some infrastructure related funds around and freeing up some money? Could we, would you take that the same way and see if we can find some injection for that? So Mr. Mathers, I don’t know if you can answer that in regard to the strong mayor direction.

Okay, seeing that odd, so rather than going to the mayor, I’ll go to you. For sure, so if there was an opportunity to look for funding to be able to support either the existing Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program or some other type of program, we would absolutely endeavor to be able to use that and access that funding. The reason why we needed to do this switch between the Housing Accelerate and the Building Faster Fund was that the Building Faster Fund doesn’t allow the funding to be used for incentives and the Housing Accelerator does allow its be used for incentives. That being said, it’s limited to those new units versus resale units.

So if there was another program that was available, we’d absolutely use it. The program that is funding the Home Ownership Program is the Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative. So Ophi that we call it and there’s various ways that we use the funding. So if there was even opportunities to move funding within those envelopes, there’s a series of really great plans there, but we would absolutely look at that.

There’s nothing that’s honestly like really jumping out at this point, but we would always be interested in looking for a program that has a resale component if there was an opportunity available. So Mr. Mathers, I think the Council was asking, do you need the direction that’s in this referral? Or is that something that’s happening separate with Mr.

Filberg’s department and others? But I’m just gonna ask you that and then I’ll go back to Council for error. And if I misinterpreted that by all means, but can you clarify? Through the chair, direction is always helpful, but we are doing that behind the scenes.

It’s part of just the everyday business that we’re doing and ensuring that we have opportunities for monitors and supporting our housing in our city. Council for error. Thanks Chair. Maybe I’ll just clarify it a little bit more too.

So we have the Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program as it is. I feel like the threshold could potentially, if we injected some money, may become a little bit lower on the income aspect alone. I’m not talking about the 5% portion for the forgivable loan, but I would like to see if we can reach more Londoners with that because I have, for example, a woman who was recently divorced tell me that she’s got $80,000 as a down payment, ready to go. And she needs housing for her two kids and she’s got an income of about $57,000 and she’s only eligible for, I think she said, $280 or $300,000.

I do see the existing previously lived in stock, presenting households in that margin, but some of them are out of reach for her because they need a little bit of work or construction cost that may be associated with that, which is why it might be the barrier there. So I guess my question would be, if we were to be able to find some cash or find some areas where we can move some things around like we did with the investment or the infrastructure related pieces that we see here, and I guess my question is, if we did that, the same thing that we saw with the mayor’s direction and we were able to find some money injected into the Home Ownership Down payment assistance program, change some of the parameters of that and allow someone like what I’m speaking to to be able to maybe get some extra cash, to be able to put some work into a house to make it a little bit more ready that she’d be able to purchase. That’s really what my focus is. So I guess it’s not necessarily new Home Ownership ‘cause she did previously have one, it would be more of someone who doesn’t have any equity in a house right now, someone who is a renter right now, but is looking to see Home Ownership.

And what she’s told me is her rent right now would be on par with a mortgage as it is. And really, it’s just the restrictions of getting approval for a mortgage that is kind of holding her back and the restrictions of the amount of housing as it is right now and the housing that is available to her needing some extra work. So all of that said, would you take this as a direction to look into other areas within other pots of money like we saw with the infrastructure stuff and be able to free up some money and possibly inject it whether it’s in the Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program or to be able to build some kind of program that is able to allow someone to purchase the existing previously lived in stock that would be a little bit lower than the $630,000 income or $630,000 threshold that is cited in the report. Okay, I’m gonna go to Mr.

Mathers on that. I just want to pull colleagues back to the strong mayor direction which is not about the city’s Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program which the majority of us did support. So I would suggest that we’ll hear from Mr. Mathers that that may need a separate motion through CPSC to investigate that direction.

And I was just consulting with the clerk on that too so that it may need a separate motion but let’s hear what Mr. Mathers has to say. Through the chair, for something that’s that specific if you’re looking either to enhance that program or come up with another financial incentive program. And there’s always the opportunity there as well to create the program even if it doesn’t have the funding so that a funding did become available that you can hit the ground running with it.

So if we had a direction to come back with a resale focused program as part of our affordable housing CIP, then that’s absolutely the work that we could put into our work plan. But that is a very specific ask and we would suggest having a resolution to caps or to the appropriate committee on it. Councillor. Thank you for that.

So with the referral as it is because the goal was to point out the Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program but that’s not necessarily something that we would be focusing on injecting to that program. I just would like to see lots of money if we can find it to also have or have a program that gives people the ability to buy the existing previously lived in stock which is at a lower price and a more reachable price than new builds. So that was really the question. So going to I guess the clerks, if you can confirm this, this would need to come to another committee.

This referral wouldn’t stand on its own to be able to direct staff with that. Ms. Corman. Yes, that’s correct.

That direction to expand funding could come to a future meeting of caps. Councillor, I’ll come back to you. I’ll just let you know if you’ve used most of your time, you got about 15 seconds. I may come back for an extension but I’ll stop it now for now.

Mayor Morgan, I have you next on the list. Sure, I’ll start with the question and then I’ll make some comments. And I will keep it to the matter before us but I do want to ask a question ‘cause it was brought up to Mr. Mather’s or his team as you direct.

The Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program, how much money was allocated towards that? Mr. Mather’s. Through the chair, I just have to pull that number ‘cause it wasn’t prepared for that.

Through the chair, so for 2025 to 2025 to 2026, there was $500,000 allocated and then 2026 to 2027, approximately 367,000. Yes, I know that’s how much we allocated in the loans issued but what is the pot that we’re working with? Because there was about, I could think, a couple million dollars that we had when we reactivated the program in a reserve fund for it. That’s the question I have.

Sorry Mr. Mathers, do you need a moment for that number too? Through the chair, I’ll have to go back and I can provide that for council. I don’t have that number available.

I recall it was maybe to 1.92 million or something like that, maybe I’m wrong. But anyways, I guess I’ll speak against the referral. Not because I don’t think my colleagues have some very legitimate questions but we basically put a referral on the floor to get a report back on questions and then we’ve asked most of the questions to our staff. And I think the point of today’s debate is to ask some questions, to get some answers and then we can decide whether or not to move forward.

So, I’ll speak against the referring of this for the reasons listed because, again, I think we can answer most of these questions here today. What I will say though, as a clarification is, I think we can move forward with the decision on this today. I think there’s also some opportunities to modify it. I actually don’t disagree that the idea of restricting it to first time buyers is something that we shouldn’t consider today.

And Mr. Mathers could probably do that and then make adjustments to the buy law before council. But I wanna say that the reason why this program was brought forward is not because there is in great value in the Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program. In fact, that’s great.

We’ve issued $900,000 or so in loans and 40 people have applied to that. And there’s more money in that pot to work with. That does something very specific. This does something different.

This says there is stock out there that’s not moving, that is new, things in some cases that we’ve built and simply is not being sold. And what that has done to the building community is they’re sitting waiting to see if it sells before they build something new. So we’re not getting the property taxes out of that home. People aren’t living in that home.

We’re not getting the DCs into the DC fund for that home. And we can solve all of those problems by creating an incentive program, see how it goes, and then do all of those things at once. So we would give an opportunity for someone who may be the down payment assistance program isn’t right for them to lower the costs of a home. And as Mr.

Zafan said, leverage some private dollars to do the same thing. And then we take both money from the federal government and the building community, and we dump it in the DC fund, and then we fund DC projects for it later, and we help more housing. And in the meantime, we support the trades, and maybe we get the market moving a little bit on the homeownership side of things, because we know it’s going pretty well on the rental side of things, and the purpose of the rental market. So if I step back and think about the concept as I talked about it with our staff, we can, with this program, solve a bunch of small things all at once, and see how it works and see how it creates the movement.

I directed staff to do a check-in at about the six month point so that we can ensure that corrections can be made. And it’s only for 2026, so we don’t even need to continue it after that if we want to give it a try. But ultimately, where does this money all go? It goes into the DC fund because we’re doing a DC incentive, and then we have access to that for the DC projects that need to be done, which we know are in the fund.

So that’s one piece. Second piece on a number of these questions. I think that there’s questions that can be asked about our other programs and how we support them that are just separate from this, and I know the chair allowed those questions. I know I asked them myself, but I think we can have that conversation, and it doesn’t preclude the conversation we can have about this particular incentive program as well.

And I want to say the other thing too, is we can try to do what we’ve done in other places, and that’s do something fairly unique, see how it works, and then talk to other levels of government to say, hey, we took your money, we spent it in a really wise way, and we actually got the market moving a little bit here. Do you want to invest in it in the future? Because we may not have the capacity to do so ourselves with property taxes, but the federal and provincial governments may. Maybe the next iteration of the building faster fund has flexibility to do these sorts of things if we do a proof of concept that it works.

We’re not going to know any of these answers unless we try something, and I’m not afraid to try something, even if it doesn’t work out exactly as contemplated, just to see if it helps in some way, for the time limited period that we can actually try this program out. So I think there’s lots of questions we can ask. Again, I’m against the referral, because I think what we can do is, we can have the debate about the program and decide whether or not to continue with it today, or make some modifications to it. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, and I’ll let you know, similar to Councilor Ferreira, you’ve got about 15 seconds left as well.

I’ve got Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Layman, and then Councillor Raman. So we’ll go to Councillor, then I’ve got Councillor Pribble, and Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Hopkins, I have you next. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair. And I do want to thank the two Councillors for having the conversation here. I think it is an important conversation wanting to see how we can incentivize our program and make it even better. Through you, Mr.

Chair, to Mr. May, there is, I did hear that there is a staff report back coming from the Stiffelberg’s department, wanting to have a better understanding with these questions, be part of a report back on another program. I just would like to have a better understanding where we can direct this referral, if it’s not back to civic administration, where can these, and the Mayor did speak about a lot of the questions being had right now, but where, what can we expect coming back from staff, and where can this go? So just before I go to you, Mr.

May, there’s just for process-wise to be clear with folks, we can pass or defeat the referral. We can’t direct it to another committee. It is a strong Mayor direction, so it has to come to SPPC. However, I believe what the clerk and Mr.

May, there’s indicated are that some of these questions are related to some of the background work that Mr. Fellberg’s division are doing, and I don’t know if he’s got the sort of work chart in front of him, but Mr. May, there’s, can you speak to Councillor Hopkins’ questions about where are some updates, where we can expect some other updates coming, independent of whatever happens with this referral, what other sorts of reports on housing programs, am I capturing that correctly, Councillor Hopkins? Okay, yeah.

Through the chair, there’s actually, we’re planning for within the next couple of cap cycles to come back with a report that’s looking at all of our affordable housing programs, so that’s a great opportunity to be able to get a little bit more information on the success of some of the programs, and that would include some updates on programs like the Homeowners Down Payment Assistance Program as well, so that will be something that’s coming to council. If there’s something very specific, so as was noted before, if we wanna have some kind of a direction to look at creating a different type of program, the actual policy pieces are possible to do if we have some direction on that. Unfortunately, the funding piece will probably be the most critical element in having just got through the budget process and not having any other funding opportunities that might be your limiting factor there. I was also able to find the number that the mayor had referenced, which was a $3.1 million that we have currently to be able to support the program overall.

Okay, and that $3.1 million is related to the Homeownership Down Payment Assistance Program, seeing non-zero counselor Hopkins? Yeah, and I appreciate having a little bit more information as to what we can expect, so given that we’ll have a couple of cycles, cap cycles before this report comes, there is an opportunity to, if there are specifics, to be added to this program, it could come to the next CAHPS meeting, I would assume just to give a bit of time, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hopkins, Councilor Lehman. Thank you, Chair.

Just a couple of questions through you. First question, and through you to either staff or the delegate. Approximately, give me an idea of what this would mean in terms of the cost of a new home. If new home buyers were able to access this help?

Mr. Mathers. Through the chairs, so the program depends on the style of home, but it would range between the city’s contribution would be between $13,000 and $30,000, but the overall including the home builder’s contribution would be between $22,000 and $50,000 on a home. Thank you, Councilor Lehman and just for any members of Council, we did receive a delegation, but we’re not doing questions and answers with the delegates.

This isn’t a PPM or an item for direction, this is a consent item that was pulled, so there’s no Q&A with the delegate. Councilor Lehman. Again, through your chair to staff, we are looking at a restriction that they can’t sell the home within five years of accessing this funding. How would we monitor that?

And would we be able to do this in some form of a forgivable loan and that that money’s would be owing if that home was sold with some sort of lean against it and forgive it after five years? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so there’s an annual attestation requirement that we need some documentation that they’re still in the home, and then also there is a lean on the home as well to ensure that we recoup that funding if they do move in.

Councillor. Thank you, so just for clarification, would that be like a lean on the purchase price? Okay, I’m seeing. Okay, the last question I have, I just wanna confirm, we received 74 million in 2023 in housing and seller here fund, and I think we received some monies after that.

Can you confirm that, please? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, yes, absolutely, we did get additional funding, I believe it’s up to 83 million now, so I can confirm that, we’ll just take a moment.

We’re asking Mr. Mathers to do more math than Ms. Barbone today, Mr. Councillor Lehman.

Thank you, so just some comments. I like a lot of things about this. I like the fact that it’s looking at affordability for homes that are below the average prices city of London. I like the fact that the developers are sharing in the cost of this 60/40.

I think the amount of the monies here would incentivize people to be able to get into the housing market. I think this is an excellent funding source, our housing accelerator fund, which we were the first in Canada, by the way, to access to the work that staff and council have done in this regard, and I think this is a terrific avenue. We’ve used it for some other areas like office to residential, comparison, et cetera. As has been said previously by the mayor or someone else that we made good inroads and rental stock.

I think we really have to address the primary ownership side of things, and convince that, yeah, I’m satisfied with the answers that we’ll be able to recoup the money so we wouldn’t let people just flip these houses. The only thing I would suggest, I’d like to see maybe first time buyer added to this, or not, you know what, I think this as is. I don’t see a need for a referral here that questions can’t be asked and answered and some sort of, maybe a memo is provided by councilor here. So I think it’s good to go as it is, quite frankly, with me, perhaps consideration for first time buyers.

Hey, I’ve got lots of people on the speakers list already. So just so folks know, I see hands. I’ve got councilor Pribble, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Palosa, and myself. Then I got Councillor Ferrer, who’s put his hand up for a second time, although you’ve only got a few seconds.

So, and I miss Councillor Raman is on the list as well, so I’m just gonna ask if you’ve already spoken. I did note you Councillor Ferrer, so I’ve got that down. But if you’ve already spoken, there’s a long speakers list ahead, so I’ll ask to see if anybody wants a second turn after I’ve gotten through the first time speakers. But if you’ve already spoken, if you can just hold your comments until everybody who’s on the list who hasn’t spoken yet has a chance to speak.

So I’ve got Councillor Pribble, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Raman, next in line. Well, I wrote you down third, Councillor Raman. So I’m gonna go with the order I’ve written down. Sorry, you may have had your hand up.

There were three hands that went up pretty quick, so I’m gonna go to Councillor Pribble first. Thank you, Chair. And actually I did have some concerns, and actually I loved them were answered by Mr. Mathers.

There were talks about additional or different initiatives for our housing programs, and I would be more than happy to support other ones that will come forward, but this is what’s in front of us right now. If I look at this from the half, the $5 million CMEC confirmed that this is eligible use for this money, I see 5 million from this, I see 3 million from private sector. I’m all about leveraging and maximizing opportunities. This is in the category.

I will not be supporting this referral, and I will be very much supporting what’s in front of us. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I’m tempted to support the referral, not so much for the reasons that are listed there, but because this has come to us so last minute with this one project, it says right on page 67 due to the urgency of the mayoral direction civic administration has not undertaken a comprehensive standalone evaluation of the proposed incentive program. And I would like that process to go. I would like to see that analysis.

Hearing, try it, try something new, see if it works. I just don’t, that doesn’t give me the level of comfort that I would like. I understand the inventory issue and the job security issue and wanting to do something, but the federal government said that they were gonna have a program, they haven’t done it. They’ve got the opportunity to reduce or eliminate the HST.

This feels like a band aid that we’re trying to jump in and do something that the federal government should be doing. Our job is the infrastructure piece. And it says that we are delaying $5 million in infrastructure, the Lambeth Phase Two Water Main Servicing Project and the Longwoods Water Main Servicing Project. So maybe we’ll get some money from the Building Faster Fund later in ‘26.

Maybe we will, but we needed it anyway because we’ve got other projects that we needed that money for. So what happens if we go ahead with this and then the feds do what they’re supposed to do? Okay, maybe the homes will sell faster, but I would like to understand a lot more than moving pieces here, what we’ve done, why? Why it’s only five-year loan instead of our other homeownership loan was 20 years.

So this is only five years and people get a forgivable loan. What about the administrative burden that this place is maybe on our finance? We’ve already got a homeownership loan, we’ve got all kinds of things happening in the finance area. And there was a few other sections here where I just have questions.

It says under financial incentive approval, decisions as to the eligibility and the amount of the loan will be made by city staff and will be final. There is no dispute or appeal mechanism. That’s on page 73. So I guess through you to staff, I would be interested in knowing, I haven’t heard about any extra request for staffing for the previous loan or for this one.

So I wanted to confirm that there’s not going to be an additional staffing to do this. And also around this eligibility for the loan, I would have assumed that this would not be discretionary and that people who applied would be eligible and there wouldn’t be this need to specify that city staff get to make final decisions. Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair. So from a staff capacity perspective, we did consider that as well. We’re getting very close to that capacity because we have a lot of new CIP programs. We do feel that we do have the capacity to be able to roll out this one additional.

What the benefit of this program is it’s very time limited. So it’s not going to be something that’s for many, many years to come. So we do feel that we’ll be able to meet those requirements. And there was a second aspect of the question.

Can you repeat that? Councillor Stevenson, your second piece. Well, even I’ve forgotten. But if I could hear from finance too, because we can say that this is a rollout for one year, but we’ve got five years of potentially people needing to pay out or be forgiven.

Ms. Barbara. Thank you through the chair. So certainly we worked with Mr.

Mather’s team. There’s a number of loan programs that have been initiated recently. So that’s certainly one of the considerations. We have found a way to make it work within our existing complement, but certainly if we continue to have more loan programs, that will be an area we will definitely need more staff to address, but we have enough capacity based on the processes we’ve put together for the existing programs that we have worked on jointly to be able to sustain that.

Thank you, Ms. Barbara. And I had actually scribbled it down really quickly. So perhaps to assist Councillor Stevenson, the second part was around the decision on eligibility and where the city staff decision piece comes in versus, I guess, ability to attain a mortgage or something else like that.

I think that was kind of the gist of the question. Yeah, I think it was about why staff is having full and final discretionary ability there. Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair. So that is something that is standard within our CIP programs. Just allows a little bit of flexibility, but we really, we absolutely have to stay within the criteria that Council sets. An example may be that the type of documentation that we receive and if we feel that’s appropriate or not, but it’s also to allow that flexibility so that we can make that decision and to make sure that it is final so that we can move on and provide those, the funding for other opportunities if we don’t feel that it’s appropriate.

Councillor. Thank you. A couple other questions through you to staff is why the 8% rate on the loan and why five years instead of the 20 year for the other homeownership loan. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair. So the 8% value is really just to ensure that it’s a deterrent to want to come in for this application and not stay for the duration. So if it was too low, then you might have people that were just take it, might be more likely to come in and make an application and not be serious about it.

The 8% will ensure the people are maintained for the duration. The five years was something that was specifically from the mayoral direction. Mayor Morgan, do you want to comment on the five years since it’s from specifically from the mayor direction as opposed to the home and Councillor Stevenson’s point was the home ownership down payment assistance is 20 years. So why five?

Yeah, so the home ownership down payment assistance program is a completely different program and council set that parameter. The idea with this is given more targeting ownership, potentially first time ownership at the lower end of the market. Shortening the time period allows people to maybe take that next step within the market. Maybe they move up over that period of time and then perhaps create a resale opportunity for a lower value home for another person to enter the market.

So this can go either way. You can lock someone in for a really long time because there’s government money there or you can lock them in for a reasonable amount of time and create potential movement in the market to create that opportunity at those lower below average rate houses for others to move into as a resale option. So that was the logic at the five year time frame, although it could have been four, it could have been six, but you got to pick a number at the end of the day and that seemed reasonable in my discussions with staff. Councillor.

Yeah, well, I guess because it’s forgivable alone and we’re giving taxpayer money to 200 and so people, I liked the 20 year. I mean, we weren’t just giving it out just ‘cause you bought the house in less than five years and now you’re getting the money. When we talk about how we incentivized rental properties, we did it to the developer and so rents were low. We lowered rents within the city.

That was the incentive. For this, I’m not understanding. The price is gonna stay the same, but a few people are gonna benefit. A few people are gonna benefit and we’re paying them directly.

So that’s why I prefer the federal idea where they can do it blanket and it can affect everybody equally and it’s not just a few people in our city who are gonna get these forgivable loans. So that’s why I would like to understand it better. How does it benefit, like we had a plan with the housing accelerator fund and I liked it and it was the infrastructure and now we’re moving from infrastructure to a band-aid solution on a problem, a serious problem, I get it, but is it ours? Is it this council’s?

Are we doing the best interest of the people that we represent with the $5 million? So that’s, I’ll look forward to the rest of the debate. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson and I do now how Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you.

I just wondering, I wanna clarify on page 68 where it says the required $5 million can be made available through your reallocation of funds within London’s approved housing accelerator fund and then it speaks to the Kalele Road Project and the Hyde Park Palm station project. What does that do to those projects? Does it do anything to the timeline? Does it do anything at all?

Ms. Chair. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. No, it does not impact the title and of those two projects.

The intent is still to proceed with them as scheduled. This would just reallocate some additional contingency to the projects from the two that are identified in both Lambeth and Longwoods. And sorry, Ms. Chair, did I hear earlier?

I think I might have heard that it was through the building faster fund. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, that is correct. Councillor Raman. Thank you.

And in the reports for the Longwoods and the Lambeth project, they were both just to unlock new residential units in both of those areas. They were not to support things like addressing service constraints or have any capacity related issues. So they’re not affecting current users and any infrastructure or for instance, climate change mitigation or anything like that. Just confirming.

Ms. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.

Correct, those are fully growth projects. Councillor. Thank you. And just a reminder, and I think this is through you to staff just with those Lambeth phase two and Longwoods projects, right now those are not underway or we’re not going to hold up those developments because of this change in funding.

I think that one goes to Ms. Chair or if Mr. Mathers, there was a development question in there. So we’ll start with Ms.

Chair and see if she needs to pass it off. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. I’ll defer that question to Mr.

Mathers. Mr. Mathers. Through the Chair, can you please repeat the question?

I missed that. Councillor Roman. Thank you. Just on the Lambeth phase two and the Longwoods Water Main Servicing Project, those are for new builds in the area and they don’t have units attached and they’re not planned to move ahead in the near term.

Mr. Mathers. Through the Chair, so those projects initially and they still do have development charges related funding, the timing of the project should not change based on the change of funding. Councillor.

Thank you. That’s helpful. So we’re on the referral right now. I would be supportive of the referral just because I would like more information, especially when it comes to some of the questions around the program itself and how it’s going to be rolled out.

I too would be a little bit more inclined to support it if it were for new homeowners, except I still don’t understand how with the federal program and when it rolls out, what impact that will have. And I’m not sure if that’s something our staff can prepare scenarios on, but if I were to receive a report back, I’d wanna see some scenarios if possible on what those leverages can mean. And I don’t see this as a huge delay. I’m thinking like this is something we might be able to get some answers back rather quickly on, but I would just feel better making a decision with more information.

I also have some challenges around the term purchaser. I think that there’s a little bit of wiggle room there still, I’ll be honest, and I’m not sure how we address that. So from a capacity perspective, we have staffing capacity to put the program into place, but how do we ensure that there’s no one taking advantage of the program, whether that’s in year one or in year four or five. Around the rentals allowed in the program, we talk about being allowed in ARU, we talk about being allowed a percentage of the house, but who’s going to enforce that or ensure that?

How do we even do that? I mean, yes, we have a lean against the property, but is it just someone reporting, hey, I think this isn’t being used by the terms of the agreement? How would we even know that? So what’s our follow up?

It just feels like we’re giving a forgivable loan that could technically be misused, and I understand that we’re trying to create opportunity, but we also have to create opportunity that a program that we’re going to fund has as many safeguards as possible. So I just wanna ensure that we have all of those questions answered before we move forward. So I understand the rationale for bringing this forward. I really support the idea and the concept.

I just wanna make sure that we hammer out those fine points, and I don’t think one committee cycle is enough for me to do that at this point. So I’m gonna go to Mr. Mathers ‘cause I know you, Mr. McCauley, had a couple words on the ARU piece.

So I’m gonna allow you to weigh in on that and how that would be managed. Through the chair. So the ARU piece just allows for someone to own the home and then rent out a unit that’s associated with the home just to also provide a little bit more opportunities for people to have like an income, but to not rent the actual main part of the unit. So that’s why there’s some flexibility within it.

And for the most part, we’ve really built on other existing CIP programs, where we do have some belts and suspenders worked in, but as well as noted, we will be coming, if the program doesn’t roll out, we will be coming back in July with a report to give an update on where we’re at. And of course, we’re also very concerned and really wanna ensure that the funding goes to the appropriate place. Thank you, Mr. Mathers.

I’m going to go to Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A few questions for you to staff on this one, realizing it’s aimed at first-time home buyers.

What specifically is the definition of that? Specifically looking into if people had a prior relationship, they purchased a home together and now they’re separated. Are they ineligible for this program if they were on a home ownership with their parents or a sibling to try and make things accessible and now they’re ready to branch out on their own into home ownership? Are those people ineligible?

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So at this time, what was being recommended doesn’t have that opportunity for the first-time home buyer.

We have looked into that and there is an attestation process through the province that they use as far as some of their programs who’d be looking at trying to mirror their process ‘cause it’s well thought out and they do have requirements related to it. So if that is something that is considered and we want to incorporate that as part of the eligibility, we’d be looking at that existing process of the test station. So Palosa. Thank you.

As we explore the opportunity for the homeowner to reside within this home for a period of five years, ideally longer ‘cause they will fall in love with London and stay. Is there anything within those parameters that would allow them not to rent out some of the bedrooms or have other residents or room rentals in with it as well? Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, as long as they’re a primary, that’s their primary residence and that’s be the driver as far as be able to be eligible for the program. Mr. Palosa. Thank you.

As I realize the work that some of them on council, we’re coming back to last term I’ve already done about Airbnb rentals need to be owner occupied of what this might turn into for potentially for some. Following up on some accounts there’s Stevenson’s points of just that 8% for the loan. Some of my concerns and hearing missing bar bones comments of we have five years of tracking people, potentially up to 260 people, tracking them all for five years with annual check-ins, keeping in mind loans and 8% on the back and realizing in five years life can change pretty quick and you might be forced to move with health issues, parent care, elder care, your children moving, divorces, separations that would potentially add a financial burden that we wouldn’t be able to recoup or actually be detrimental to some people. I raise those concerns.

For me, $630,000 is not an affordable first starter. That’s what we’re trying to do for affordability, especially realizing it. And now I know why it’s just new builds. It’s the DC funds.

So for those concerns I have also respectful that I appreciate the development community willing to put in some of this money and the rest being from senior levels of government. But the government money regards to what level it comes from is still all taxpayer money coming out of the same pocket. For me, I will not be able to support this referral ‘cause I’m actually not in favor of the main motion to start. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Palosa. I’ve got Councillor Ferriar and Councillor Hopkins, both on the list for a second time. I’m gonna look to see if other than myself, if there’s anyone else looking to speak for their first time, for their first time. Seeing none, then I’m gonna ask Councillor Ramen to take the chair.

Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. I’m gonna try and be brief and stick to the referral here. And I’m gonna say I’m not gonna support the referral, although I wanna be really clear.

I would absolutely support an amendment to the main motion that restricted it to first time home buyers. And I know I shared that with Councillor Trussow before the meeting. I think that that is absolutely a requirement here that it be to first time buyers ‘cause I don’t want it to become a mechanism by which people are downsizing from a family home that they’ve got 40 years of equity in to move into a condo as they become empty nesters and downsizing in their retirement. That’s not the purpose of this, to give them a break on a price of a home to downsize when they’re pulling all their equity out after 30 or 40 years in a family home.

I want this to be for people who are able to move into housing as owners for the first time. I think the interest rate proposed is actually fairly reasonable for exactly that reason. We want serious applicants. We don’t want people looking to game the system and turn it into something with a really low interest rate.

We’re in a couple of years, they go, okay, I’m going to have to pay it back, but I’m going to make enough now that I can flip it because the interest rate was so low. So I don’t want it to be flipping. And so I do see the percent as being a disincentive for that. And I hear what folks are saying.

I agree with Councillor Ploza. There’s only one taxpayer, but there are different kinds of taxes. And income and consumer taxes are a much more fair way of providing a hand up to people than property taxes are. So I really, I do support using federal money for this.

I would not support it at all if it was property tax money, but new build costs are what they are today. We hear people talking about the price of land. We hear people talking about living wages and what trades people make. And when you talk about what the average, below the average price of a new home is, that’s what build costs are.

So yes, to be under that, a lot of these are going to be town homes or condos. They’re not going to be large sprawling single family estates on large pieces of land because property values don’t allow that either. But I think that we can actually address the two pieces that are really, to me, key to what the referral speaks about today, which is the eligibility piece. Who’s the first time home buyer?

And I think that that can be addressed through an amendment of the main motion. I don’t think it needs to be referred. I do hear what Councillor Ferra is saying about the home ownership down payment assistance program. I appreciate that there’s 3.1 million available in there.

I think that an increase in some of those funds might be something worth considering ‘cause I supported that program and I think that there’s great value there. But I think that that’s a more appropriate discussion through a committee motion. So I’m not speaking to the referral pieces because I’m kind of trying to stay on the questions to the referral and not the value of the main motion. I’ll speak to that on the main motion, but I’m not going to support the referral because I think that the key thing that I see in the referral is around the eligibility and perhaps the length of years.

I wouldn’t be opposed to an amendment that extended that to something like 10 years rather than five. But I think we can address those today, provide direction to staff that either they can fix in the by-law before it comes to council or that they can bring back in another cycle to council with the direction we’ve provided them. So I want to move forward, but I do think there are a couple of ways we can improve this before we finalize it at council. So I’ve heard the length of time and the eligibility piece and I think those are two very, very reasonable amendments we could make today to fix that.

That’s why I’m not supporting the referral. Thank you, returning the chair to you. Thank you and on the referral, I have Councillor Ferrera and then Councillor Hopkins. Councillor Ferrera is waving me off.

Councillor Hopkins on the referral. Yeah, on the referral, I’ve been listening very intently here and I’m being back and forth on the referral, but I think I will be supporting it. And the main reason, and I do applaud the mayor for coming up with a very creative funding formula, moving projects around from the housing accelerator fund to the business fund. But I always, when I see something that says, projects will be reconsidered for submission during the building fast refund allocation in 2026.

Sure, there’s gonna be very little risk. We’ll probably get some money the way London has been moving forward, but I’m always doubtful. And when I’m doubtful, I always look to staff and having a report, having something that is being undertaken, some evaluation on a program gives me a little bit of confidence. So that’s why I’m supporting the referral.

It’s very simple with more information. We’ve got a little bit of time here, I think, to move forward and London Home Build this association night. I also want to acknowledge them putting some skin in the game too. I don’t think that should be taken lightly.

So I do appreciate that, but I’m not 100% confident that I’ve got it right this moment. So that’s why the referral, I’ll be supporting the referral. Okay, on the referral. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. Just to show why I think we need more time too to just get more information, under 2.4, it says that the program is intended to provide 40% of the development charge rate paid by the builder. But on the previous page in 2.2, it says functioning as a forgivable loan grant equal to 60% of the development charge rate paid by the new Home Builder. May just be a mistake, but maybe I’m just not understanding why how this is working.

Okay, I will ask Mr. Mathers to clarify. And sorry, Councillor, I should have advised you, but that uses your five on the referral. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, that value should be 60% and 40% was a typo. ‘Cause I didn’t get the 30 second. Can I have 10 seconds to ask my question?

I would have asked if I’d known I had only had 10 seconds. I will allow you very quickly in 10 seconds to ask your second question. I’m gonna give a little leeway here only ‘cause I didn’t give you the warning. Okay, I just wondered if staff could walk us through if there was a building that was in the inventory and a lot that hadn’t been built yet.

I’m just trying to understand how the development charge gets paid and then where the forgivable loan comes from. Okay, that’s Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so if it was an inventory and the occupancy was after January 1st of this year, then it would be eligible for this program.

If it was a new lot and it was constructed within this year, then it would also be eligible for the program. There is another aspect of the building. Oh, yes, absolutely perfect, thanks. So in any of the cases, the builder pays the development, the 100% of the development charge.

And then they then pass that savings along to the owner. That needs to be documented. We need to see that documentation as part of the application process. And then the city would then write a check to the homeowner to refund the 60% portion.

And then they would have the entire amount of the DC. Okay, I have no one else on the referral. So I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote, just on the referral. Closing the vote motion fails on a tie, seven to seven.

Okay, so that brings us to the main motion. I’m gonna see if we have a mover and seconder for the main Councilor McAllister and Councilor Cuddy. So that’s moved and seconded on the motion that was in the report. From there, we can engage in debate, Councilor McAllister.

Thank you, and I would like to make the amendment in terms of restricting the eligibility to first-time home buyers. Okay, give us just one moment so we can just make sure the clerk captures that language. Okay, so Councilor McAllister, I just want to make sure the clerk has that the motion be amended to direct civic administration to restrict the eligibility to first-time home buyers. Seeing a nod there and Councilor Lehman, you were gonna, Councilor Van Bergen, are you looking to speak or second?

I’m obviously in the second. We’ll go with Councilor Van Bergen as a seconder and Councilor Lehman, you have your hand up to speak. So I’m gonna go to Councilor McAllister first though, ‘cause he had the floor with his amendment. Just a point of clarification.

Yes. Thank you, Chair, just a quick point of clarification. I voted incorrectly on the referral. It is, I won’t ask for a reconsideration because the referral failed, I was gonna vote against it, so I just wanted to get that to record.

Okay, Councilor McAllister, you have the floor. The reconsideration take priority. Councilor Lehman was acknowledging he doesn’t need reconsideration ‘cause he actually voted for the referral, but intended to vote against it, so it would have actually been 6’8”. So he’s not asking for a reconsideration.

Thank you. And I’ll just be quick with my comments, in terms of the debate we just had on the referral. I think it’s appropriate in terms of sticking the eligibility in terms of first-time home buyers. This is an area I’m particularly interested in.

Being in this position myself and really, I think in the current environment, we really need to have as many tools as we can in terms of incentivizing the first-time home buyers to enter the market. I appreciate what the mayor has put forward. I’m interested to see where this goes. I know there’s some discussion in terms of extending the time, I’m interested in this component, and if there are other amendments, I mean, people are free to put those forward, but this is an area I’m particularly interested in.

That’s why I put it forward. Thank you, Councilor McAllister. And I’ll just say, if we deal with this amendment, it doesn’t preclude other amendments, just so that we perhaps avoid the amendment to an amendment to an amendment, layers of inception there. Councilor Layman, did you wanna speak to the amendment as well, or were you just looking to speak to that?

‘Cause you had your hand up twice there, so just checking. Thank you for checking. No, I just wanted to make it clear on my vote. Okay, thank you.

Other speakers on the amendment. Councilor Ferreira? Thank you, Chair. I think like for this amendment, like I understand the intent for the first-time home buyer, but the case that I just kind of brought up before, a woman who’s recently divorced doesn’t currently have any housing equity is looking to buy, cannot reach, or cannot reach just the market as it is, this would preclude her from being able to purchase like this.

And I don’t wanna disenfranchise individuals who are in certain situations where they may have previously had some type of equity, but they do not have equity right now and they’re looking to get into the market. I like the first-time home buyer part, but I think we should maybe consider looking into not restricting buyers who currently don’t own a home but are trying to enter the market. This might be a good reason why we should refer back and have more analysis on that. How do we capture the first-time home buyers, but how do we also capture those who currently don’t have equity and don’t have a home ownership as it is right now?

How do we do that? I see what the mover and the seconder are saying, but I think that we would risk precluding individuals like that, especially people who may have been disenfranchised already. So I would move a motion to refer this with this amendment and also to have the referral look into also capturing buyers who, potential buyers who currently don’t own a home and are trying to enter the market. So I would move that and I don’t know how the language would be, but my intention is to not disenfranchise those who may have in a past life had ownership and are looking to own and this would preclude them from that.

So I would move that motion, a referral back. So we can get a report back on how we’d be able to capture those individuals. Sir Ferrera, you just checking with the clerks. You can’t refer an amendment because then you’re just back to the main motion.

You have to vote the amendment down or you pass the amendment and then you move an additional amendment, but you can’t refer an amendment because then you’re just back to the main motion. So you have to dispense with the amendment. You can’t refer it. Okay, I’d like to amend the amendment then to include the language that I’m trying to put in here to make sure that we can capture those individuals who may have previously had some type of equity, but like the case that I’m talking about, the divorced woman would be able to purchase the home and would be able to have the ability to tap into such a program.

Point of order, Councilor McAllister. So it just seems like this is a wordsmith on the fly in terms of criteria. There’s nothing including the counselor from having a program that captures specific demographics, but that is one case that he is pointing to and I don’t think that that’s enough to develop any sort of criteria on is just that one case. Okay, one at a time, please.

Let me rule on the point, you can’t call a point of order on whether or not it’s a point of order, I have to make a ruling. So, Councilor McAllister, I hear what you’re saying. I don’t think it’s a point of order. The reason that I’m saying that is because to part of what you were saying was shared with me by the clerks while you were addressing the point of order, which is clerks say that that would actually be contrary to the amendment that’s on the floor, which is specifically the first time home buyers, the amendment you’re trying to make is contrary because it’s not the first time home buyers, which is clear in the amendment.

So, you still have to vote the amendment down or support it and then ask for something else, but the clerks have said that it’s contrary and I concur with them because of the language that Councilor McAllister used. You’re trying to create a different definition other than first time home buyer and that’s the amendment that’s on the floor. Can I go? I appreciate you recognizing that was a point of order.

I would say I’m bringing up the example because that is the example that I have, but the language I was trying to put on even though I understand it’s contrary, is not an example specific to that. It’s an example that I’m trying to raise and maybe this is why we shouldn’t make on-the-fly amendments because I do believe this first time home buyer, one is an on-the-fly amendment to go back to staff and get a proper report back for the information because with this amendment as it is, it will preclude a lot of individuals in that specific case and others that we can’t even think of right now. So with that, I wouldn’t be able to support the amendment just for that reason alone. I’m worried that while I do understand we wanna focus on first time home buyers, we shouldn’t not ignore the fact that there are other individuals who are in specific situations and I guess to put it generally, it’s more complicated than that.

So I wouldn’t be supportive of the amendment as it is. Okay, I’ve got the mayor next. Before I go to the mayor though, I’m gonna go back to Mr. Mathers because he said something in the earlier referral debate that we had that I think I’m gonna ask him to repeat ‘cause it might be helpful to what Council Ferrero was raising as well as what other folks may have around eligibility criteria.

And that is Mr. Mathers, you indicated that even for the first time home buyer, and this would, I’m going to make an assumption here and see if you can clarify that for any program, whether it’s the home, the first time, or whether it’s the home ownership down payment assistance program, whether it would be this one, it’s all dependent on the applicant still being able to meet the stress test mortgage threshold and be able to secure a mortgage from a private lender to purchase that home anyway. And so by that very nature, there will be people who simply cannot get a mortgage at a high enough rate to qualify for home ownership at this time. Am I interpreting what you said earlier around the threshold for financing correctly?

And can you just share that with all of Council so that we’re really clear on what the other eligibility criteria are besides, in this case, first time home buyer? Through the chair, absolutely. So there the applicant will be required to get their own financing and be eligible for that financing. That’s part of the requirement for the program that’s being suggested at the point where we would get involved in that application would occur is that they would already have a contract with the builder to purchase the home.

So all of those pieces that would come before that, getting the financing, ensuring that you have that mortgage would all already be complete by the time we get that application. Okay, hoping that’s helpful to everyone. ‘Cause I think it speaks to part of what was being raised there. I’ve got Mayor Morgan next on the speaker’s list.

Yes, with the Councilor McAllister’s amendment, I think that it’s a fair approach to take. And as Mr. Mayder said during his discussion, there are some very good definitions of the provincial and even federal level on how to be permissive as Councilor Ferra was asking for to ensure that people have the opportunity to be a first time home buyer. For example, even with the federal home buyers plan, you’re considered a first time home buyer if you haven’t lived in a qualifying home for four years.

Like your first time, even if you have owned a home, you haven’t for four years, you still can. If you get separated, you can qualify as a first time home buyer, even if you’re buying out the equity in the current house. So like I think Mr. Mayder’s, as he said before, sounded like, and maybe you can confirm this, was going to take a permissive approach to this to ensure that we’re not unnecessarily excluding people by using the definition of first time home buyers from, I think he said a provincial government definition, but I would encourage him to look at both the provincial and federal ones to ensure that we’re as permissive as possible and not get into the situation that Councilor Ferra mentioned, particularly with someone who gets separated during the course of their time, but may have lived in a home, but now wants that new opportunity because of their new situation.

If you could ask Mr. Mayder’s if he could respond to that. Mr. Mayder’s.

Through the chair, so I had mentioned the provincial, we’re very happy to review the national as well. We’re looking at something that would be both permissive to allow people to be able to apply and to be able to get into housing, but also would be from an administrative perspective also very easy to verify. Mayor Morgan. That’s all I have.

I think this is a good amendment, but I think there’s very easy and reasonable solutions to being permissive on the definition of first time home buyer for those situations that are there that are easy to administrate, that it already exists in the provincial and federal legislation, and that can be applied in this case, municipally. I have Council trust out next. Through the chair, I appreciate the intention behind the amendment. However, like anything else in this technical area, there are a lot of provisions and counter provisions.

And to just say that a staff member is being delegated this decision to come back with specific language in a by-law and he should use a permissive method is not satisfactory to me. I would like to have this pursued a little bit, and it’s a reason why, and I don’t wanna go down another procedural rabbit hole here, but this is why I feel that the amendment needs to be referred. Because there are circumstances I could think of where just saying, well, if it’s been one or two or three or four years out, that would be okay, and that would be permissive. What if it’s a situation of a spouse who is leaving the home because of spousal abuse or some other dangerous situation?

I don’t want them to have to wait four years. I want them to be able to qualify for our programs right away. And I think that’s just a counter example that I come up with off the top of my head. So I appreciate the direction this is going.

I’m going to suggest that for those reasons, the amendment would need to be referred, which I suspect if it’s an amendment to the main motion, and that needs to be referred, we wouldn’t be able to get back to the main motion until the referral came back, but I’ll leave that to the clerk to roll on. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trussell. That’s already been ruled on.

You can’t refer an amendment. You have to pass it or defeat it, and then do something with the main motion. We’ve already had a referral on the main motion that failed. Any other referral would have to be substantively different than the referral that has failed.

Just cautioning colleagues, amending it because we’ve added the first time home buyer eligibility, and then we want to refer that again, would not be a substantive change from the previous referral because that was in the previous referral, which was defeated. Thank you, thank you, Ben. In which case I’ll be voting against the amendment, even though I like the direction that the amendment is going in, I think it needs more precision. Okay, thank you for that, Councillor Trussell.

I’ve got Councillor Ferrera second time around, and I just want to let you know ahead of time this time, so we’re not cutting you short. You’ve got a minute, 30 left. Thanks. Through you.

I’m exactly what Councillor Trussell was speaking to, and just reading this amendment, this motion be amended to direct civic administration to restrict the program eligibility to first time home buyers. If without the language of any type of permissiveness, without a report back to know really what is appropriate for permissiveness, you know, whether it’s four years, five years or immediate, I can’t support the motion as it is. This will lock us in. The language right here is very clear, very direct.

It will lock us in. So without any changes, especially with more information back on how to approach this, I won’t be supporting this as it is. But I do like the direction. I do believe it’s aiming the right direction.

It’s just not there yet. There’s, like I was saying, this is complicated clearly. And as you can see, just, you know, thinking off the top of your head of the issues that could arise from this, we need more work here. Any other speakers on the amendment?

Seeing none, Councilor Raman, can you just take the chair? Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Thank you, so I will support the amendment. In the very short time while we’ve been talking, I’ve been able to actually look at both the federal and the provincial, the bylaw itself would have the language in it as to an appendix with the definition of a first time home buyer.

So we do get to see it when it comes to council, and we could then decide not to do that then. But the language would be there for us to review in the bylaw. So I am comfortable. I don’t think for me personally, and I don’t mean any offense to any of my colleagues, but I think we’re getting into the weeds here.

We’re not gonna create a program that’s going to cover every single individual who wants to buy a home in that city of London, nor do we have the financial capacity to cover that program. When we get into these sorts of details, this is actually operationalization to me, not a governance decision. So I do support the intent. I know what the provincial definition says.

And so I am supportive of the amendment that Councilor McAllister has put forward. I think it makes a lot of sense. Yes, there are some restrictions, but it is fairly permissive in my view in terms of what a first time home buyer is if staff are bringing forward a bylaw that incorporates appendices that show the federal and the provincial definitions. So I am supportive of the amendment.

I think that this is the way to go for the reasons I said earlier on the referral. I don’t wanna see people taking equity out just to benefit from a discount on downsizing. I think that this does move people into housing. So I’ll be supporting the amendment from Councilor McAllister.

Thank you, returning the chair to you. And I’m just gonna check where there anyone else while I was speaking, seeing done. I have no one else on the speakers list. So only on the amendment now, I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote.

Councillor Trossaill. I would vote no, I’m locked screen again, thank you. Trossaill, can you strong for your mic? Thank you.

Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to two. Okay, so now we have a main motion as amended and looking for speakers. Councillor Trossaill. Thank you, thank you very much.

It’s always nice to get down to the main motion where we can talk underlying policies and not technical details of where this is going next. As much as I appreciate the policy of making it easier for people to traverse their housing journey and go into home ownership from rental. I think that this particular way of doing it is overly complex. It misses a lot of particular situations.

It’s flawed for a number of reasons, which is why I put forward the referral. And I think we really have to look at what the underlying policies are. I think it’s a legitimate municipal policy to try to assist first time buyers, putting quotes around that, however, that’s defined to get into homes. I wonder though, is it a proper municipal policy to help the real estate industry or a segment of the real estate industry clear their inventory?

Is that something that municipalities should be exercising their police power to do? I guess I can put that in the form of a question to the solicitor in terms of whether or not helping holders of assets clear their inventory is a proper municipal purpose. Ms. Pollett, when you’re ready, if you want to respond.

Through the chair, this program is being advanced under a community improvement plan under the Planning Act. The purpose is to assist with affordability. In terms of your question, I think if we need to delve into it further, that should occur in camera. Thank you.

And the reason why I’m going to pursue that is I think this is an appropriate question. Really saying that a vendor of something is holding the inventory and we want to help them clear the inventory. I don’t think that’s a proper municipal purpose, so I would want to know under what head of the municipal act will authorize to do that. So if the solicitor is not comfortable discussing that here, which I understand, I would move we go into closed session specifically to get an answer to that question.

So Councilor Trust, before I look for a second or to go into closed session, you’ve made a statement that the purpose is to help the private sector move inventory. The solicitor has already responded that it’s under a community improvement program to address affordability. While there may be a secondary offshoot to that, just as there is for office to residential conversion or some of our other CIPs, I don’t think that it was stated anywhere in the mayoral direction that this was to clear inventory. And so I’m going to respectfully ask if you want to reframe that question to the solicitor because I’m actually, I don’t think that the way that you’ve framed it is actually accurate to the mayoral direction.

So I’m just going to ask you to. Yes, is assisting the real estate industry in clearing inventory that they are holding proper municipal purpose within the municipal act and if so, under what section? Before we go to the solicitor, Councilor Ferrer on a point of order. Yeah, I was trying to call one, but I couldn’t press my mic.

And on page 73, program purpose. The purpose of the new home ownership incentive program is to incentivize new home ownership by providing a loan to the new home purchaser. By increasing home ownership demand through great affordability, the program intends to support the sale of backlogged new residential construction inventory. The report does say that from what Councilor Trusso was saying.

It also says to encourage the timely commencement of new construction program project, sorry, and rebalance the city’s housing tenure condition. So it does say that in the report from what Councilor Trusso was saying. So I believe he can ask that question. Okay, I’ll pull that point of order.

Councilor Prusso has reframed it though, so he can, and the city solicitor was about to answer so. That’s a valid point of order, Councilor Ferrer, but I’m going to go to the city solicitor for their answer to the reframe that Councilor Trusso asked. So through the chair, my response hasn’t really changed. It would be my recommendation that we proceed in camera for a discussion in this matter.

Okay, so Councilor Trusso, you want to move in camera? Yes, and I’d be looking for a second for that motion. Yep, we’ll look for a seconder in Councilor Ferrer and that’s not a debatable item, so we’ll ask the clerk to load the vote and get that open and E-scribe. Building the vote, motion carries eight to six.

We stay here, colleagues, and we’ll ask, okay, public streams are back up, chambers are open, and we are going to resume our public session now. We finished, we had a motion to go into closed session from Councilor Trusso. Councilor Trusso, you actually still have the floor on the main motion as amended. If you want to continue, you have three minutes left.

Then, because Councilor Trusso moved the motion, then hasn’t yielded the floor, but then I do have you, Councilor Romet. Sorry, yes, procedurally, you need, I will go to the vice chair for a report on our confidential session. Thank you, and I’m happy to report progress as made for the reasons we went on camera. Thank you, and see, we discussed, should she report now, so that we don’t forget by the end of the meeting, and I already forgot, so apologies for that.

Councilor Trusso, you have the floor. Thank you, and I’m speaking against the main motion. How much time do I have left? Put it aside, the issue of legalities.

I still think this is bad public policy, and the reason why I think it’s bad policy is there really is an appearance here, and I’m basing this observation on a lot of public comment that I’ve heard that this is a winful for the development industry, and I am not accusing anybody, including the mayor or other people that support this, of bad motives. I’m just saying, what we’re doing here is we are intervening in a private market in a way that creates an advantage for a particular product, not every product. So one who is interested in engaging in the buying and selling of existing already occupied homes might feel as if there is some form of discrimination here against their wares, not wares, but against their properties that they’re selling. The other thing I wanna point out is, I think that there are, if the primary purpose is really helping people, I don’t think saying we’ll go buy a house and qualify for a mortgage on a property that’s, what is it, $636,000 is really gonna help a lot of people, because the down payment on a $600,000 house, it’s still not something that people, unless they already have assets, are going to be able to make up.

People are really hurting. Given the level of rents that we’re seeing, many people who should already be at the point in their lives where they can afford a down payment, they don’t have the savings, ‘cause that savings has been appropriated by the landlords. And I think that we have to realize that we have the kinds of people that we have in this city who are making good incomes, and I’m talking about people who could be making $100,000. But if you’re not a double income family, if you’re just a single income family, that’s a very, very different situation.

And I think the people who are single are also being discriminated against this, not discrimination in the form that it’s illegal, but discrimination in the form that I don’t think it’s good public policy. And let’s say this is successful, let’s say this is wildly successful, and we’ve cleared— - 10 seconds, sir. 10 seconds. We’ve cleared inventory.

I still think that it is not a reason to do this from a policy point of view, so I will be voting, though. Thank you. Mayor Morgan. Yes, so I understand if you wanna be against this, that you use the exact language that was just used in the debate.

You use the highest possible average price, which is not what it may be. It can be any price below that. You make it sound like it’s a windfall for the development community. You talk about intervening in a private market.

Those are not the facts here. Listen, the municipality has CIP programs that help lenders in many different ways, including benefits that would benefit the private sector. We have a downtown CIP waiver program on development charges, so we can build high density in the downtown. We have an office residential conversion program.

We have many programs that are meant to benefit the city as a whole, because when we invest and when we get people into proper housing and we make that accessible, we actually help everyone. So what is happening here? It’s not a windfall for the development community. Yes, do they have some inventory that is sitting there?

Sure, right, they do. But what’s happening here is the building community is putting their own money on the table with some money that we have from federal partners to pay into the development charges fund so that these properties are going to actually get people living in them. And housing is not only our priority. It’s a provincial priority as well.

Not only that, but then these properties are going to be paying taxes, which are going to benefit. It’s going to contribute to assessment growth, which we’re going to use to fund the cost of a growing city. Now, this is actually good public policy, in my opinion, because we’re solving a number of problems at the same time with both money we have access to in the housing accelerator fund, which we have exceeded our targets on and continue to do so. But leveraging millions of dollars of private sector money to get on the table to ultimately make it more affordable for those who want to be in home ownership to be able to afford a home.

The beneficiary here are the people who are going to be moving into homes who might be renting, because we just added that it’s going to be new homeowners. So we’re helping lenders get into their first home. And we’re going to do that in a way that is more affordable than is out there. And this is about affordability.

The reason why there’s inventory on the market is because it’s not affordable. We’re going to lower that price through a program like this. People are going to be able to afford it. Now, you can pick an individual who can’t afford any individual property that might be part of this program.

For sure, we know that there’s all levels of affordability. That’s why we’re investing in London Mill’s community housing and affordable housing and rent geared towards income housing and vision Soho and others. But this is part of our solution, too, within the housing spectrum, getting some people in the home ownership, getting them to build equity, getting them to move on to the next step. And maybe after five years, they go to the next house that they’re able to now move on to freeing up that lower level affordable house for someone else to move into.

Who’s maybe coming out of renting as well? So all this to say, too, we’re trying something new, right? We’re going to try it for a year. We’re going to check in in July to see how it’s working.

And we can make any sort of course corrections that we want to make along the way. So, you know, I think that there’s good reasons to have the debate we’re having. I think that this is something new that hasn’t been done before. That obviously sparks a lot of questions.

But you don’t innovate by not trying something new. And you don’t find solutions to our biggest challenging problems by just doing the things we’ve always done. So I think we should try this. I think we should closely monitor it and adjust it as we go.

But make no mistake, the benefit the beneficiaries to this are the people who will be living in these homes who otherwise can’t buy them now because they’re going to be cheaper. And so I’m going to support the main motion as amended. I appreciate the debate and discussion. And I also fully respect that we will check in in July.

And we cannot do it again. We can cancel at that point at the end of the annual term. We can say this one didn’t work out. Let’s try something new.

So it’s an opportunity for us to do this without putting any property tax dollars on the table here and leveraging private sector dollars at the same time in a new and innovative program. >> Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’ve got Councillor Stevenson next. >> Thank you.

I have — I like to innovate, but I’m troubled when it comes to us this week. A council is going to improve it next week and we’re going to test it live. Especially when the report comes to us saying due to the urgency, there hasn’t been the full evaluation done. And when we say that — I heard there were hundreds of units that have been sitting in inventory.

I don’t know if we actually know the number on that. But can I just confirm through you the staff that property taxes are paid on a completed unit or are they not paid until they’re on our occupied? >> Mr. Mathers, through the chair.

Once the unit is transferred, then it’s assessed and then that it would be at the — it would be collecting rates at the standard tax rates. >> Councillor. >> Thank you. And do we have an idea what that inventory is?

Mr. Mathers. >> Through the chair, we don’t have a documentation around the inventory amount. >> Councillor Stevenson.

Okay, thank you. Well, I heard hundreds somewhere. And here we’re talking about hundreds. And if we’re already collecting property taxes anyway, then I don’t think that argument works.

And in terms of increasing affordability, and even the 40%, like this is the why I would have liked the referral and to have more time. Because I would like to support this, but I can’t without the answers. When we say — so the developer is paying the development charges. And then at the time of sale, they have to show that 40% of the development charges comes off the price.

But when you’ve got a backlog of inventory and a very — a market that’s under a lot of pressure, it’s very hard to know exactly like what that discount is and how much of it would have been discounted anyway to make the sale. And then on top of that, the people have to qualify for the mortgage. So I don’t see how we’re making it any more affordable because we’re not reducing the price by the 60% that we’re contributing at least. People have to qualify and then we’re giving them like a cash rebate that’s potentially an affordable loan.

So I don’t see that it’s going to help them with the affordability the way that the 5% down payment works. I also wondered, in number nine on page 77, it talks about consent to postponement of the lien if it were to exceed 90% of the appraised value of the property. So again, if people are — we’re assuming people are having difficulty affording it, this is why we want to support them. So assuming they put 5% down, for us to put a lien on top of that that doesn’t exceed 90% of the value of the home, I’m just seeing that we might be in that position quite a bit.

And what are these other encumbrances that we might use instead of a lien? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so the planning act for CIPs, they do require the use of lien’s to ensure that whoever is accessing the funding complies with the requirements of the CIP.

Thank you. And yet here it talks about the city may at its sole discretion consent to the postponement of the lien registered on title in favor of another encumbrance on the condition that the total value of all registered mortgages and charges does not exceed 90%. So like I said, assuming people only put 5% down and they have a mortgage for 95%, we could potentially — are we not putting a lien if there isn’t enough room to keep it under 90%? Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, we just need to confirm that 5% mortgage aspect. So even if there is a postponement, there’s still a lien on the property. We just wouldn’t be first in line for that and of course that is the preference and that’s what the CIP act allows us to be first in line for in front of many other mortgages.

Councillor. Thank you. Yeah. I’ll wait on that answer.

But this is the thing where I feel like this is really rushed and we have — we need to know these issues or are we actually increasing the affordability because this forgivable loan can’t be taken into consideration by the bank to get the affordability unlike the home ownership plan which did the deposit. So our — this loan wouldn’t actually increase the affordability. It just helps ease their cash flow after and potentially in a very concerning market we’re hearing we don’t know what’s going to happen to housing prices which is part of the reason people are maybe not unable to purchase but unwilling to take the risk. This may incentivize them.

But we don’t know if these prices are going to go down. And so potentially are we then at risk on this 5 million that we’re looking to put in that originally we were going to focus on infrastructure. I do even though I don’t think — I know I’m not going to support this because we haven’t had the time to go through it all. I would like to move an amendment that we change the term of the loan to 10 years from 5 because I just feel like 5 is not — is not long enough.

So at that pause, Councillor, I’ll let you know you’ve got 40 seconds left. You’ve moved an amendment, is there a seconder? Councillor Pribble. So that’s been moved and seconded.

So now on the amendment — and I’m going to ask folks to stay very tight to the amendment on the change of years. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, I’ll keep it tight in that our first down payment loan is 20 years. People have to say 20 years to get that forgivable taxpayer money.

In this case it’s only 5. So I just feel that it should be at least 10 for us to be giving taxpayer money to somebody who purchased the home. I think 10 years is a reasonable amount. Councillor ramen.

Thank you through you. I’m just wondering if staff can comment on any potential concerns around 10 years versus 5 years. Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, so the only practical implication is that that lien would exist on the property for a longer period of time, and even that monitoring piece as well from the city’s perspective would be longer as well. Councillor. Thank you. And so I guess if we change that, we’re also changing the fact that they can’t sell within 10 years.

Just want to confirm. Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, that is correct.

Thank you. So just on that item — so I understand that we’re comparing this also to the home ownership down payment program as we’re having that conversation, and that was part of the rationale that you provided as well, or the council provided, sorry. I do see some reason to consider some more alignment with that program, and I personally would like to see us align our language on the fact that we’re incentivizing people that live here in our community already. So I would also — after this amendment, I’d like to move an amendment to make it specific to Londoners.

But I just want to deal with that 10 years first. But on the 10 years, I do see a challenge with how we would follow up with that just in general, but also on how we would limit somebody’s ability to sell for 10 years. That’s actually quite a bit of time, and I think it would be a disincentive on the program. So if the intention is to make the program work, 10 years is going to be harder to make that work, because I personally, I can’t understand why someone would take a lien on a property for that long for a 10-year period where you cannot have grace on being able to sell that property.

Getting further speakers. That’s where Stephen said. >> I’ll just follow up on that, that we have a lien for 20 years on the other. So what it does is if people stay, they get free taxpayer money.

If they sell within the 10 years for whatever reason, then they don’t get that windfall. They’re not really penalized. They just miss out on the benefits of that, aside from the 8% interest. The other one was 5% of the capital gains, which again, could be more or less depending on what it was.

Delta, trust out. >> Very briefly through the chair, I have do not have concern about enforcing this, because if there is a registered, and it would be registered, lien on the title, that’s not going anywhere, unless the city discharges it. You’re not going to sell that property to somebody without that lien just jumping out at them. So I do not have a concern about how that would be enforceable.

Now if we wanted to get more complicated, we could say that after 5 years, we start to excuse the portion of the lien every year. But in the interest of procedural non-complexity, I’m not going to put that forward right now, but that might be a way to do it. But I’m going to support the amendment. >> Councillor Layman and then Councillor Ferriero.

Thank you. Yeah, I think 5 years is enough protection for someone trying to just flip a home and using the funds in that regard. I agree with the point raised by Councillor ramen, I think you started putting restrictions up to 10 years. I think you’re not going to take as much uptake on this as you could, so I will not support this.

Councillor Ferriero. >> Thank you. I don’t know if staff can answer this, but just kind of the consideration on what staff would say between the 20 years for the existing home ownership assistance program and a potential 10 year for this new program. I do understand that the mover was trying to bring this program into alignment with the other one, but I still see a 10 year gap on that.

So just trying to get some more information on, I guess, the implications there or anything that staff can speak to. >> Mr. Mathers. >> Thank you, the chair, so the 20 years where that came from was from the criteria the province placed on that program.

So I can’t speak specifically to why the province decided on the 20 years, that wasn’t something that was generated by staff. And as far as the 5 year program that came out in the more mayoral direction, that was our direction moving forward. And any change or difference or pro rating opportunities, those all exist and they’re available for council to consider as well. >> Councillor.

Thank you. Considering there’s a goal here that is spoken to, there’s other goals as well, but this one, the one that I’m trying to pursue is one for affordability and we’re trying to capture individuals who are trying to tap into the housing market and this is new stock as well, the longevity of that type of housing, you know, you would assume would be quite a long time. So if that’s the case, then I think maybe extending the program for 5 to 10 is probably appropriate, maybe extending it a little bit further might be appropriate as well, but I would support this as it is and I would maybe ask consideration to increase it even further because this is something that is intended for people who don’t have ownership right now of their own home. And if we keep it down to 5 years, you know, and we’re worried about restricting the uptake of it, but at the same time, you know, individuals are not looking to jump from the next home to the next home, we’re trying to help people get into their first home and have that equity as it is.

So, you know, how far is this, how far does this incentive want to go? We, the main purpose is to get someone in that home, to get someone to have their own equity into their own home. Purpose is not to allow someone depending on the terms of how it is with the time to jump into the next one, to the next one, to the next one, I see that, I see that there’s some merit here with extending the program to 10, maybe it should be a little bit longer. So I just, I support the time.

Councillor Roman. Take the chair. Thank you. I have the chair.

Go ahead. Yes. So likewise, I’ll support the 10. I agree with what Councillor Ferro was just saying about this is not about leapfrogging from one to one to one over a course of a few years.

It would be an opportunity for somebody to get into the housing market and then build some equity. So I’m comfortable with 10 years, you know, in my time in this chamber, I’ve seen all kinds of variations. I’ve seen monasing that wanted 50 year agreements, I’ve seen 25, I’ve seen 20, I’ve seen 10. And for me, I know that CMHC offers a program currently for the development sector around affordable housing.

I’m going to forget the name of it. It doesn’t matter. There is a 10 year program that’s offered by CMHC. So it does align with one of the federal funding programs to go to 10 years rather than five.

So I’m comfortable with 10. I will say I actually think the 20 on the home owners down payment assistance program is maybe too long, but that’s a different horse and a different race and a discussion for a different day. And as Mr. May, there’s indicated it was a provincial requirement.

So for this one where we get to make a decision on the timeline without the province telling us what it is, I’m comfortable with 10 years. I’ll support the amendment. Retained chair to you with Councillor Palazzo on speaker’s list. Councillor Palazzo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On strictly the amendment does before us. Moving from five to 10 years, I assume it would still be the expectation that staff would follow each of these applications for five years instead of the 10.

So just through you to staff, I know that we heard that we can’t predict in 10 years if we’re going to need more staff to follow these 260 applicants yearly. I’m concerned with the administrative, I’d say burden in this. And then as we see as councils change and staff change over of just the checks and balances to make sure that this is council’s intention that each of the up to 260 people would be reported on annually for a decade. That’s a lot of checkpoints.

So just looking through you to staff, Mr. May, there’s through the chair. So if it is going to extend through that period, this is a very common thing we have in our other side piece, which may be 10 or 20 year CIPs as well. So it would be just part of our annual business, being able to have those checkpoints and the requirements from folks as well.

So it also ensures that we have that connection that they still understand that they’re under those obligations as well, even if it’s over a longer period of time. So we would likely continue to do that for the full 10 year period if that’s the changes to the 10 year period. Councillor. Thank you.

I’ll ask the question now. I don’t like it now, I can ask it on the main, but it applies to both of, especially for looking at a 10 year period, which is a longer period of time and life changes. If we’ll say the original purchaser, the home was a parent. They passed.

The home’s not sold, but it goes to a child. I assume we’re not going to want the lean paid back at that time because it’s still in the family for an uncertain circle. I’m like, I know we’re in the weeds, but that’s where we’ve been all night. And I don’t want children who take over from a parent or whatnot of like how we’re going to handle that, especially for looking at 10 years, it’s no longer five.

And this starts becoming generational issues for some. Mr. Mathers. Through the chairs, the lean’s on the property.

So then if they wanted to transfer the property or they would have to clear the lean, but if it was within an estate, then that would be a different issue. Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment 5 to 10? Councillor Ferreira.

All right. If it’s 5 to 10, I don’t, I can’t ask this question on the amendment. Sorry. I’m not asking a question.

Okay. Councillor Stevenson. I have a point that if it truly is about affordability rather than an inventory issue, then most people who are really struggling with affordability, they just want to own a house and they’re not thinking about the next move in five years. So I really think the 10-year helps support that.

No one else on the speaker’s list, I’m going to ask the clerk to open Councillor Raman. Sorry. Thank you. I was looking to move an amendment.

Do I move the amendment on this or do I move it afterwards? The clerk says, after this vote, you move that. Thank you. Your amendment would be for the whole program, so it’s after this one.

Okay. I’ve seen the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 2.

Councillor Raman. Thank you. So I was looking to move an amendment and the amendment would read that the motion be further amended to restrict the program eligibility to current residents of the city of London. That’s been moved.

Is there a seconder? I’ll second. Okay. So it’s been moved and seconded.

Councillor Raman, go ahead. Thank you. Just looking at the criteria for the home ownership down payment program, I understand that this is a more of a provincial program and that the restriction around that is related to London and Middlesex County because it’s a program that the province has those criteria on. But I do want to support Londoners hoping to achieve their affordability and their housing goals.

And so if that’s the intention of this program as we see it, then I think that restricting it to residents of the city meets that goal. And so again, just aligning with some of what I’m looking at at the home ownership, sorry to do this on the fly. I do think it does help to meet and achieve our goals in the city, which is to allow those folks the ability to get into the market if that’s our intention. And so I’m looking to move this forward and hope my colleagues would support that intention.

Councillor Stevenson. I like it. I just threw you to staff. How would you interpret resident of London?

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So we would require some type of documentation.

So it could be like a hydro bill or a driver’s license or something that has like the address as being within the city of London jurisdiction like. So I’m just wondering, is there any requirement for time because somebody can use somebody’s address and get a new license in 10 days and then qualify? Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, that kind of what I would call fraud could occur. We do our best to try to ensure that people are providing the appropriate documentation. We are like there is a requirement as mentioned as part of the existing program for the down payment assistance that requires the applicant to be a renter in London and Middlesex County. So it could even be receiving documentation on their existing lease or where their payments are going currently.

So I can check into the team with what they’ve been using, but in general, we would require some type of formal documentation and a statement that they are currently living in London. Thank you very much from that answer there. I’d be happy to support it. But I’m assuming the details like affordable will be in the documentation for council.

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so the information coming to council will just be the bylaw that is attached. Currently the appendix with the edits, it won’t have any more new information.

But if that’s something that council is interested in, I’m happy to provide that definition to a note to council just to be able to provide that information because I think it is very pertinent to what we’re talking about today. Well, that’s what’s consistent with what the clerk just said to me while you’re talking was it would be an appendix to the bylaw, so. That sounds great. Thank you.

Councilor Trussow. There’s a perfectly serviceable definition in the Municipal Elections Act that talks about the qualifications for someone to sit on this council or run from there. And that is they have a tenancy. And I think I don’t have that in front of me, but you know what I’m referring to.

It has to do with a tenancy property interest, which is a little hard, it’s a little harder to negotiate around that than there is going into getting a donut coupon or something. Or I don’t mean donut coupon, but I mean, I mean like a bill from a from a hydro provider. So I would I would say let’s just use the definition that already exists in law that we’ve already been using and that the clerk understands. And again, Mr.

May, there’s we’ll bring that forward in the as an appendix to the bylaw. Any other speakers on Council, Romans amendment to the London residency, seeing none. I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Housing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay. So now we’re back to the main motion as amended as amended as amended. So we’ve made three amendments.

We’re on that main motion as amended, just reminding folks the five year, the first time home buyer and the London residency are the three changes. So remind folks we’re approaching four o’clock. It is not my intent to entertain any discussion about a recess until we finish this item at least. We’ve had a lot of discussion on it.

So hopefully folks can you’ve made a lot of your points through the amendment process. Hopefully we can address the main motion as amended. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I might have one more amendment. So I just wanted to get it in quick. If I can confirm through you to staff in section six on page 76. It says that for the duration of the, or for the term of the loan, they must have their primary residence for a minimum of five years following the date of the agreement.

I just wanted to confirm that that will change to 10 and we don’t need to do an amendment around that. And also in the next section, it says that the new home will not be leased to any person for a minimum of two years following. And I just wondered if I could get information on why two was selected there. On the five, 10, the clerks confirm the way it was amended.

All the five year will change to 10. So there’s a number of changes to be made throughout the document to that point on the two year point, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, the two year needs to be changed as well, so we will be making that change.

So that would also change? To what though? Because if it was two and a five year loan, what would it be on a 10? Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, it should be 10. It shouldn’t have been two, sorry. So it should have been five initially.

So we have flagged that and we were going to make an edit for council. Okay. So it will all change to 10. Perfect.

No amendment then. Okay. Any other speakers before we call the vote on the main motion as amended? Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you. This is the main motion. This is the final shebang. Is that correct?

So I… Oh, sorry. Councillor Ferrera. I’m just going to pause you.

Okay. Councillor, I had Councillor Hopkins written down and didn’t go to her. I owe her time, but she said to go to you first and then she’ll wait and go after you. And yes, we’re on the main whole shebang right now.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Hopkins. So I’m looking at this and I see, you know, comparing it to our home ownership down payment assistance program.

That’s $3.1 million we put there. We’re talking $5 million here. I do see that that home ownership down payment assistance program is citywide. It reaches every single type of housing there is.

This one is restricted to only new builds. New builds that began new starts January 1st, 2025. So there’s a backlog there. I see that we didn’t get the numbers of that.

If you go on to realtor.ca, you can see there’s well over 1,000 houses for sale right now. And I know for a fact that there are more houses that were previously lived in in the city than there are new builds. That’s number one. Number two, I know that if we’re really trying to measure or trying to reach affordability here, if we use those previously lived in houses, we could reach that goal of affordability much better than we can with new builds as it is.

So the distinction between the $3.1 million that we have in our existing program, the $5 million that we’re talking about here, I’m not really a fan of. If I see the report says that, you know, the objective is to making affordability, making home ownership affordable. But it also has an objective of the backlog and the starts after January 1st. And I fear that there is a preferential treatment here when it comes to that.

If we had only the objective of being affordable, we would be looking at all houses citywide. If the objectives start increasing and we have the backlog inventory and the new starts after January 1st, then we have constricted ourselves on our goal for affordability with those new builds. I will not be supporting it because that alone, I’m worried about just the objective nature of this. I’m worried that it’s a little more subjective than it should be.

I’m worried about the preferential treatment for that. And I worry that we are not going to truly make things more affordable for Londoners who are right there, right at the limit, to be able to get home ownership. This is not going to reach them because those individuals are not looking at new homes. Those individuals are looking at the existing stock, the ones that are more affordable.

So I’m worried. When it comes to moving money around between the housing accelerator fund and putting into the building faster fund, moving infrastructure projects in and out to create some money, you know, the shelling of it all, it was worrisome as well, you know, we can’t pay DC’s back. We can’t do that as per the municipal act. And we have made some maneuvers here to be able to do that.

And I worry about how that looks as well. If there is a backlog of new builds that are not able to be sold, I would say let the market decide what happens to those new builds. We should not incentivize those new builds in a way and just focus on them. If we’re truly looking to make housing more affordable, ownership more affordable and give people some equity in their homes, we need to be looking at it citywide.

We need to be looking at the existing previously lived in housing stock. We can’t be narrowing our scope with new builds only. We are putting tax dollars to work here. Regardless of their property tax dollars or not, they are tax dollars.

And we need to practice good governance and use those tax dollars to the maximal way we need to do that. I am not willing to inject public dollars to make home ownership more affordable for these new homes only. We should look beyond the new builds. And we should include the existing housing stock, as I said previously lived in homes.

You know, the market has a lot of homes for sale. We hear all the time that inventory is sitting and there’s too many homes listed, but yet we are looking at 260 homes here where this $5 million could go because they’re only new homes. We would be able to stretch that $5 million well beyond 260. I’d love to get the information back on how much that will be if we were to look at all the homes citywide.

Because of that, because of these issues, I’m not going to be supporting the motion. I hear the work that has been done. Some of the amendments, I accepted some of them. I didn’t.

I feel like we’re a little restricted on some of them from the last conversation. I won’t rehash it. But I am hearing from people who cannot buy a home, even though the rent is on par with or even higher than a mortgage payment would be if they only were able to qualify. So we should be looking at that.

That’s what we should be looking at. We should be looking at the people who are right on the line. And 30 seconds. Get qualified for new housing.

And because we’re only focusing on new builds, we have undercut ourselves in that affordability goal. And in the end, this will be just focused on, in my opinion, removing the backlog of new builds and new starts. So I’m not going to be supporting the motion as it is. I would ask council not to support this motion.

And I’ll leave my comments there. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, Mr. Chair, on the main motion, I’m hoping there’s not going to be any further amendments, even though I supported each and every amendment.

But on the main motion, I do want to, again, applaud the mayor for coming up with a very innovative program without a doubt, and having London Home Builders Association being part of having some skin in the game. I would have liked to have seen some kind of an agreement there between London Home Builders and the city. I’m not sure how that would look like. But again, it goes back to all the programs that we’ve had and the very referred to a number of programs that we are already existing.

We have always looked at undertaking more of a comprehensive evaluation of programs, giving us the information that we need or I need to support this. My mother was a real estate agent. I think it depends on your perspective. If you would support a program like this, she’d be cheering.

My son, who is in my basement, not sure what he would be doing right now and trying to understand how it all works and how much of a savings it will be to him. But I’m going to put on my Ward 9 counselor hat here, and again, I need more, more information. The funding formula is so creative, moving projects from the Housing Accelerator Fund over to the Building Faster Fund, taking out those two projects that are in my ward. And I have a ward that is all about development, it’s all about growth.

I have concerns when I see any of these projects being reconsidered. And I do agree there’s probably a little bit of, it’s a low risk. But I just feel very insecure, again, when we make these decisions. I have concerns about the DC Reserve Fund, I don’t want to go anywhere there.

So I don’t want to create any opportunities that we might have to dip into that. So with that being said, I won’t, will not be supporting the program for those reasons. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

Yeah. Unfortunately, I’m not able to support it either. Like I said, love the idea of being innovative, doing the first of its kind in Canada, but not in 10 days. We just need more time, more due diligence.

We need to understand it better. And we need to say why, like what is it that Londoners are getting for this? Somebody said that they wouldn’t support it if it was municipal dollars. But we move things around so that it’s not municipal dollars, but it affects municipal dollars because we have a big list of things that have to be done.

And okay, so this isn’t doing it, but it means something else is going to hit the municipal tax base. And I’m not convinced that this is an affordability program. I’m not convinced that this helps people afford what they couldn’t afford before. And why?

Because it doesn’t. Because they have to meet the qualifications to purchase the home without this program. And it says right in the title of it, that it’s a new home ownership incentive program. So it’s not, we made it a first time home buyers, but the program itself is a new home incentive program.

So as was said, we’re singling out one asset out of a multitude of housing units in our city and allocating a funding program to support that and only that. So I don’t think it’s a good look. It’s not something that I can explain to taxpayers infrastructure. Yes, they know.

We need to do the infrastructure to make sure people can build more houses. I think we need to count on the other levels of government to do what it is they said they were going to do. And I don’t think that we should be, we keep saying, oh, we shouldn’t backfill the province or we shouldn’t backfill the federal government as we do it. We keep doing it as we say, we shouldn’t do it.

Well, if we really shouldn’t do it, then say no. Jerome, can you take the chair for me again, please? Thank you. I have the chair.

Go ahead. And I want to say a couple things clearly to some comments I just heard. We’re not backfilling the federal government on this. We’re using the federal government’s dollars through the housing accelerator fund to get people into housing.

Affordable housing has a variety of different definitions. There’s highly supportive. There’s RGI, there’s 70% AMR, there’s 80% AMR, 100% AMR is actually considered affordable housing because AMR is an average market price. It’s not a list price.

Now on this particular plan, we’ve heard about the home ownership down payment plan lots today, that has a cap on a house price of $500,000. So it’s a different program again in terms of the affordability level and it’s been said by our staff multiple times today. We are not canceling or delaying any infrastructure projects. We’re simply moving the funding to the building faster fund from the province rather than the federal housing fund.

We cannot use the housing accelerator fund dollars for existing resale stock. That program is tied very clearly to new housing builds. We can’t do it. There’s no way to transfer this to the home ownership down payment assistance program.

That program has 3.1 million of previously allocated funds from previous federal and provincial governments that we can use, then this one is 600 and changed, whatever the purchase price is. I’m not going to look it up right now, I’m just going to say. So there’s a different level of affordability here. But when we talk about housing being a continuum, that’s exactly it.

It was shared with me on the weekend that if you take into account the provincial and federal incentives and then this one, you could look at ironstone homes in pond mills right now and combined the incentive programs would take about 14% off the purchase price. That is not an insignificant discount that could allow people to get into housing as owners rather than renters. I hear Councillor Stevenson saying that they have to qualify first for the mortgage and I don’t disagree with you there, I agree. But we see banks actually taking into account right now some of the incentive programs that homeowners don’t get back until after they’ve taken occupancy and it was done right here in London with the ironstone Black Friday sale that they had.

We still had to qualify, but they took into account the fact that ironstone was discounting the price for the eligibility for the mortgage there. And so different financial institutions may take different approaches, but there are financial institutions who are taking these incentives into account and saying yes, because of these incentives, you meet the stress test for a mortgage here. I get that folks want different things to cover different people. There’s not going to be a policy that covers everyone.

It’s like affordable housing isn’t the same for everyone, housing isn’t the same for everyone. We’re going to have a check-in in six months. We can adjust. It’s a one-year trial.

And while people may want to, and I say this respectfully, when we want to get into the operational weeds and we’ve done that a little bit today, but we also have to let our staff have the flexibility to work within the existing definitions instead of trying to redefine things ourselves. And they said that they’re going to do that and then they’ll bring that forward in the appendices for the bylaw. To me, if we’re supporting office to residential conversion, if we’re supporting the home ownership down payment assistance program, if we’re supporting the development of more affordable housing at Vision SoHo, if we’re doing the support of Indwell, this is all part of that continuum. No, it’s not going to fit everybody, but it’s going to fit some people.

Listen, I hear Councillor Hopkins say the sun living in her basement. We all kind of have one of those. He’s not even mine and he’s still living in my basement, but it’s that opportunity for them to look at options in the future as well. And this may or may not fit them, but we’ve got to have a suite of options for people to choose from.

I think this one’s worth trying. If it doesn’t work, then we end it. It’s a pilot program. We end it in a year if it doesn’t work.

Thank you. Returning the chair to you. And you have six seconds remaining. Councillor McAllister.

Thank you. And through the chair, kind of echo some of what the deputy mayor said. I really just look at this as another program. In terms of the funding that’s available, I do think we are trying to be creative, be innovative, as it was said, you know, six months, if it’s not working, maybe do some course corrections.

But when you look across the country, all municipalities are in a similar situation. We’re all trying different programs. We’re all trying to address affordability. We don’t have a silver bullet, but we can try a few different things.

We can pull a few different tools out of the toolbox. It’s not really a box anymore. I feel like it’s more of a chest that all the municipalities are lugging around. We’re all trying to come up with different ideas, different ways of dealing with things.

And I know in terms of getting into the weeds, we did try to make this broader, but to the point of having those broader programs, I think it’s already been said today. There are bigger things at higher levels of government that can be done across the board to address affordability, but as a municipality, I think we have to develop programs to try to tackle some of the individual issues that we’re seeing in our city specifically. Every city is different. Every municipality is different size, different issues.

But we’re all suffering from affordability, and we’re all trying different things. I’m willing to give this a shot, and, you know, if it doesn’t work out, fine. But I think trying something different, something at this point that we should give it a try. So I’ll leave it there, but having to support this at this time, I’m also happy to entertain other ideas.

If Councillors have other things they want to bring forward, this was the mayor’s direction, but 100%. If other people have ideas, they want to bring forward to address affordability, let’s have those conversations, because there are other groups that could be helped with other programs. So that’s what we should do at the municipal level, and I think this is worth a shot. Thanks.

Councillor Ferriero. Thanks, Chair. I brought some of those ideas for affordability. You have five seconds left.

I have. Okay. I have five seconds. That’s not an out time.

We had two infrastructure projects get moved into the building faster fund, but we had two infrastructure projects get moved out of the building faster fund. And now those two infrastructure projects need to be either… That’s… That’s time.

Yeah. Like you really only had five seconds. I… Mr.

Mathers, you can respond. Through the chair. So those were previously DCGMS projects, so they did have a source of financing initially. Of course, there is a challenge with the DC reserve funds and so on, but…

And then there may be future opportunities if there is additional building faster fund opportunities this year that be able to provide that as a source, but yes, it currently, those projects would still proceed, but that would be funding from Velmenturgis instead of building faster fund. I have to compliment you, Councillor Ferriero. You got that question out in the nick of time. So in a way that Mr.

Mathers could respond. It wasn’t my question, but he did respond to it. I’m going to… I got to cut you off, though, because you did use your time.

Main motion as amended. Mayor Morgan. Yes. So I’ll speak to the main motion as amended.

I appreciate the debate and the discussion colleagues have. I supported a number of the amendments. I will say I do have some concerns about the 10-year time horizon, perhaps hurting interest in the program, but you know, that’s… I think that was a 12 to 2 vote, so happy to be in the minority on that one.

I want to say to a couple of the comments, though. There isn’t need to be, you know, if or here, right? We have a number of programs to help people in need. We have programs to help people find their pathways from the streets into housing with all types of supports.

We’ve made one of the most historic investments in our community housing that we’ve made in the past 50 years. We’re partnering with places like Visionsoho on deeply affordable rents. The place that we haven’t done much in at all is home ownership, and the prospects for home ownership in this city have declined dramatically between generations, right? There are a number of us around this table who own home, and I probably think my kids, or their kids, do not even come close to the same opportunity to have that same benefit.

And so I think that means it’s incumbent upon us in the wide suite of programs we can develop is to try something which is pretty small in the home ownership space to see if we can get some movement there. You know, and if we can, you think about the opportunities that that can create for the individuals who may be able to help in the community. And the best part of this is we get to do it with the federal government’s money in a program that we’ve already met our targets on in a way that puts the money right into the development charges fund and aligns with provincial and federal discussion around when we look at the cost of housing. One of the things that we could lower are development charges.

So how can we try to do that in a way that doesn’t compromise the viability of the development charges fund? And this is one of those opportunities we have to actually try something that would do that. So I don’t know what the uptake on the program will be. I do know that it’s worth trying because we can actually learn a great deal here.

And I do know that we can actually create opportunities for people where they might not exist. The reason why there is inventory out there is that inventory is not affordable right now. And if the DCs are the margin that flip it into affordable for some Londoners to actually take the opportunity to own a home for the first time, that’s a pretty big opportunity that this council can provide for those individuals. Again, it doesn’t benefit every Londoner.

But many of our programs benefit just very specific segments. Even the other incentive programs we have on housing are very targeted towards specific types of housing. This is one of many things that we can do, and it does not need to be done in place of something else, but in parallel and in support of all of the spaces we’re in. You know, housing requires all of us to do many different things, including all levels of government to partner in many different ways.

I think this is another example on how we’ve been creative with some of that funding, with the industry. And again, I’ve heard people say $5 million, remember, it’s $8 million, right? This is one of those rare opportunities we get to leverage private sector dollars with government dollars. And I’m always interested in those opportunities whenever they come about.

But I’ll say I really appreciate the discussion today. I’m looking forward to the vote, and there’s an opportunity to proceed with this program. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’m going to go to Councillor Frank, who for the first time today has asked to be on the speaker’s list, and has her full five minutes go ahead to Councillor Frank.

Thank you. I won’t use them. So I just wanted to be real quick. I’ve shared it in the news, some of my initial thoughts, and again, appreciate the Mayor for bringing forward a new tool.

I’m still generally not supportive for many of the reasons that other people have outlined. We talk a lot about supply in these chambers and how we need to build more supply so that it drops the price of housing, and I actually feel like this is a case where it’s a perfect example. There’s local developers and builders who’ve had to start dropping the price or adding kind of incentives to sell their product. And I think that’s actually what we want to see is we want housing prices to go down, and we want the market to respond and have to make the supply cheaper.

So I personally don’t really want to use taxpayer dollars to do that. I believe that the market corrections that we have been trying to make for the last three years are happening, and if they want to clear their inventory, they can lower the price by themselves. We’re not able to see what their pro forms are or their profit margins, so I’m not sure if they’re making 5%, 10%, 15% on the sale of the property or what works for their needs. And again, that’s up to them, but I don’t think we necessarily need to use taxpayer dollars to help them make those corrections.

So at this point, again, I’m not comfortable using 5 million in this way, because I do think it would serve a better purpose in the development charges or fund, which is already overtapped and under extreme pressure. But I appreciate the efforts to build something new. Thank you, Councillor Frank. On the main motion, any other speakers before we call the vote?

Councillor Stevenson. How much time do I have? You’ve used 245, so you have 215. Okay, thanks, and I wonder if we had an answer to the question around the other encumbrances given the tightness of the liens.

Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so is the question related to the 90% versus the 95%. So we have done some research and looked into that.

There’s, of course, there’s the ability to have 95% mortgage to have 5% down mortgages. So that’s something that will take away, just look at what the best practice is, if there’s any direction you wanted to provide on that, then that would be, we could do that, happy to take that as well. But it does appear that there’s a bit of a gap there between the 90% and the 95%. Councillor.

Thank you. Yeah, but I guess I heard that the CIP’s had to be a lien, and yet the agreement says that if there can’t be a lien, there would be another encumbrance used. Mr. Mathers.

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so we would be looking for a lien, like that’s the common practice. If there’s some discrepancy in the language in the agreement, we’ll take a look at that, but that’s the standard approaches the lien.

Councillor. Okay. Thanks. I’ll follow up offline.

Like I said, when we get this in the details, there’s already been a few corrections made. Feels rushed. Feels like we don’t have the analysis to say, why are we the first in Canada to do this? Why hasn’t it been done before?

We say if it, we’ll see if it works. We’ll try it. Well, what does work mean, right? Is it a bunch of people who got denied who all of a sudden can now afford a home?

Is it the inventory being going down? Like I recognize the issue that we have with the new housing and I want to help. But I also worry about how often we as council try to right the wrongs of this world when I don’t feel like it’s our mandate. I don’t feel like when people elected me even on the issue of housing, they were concerned about the low vacancy rate and the high rents and the unaffordability of housing.

But it wasn’t like, you know, help so and so buy a home, you know? I don’t think for me anyway, I don’t see it as a municipal mandate and I feel like this try it, evaluate it, maybe the province and feds will think it’s a great idea and take over the funding of it, hasn’t really worked out really well for us so far in my experience this term. So I hate to say no to it, I really want to help out the issue that the new home builders are faced with. It is a serious concern in our city.

I just don’t think this is the right way to do it. Okay. Any further? Councillor ramen.

Through you, the July 2026 report pack back, will it have a decision point in it? Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, the intent was to provide an update and if there was any type of recommendation as far as like modifications of the program that we would include that at the time.

But there would be the opportunity for Council at any time to decide that they no longer want to offer this financial incentive program. So there might be a decision point as far as recommendations or there would be the opportunity for Council to give some different direction. Councillor? Thank you and through you.

So I’m more comfortable than when I came in the room based on the fact that we’ve went through a number of amendments I think that I can get behind. Where I’m struggling though is having an ability to potentially change course if we’re seeing something in the July report that isn’t signaling that this is working. One because I don’t want to hold up $5 million on a program if it’s not working or if let’s say there’s some things that we haven’t completely measured that become known to us. So I would be supportive if there was a July 2026 off ramp.

So that’s what I’m trying to wrap my head around right now. So I realize just looking and counting the votes I can see where this is going to go. So I’m just trying to find a way. So throwing that up there into the wind.

Mr. McCauley. Thank you and through the chair. The purpose of the report in July like we do with many of our incentive programs would be to report back progress on the uptake and any sort of barriers that we’ve seen to uptake or challenges that we’ve seen with the incentive program.

We would also be looking at any ways to provide Council with options for improvements to that program. And of course we would provide options for Council on how they would like to proceed. Whether that be to make those amendment changes that staff are recommending or to continue the incentive program for the further duration or at that time to sunset the program. But as always as we do with any of our incentive programs we always provide those options to Council.

Councilor. Thank you and through you I do appreciate that and I appreciate how willing staff are to come back with something that gives us more flexibility. My point here is that I want to give us a pathway to try it. But I also want to give us if there’s another opportunity, another Councilor comes forward with another program.

There’s something else that helps also in the affordability sphere. I don’t want to lock in this 5 million only on this. And that’s where I’m a little bit because we’ve changed criteria now so I don’t know that it will have as much impact as we perhaps thought it might. And I don’t have a way to do an impact meter.

So I’m trying to figure out if let’s say in July we realize it doesn’t have that amount of uptake. We’ll be able to slice the program or make changes enough that we could attach affordability somewhere else if we wanted to as a criteria for another program that could meet the needs of Londoners. Through the chair. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair. So absolutely that’s an opportunity. The only caveat I put on that is that if there’s still funding remaining and that if whatever changes are made, we still need to align with the funding requirements of the housing accelerator program because that’s where the funding is coming from.

Councillor. Thank you. Thank you and through you. I appreciate that.

You know, sometimes we have to be first. Sometimes we have to try things that are different and innovative. And I appreciate that. I appreciate the mayor bringing this forward.

And I’m still evaluating the risk. Thank you. Councillor Trussell. Just to note that if this came back in July, we would have to deal with the issue of if council approves whatever they do, there’s a decided matter of council and reconsideration would be.

So I don’t think we have as much flexibility as we think of my during this council term after this decision. So just in consultation with clerks quickly, no, we would not be lame duck in July. Lame duck does not even get contemplated until nominations close. Not when they open.

So it’s not until mid August with respect to it being a decided matter of council. The clerks have advised that while we will be approving this, any sort of amendments to criteria or even direction to sunset would not be out of order because it’s coming. It’s staff bringing forward a report on us taking a new action based on the report, not changing the direction from our decision today because it’s it’s a staff report. And so we would have a decision point, a new decision point there versus the decision point we make today.

So that’s what I’ve just the advice that I’ve just gotten from the clerks. So lame duck is not a factor. We wouldn’t have to reconsider if we were to make us a change through an amendment or if we were to decide to sunset it. That’s helpful to everyone.

Any other speakers? It might be a little early for a motion to extend past 6 p.m. but we’re getting close. Councillor ramen.

Thank you. And through you just a follow up. So I can expect in the July report that it may have because it’s presenting all options, the option to sunset. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair. So absolutely. It’ll lay out all those types of options, whether it’s to review the processes, make changes based on what we’ve learned and what we’ve heard from people.

And that there’s also of course that option to be to be able to not proceed with extending the program. Councillor. Thank you. Appreciate the answers.

Any other speakers before I ask the clerk to open the vote? Seeing none, I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote now. Mr. Palosa?

Sorry, it’s not loading. I vote no. Sorry, I didn’t hear you. Are you scribes not working for me?

I’m a no. Closing the vote. Motion carries. Eight to six.

Okay, colleagues, we have been at this for three and a half hours, recognizing that staff also need a break. I’m going to look to see if there’s a motion for a 15 minute recess. Councillor Van Mereberg and Stevenson, my hand on that one. All those in favor?

Motion carries. Okay. It is for 38. So we’ll be back here for 455, please.

All right. We have quorum. We are going to move to items for direction. 4.1 is the consideration of appointments to the London Transit Commission.

This is rising out of the previous direction on the change of membership number at LTC. So we do have to go through the process of populating. So I’m looking for people to put their names forward for the LTC board. Everybody all at once?

Yes. Can you, Councillor Frank, go ahead. Sure. Thank you.

And I’d like to make my comments short and sweet, which is generally opposite to being tall and mean, which is what my usual approach is. But I just like to say we’ve done a lot of good work over the past nine months being on the commission. I think that there’s a lot of progress that has been made in regards to governance into moving specific items forward. In January, we approved a variety of new service hours that will come into effect in September that you folks may have been notified about.

So I do want to say that I think that a lot of progress has been made during our time on the commission. And I would like to nominate a variety of commissioners to continue serving. I think it’s important that we maintain some of the same continuity given the upheaval we’ve seen on the commission in recent years. And with the governance audit forthcoming, I think it’s important to maintain a stable harmonious group to continue that institutional knowledge and stewardship.

So I would like to nominate myself if I may be so bold as well as Councillor ramen, Hopkins layman and the Mayor Morgan. I think it’s been helpful having the Mayor at the table to ensure transit priorities are being communicated at the federal and provincial level as well because I know a lot of work through Big City Mayor’s Caucus and OBCM have been in regards to trying to expand and enhance transit. So I think having that additional advocacy at the table is also useful. Okay, you put forward five names.

I’m just going to check in the order that you named them. I’m going to not go to you to confirm yourself because you moved yourself. So that’s fine. Councillor ramen, you’re okay with your names going forward.

Councillor Hopkins, you’re okay with your name going forward. I’d like to find out who else would like to be on the commission before I put my name before I agree. Okay. Councillor Layman, you’re okay with your name going forward.

Seeing a nod, Councillor Mayor Morgan, you’re okay with your name going forward. So we have four names. Are there any others? Councillor Trussau.

Yes, I would certainly like to put my name forward. Okay. Councillor Trussau’s name will go on the ballot looking for any others who want to put their name forward. Councillor Hopkins.

I would like to remove my name then. Councillor Hopkins wishes to remove her name. We have five. Do we have any others who want to serve?

Okay. If we don’t, then we don’t need an election. We will move the five names that have been brought forward. Do we have a mover and a seconder for that?

Councillor Cuddy. And do we have a seconder? Councillor van Mirbergen. Okay.

So we have a list of five names that have been moved and seconded. Pointment to the London Transit Commission Board. We’re just going to give the clerk a moment to type it up. Okay.

So we have a motion moved and seconded on the floor. Any discussion before we call the vote? Councillor Hopkins. Yes.

I just want to make a comment. I’ve enjoyed my time immensely on the board. I do not need to be on the board to support transit. I’m a big believer in transit and opportunities in our city to go forward with supporting transit.

And I do want to thank the great chair and Councillor Frank as well. Any other speakers? Seeing none. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

Councillor Palazzo votes yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay.

Moving on, colleagues. Item 4.2. Moving on to 4.2. This is the diversity, inclusion and anti-oppression committee advisory committee request for direction.

I’m looking to see if there is a mover and a seconder for the recommendation moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor McAllister so that items on the floor looking for any discussion. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I was wondering if through you to staff it could be explained what the difference and the advantages to this community of practice?

Ms. Bennett. Thank you through you, chair. The advantage of a community of practices that it has a wider membership than the advisory committee which is made up of individuals.

The community of practice is made up of representatives from organizations from across the community. So it has a broader representation of broader’s the ability to bring in different perspectives in a way that is slightly different than the advisory committee structure. Councillor. Yes, I had questions around the transparency of it because right now we appoint people to the advisory committee, the minutes come on the agenda, what is going to be deemed by the public and council with the community of practice?

Ms. Bennett. Through you, chair. Certainly we’re at council’s discretion and direction on this one.

Community of practice is a more informal approach than an advisory committee certainly but there is also the ability to bring forward annual reports that can summarize the work of the community of practice and the discussions that are being held. We can certainly also make available the representation of the community of practice available on our website and other means of being transparent. Councillor. Thank you.

And I do have concerns about this because of what happened with the whole community system response where I appreciate the list would be on there although I think there’s a list with the whole community too. And then all of a sudden there’s this advising happening behind the scenes that the public doesn’t see and that council doesn’t see. So the same with there’s a, you know, they’re covered by the code of conduct. There’s a terms of reference.

It’s all really clear and transparent and this feels like now it’s going to be behind the scenes. So maybe just get staff’s response on that to reassure that’s not the case or what council might be able to do to ensure transparency around the advice that’s being given. Ms. Bennett.

Through you chair, thank you for the question. The community of practice is very much about a shared approach to diversity, inclusivity and accessibility. So it is very much about shared best practice working together to advance priorities for all of the partner agencies and partner organizations. Any project or work that would come out of that would be brought forward in the appropriate way.

So if it were to be brought forward, it would be brought forward to council or committee as needed, but very much the this is a shared learning approach. So I’m not sure if that answers your question, but the intent is certainly that it would be more open because it is available to more members of the community to be to participate and to have their voice in. Councillor. Thank you.

This all sounds very familiar, so at this point I’m not going to be supporting it. Any other speakers? Councillor Trussa. Yes, I’m trying to get a better understanding of this sounds very familiar.

If you have any time left, could you? I mean I don’t want to put you on the spot, but I want to hear what you’re saying. I really do. We’re not going to engage in cross debate, and it’s not the Councillor’s motion that’s on the floor, it’s the staff report, so we’ve got to stick that way.

The Councillor’s offered her thoughts, if she has time left, she can come back again if she wants to. I don’t mind clarifying, so we have advisory committees that have terms of reference and they’re held by our code of conduct, and the idea is to advise council on the areas. Now we’re talking about stopping that and facilitating this shared experience with organizations, which sounds very much like the whole community system response, and I haven’t been happy with that because it’s had influence in ways that haven’t been transparent, that haven’t been cleared a council. And so I don’t support that.

I want public transparency around the input that’s happening and the influence that’s happening. That’s a trust out. If I missed this in the report, I’m sorry, and somebody will point it out to me, but has the advisory committee weighed in on these options? Mr.

Dator, spare. Thank you, through you. The advisory committee was consulted earlier in this process. The community of practice has existed, and it’s supported some other initiatives within our anti-oppression and anti-racism committee process.

I would suggest to you that they have indicated that they are aware that the committee of practice already exists, and they have not indicated that they are uncomfortable with it. I just want to clarify as well, the direction from council is to bring back options. There are three options presented there. We have given you a recommendation in terms of what the recommended option is, but there are three other options, two other options, I should say, for council to consider.

Thank you for that. I would feel more comfortable referring this directly to the advisory committee to ask them for their opinion, and I would like to hear their opinion. We have not, and I don’t know if that’s something that we can do because they’re not a council committee, but I would very much like to hear what the members of that current committee think about this before I make a decision. Ms.

Bennett. For you, Chair, we’re happy to do that work, absolutely. Do you need a motion to refer? Maybe I’m just checking with the clerks.

Ms. Dater’s Bear and Ms. Bennett, you were kind of indicating you didn’t need direction. Clerks were saying because it’s a referral.

Do you want to direct? Through you, we are comfortable with whatever the clerks decide. We can do it either way. We’re happy to have the discussion, or if you feel that there’s a need for a motion to referral, then we can do it that way as well.

We have to do something with this. We can’t just receive it because Ms. Dater’s Bear. My apologies.

I’m not trying to be the clerk at all. I think we’re comfortable with A and receiving it, and then B, referring it back to us for the direction that committee is looking for as it relates to engagement with the existing committee. In conversation with the clerk, the cleanest, easiest pathway here is if folks want to refer it back to the committee and then have this report come back to a later date. Rather than separate it out, that’s the best path forward procedurally.

So Councillor, if you want to refer it to the advisory committee for their comments before it comes back to council, refer the whole thing. So moved. I see a seconder and Councillor Stevenson. On the referral, Councillor ramen.

Thank you. And through you, is it possible for the clerks to remind us when the last time the net was? So since the direction to pause was passed in November of 2024, they have not met. Thank you.

I understand the desire to consult with the members, but my recollection of how we got here is they were having discussions in DIAK about their terms of reference and updating their terms of reference, and they sent a letter back to us asking us to make a decision. And now we’re going to refer the options back to them for consultation on the decision. So while I understand the point of the consultation, my concern would be, are we not just doing what they asked us to do, not to doing what they asked us to do, which is they asked us to make a decision. So I’m not going to support the referral at this time.

Any other speakers? Councillor? On the referral, Councillor Trussau? Yeah.

It might be that we’re over consulting then, but I’d rather over consult than under consult and not being familiar with some of the back here in terms of what the dynamic was at the meeting, which anybody wants to talk about, but I am going to support the referral because if there’s even one person on that committee that has concerns about this, I would like to hear about it. So, Ferreira? Thanks, Chair. Hopefully, this captures referral motion, but just going through the report, like I see that staff are looking to change the DIAA community advisory committee to an AR, sorry, you’re looking for option one, or you’re recommending option one.

Can you just, if you can, explain the differences with the current format and the recommended format? Ms. Bennett? Certainly, through you, Chair.

The current format, so as mentioned by the close, I haven’t the DIAA, sorry, the advisory committee hasn’t actually met since 2024, but the primary difference, really, is that the community of practice is designed to bring members of different organizations together, so it becomes a community-wide resource and group for supporting initiatives and supporting each other through discussions and supporting projects. The community of practice is, however, the similarities are that they are guided by terms of reference. There is a membership. There is a — we’re required to abide by a code of conduct.

All of that kind of thing remains the same, so those similarities remain — I don’t know if that’s answered your question, but — No, sir. Thank you. It does, in part, what are the key differences between the current — if you can — I know I didn’t send these questions beforehand, so I apologize. But just to inform my decision on a referral or not, what are the key differences if you can between the current framework and the recommended recommendation?

What would be the differences, the key ones, if you can highlight what those would be? Dispen it. Sorry. Sorry.

Through you, Chair. Being slightly new to this portfolio, I’m still learning the ins and outs, so apologies for the tag teaming here. The primary difference, really, is the membership, so an advisory committee. The members are appointed by council or by a committee of council, and they report back through a committee.

This is different. A community of practice doesn’t have that framework in place, however, it can be incorporated into the terms of reference that a work plan or the discussions be brought back to council is a reporting out. That’s certainly something that can be entertained, and that can be incorporated into the community of practice. Councillor.

Thank you for that. That helps. And the membership, currently with the current framework, would carry over to the new framework, we would also open it up for greater membership. Is that correct?

Dispen it. Through you, Chair. Yes, currently the community of practice does exist in its current form, but there is the opportunity to open up membership, and based on the discussion here at committee and the ultimate decision at council, we would be looking to open up membership to different individuals or organizations as well, and looking at possible changes to terms of reference again, based on the conversation that happens here at committee and council. Councillor.

Okay. Thank you for that. And they haven’t met since 2024. I think I heard from Councillor ramen’s question.

So, I’ll go to Ms. Bennett. Chair. Ms.

Bennett. Thank you. Sorry, through you, Chair. Just to clarify, the advisory committee has not met since 2024, however, the community of practice has been in existence and has met.

Councillor. So, is there a similar membership between the community advisory committee and the ARAO community of practice, Ms. Bennett? Through you, Chair.

That’s not, I’m actually not entirely sure, there is a larger membership in the community of practice. I would have to go back and see what kind of overlap exists. Again, the advisory committees have individuals who are appointed by council, so not necessarily and they are representing, they usually represent themselves as individuals instead of organizations. But I would have to go back and see and I can certainly bring that back for council.

Okay. I appreciate the responses. This is one that I don’t know where to go on this one. So, I’m listening to committee for further instructions or further debate or further information that you have on this one.

I don’t want to potentially see the current form of the advisory committee not have input, but at the same time, I see that you would have similar membership, so it’s just in a different form, so there could be input there with the new terms of reference. So I guess I’ll leave it there and I guess I’ll figure out what my vote will be once I click the button. Councillor McAllister. Thank you to the Chair.

I’m just wondering in terms of, because I’m coming back, it’s 2024, the recommendation was the update of the terms of reference. So I’m just curious, these three options then didn’t exist. They had just requested updated terms of reference, that was what came from them. Through the Chair, so there was a letter sent requesting an update of the terms of reference.

However, the letter did not go through the advisory committee process, I don’t believe. I can’t find it on an agenda. So there was a motion, you’ll see the motion that it was passed on November 26, 2024 and directing further to pause the operations of DIACAC while we consult with respect to next steps. Okay.

Thank you and through the Chair. I mean, I would just suggest then with the referral that the three options be presented to them and then they can provide their commentary just based on that letter, again, just going back away so I can’t remember that clearly. But if all they had suggested was an update of terms of reference, I would just provide them the opportunity to say these are the three options and provide commentary on them. There’s a referral on the floor, it’s been seconded, it’s been debated, you can’t change the referral, the referral takes precedence.

So you can’t amend a referral, you’ve got to vote on it. Councillor Trussow. I like what was just said, I presume though that if we do refer this without saying more, they would get this document, as part of the referral, they would get the staff report that we received and it’s a matter of public record anyway, so it’s not like we’re hiding it from them. Yes, that’s what the stateors bear.

Thank you through the chair. The committee as it exists currently, although paused, is a committee of council supported by clerks and also with the involvement of our ARO team, so definitely we would share the information that is brought forward from committee, it would go back to them through that process and just want to be clear about roles and responsibilities in this. In which case I think, Chair, I think Adley and I, I think Councillor McAllister and I are saying the same thing. Other speakers?

Councillor Ferriero. Sorry, Chair. Okay, so if this referral were to pass, we would strike a meeting with the committee advisory committee to present this report for discussion. So I guess my question would be, is there any time constraints to approve this today?

Would a referral delay anything? Ms. Bennett. Thank you through you, Chair.

There are no time constraints of the community of practice exists and we’ll continue. The, based on the, whatever decision is made today, we would get, would work with clerks to get a meeting of the die-cack advisory committee scheduled and do the work that is requested of us. And then that will be brought forward in the appropriate manner as well, but no, there are no time constraints. So, any other speakers?

Councillor Raman, would you take the chair, please? Thank you. I have the chair. Go ahead.

Yeah, so I’m just going to say I’m going to be really brief. I’m not going to support the referral because I do think it’s a case of over-consulting and Councillor Trusson, I will just disagree on the value of that. I think there comes a point in time where you make a decision. And the community of care thing is already running and the whole reason for pausing it when we paused it back in November of 2024 was there’s two different groups doing the same thing.

There’s this and there’s the advisory committee. I don’t need redundancy, honestly, on this kind of thing. You’ve got a group out there in the community. It’s wider than a community advisory committee.

My preference is you continue with the work you’re doing, and that’s the direction we take it. So, I’m not going to support the referral. I don’t need further consultation on this. These folks have been meeting.

The other advisory committee hasn’t met for over a year now, and the whole reason for pausing them was because of the duplication of work, so I don’t need a referral. I’m good with where we are. Thank you. Returning the chair to you with no one on the speakers.

Okay. Last call for speakers. On the referral. I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote.

Councillor pause the vote. Boating the vote. Motion fails. 4 to 10.

Okay. So we’re back to the main motion. Any Councillor Stevenson? I just wonder when the community of practice began.

Ms. Bennett. Through you, Chair, and I would look to Ms. Datasper for any additional information.

It has been in existence in some form or another for about two years, I believe, and then transitioned over to its current format, current membership at the end of last year. Thank you. Just seems like kind of a moot point, then, that we’re being asked for options when it’s already in play. But thank you.

Ms. Datasper. Thank you, through the chair. I want to be clear that the community of practice has existed to support other initiatives.

It is now being seen to be a possible venue to support the DIAK, the DIAK committee, and being used in a different way. So it has continued to exist. It would continue to exist beyond this as well. But you decide you still want the DIAK in place.

It is not going away. I just want to be clear about that for everyone’s benefit. It is an existing group of individuals who have come together. They supported some of the work that we’ve done around hate and anti-hate pieces in our community.

They continue to meet together. They’ve been open and transparent. They were part of a steering committee as well. So they’ve been there.

They’ve been acting around doing this work as well. That doesn’t mean you have to choose them as the intended purpose for which we’re discussing today. Yeah. Just as a follow-up question to the comments that were just made, when will we be making a decision on the advisory group coming back?

Where will we? That’s the decision that’s before us today, right now. On DIAK. Councillor ramen and then Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. So I’ll speak on option one, the transition to the anti-racism and anti-oppression community of practice. First, I want to thank staff for the report that’s in front of us. I think when we look at advisory committees, it’s difficult to have conversations about how we move the work in a direction where the community can support it.

And I know a lot of people over the years have engaged with this committee and the work that they’ve done and had meaningful impact on the city. And that impact dates back decades in its earlier iteration of DIAK to what it has become now. And to me, this is a next step with the money, many of those community partners. When I think of, and even looking at the previous membership list, when I think of the folks that have been around that table, a lot of them are embedded in work in anti-oppression and anti-racism already.

And so that work is perhaps is a great venue for them to continue that work if they’re not already engaged. The one thing I wanted to ask is if there is youth membership in the community practice. Ms. Bennett.

Through you, Chair, I am not 100% sure, but I can find out pretty quickly. So please give me just a second. Good, Ms. Bennett.

Through you, Chair, there is not an actual youth membership as part of the community of practice currently, but it is something that can be added. I will say, though, that we do have representation from the school boards. And but not an actual youth person. Councillor Rollin.

Thank you. So I would like to see us add a youth voice to this group. Although we didn’t have that on DAAC, as we went through and changed the advisory committees, we did add more youth to provide opportunities for them to have a seat at the table. And I think this would be helpful, although I do know community practice tends to meet for a little bit longer and often during the days.

So that might need to be thought out a little bit, but we could use the same criteria that we already use for advisory committees for our youth membership to be able to extend that invitation broadly to find youth membership that would be engaged in these kinds of conversations. Can I speak to 2.3 the options for the Diversity Inclusion Award as well, or do we consider that part of this option as option one right now that’s on the floor? Chair? I’m going to have to give me a moment here.

So yes, you can, because we’re talking about adopting option one, which would see the need to update that policy to reflect the changes if we go with option one. Yes, thank you. So I would like to see us look at a way to move this award forward. I do think it still has value in the community.

There are a lot of people that are doing great work when it comes to anti-oppression and anti-racism in the community. So it is an opportunity to recognize that work. So I would be looking at option one, which would be to amend to reflect changes made as per the implementation of option one in the community of practice. But I do still want it to be a council process, which I assume it would because it’s our award, but I just want to ensure that there’s some buy-in.

I will also say, although this is a community of practice, I do think it would be helpful to, at times, invite council in to hear those discussions. I, as a councilor, would be very interested in being part, just fly on a wall listening to some of those conversations. I think they would be very helpful just to inform my own understanding of community. Thank you.

Clerk just wanted me to advise that with respect to the Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, when the policy is updated, that policy has to come back here for our approval. Any other speakers? Seeing none, I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Councillor Palauza votes yes.

Posing the vote, motion carries 12 to 2. Hey, colleagues, before we move on to our deferred matters, I’m going to need a motion to extend past 6 p.m. Councillor Raman, Councillor Cuddy, as the clerk to open the vote, once that’s in eScribe. Councillor Palauza?

Yes. Posing the vote, motion carries 14 to 0. Thank you, colleagues. That moves us on to our deferred matters additional business.

We have the item deferred from our consent agenda that we’ve not dealt with yet. That’s 2.3. The secondary school transit past pilot program update, we have, bear with me for just a moment. So we do have the, first of all, I’m going to look to see if there is a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation.

Councillor Cuddy will move and Councillor McAllister will second. And just for colleagues’ information, what was in your package, the clerk has actually got a revised version in eScribe just because there was a technical glitch in terms of how it was written in the package. It just has clause C, the source of funding separated out from the by-law clauses. So that’s vote number 2 in eScribe that we’re putting the mover and seconder on, rather than the original one that was loaded from the report.

So just a technical piece, all the intent is the same. We just needed to make that adjustment so that the by-law components are correct. Okay. So that’s moved and seconded.

It’s on the floor for debate and discussion. Councillor Stevenson. Just a technicality on the change here, there’s no upset limit in C. Can we put up to the $1 million?

Ms. Smith. Thank you. And through the chair, we tried to do an upset limit, but we’re billed actuals monthly from the LTC for ridership.

So it’s hard to estimate ridership. So we can’t stop the mid program. We get billed at the mid-time after the month, usually about the 15th of the following month. So it’s a bit challenging to put it upset limit when we’re billed for actuals and we have to pay actuals.

But we have — this is — the amount we have put in here is for 100% participation. I’m not sure if ridership will be 100%. So that’s why it is an upset limit, but if it is 100% and it goes slightly above this, I guess we could come back to council for additional funding if required. Ms.

Smith. Yeah, I think it needs to have an amount, even if we up the amount a little bit to have an upset limit on what we’re approving here. Okay. So that would be an amendment to part C, the clerk advises, but that would — I think that that’s in order.

As Ms. Smith indicated, if there’s a problem, they can come back to us. So — Okay. So is the amount 1 million?

Yeah. The clerk’s just going to get that in the e-scribe and you wanted that 1 million, correct? Whatever staff wants is the upset limit. Ms.

Smith. Thank you. And through the chair, I think we had put in the financial impact that it could be maximum cost of the two-year pilot, 1.04 million. Thank you.

The clerk will put that into the amendment. Okay. And is there a seconder for that? I’ll second that.

On the amendment, only with the upset limit. Any speakers? Seeing none. I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote.

Councillor Palazzo votes, yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 10 to 3 with 1 recused.

Okay. So now we’re on the main motion as amended. Looking for speakers. I have Councillor Ferreira and then Councillor Lai.

Chief of clarification, were you pointing to Councillor Cuddy, am I putting you on the list as well? Or, okay. So I’m going to go Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Ferreira, Councillor Layman, then Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Cuddy, floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair and through you. When I was a school board trustee a few years ago, a good friend of mine, Bruce Smith, who was also a trustee. Also, it had been a teacher for 40 years. He said to me on my first day, you know, Peter, this job is all about student achievement.

And it doesn’t come about getting good grades. It’s more than that. And, Chair, this is what this is about. This is about more than good grades or attending classes.

This is about developing young people, young students into young adults, giving them the opportunity to experience life. And I’ll be brief saying that when you and I came up with this chair, when you and I started developing this idea of a program, of a pilot program, this I think what we had in mind, Chair, we had an idea that we wanted students to live and learn outside the walls of the school. And this is a perfect opportunity for them to do that. This gives students, particularly students in the East End, Chair, who don’t often have the opportunities to get after school jobs or to spend time transitioning outside of the school, gives them an opportunity to do that and give them an opportunity to get a ride home at night and to have some flexibility in their schedule.

And as you and I have talked about, Chair, this also develops new ridership. It develops students into young adults, again, who can learn how to use the LTC, who will become in time, riders for the LTC, and they will develop a relationship with our transit system. And this is what we want, because this chair gives students an opportunity to become full-time riders on the LTC. When well it’s a pilot program, it won’t be a pilot program for these people forever.

It will become users and user-friendly on the LTC system. And I think this is a great opportunity for us to experiment and to teach young people how to use the LTC. But more than that, Chair, it gives them an opportunity to develop beyond the boundaries of the school. So I fully support this and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you. Councillor Ferreira, you’re next. Thanks, Chair. Before I see this, and I see it is a pilot project, a pilot program, and I would pose the question, what is the purpose of a pilot program?

The purpose is to see, to test something and see if it works, and then get metrics of success back to see if it actually did work, and to see if we would actually implement this moving forward. Reading the report, I see that some of the metrics of success that we asked for in the April 1, 2025 Council resolution seem to not be achieved. And I guess I’ll go to staff, especially specific with the measures of success. This pilot is focusing on Grade 9 and Grade 10.

In that motion, it was about attendance increases compared to prior years, and that’s so we can judge the outcomes and justify the cost of the program, which is a big one, because this is a significant cost. And what we were interested in in that last discussion was that, you know, does this pilot a free transit actually help more students get to school more consistently than before? That was a metric of success that we were seeking. And that matters because if we can’t measure improved attendance, then we’re mostly measuring bus card taps from what I see the report does have quite a lean on.

And whether or not the pilot is delivering the student outcomes is a question for me. So my first question would be, can Council receive a valid attendance analysis that shows whether the pilot improved attendance compared to what would have happened without the pilot? Will the pilot, let me clarify that. Will the pilot be able to be measured to show attendance has increased for student success compared to if we didn’t have the pilot?

Ms. Pollock. Or Ms. Smith.

Thank you. Sorry. No, that’s okay. So as directed, we went back to both the LTC and correct, they are looking at data through ridership and the Thames Valley District School Board.

And working closely with them, our legal department, their legal department and their policy, there are certain aspects they can and cannot collect due to privacy. So they did their best to develop an evaluation and a survey that they will have all young people and families fill out in Grade 9 the first year and in Grade 9 the second year. So they created the Thames Valley District School Board created based on the recommendations that Council made at our last meeting, this detailed evaluation framework to assess the success and the impact of the program. They do talk and are reported that the limitations of some data, some of the data is based on privacy and what they can and cannot collect.

So this is their best efforts of collecting the data in order to match the outcomes that Council directed us to achieve from this pilot project. Councillor Ferrero. Thank you for that. And what the privacy on top of that is no valid comparator group, multiple confounding factors, I guess, with other provincial or other levels of government incentives to increase success.

And I guess I would say, you know, without that attendance metric, we lose one of the primary student success outcomes that we ask for and it kind of takes away our ability to really measure that. I would also say at the last meeting, we discussed the need for clear whether academic achievement will improve. And I see that that’s in part of the April 1, 2025 direction and I think it’s another very important test, you know, it will free transit, help students do better in school. And I think that matters because achievement would be the clearest measure and real value of what we’re trying to do.

So I guess I would ask another question. Can we receive a credible analysis of whether the pilot improves student achievement? Ms. Pollock.

Thank you and through the chair. My comments are going to be similar to those that were just made by Ms. Smith. The times of altitude school board has worked on this evaluation framework because of the limitations that were noted in the report, they feel that the most valid information would be from the student and caregiver surveys, which does include questions around achievement and attendance.

Thank you. Don’t, sir. Thank you. So it’s another measure of success that we’re unable to really capture and get, you know, data that would be able to actually evaluate a program such as this.

So I guess another one would be the metrics with co-op placements and I see the report does speak to this, just like the other ones. And those placements in participation and whether the co-op would have a specific measurable outcome that we explicitly ask for. So the question I guess would be, can we measure whether free transit will increase the ability to match the co-op placements as we ask for in that last April report? Ms.

Pollock. Thank you and through the chair. The report does speak to this and students in grade 9 and 10 are unlikely to be eligible for co-op placements. So that information would not be tracked through this program.

Thank you. Councillor. Thank you. So, you know, requested outcome that can’t be measured by just by the design of the program itself, of the pilot program itself.

So those are three big metrics that we see or sawed out to see if we can evaluate this program to see if successful or not that we’re not able to get. So I see that there’s a big lean on the surveys and we asked for student surveys to capture the transit experience. And I know surveys matter, but they must be reliable enough to support decisions. And I do see the report does speak to that on potential bias with — 30 seconds — low response rates.

I guess that would be my question. Surveys, would they be an adequate indicator of success? Ms. Pollock.

Thank you and through the chair. The report speaks to limitations around the design of the program. And this is our best efforts to present the information based off of Council’s direction. And the board is confident that their evaluation plan will provide the information that was requested.

I think I’ll stop there. Thank you. Councillor. How much time do I have?

You have 12 seconds. Can I get a little bit of leeway? Like one or two seconds of leeway, perhaps? There’s a big cost associated with this, $1.1 million, $40,000 potentially.

And if I were to bring this to a board for investment and ask a seeking investment, and I was saying this is a pilot, if I were to bring these metrics to actually show success, and I see they would ask me, these metrics don’t show you success. I worry this is a significant amount of taxpayer dollars going into this, and it will deplete the community investment reserve. Okay. Councillor, I do need you to wrap up here well over five now.

Okay, I will wrap it up, but we don’t have the ability to measure whether this pilot project works. So how are we supposed to measure this? And how are we supposed to? Councillor, I got to stop you there.

You’re well over your five, 30 seconds or so. Councillor Lehman, you are next. Thank you. Just through you, Chair, just a point of clarification.

So I want to be clear, the way the city is going to be billed for this is each ride by a youth would be charged at the youth rate of $2.12, but then capping at $112, which is equivalent to the full monthly pass rate. The youth pass rate per month is $72. The city subsidizes that pass rate by $40, so essentially it’s a wash. Is that how that is arrived at?

Ms. Smith. Thank you. And through the chair, through our subsidized transit program, that is correct.

We have a youth pass, so teenagers from across the city can apply for that youth pass and they get a discount of approximately $40. That program is tapped out, and actually we will be coming back to you in the next multi-year budget. We’re probably in 2025 between our children’s pass, our youth pass, blind and seniors were about $500,000 over budget in our subsidized transit program. So the money comes from both places.

So what we’re proposing here is the full pass is $112. So whether I subsidize it for $40 in one line, it’s over budget there anyway. So that’s why we’re looking at the full maximum of $112, because the city makes up that $40 difference. So you’re correct.

We will only be billed for actual rides, so that’s what we’re being billed for. So if a student uses it once, we get billed once. If a student never uses it, then we never get billed for that student. So if a student uses it every day, five times a day, the maximum we would ever pay is that $112, which you’re correct.

The city has already subsidizing a portion of that, if that makes sense. Hopefully. >> Councillor. >> Yeah, thank you.

That makes sense, but also provides some further information. Good to know about the other thing. As a heads up for the next council coming in here, multi-year budget, at least, well, I think this is good to have this as a pilot to see what the true cost is, because it looks like we’re next to council, we’ll have some decisions regarding subsidizing transit on the multi-year budget. Thanks.

I have Councillor Stevenson next. >> Thank you. I do just want to thank my colleagues. I know they’ve put a lot of time and effort into this.

I can’t say it’s rushed. We’ve had lots of time to look at this over the last couple of years, but I’m still unable to support it for a whole bunch of reasons. It was mentioned that the kids in the east end need this. Well, we’ve got kids all across the city that need and deserve this.

There’s no evidence that we’re going to get to the ones who need it. There’s no way to determine where these passes that were already being used. There’s a bit of the data is recommended that they don’t use it. And the two data that are recommended that we use, that there’s lots of issues and limitations all throughout this.

In the summary, it says overall limitations to the quality of available data will impact the effectiveness and value of some of the proposed metrics due to a number of factors, significantly the confounding factors, lack of baseline data and a small study population. In terms of pilot program design and evaluation, it looks like nothing but concerns. It says that partners have suggested alternatives to this pilot design, including a larger study population and extending the pilot timeline. Says that this is only grade 9 and 10.

Older students are the ones who have part-time jobs and experiential opportunities such as co-op placements. And then there’s the issue of funding. I mean, we only have so much funding in this community investment reserve fund. One million dollars is for one high school.

We have almost 20. So if this is super successful, are we going to be expanding this? The expectation will be to expand it or be expanding beyond grades 9 and 10. What about 11 and 12?

You know, we’ve got BRT coming. We’ve got other financial pressures in the next multi-year budget at a time when taxpayers have no money. They’re pleading with us and we are coming up with more projects that are going to cost more money. And the pilot design here isn’t even well supported even by the partners.

So unfortunately, I’m not able to support this either and I hate to be a negative Nelly today. But I would much rather see us as a city, do a few things really, really well, then start all these projects trying to do good. And I think we’re setting ourselves up to fail and we’re setting up taxpayers for a hefty bill or the disappointment that we have a successful pilot, then we don’t fund. And we haven’t even been able to evaluate it.

So I’d be interested from the people who were supporting this right from the beginning. Like, is your intention to see it for all grades in all schools? Like, what is success here? And if it’s about I’m all for transit and I’m all for teaching the kids how to do it.

I think, again, like the home ownership program, there’s other options. What about given everybody a free pass for a month? What about providing tickets for field trips and having teachers take the kids on public transit, show them how it’s done for their volunteer opportunities, provide tickets? I think there’s a more inexpensive way to do it that will really hit the mark and potentially be able to evaluate it better as well, but I’ll listen to my colleagues.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. I’ve got myself next, Councillor Raman. If you can take the chair, please. Thank you.

I have the chair. Go ahead. Okay. So I’m going to address, I think, some of the concerns here.

I mean, when we talk about how reliable surveys are, London Transit itself’s primary metric for success is the voice of the rider survey beyond their data numbers from their own taps. So it’s actually no different than what LTC uses in some ways to measure some of its other successes. Yes, it’s an up of 1 million over two years, not one, over two years. I would point out, London Transit returned $700,000, I believe, to the budget this year.

I know that that won’t be every year, but they weren’t able to necessarily work with the budget that they had without returning some money this year. And I appreciate, by the way, the Transit Commission doing that and recognizing that there are some challenges there around mechanics and other things. But that’s a whole other topic. When we talk about you can’t measurably compare or that comparisons to previous years of attendance, there are other variables, absolutely.

That doesn’t mean you can’t look at the attendance last year and the attendance the next year and go, oh, 10% increase. Now it’s a qualitative evaluation, but a lot of the evaluations we do are qualitative. Yes, to Councillor Stevenson’s point, there are people all over the city who could benefit, but we have to start somewhere. And I can tell you right now that the Principal at Clark Road Secondary School spends out of his own pocket money for bus tickets to give to students who need a ride because they can’t afford a pass.

So it’s all over the place, but this is not reinventing the wheel. Other communities have done this. With varying degrees of success, I will grant you. Some have been more successful than others because of the way that they structured their program.

And what I’m looking for is an experiential result for London so that we can then have some local comparators to how other programs have operated and then see where it goes. I have said from the outset, if this is successful, I expect to have a discussion with the school board and the city about reducing their reliance on yellow buses and directing their transportation funding to paying for these. Right now we’re paying for two bus services to do the same thing to get these students to and from school. And I get that the school board is not willing to reduce the yellow buses until they see what this pilot project can potentially do.

I understand why they won’t do that until that point. But I do see this as a longer term picture. My goal of the pilot project hopefully is to get to a point similar to what we had decades ago before I was in school. That’s how long ago where the students didn’t get yellow buses to high schools.

They took transit and I think we should get back to that model. We hear that yellow bus companies can’t recruit enough drivers. They’re already doing double trips because the reason the high schools start at the hours they do in our community, which is not the universal across the country, is because they can’t do busing for both the elementary and the secondary students at the same time. So I actually want to look at an option that moves away from that.

I would love if they could take them to transit to field trips. It’s not going to work everywhere because our transit system doesn’t run everywhere. No, they don’t have co-ops necessarily. I can tell you, grade 9 and 10 students absolutely have part-time jobs.

It’s not limited to grade 11 and 12s, but you know what a grade 11 and 12s can do? Drive. They can have their driver’s license. They can have their G2 and take mom and dad’s car.

Grade 9 student at 13 or 14 years old can’t do that. A grade 10 student at 15 and going on 16 can’t do that until they get their, at least their G1 and then they still have to have an experienced driver with them. We talk about how we want to increase transit ridership. We talk about how we want to decrease our trips in this city.

We talk about how BRT is supposed to provide options. If we don’t change the perception of transit and get to folks before they can become car dependent, then we’re not going to be successful in all those other goals. So I do think this is worth a try and I will point out and stand by my record. I have voted in this chamber to cancel pilot projects before.

And if it is not successful, I will be the first one to vote to kill it. But I think it’s worth trying and seeing where it goes. Thank you. Returning the chair to you with no one added to the speakers list, but you already have people on it.

I did have Councillor Trussow after myself and I’m just looking for first time speakers before I go to seconds. Councillor Trussow. Thank you. This is really very difficult for me because I really want to support this.

I so much want to support this and I so much want to support the idea of providing special exceptions for youth, but also for other members of the community. And I guess where I’m still not there with this. And guys, I really — I’m sorry, I shouldn’t address you and Councillor Cuddy, but I appreciate the work that the proponents have done in this. But I’m just — I’m not here yet.

And there really are two things that are holding me back. Number one, has there been a serious attempt to maybe prevail on the school board to if not pay for the whole thing, pay for half of it? I guess an easy answer to that is there’s no school board anymore. So it might be difficult.

I’m not sure who I would approach. But even with that, even if we just have an extra million dollars around it, by the way, we did give back 750,000 and I’m not sure that’s — well, anyway, I’m not going to re-litigate that. What bothers me even more, and Councillor Ferrara was going down this line, I think, when he ran out of time, I don’t think that we have valid metrics to — from a confidence point of view, let us know whether this has been successful. And what I’m hearing is a lot of really good policy reasons from the proponents as to why they think this is going to be successful.

And I agree with what they said in terms of getting people in buses. But I’m just not there yet with this. And I’m wondering, and I want to ask Steph, is there any point — because I don’t want to do another referral and lose one another referral, because I’m not doing well tonight. Is there any point in sending this back to you for more — more development of the metrics that we would use to evaluate whether this is a successful pilot, or have you exhausted that?

Ms. Smith. >> Thank you. And through the chair, I believe you gave us a very detailed motion the last time we met.

We took that motion, Steph from LTC, the Temps Valley District School Board, and the city of London met, and this is what was created of that to best meet the motion and the requirements that Council requested from the last meeting. >> Okay. Yes, and thank you to the chair again. In which case, I’m not going to make a referral back to do that, because I believe you have exhausted what you can do.

I’m not satisfied with it. I’m not really left with any option here in my view other than to vote no. And again, I really don’t want to do that. That’s what I think I have to do.

And I just wish there was some better way to be able to put this — a pilot by definition is not something that you engage in because you think it’s good policy. It’s something you engage in because it’s good policy. But also you have an evaluation criteria that is statistically valid that will allow you to say this pilot was successful, and even though we spent $900,000 on it, a million dollars on it, we’re going to expand it someplace else. So I’m just going to leave it at that.

I’m going to vote no on this. I would refer this back or ask for an amendment if I felt there was any point of asking for more detail on evaluation methods. And I must say, I’m exceptionally frustrated with the fact that we do not have a school board right now, that we do not have trustees because I would want to talk to them first. But I can’t bring them out of thin air.

I can’t let them reappear. I don’t even know if we’re going to get them back. And I’m not going to go into that now. So that’s how I feel about this.

And I just — through the chair, I want the chair and the other proponent to know that I feel really bad about where I am on this. Councillor ramen. Thank you. And through you.

So I have a couple questions. Yes, of staff. And I want to first say thank you for the report and the collaboration. Thank you to LTC and TBDSB for the work that’s been done so far on evaluating this.

So I want to start by just asking a couple questions. The first is around the opt out for students on this. So can you give us a little bit more insight into what the opt out would look like? Ms.

Smith. Thank you and through the chair, as the program is proposed right now, the student student card would have a sticker or some type of information on it that would show they are eligible for the high school pilot project. They are only billed if they actually use it. So if you have a student card and you, for example, never take it out of your pocket, you never go on the bus.

You’re not billed. So in my understanding, that is the opt out. So every student has a grade nine, we’ll get a Clark Road, we’ll get a student card and on it, it will give them access to the LTC. Whether they use it or not, they opt in if they swipe their card and we get billed for that ride.

They opt out. If they never swipe their card, we don’t get billed for that ride. Councillor. Okay.

And through you, so to me that’s not, in my opinion, that’s just not an opt out. So I need to see a valid opt out option on this. Parents have the right to choose what method of transportation their children use and how they use it. So we have to give parents a way to indicate if they do not want their child to use transit or to use another service at the at grade nine and grade ten.

So I just need to understand what’s our opt out method. Ms. Pollock. Thank you and through the chair, we were able to connect with the LTC and the board about this information.

And so the LTC is confirmed that it would be no additional operational expense not to have a sticker on a card. So that would be one way. The board is also confirmed that an information letter would need to go home with students to have parents give their consent in order for the student to participate. So in their opinion, that letter and if this parents gave consent for their student, for their child to participate would be opting in or opting out.

Councillor. Thank you and through you. The school board will report back to us on the number of students that report out. And so — or opt out, sorry.

So we’ll have that number reported in to begin with to go forward in terms of our estimations. Okay. I think that’s helpful for me. I think it will be difficult though on the driver’s side because they will see a student with a Clark Road high school card, student card, and they will assume that if they don’t have a sticker, they don’t want to get in to an argument over a sticker on a card.

So it does create a bit of a challenge. So I’m just not sure exactly how that will be addressed. I see a ham. So.

Thank you. Ms. Smith. Thank you.

And part of this is the sticker will be a — will be one of those technologies. So they will tap it just like they do a bus pass. So if they don’t have it, it will tap it because then it quantifies and does all the technology stuff behind that scene. Councillor.

Thank you. And if there is a letter that goes home to current incoming students for grade 9, it’s likely that you will have — they will have that pass in hand by what mid-September we’re thinking now? Ms. Pollack.

Through the chair. I’ll have to get back to you on the exact time. I don’t want to misquote. So we can get you that information before council.

Thank you. Councillor. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Yeah. It usually takes a bit of time to get those student cards to begin with. In this extra component might make it a little bit more of a process, but I’ll leave that up to you guys operationally. I would like to start by saying this is not something I’ve been supportive of for a number of reasons.

A lot of it comes down to the pilot program design and the evaluation. We know just from the Kingston data alone that it tells us that students in grade 12 use city transit three times more often than students in grade 9. There’s a reason for that. And I think that it’s important that we understand how to make a program as successful as possible a lot has changed since we first have this discussion about this project in 2023.

Some of those changes involve other school boards removing their method of students getting around. So we’ve got CCH. We’ve got St. Mary’s both in a situation where they no longer have busing.

We’re not offering them free transit. We’re not giving them opportunities and they’re citywide not restricted to one end of the city. If we wanted to see what the outcome of a program was we make it for the entire city. In fact I think just looking at the data that’s in front of us we could get the same results in terms of information if this was 10 days of free transit for students across the city versus an entire two year program.

So we’re going for longevity but the answers are actually short term because you’re asking how do you feel about using transit? How do you feel about the impact something free has on you? I’m very supportive of transit. I would like to see us do more than this.

I do also have to say I do not think that this will influence the yellow bus usage. We know right now that students taking yellow bus services are in a consortium that relies on the entire system being in the system. So there’s not going to be the ability to pull out one stream of students in the consortium to figure out how we’re going to do the cost center differently unless we pull out the entire high school system and that is a board conversation. That is not an us conversation.

So we want to give them data to be able to make that argument. I think you need to ask parents first is that what they want their tax dollars spent on to be spent on creating data to use a different stream of transportation one that’s reliable to get their kids to school. When we started this project we had a bus driver shortage in 2023. That was part of the discussion as well.

We have the same problem on LTC. So I agree that the bus driver issue is definitely something that is a driving factor. I’ll leave it at that for now. I did want to entertain an amendment but I’m probably out of time.

Well you’ve got 13 seconds and you do have to amend on your first go around so if you want to put an amendment on the floor now is the time. I would have to ask a question I guess to get the information on the floor. Did you want to ask the question of staff? I will ask if SPPC committee will consider giving me an extra two minutes.

Okay. Moved by Councillors trust I own Hopkins an extension of two minutes. Just give the clerk a moment to load that. Mayor Morgan.

Councillor ramen. Thank you. My screens vote. Yes.

I’m in favor. Fosing the vote motion carries 12 to 0 noting Councillor Palosa and Councillor Frank have left the meeting. Okay. Councillor ramen go ahead.

Thank you and through you I’d like to ask staff what would the cost associated with removing the summer months be if we were to move to just allowing transit during the school year. Ms. Smith. So through the chair if we removed two months so for 10 months the cost would be approximately 840,000 plus the one time startup costs which are about 32,000 so Ramen.

Thank you. Through you. So I assume they would still incur the 32,000 because they would have gotten the pass. But this is just to remove for the for the two months over two years is 140 or is it each summer is 140 each summer or is it over the full course.

Ms. Pollock. Yeah. Thank you and through the chair.

It would be 840,000 for the two years. Councillor ramen. Thank you. I’d like to move an amendment to remove the summer months from the pilots and make it a 10 month project.

Pilot. Sorry for 10 months of the year for the two years. Okay and I saw a seconder there and Councillor Stevenson so that’s been moved and seconded so that amendment is on the floor to limit the pass to the months of the school year. So on the amendment any speakers just from the chair take a moment to say I’ll support this because it is to me primarily the school component that I’m most interested in.

I’d like to see the summer data but if that’s something that people are interested in I’m okay with limiting it to the September to June period. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you. Kind of ran out of time on that last one.

I’m low on energy. With the amendment I’m happy to see the amendment come on. We still have the issues with the metrics of success. We’re not able to measure whether this is successful or not.

That’s what I was really trying to hammer home on this. With what we are coming back with the evaluation of this pilot. If the Councillor Ferreira we’re on the amendment though not on the main motion. It’s the same.

It’s the same. It’s not the same. This is the amendment is not an opportunity to re litigate the main motion. We’re on the amendment please.

I understand but if we had the amendment where we took away the two summer months we’re still using the same metrics of success so that’s what I’m speaking to. So I can speak to the school year and not those summer months correct. We’re speaking to the savings consideration of amending the period to September to June. It doesn’t materially change the discussion on the main motion so no I’m going to rule that out of order.

The amendment does not say about the material savings. It says to amend the remove the summer months of July and August from the program. Councillor Ferreira, Councillor ramen spoke to her cost evaluation and her question to staff. I’ve made a ruling.

If you disagree you’re going to have to challenge the chair. My ruling is that this is not an opportunity for another five minutes on the merits of the main motion. It’s only on the time period for other speakers. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I’m just wondering as I look at this like the program design and evaluation recommends including a larger study population and/or extending the pilot timeline. And so as I think because I’m worried about this being decided here and not being able to amend again, was there consideration giving to expanding to a larger group over a shorter period of time to get a better design and evaluation criteria? Councillor Stevenson, I’m going to rule that one out of order on the amendment as well.

That would be part of a discussion on the main motion and your support of that. What we’re debating right now is an amendment to limit the past period to September to June. I hear you. I’m just wondering to say this passes because I’m considering supporting it.

Then if we do hear in a subsequent question that we could maybe do more grades for a short period of time or more schools for a short period of time, are we able to change it again or no? Ms. Smith. I saw you poke your finger above your computer screen there.

Thank you. And through the chair, we brought a number of options forward when Council asked us to go back and look at this with the LDC in the school board. And at that time, the direction was very clear to do a two-year pilot with Clark Road with a high school for grade nine and then grade nine and ten. I think we brought back options for each report and Council’s recommendation was very clear that this is the pilot.

This is what they want us to develop the evaluation and develop the whole process for, so that is what we did. Okay. I hear that. It’s concerning what’s in the report.

Other speakers on the amendment only, seeing none, I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. I’m in favor. I trust the vote, yes. Opposing the vote.

Motion carries 12-0. Okay. And we’re back to the main motion as amended, Councillor McAllister. Thank you.

I haven’t spoken on this. I feel like we’ve done this meeting yesterday, it would have been Groundhog Day, and I feel like we’ve had this conversation a few times over the last few years. So I’m happy we’re kind of getting to a decision point on this. I know a number of students that are in my area would be impacted by this.

I’m very curious to see this pilot project. I totally understand where other Councillors are coming from in terms of wanting a more expanded pilot. But to Councillor ramen’s point, I mean, unless we’re going to completely switch services, I think we should try it on a smaller scale, see what the uptick is. But again, we have a difference of opinion across the board.

I think you’d counsel on this one. But I do think there’s still merits to this. I mean, another thing that I’ve been thinking of, I keep talking about the metrics, but I’m sure the deputy mayor might be being able to this. I hear a lot from parents from Clark.

It’s not a high school, it’s in my area, but again, feeder school. I think there’d be value in having some sort of a town hall and trying to get direct feedback from the parents, whether we could work with the school board on that and have some sort of discussion on this, and I would encourage maybe other Councillors to attend that. But I think there’s opportunities outside of what’s been put in this report to get that feedback. I hear all the time from parents in terms of, you know, issues they have.

We’ve had probably a record number of school bus cancellations. So I mean, if we can get them on the city buses, get them to school, that would be ideal. I mean, I really, I want to see the attendance, and I know there’s some issues with the metrics on that. But recognizing Clark has fairly low attendance, I’d love to see that needle move.

And if this can help in any way, I think that would be beneficial. And, you know, I’d love to get here from the parents, what they think on this. I’ve already heard from a number of them, but I do think we need to start somewhere. I still think there’s value in this.

Again, I appreciate what Councillor Cudi and the deputy mayor are trying to do. I do hope there’s uptick on this and it’s something that could be expanded. And again, those are larger conversations, funding in terms of talking with the province, perhaps to, you know, try to do a larger system shift, but we’ve got to start somewhere. I think this is an interesting one to go with.

So supportive of this from the beginning, and I just want to see this move forward. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you, Chair. So the cohort is too small. The sample size is too small. Grade 9s and 10s can’t drive, grade 10s and 11s and 12s can’t.

I don’t know if the grade 9s and 10s would transition into driving or not. I do support trying to give free transit to students. I think Councillor Raman asked some really good questions, and I think one of them is with the potential of having that sample size reach all schools in the city, maybe in the same grades for a 10-day program. I don’t know.

I didn’t send this question beforehand. I don’t know if anybody did, but does staff have any numbers on how much it would cost for a 10-day program, citywide? And if not, can we move a motion to look into that and see if we can have a bigger cohort of bigger sample size, because as far as I’m concerned, the metrics aren’t going to be able to evaluate whether this is successful or not. And we are giving ourselves a very small sample size as it is.

It would be very hard for me to stand up to a Londoner and try to explain why we spent one million, $40,000 up to that amount for a program, a pilot program, that is not going to be able to actually give us any measurable results as it is. How are we supposed to prove success with this pilot? It would not be a pilot the way it’s currently constructed. So if staff doesn’t have — if you don’t have that information, I would like to move a motion to look into or refer this to look into if we can actually have a citywide program pilot project for 10 days.

And I would just pose the question first to see if staff have that information. >> Okay. I’m going to go to staff who I suspect will say the administrative cost alone probably hasn’t been calculated. But I will go to them, however, the counselor you suggested a referral, I would suggest that that is not a referral.

That would be an independent motion that would have to come back through a committee cycle rather than change that here, because I think that it would actually be contrary to what’s on the floor before us, which is something that’s already been scoped out with the school board and with LTC where a 10 day has not. So I would rule that it would have to be an independent motion, but I will have staff answer your question as to whether they have any numbers. >> Thank you. And for the chair, we would have to go back and create a whole new program.

I’m not sure how we would evaluate it 10 days. I’m not an expert on that. The Thames Valley District School Board is the technology. This was for a limited number of cards, there may be additional startup costs.

So if that is council’s direction, we would have to go back and look at that broadly just like we did this program and recreate a totally different pilot. So I would — I’m assuming from my partners at Thames Valley School Board and LTC, that would probably be something we would bring forward for September of 2027. >> Councillor Ferrera. >> Is a referral to look into that potential sample size for the 10 days, citywide, schoolwide, maybe of all grades, is that contrary to the motion?

It is. It would have to come forward independently back through a committee cycle. >> Can I make an amendment to add that here? Or it has to come through another — >> No, it has to come through a separate agenda item on another committee cycle.

It’s not that it would be — like it wouldn’t be a reconsideration or anything. It would be in order to bring it through, but it would have to come completely through a committee cycle because it would be substantively different than what’s here. So it would have to be a completely new direction to staff through a regular committee cycle. >> All right.

Maybe that would be a way that I have to go if I’m locked in for not being able to mend this motion as it is. I would still say we don’t have the ability to measure the success of this pilot project. And we stand in front of a tax-paying Londoner, and they ask us why we spent $1,040,000 up to that amount for this project, and we are unable to really show true metrics of success. They are not going to stand for that.

We need to be able to show if this program is successful or not to have a valid program. It’s a pilot project. Pilot projects are intended to see if they work or not. We are going to be unable, as it’s currently structured, to see if this program works.

I’m not one to spend taxpayer money in that way, period. If we had the metrics of success to show that we saw a higher attendance record, a better student success rate, that would be different, but we do not have that. We can’t show measures of success with bus taps. We can’t show it with surveys.

There’s biases in there. There is no base level information to compare it to. And in the end, whatever we get back, we’ll be up for interpretation. There will be no significant values to be able to actually show us with confidence that it will be successful.

I know Londoners will not be appreciative of that. If we were to make a pilot project that went citywide and we could get those numbers within 10 days with a bigger cohort, with a bigger sample size, that gets us closer to where we need to go. But the sample size alone is not going to be significant enough. The metrics, as you saw with the staff report, as it’s outlined, is not going to give us metrics of success.

This is not a good spending of taxpayer dollars, and I know if we were to present this to investors that were not city of Londoners, they would not be happy with this. So I’m not going to be supporting the motion as it is. I do want to see public transit, free transit for students. But I want to see it done in a way that we can actually measure it to see if it is impactful beneficially to students.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Preble. Thank you. And I don’t have to ask any questions, I can make some comments because I had a lot of answers today and from the report is very detailed.

I was very much supportive of this project from the beginning. And the reason why, because I do not agree that high school students should be on the school buses and the funding should be redone in terms of more supporting our transit financially and funding-wise either from the boards, but also indirectly with the province. I was never building around one school or that there is one school, that there are some students that need additional more help because then we would have to really do the comparisons of other high schools in the city and how many students we have there who need help and how we need help where. But I’m going to base it really on what’s in front of us.

When I go through the evaluation plan, the data utility methodology, matrix limitations and the feedback that we received from the partners, I honestly, even if this would be $200,000, I don’t have a case to build after this project and to present it to whoever doesn’t matter if it’s the board, if it’s the province, and to state, here it is black and white. This is the reason why the funding should be changed, the model should be changed. And this, unfortunately, doesn’t give it to us. I know like to agree, the staff, going back to you, you have done, we gave you clear instructions.

You have done, we’ve been dealing with this. I totally understand, and again, the two flow counselors who did this, spent a lot of time on it. I would love to support it, but the results, what the outcome that’s projected doesn’t give me enough. And as I said, it doesn’t even have to do with $1,000,000, even if the cap would be if you put $100,000, it still wouldn’t be for me to go ahead.

I would love to explore this otherwise, to look at this, I will not certainly be supporting it today. Would I want to have something to look? What else can we do, and potentially citywide, or this, to make a good case, and to have the proper matrix evaluation plan, absolutely, I would. Because I don’t agree, students, high school students, they shouldn’t be on the school buses.

It doesn’t matter if it’s the independence, if it’s getting to the jobs, if it’s getting them used to it at young age, to get on regular bus, totally agree with everything that was said. Unfortunately, what’s in front of us, financially evaluation plan matrix, I cannot support it. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know this has been to us a number of times, and I’ve been back and forth. And I don’t want to digress and go, I wish we had looked at other routes, and where’s the best impact, and grade-wise, is it better to go grade 11, 12?

But this is what’s in front of us. My concern is, I do not want this pilot project to fail, because if it fails, it sets us up for taking away other opportunities that we can invest in youth to use transit. So, I’m glad to hear there’s going to be a letter, an opt-in out. I think the parents are a big part of the grade 9 and 10 conversation when it comes to them using transit.

I know yellow buses have been brought up here. I also understand yellow buses aren’t, even though the attendance is there, yellow buses aren’t being used. Parents are driving their kids to school. So how do we change the culture in our community to encourage transit use in our youth?

That’s all I’m interested in. And for that reason, for now, I know this will come to council, but I will be supporting this, even though there are many unanswered questions, but to me, it’s all about supporting youth and transit. I appreciate we’ve found some savings, great, but we need to change the culture in our city. How we do this, I don’t want this pilot project to fail, because if it does, it’s going to set us back as a city.

So for now, I’ll be supporting it. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. A couple of things have just come to mind.

Is there, through you to staff, would it be possible to set a percentage of opt-in that, just say we were to approve this, that we would say get those parents to sign up saying they’re willing to do it, and that we wouldn’t proceed unless there was a certain percentage that made it viable to proceed? Ms. Smith. Thank you.

And through the chair, the challenge is that the LTC has to set up all the technology and get everything ready ahead of time. So we would make that one-time investment based on the assumptions that we are going forward. So then, I mean, it would be, there would be an impact potentially if there’s a large number of opt-out, and then we didn’t go forward with that percentage. So we would, the $37,000 to $40,000 is the technology that’s required in order to undertake this pilot on the buses.

So there would be a loss of that money, and if council chose whatever that percentage opt-in and opt-out, I would leave that up to you. But I’m just saying there would be a loss of the one-time operational cost to set up the program, because they need months to set it up with their technology provider. Councillor. Thank you.

And through you, I hear that, and nobody wants to let go of $32,000, but really it’s, if this were to move forward, that would be very minimal in comparing to the $840, right? So I guess what percentage of uptake would be required to make it successful? And I understand staff, but has that been part of this at all, or could the colleagues who are putting this forward give us an idea of what percentage would be required just to start out that would make it a success? Well, if Councillor Raman wants to just take the chair, I’ll respond as someone who brought it forward.

Thank you. I have the chair. Go ahead. So to me, Councillor, your question is actually valuable data to consider moving forward.

But I don’t think that we can set a threshold percentage if we find that 10% opt out a Clark Road that we could probably extrapolate that 10%, give or take a couple of percentage points is going to be an opt out rate at every school. But I think it actually establishes a baseline by seeing what the opt out is once those letters go out. I don’t think that you can set a threshold where you say this moves forward. If the opt out percentage is huge, obviously the cost is going, if the opt out percentage is 50%, the cost is going to be 50%.

So you’re not spending the money that way, you’re saving it. And then you say, well, only half the students are using it. That’s where I think we can have some data that makes us decide in part whether it was a success or not. But I don’t think we can set a threshold in advance.

Okay. So another question then is, will there be an evaluation point after the first year? I don’t want to anticipate it, but what happens if the up takes only 20%, then there should be an opportunity to say, you know, maybe we don’t want to continue. Do I have the chair?

I don’t know why we’re turning it to you, sorry, we’re turning the chair back. You didn’t give the me the chair back. So I thought you were going to go to staff there, but my fault, returning the chair to you. Okay.

And we’ll go to our staff. Through the chair, so the way the agreement is structured, all the content of the pilot project, the substantive details are in these schedules. There is a reporting framework where the money part, the amount of rides that are being used and paid for is reported monthly by the LTC. And then also more formal reports for each term.

And the parties will have the opportunity to review the pilot project at those points, but also just upon the agreement of the three parties, if they want to at any time. But certainly at the quarterly reports, they would meet and decide if they needed to make any changes to the pilot project, change any of the schedules. And that could include canceling the pilot project earlier than anticipated Councillor. So just that I’m clear so that that’s all going to be done with the outcoming to Council to staff.

Thank you. And for the chair, if there is a decision made, that would be made by we would report to Council. I’m sure the Thames Valley District School Board would report to their supervisor. And LTC would report to their board, which I understand is made up of Municipal Council.

And definitely we would come back to a report in partnership with LTC and TVDSB if we canceled the program and the rationale for it. Thank you. And I don’t want to sort of go down really hard on this. But again, with Council not setting any level of expectation, it’s all left open to interpretation.

You could say helping five kids was worth it. So you could say maybe it would expand the next year. Do you know what I mean? So I feel like there should be some evaluation criteria set out or some stop points in them.

It’s maybe something we could talk about before Council. I just want to confirm there’s in here there’s schedules, attendance, data and student achievement data where the recommendation was not to use those metrics, but I’m hearing them mentioned by the colleagues who are supporting it. So I just want to confirm where it’s recommended not to that those will not be done going forward. Ms.

Pollack. Thank you and through the chair. That’s correct. They will not be reported per our partner’s decision.

But there is self-reported data through the surveys related to attendance and achievement. Okay. Thank you. Councilor.

Thank you. So we’re really just talking about experiential data, whether students think the pilot project helped them participate in these activities more often and if so how. And then some metrics from LTC which says that they won’t be able to distinguish between new and previous users won’t be able to tell whether they had a bus pass before or not. I think what I’m hearing is like general support everyone wants to find a pathway forward.

But I really unfortunately this has just come back even with the partner saying that they’re recommending a larger study population and extended pilot timeline to make it valuable. I want to support transit for our youth. I’m willing to invest some money into it but we got to set ourselves up for success here and if we’re worried about a pilot failing I don’t want us to fail right out of the gate where we haven’t even set ourselves up for success here. I would prefer to see us vote no to this and then explore another option as has been mentioned where we could get what we’re only going to get anyway which is experiential data but let’s get it right away.

Did the kids want it? Did the parents want it? Do we have a survey coming out of a high school saying that they want their kids on buses? There’s a lot of safety concerns right now.

We have a lot of people who have issues with their transit so to make this a top priority I think setting ourselves up for success would be good. I’m going to be voting no. Thirty seconds. There was a mention about part time jobs you know if we’ve got grade 9 and 10 students with part time jobs part of life is you got to spend four bucks to get there and back or ask somebody to pick you up and I think if they’re making part time money then the ticket isn’t an issue so we need to know what success is and go for that.

Not so probable. As was stated I think that we all believe in transit and youth getting under transit and I think that potentially I think that maybe that there was the issue that we gave very direct direction motion to our staff instead of leaving it with our staff LTC and the board and say this is our goal come back to us with some tangible matrix results that we can build our case on and potentially even go to the province about the funding etc. I think maybe that maybe that was the case but as I stated before what’s in front of us I would love to do something and come up with certain things to move things forward but again based on the evaluation plan and matrix that’s in front of us I will not support it but do I think we should even let’s say if this doesn’t pass today or at the council should we stop or should we still proceed look at options absolutely I think we should but maybe we should give it to the partners and them to come up with something that makes sense come back to us. Thank you Councillor Pribble.

I have no one else on the speakers list so I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. In favor. Closing the vote. Motion carries seven to four noting Councillor Trozau has left the meeting.

Hey colleagues that dispenses with our agenda for today. We have no items to consider in confidential session. We have already had the vice chair report out from our in-camera so we just need a motion to adjourn. So McAllister Councillor Ferreira by hand all in favor.

Motion carries. And we are adjourned. Thank you everyone.