May 27, 2026
Official minutes have not been published yet for this meeting.
Full Transcript
Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.
View full transcript (2 hours, 6 minutes)
Hey, good afternoon, everyone. I call the 10th meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting, detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabeck, the Haudenosaunee, the London Alpau, Adam Wandren.
We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. We have Mayor Morgan joining us today, myself, Councillor Stevenson.
And online, we have Councillor Frank, and Councillor Close just joined us and visiting Councillors, we have Councillor Purple and Councillor Trozzo. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings on requests. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact ICSC at London.ca or 519-661-2489 Extension 2425, looking for disclosures of pecun iary interest. They’re not seeing any, not seeing any online.
We do have a request for a change of order. Mayor Morgan, you wanna move that? Yes, I was hoping we could deal with the in- camera items at the top of the agenda. There’s a significant number of staff associated with them that are only here for that item.
And given the nature of the items, it might be advantageous to us to get that done off the top. So I’m happy to move a change of order with the in-camera portion of the start of the meeting. Okay, I will second that, and we’ll put that to a vote in a moment. We’re actually there any discussion on that?
Okay, not seeing any, open that for voting. I’m in favor, I’m not logged in yet. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Okay, I think you will just get ready for a closed session.
So we do have to actually vote to go into closed session as well, so open that vote. I’m arguing you wanna move it, I’ll second it. And I’m in favor. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero.
Okay, we’re back in public session. Looked to Councillor Frank to report out. Thank you, I’m pleased to report that the matters for which we’re leading camera for progress is made on them. Okay, thank you.
We are on to consent. I’ve had a number of poll requests. 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.9, 2.12. So we have 0.3, 2.5, 2.6, 0.8, 0.10, 2.11, 0.13, those are left.
Are there any other poll requests? So the ones that have been pulled are 2.1, 2.2, 2 .4, 2.7, 2.9, and 2.12. Everything else is left. Anything else?
Okay, I’m not seeing any other questions. The pull requests are 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.9, and 2.12. And everything else is still on the consent item agenda, and I have no other requests unless there are any. seeing them online.
So what is left is 2.3, 2.5, 0.6, 2.8, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.13. And I would look for a motion for those to be put on the floor. Councillor Stevenson, I will second that. Okay, so those items are on the floor looking for speakers.
Okay, I’ll get to you in a second, Councillor Troso. I did just want to make one quick comment on item 2.13. Very much appreciate in terms of the hybrid avenue non-routine maintenance. I heard this a lot from my residents.
People use hybrid greatly appreciate the cleanup efforts. I know we had to pull a lot of staff for the cleanup we just did but it is very much appreciated. If he makes a huge difference, garbage really does accumulate on that stretch. It is a main gateway to our city and it’s very much appreciated to have those cleanups and having the additional cleanup, I do think we’ll help because we are just seeing a large volume of coverage.
So really appreciate that. Thank you again to all staff members who participated in that and that’s my comment on that item. Councillor Stevenson, do you wanna speak on the consent item? I did just on one, 2.8.
I just had some questions around the B, the administration, contract for administration and also around the procurement process. So for the membrane replacement, it says that the lowest submitted tender was 9.6 million. In the other reports that we got, we saw the other bids, the amounts in the bid. So I just wondered maybe why that wasn’t here and to better understand how this limited tendering process was applied to this one, especially with it being a half million dollars.
So if I could just hear more from staff, I’d appreciate it. Thank you through the chair. So the limited tendering was applied to the consulting engineer because they were the design engineer on the project. And so because of the unique exposure that they have to the project, they are familiar with all the intimate details of it.
It really makes sense that they are the ones that carry forward with that project for continuity and for signing off of the final product. So that’s why we have, they were selected through a competitive process for the design. And then during that process, in order to level the playing field, we ask them to assume a certain amount of contract administration duties so that each firm carries the same amount, and it doesn’t allow them to kind of game the system that way. But then once we get through detail design, the scale of the contract administration becomes clearer.
And so that’s why, you know, normally you could look at it and say this value would have been included in the original competitive bid, but it would have been equally carried by all. So in this case, a limited tendering process was considered appropriate. As far as the membranes, they were pre-purchased and carried as part of the value of this project. And I believe your question related to why the other bids were shown.
That was just, we just didn’t include it in the report. Those numbers could be made available to you, but the baseline was the low bid. Follow up, Councillor? Thank you for that.
I would like to know the other two. And I just wondered, is there a standard practice for the reports where usually the standard is to provide the more it isn’t and the exception was on the other report that we did get to see them? Go ahead, Stephanie, right? Thank you, Chair, sorry, we just had a consult to make sure the answer was consistent, but essentially that information’s available on bids and tenders once the award is actually made.
So it is publicly available. I don’t believe it’s typically in all of our reports. We tend to show it for some of the larger ones typically, but it’s not a consistent standard that every single procurement report, we list all the bidders, given that it is the chosen proponent typically that the lowest, unless there was an irregularity that something else would prevail, we would always be going with the lowest price. So there isn’t a standard consistent for every single contract award, but on the bigger ones, we tend to show it.
So hopefully that answers your question. Follow up, Councilor. Yeah, thanks. I would just say, I think it is helpful.
I know it’s available on bids and tenders, but we’re not gonna take the time to look that up . And it is helpful to just see how close the bids are. So I would find it useful, maybe a standardized best practice. I think it would be a good idea.
The other question is regarding Appendix A. I notice it said, unless I’m reading this wrong, that this submission, the total expenditure is 4. 7 million. And I’m not sure why it isn’t closer to 10 million.
So I just wonder what I’m missing in there. Go ahead, Steph, when you’re ready. Thank you and through you. That actually, so the value of the contract that was shown there, we pre-purchase, we did a separate competitive process to buy the equipment, the membrane equipment.
And it actually is a bigger part of the tender value than the construction work itself. And so that money was already allocated as part of that purchase. And then we were just rolling that value into the construction contract. So the construction works that they were bidding was actually that lower number.
And if you add the, I can’t remember what the exact number was, but the five or $6 million that the membranes are worth, that’s how you get to the total value of the construction contract. So the part that was being bid was that lower percentage or that lower, like less than half of the total value of the contract. And the reason we do that is that we wanted to make sure we had control over the purchase of the equipment because it’s so unique and so integral to the design. And then once we had that established, we want to make sure that it’s included in the the value of the contracts with all the insurance and bonding and all those other things, cover off on that value of the equipment, which that purchase process is novated to the general contractor.
Okay, follow up, Councilor? Yeah, thank you. It’s just that it says in here that the lowest submitted tender at the total cost of $9.599 million. And then because it’s over $6 million, it’s coming to us for approval.
And yet it says this submission, a total expenditure is 4.7 million. So I’m just not understanding, because you’d think if it was 4.7 in this submission, it wouldn’t even hit the 6 million. Go ahead, Steph. Thank you and through you.
Yes, so it’s just that we, because of us wanting to make sure that the insurance and bonding and all those other aspects of the contract considered the value of the equipment, the pre-purchase equipment, we included that in the total value of the contract that was to be awarded. But really the five plus million dollars that was related to the purchase of the membrane equipment was not part of the works that they tendered. So since we already committed that funding under the existing capital budgets, we only are showing the additional four point whatever million dollars related to the installation. So that I think in terms of the appendix A, the source is only looking for that additional funding that wasn’t already dedicated to the membranes.
So we issued a purchase order to the company to start the delivery of that equipment. And so that money was already committed. And so the only additional money that was required to be found as part of the source was the money to cover off the installation. So you’re correct.
Normally, if we hadn’t rolled the value of the membrane equipment into the construction contract, you wouldn’t be seeing this report because the total value of it would have only been 4. Whatever million. Follow up, Councilor? Yeah, thank you.
I guess my comment would just be If it needs to come to council for approval, I need more information in the report to understand it. You know what I mean? Like it would be helpful to have a calculation that shows the expenditure that Mrs. and maybe I ‘m missing it.
Go ahead, Ms. Barbara. Thank you through the chair. I would refer the counselor to page 161, the very last page of the source of financing and the last column where you have the total shows the $9 million start and then the deduction of the previous award to give you that reconciliation to the 4.7 in the source of financing.
So that is there to show the changes that have occurred and how that financing was obtained. Okay, thank you for that follow-up. Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate that it helps.
And like I said, if it’s in the body of the report, it helps too, but thanks. Looking for any other speakers on the items, go ahead, Councilor Van Mure. Yes, thank you, Chair. I wanted to follow up basically on that 2.8.
It, in the report, it talks about in 2008 with the membrane bio-reactor technology. Was that the, it seems to me at the time we talked about it, that was the first time London was connecting with this type of technology, is that the case? Go ahead, thanks and through the chair. Yes, this was, and at the time, it was actually unique across Canada.
one of the first membrane biofiltration projects that for wastewater applications. So it very much was at the cutting edge back then . And through the works and working with the manufacturer, we actually got quite an extended life, even better than they had hoped. So it’s really truly a success story for us.
And going forward, we’re hoping to build on that with the new version of the same technology. Follow up, Councillor? Yeah, for some reason, anything to do with bios olids, it just sticks in my brain. just uh so I so yeah so I remember that clearly um and I also remember that it had the capacity this technology and obviously it improves over time this technology to uh forestall the creation of new sewage treatment plants uh is that a fair statement go ahead Steph uh through you yes correct it’s actually uh it was very effective for Oxford because we had limited space within which to build new tanks to expand the capacity.
And so this technology is one of many that are available, but a cutting edge technology that allows us to get more capacity out of the existing tankage. So instead of building or expanding plants, we can just intensify the treatment within those tanks and still accommodate growth and flow increases with climate change. Go ahead, Cancer. So the technology is more than proven itself and in a very real way is a cost saver for taxpayers.
Is that too a fair statement ? Go ahead. Yes, through you. Yes, this is now we ‘re at a position where by adopting that new advanced technology, we can simply do a life cycle replacement and using the incremental improvements in technology that happen over time.
Now the next version that’s going in, we can actually get even more capacity out of those existing tanks. And so that’s going to be instrumental in taking some of the development pressure off of Oxford for growth in the Northwest. Follow? That’s great, thank you very much.
Okay, looking for any other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Trostman. Thank you very much. Keeping in mind that I’m not in a position to vote or make amendments, I would like to ask a few questions about 2.5 annual update on Canada life place. I’m recalling that these improvements were done two stages, phase one, which came through a committee in phase two, which came through the multi-year budget.
Would it be possible to get some fuller detail about the funds that were expended to date on both phase one and phase two with as much detail as possible? Because this report seems to be mostly about all of the events that have taken place in the facility, which is great, but I’m looking for more information about the expenses that have been incurred to date and those that are still to be undertaken. Okay, who wants to take Canada Live Place question? I thank you for the chair, I’ll start, and perhaps Mr.
Murray can assist, so this report is brought forward on an annual basis to provide specifically the annual report and the results of the operations, certainly if the committee is looking for additional information with respect to the expansion. We can certainly provide a separate report if there’s details further to that. So essentially just to give a little bit of detail in context about that, the funding that was approved by council to support the phases of the expansion project has been transferred and we can clearly know that the phase one project has been fully expanded and those costs are completed. They are in process of working through the funding and spending of the second phase, which is scheduled to be completed shortly, sometime this summer.
So they are working through what that final date is going to be, but certainly as you look at the building progress is certainly moving forward. So the process that was put in place is that as those funds are expended, we have been receiving reports. So we do know how far they have been progressing, but the process to expand has been fully through the project that has been paid for with the culmination of both the funds put through by the partners on the project as well as the City of London. And I believe Mr.
Murray can provide an update as to the extent of the funding that has been spent for the project as a whole. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So the phase one of the project was approximately $17 million.
As Ms. Berbone has noted, that has been fully expended at this point in time. The second phase of the project was about 20 and 1/2 million. And at this point, that is approximately 3/4 expended thereabouts.
Follow-up, Councillor? Well, will the Council be getting some type of report about exactly how the funds were expended in total now that it’s completed with phase one. Could we get that by the council meeting to append to this report? Through the chair, if I can perhaps get clarity on what exactly the council is looking for, is it what Mr.
Murray had just said in terms of the percentage and the cost that have been paid to date? There are costs that are still continuing obviously, so this would only be at a point in time. >> Okay, one clarification, go ahead Councillor. >> Yeah, certainly I’ll clarify it.
I don’t see anything in the report in front of us that deals with it. We just received an oral report at a very summary level and I would like to see a more detailed listing of the funds that have been expended on the completed phase one and since it’s already completed, presumably that would not be a burden to give to us and I’d like to see that at the council meeting if possible. It may be a little bit more complex with respect to phase two, since some of those are still being undertaken, but I’d like to see that as well. I believe that this council should be getting some level of reporting about the funds that have been expended.
While this was not money that went on the levy, it still was at large part taxpayer money through our two different funds. Yeah, good staff a moment for the comment. Thank you, through the chair. So the funds are not being paid.
So the funds were provided to Budweiser Gardens as a grant. There were two phases where those grants were provided that form a total budget because only 80% of the funding for the expansion came from the city of London. So if the council is looking for a detailed accounting of the full construction costs, that is not something that city of London has. We have been apprised by Bud Gardens as the construction phases have occurred as to the level of spending and where they’re at in terms of monitoring the city’s investment.
However, we do not have a detailed accounting of where all those funds were spent and for what purposes given that the project was not put on by the city of London. It was a contribution to a broader grant and capital project that was completed on behalf of Bud Gardens. Through the chair, if it was a grant, wouldn’t we still nonetheless get a report about how the grantee expended the funds that they received through a grant? Just a reminder, Councillor, to wait for me, for you to speak again, but I’ll leave that to staff.
Go ahead. Thank you through the chair. So as the project is not completed yet, and it’s still that’s something that would fully be done at the fund and once the final expenses have been brought in. So doing that now, Certainly, as we’re in the midst of the project, the project isn’t completed, we do not have fully .
We know at what percentage completion they are at and the funds that have been paid so far, but we do not have a full accounting of various line items. I can tell you that the fund was fully expended for the phase one, but that is part of a broader project where phase one and phase two were done concurrently. So until the project is completed, we will not have more detailed information. other than what has been spent at a point in time to be able to provide.
Follow-up. To the chair, if phase one is complete, I’m still not clear why that information could not be given to us with respect to phase one. I believe if staff have already tried to address that, but if they don’t want to comment further, go ahead. Thank you, three, Mr.
Chair. So what I can say is that our classification phase one and phase two for our purposes and the grant that was provided by the city to to the partners for the project. That is not how the construction contract as I understand it with with the contractor has been structured. It has not been delineated in the same phase one or phase two distinction that we be split the grant.
So, to Ms. Barbones earlier point, I think it would be prudent to wait until all costs are in with respect to the project to provide that final accounting or breakdown of how those funds have been expended because the alignment is not identical between what we would consider Phase 1 and what the contractor would consider to be Phase 1 and Phase 2. And Councillor, just being advised for the clerk that at a later date you could bring a letter to committee if you want those, but as staff have indicated, it would probably have to be when the project’s complete to get that full breakdown. Yes, so my next question to follow that up through the chair is when might we expect that?
Staff would like comment on that, go ahead. Through the chair, so sometime over the summer, we don’t have a final date. They’re certainly trying to wrap up as much as they can as quickly as they can. certainly the intent is to have it fully completed and finalized in time for the September opening, but they’re trying to get a substantial completion date from the contractor as they’re pushing to get the final elements done.
So we do not have a date, although we do know it should be sometime early summer where we would have a final substantial completion and some of those costs would be starting to be wrapped up. So certainly by the fall, I expect that we should be able and be in a position to have a final accounting of all of the costs as they will likely have been expended or close to being expended at that time. Okay, thank you, follow-up, Councilor. Yes, thank you through the chair and I’ll be looking forward to that.
The reason I’m raising this now is there’s recently been a lot of public attention given particularly to the locker room improvements and I’m starting to get questions about what those expenses were And also particularly during periods of the year when the nights are not playing, what is happening with those facilities? Are there other groups or recreational programs in London that get to use those facilities when they’re not being used by the Knights? Steph, I’ll comment on that, go ahead. Thank you, Susan Chair.
That’s not something, I think I know the answer, but I don’t want to hazard a guess. So I’m without being able to confirm with Bud Garden’s management for that. So certainly, London Knights are a tenant as part of that and pay lease and there is a separate tenancy agreements related to that. So those would not be terms that we would be priv y to to be able to provide that information.
Okay, and thank you and yeah, Canada Life Place , I still call it JLC, but just so get our corporate sponsorship correct here. Well, thank you, I’ll follow this up at council and any additional information you could provide for me at council would be useful. At council, I will have the opportunity to pull this, to ask for it to be voted on separately, or perhaps to make an amendment asking for the report, so that what does sound like, at least the aggregate expenditure report will be coming to us in the fall. I do have concerns about our ability to understand, since it was taxpayer money, how these facilities are being used when the nights are not using them.
So to be told that we have no ability to get that information, I’m hoping we can clarify that. I’m gonna take that as a comment, but go ahead, city manager, if you wanna add it. Through you, Mr. Chair, that’s not what we said .
I wanna be clear about that. We will get the information in cover to get it back. Okay, thank you for that. Thank you all.
Look forward to it, and that’s all I have right now. Okay, I have Councillor Raman next, and then Councilor Pribble, go ahead, Councilor. Thank you and through you. So I wanted to start by thanking staff for the reports that are in front of us today.
I wanted to speak directly to 10, the contract award tender and appointment of consulting engineer for Sunningdale Road West, the improvements from Wonderland Road to Medway Creek Bridge. I wanna say first, thank you for the information that’s here. I find it really helpful that as we get a contract tender, we get more of a summary of what’s going on with the project, where things are, if there’s any changes in that summary, I’m reading through to find those out. One thing that I’m struggling with though, as we’re moving through these projects, is around the communication side with our construction right now.
I think there’s a bit of confusion out there sometimes when something is a developer-led construction component of a project versus when it is a construction that the city’s undertaking. And sometimes that confusion also lies with the fact that they’re the same contractor for different sections of the same project. So I’m wondering if maybe we can have a bit more dialogue at this committee or elsewhere around how we can improve that communication. Lately, I will tell you with one specific contractor here.
They’ve had private work that’s been going on in the exact same stretch of area and so I will get all of a sudden a surge of calls from residents because of a road closure for instance and I’m spending half of the morning trade tracking down information on why the road is closed to find out it’s private developer work not associated with this work not associated with the contract but it’s also not sometimes on Renew London which is also really challenging. So I’m wondering how we might be able to work through some of those challenges. Staff want to come in and go ahead. Thank you, Mr .
Chair. We are always looking to find ways to improve our construction communications and certainly emergency repairs and private development construction are part of that discussion. We do have a central construction coordination committee and I can certainly take that back to them and have a discussion with those folks as well as with our communications colleagues about how we can share that message more clearly about about what’s private and city work. The private work is approved by the city through a permit process managed through housing and community growth.
They are members of the construction coordination committee. So with a bit of time, I’m happy to spend a little bit of time with that group and see what we can do to maybe get those messages more clearly and ensure that we’re getting timely information for a new London for works that are not city led as well. ‘Cause we do hear those same frustrations. We get quite a number of calls.
I’m sure many of you do about private works and the closures that are impacting people’s daily community. Thank you, and appreciate that. And just to follow up on Councilor’s point, anytime we can get notified as well, it’s appreciated, ‘cause I try to keep track of many of the projects as possible, but those private ones that’d be good, even if it’s just something as simple as a CC on, there would be private work at that certain location. It’d be greatly appreciated if that can happen.
We’ll go back to the Councilor, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate the support for that comment. And I will say in some cases, this is just a matter of part of it happening in new subdivisions.
So one of the things that I was not aware of, that I’m learning more about, is that when a subdivision is new and not under the city yet, when certain roads are closed for works, we don’t know. And so again, this is where the puzzle starts to become much more complicated, and where I’m finding myself making a lot of phone calls a lot of construction companies trying to figure out what they are doing in the area to inform residents. I also don’t understand why when a private contractor is doing work, whether it’s in a new subdivision or not, why they don’t have a notification requirement, for instance, if they ‘re closing a road. So I ran into the situation in one part of the ward directly related to this construction as well, where they closed a road that was connected to the Sunningdale project.
People assumed it was connected to the Sunnydale project. The subdivision’s not assumed. So what ends up happening is that none of us know that the road has been closed because of that. So I was able to work it out with the developer and the contractor, but it is definitely something that I think we have to figure out a way to address.
One other comment similar to Councillor McAll ister’s when Councillors are looped in on the communication, It would be very helpful to see the communication plan for Sunnydale. I get questions daily about this project and what’s taking place when a turn signal, for instance, when you could make a left-hand turn from Sunny dale onto Richmond, and all of a sudden that gets removed, it’s not updated in Renew London. The only way I’m finding out this information is from residents who are driving down the road. And by that time, the frustration level is already pretty high.
So if I can get ahead of that message, if we can get out ahead of that message, I think it’s helpful. I’m just not sure how we’re going to do that. And so I want to get better at this if you have any suggestions for how we can do that, because these things don’t show up in Renew London. It just kind of has a blanket statement that construction is happening for the next few months and expect delays.
Thank you for that. Yes, we’re definitely in the season of construction. and so I feel that frustration. But if staff want to comment further on, go ahead .
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would be quite difficult to address and renew London or through communications plan. All of these small changes that happen in a particular road restriction in real time.
Sometimes they are well planned in advance. We are taking signals off overnight. We’re doing night work. We’re flipping one side to another.
We’re closing it internally. But there are often small changes that happen as a practical nature of working in a physical infrastructure environment move. We certainly can get the communications strategies that has the broad strokes there and we can commit to providing the best information we can in real time, but noting that if you look at Reed and New London, there are hundreds of construction projects and we do not have, we only have two construction communications coordinators for the entire city and the project managers have very high workloads to manage the projects in real time. So it is very difficult to necessarily communicate those things as they happen.
We will try our best to flag the big changes though they’re likely, for example, you can no longer make this turn movement, it would be a change that I think would be well valuable for us to communicate out so people can plan an alternate route in advance. Okay, any other comments, Councillor? Are you good? Okay, looking for anyone else?
Okay, Councillor Preble, I think you had, you’re on the list, so let’s go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff, actually, I just, when Councillor ramen mentioned this, I do wanna go to 2.10, I wanna ask you, because when I look at the entire stretch between Richmond and Wonderland, The budget was $36.6 million. When I look at Medway to Wonderland, we are looking at over 20.
So are we still looking at the same budget for the entire stretch, stunning deal between Richmond and Wonderland to be within the $36.6 million? Mr. McRae. Through the chair, yes, we’re on target with that budget.
This contract award is more than half because it includes the bridge over the Medway Creek, which is a major cost expenditure and the subsequent phase will be consequently lower, a lot smaller half. Follow-up Council. Okay, thank you for that. I do wanna talk about 2.5.
I’m gonna take a different approach than my colleague did in terms of the Canada life place. I wanna look at the numbers in terms of the revenue and in terms of the number of events. It’s very positive and it’s positive in terms there’s an increase and as we know there’s an economic downturn so I’m really happy to see that because of course that’s more money for the city as well. The second question I have, we did approve the expansion and this expansion.
The expansion was also to be seen for future events that City of London that together Tourism London and Canada Lifeplace can bid on. Is there any information that you can provide? And I’m not talking specific dates, specific organizations that we were able to tap into and potentially have incremental revenue with different events based on the expansion. Go ahead, Steph.
Thank you through the chair. So because it’s not entirely known the exact date that it’s going to be ready, I believe they’ve built in a little bit of a buffer room in terms of starting. But certainly in terms of how they welcome guests for events and some of their live concerts and there’s a number of things that they have plans to use that for and that are already going to provide significant relief in terms of where they would have been able to hold some of those events previously. I do understand there is some things that are scheduled later in the summer that they are anticipating to use that space for.
So they’re starting to look at that. Certainly one of the things that they also is looking at how that space can be used for potential bids for other large events that might be able to come to the city in the future and certainly they work collabor atively with tourism London on those. So they’re certainly looking at all those opportunities. There’s nothing that I have specific that I can share but it’s certainly they’re actively looking at those opportunities and looking at how that space can be used and have a number of things that are planned into the fall that they are planning to use that space for that has brought a significant ability to attract new artists and support the artists that are already booked there.
Follow up, Councillor. Thank you for that. Do we have any information in terms of their forecast for this year, if it’s about the same slightly better, slightly worse than last year? Somebody has a comparator, go ahead.
Thank you through the chair. In terms of 26’s budget, I believe it’s relatively similar in terms of what the net bottom line is anticipated. Obviously, once the expansion is completed, there are some provisions that change the limitations on the amount that goes towards the losses that have been incurred in the previous that would allow the potential for more funding to come to the city. So certainly from a budget perspective, we believe the event in terms of total income is roughly going to be positive and similar in terms of what we’re expecting at this point for this year but certainly the expansion and when that is completed will allow a little bit more in the early phases to have additional revenue and that greater share come to the City of London as a result.
Thank you for that and even though it’s not a part of this report but my colleague already asked. My biggest question is this organization came to us with specifics in terms of what they are planning to do during the phase 1 phase there were it was supported by the initiatives actions and also the financials. I’m quite sure I’m gonna get the answer which I’m expecting but the most important at this stage for me is are they within the amounts that council has approved? Go ahead.
Thank you through the chair. So based on the amounts the council approved, council approved a fixed contract and that that would not allow any additional funding from council to come forward. So certainly that’s one of the reasons we’ve been monitoring the status of the project and where it is as the the billings have come in but certainly the contract does not allow for any additional requirements for city funding even if there was anything so those safeguards have been putting in place to ensure that no additional funding would be required. So certainly at this point in time they are well within the budget and we do not expect any cost overruns to occur.
follow up, Councillor. Perfect. Thank you for the confirmation and just going to make a comment that certainly Canada Life Place is a bright star for our downtown and for our city and it’s not just the revenue it brings on the paper note but if I look at the economic spin off and impact certainly for downtown and therefore for the entire city is very positive. Thank you for this report.
Okay, thank you. I’m looking for other speakers. Okay. I’m not seeing any.
So we will open the vote on these consent items. Closing the vote. Motion carries five to zero. Okay, so we don’t have any scheduled items items for direction, but we have deferred matters for the items that we’re polled.
Okay, so we have we’ll just go in order of these banger board. Thanks. There’s been a request to do 2.7 first, if possible. You’re gonna move it then, Councillor Stevenson.
Yeah, I’ll move that Can I get a seconder for that? I’ll second it, Chair, to hear it on the floor and hear the arguments, thank you. So that is being put forward, we’re just putting it in the system and then we’ll vote on that. Let’s to move up 2.7.
It’s on the floor, any discussion? Okay, not seeing anyone open the vote on that? Yeah, change of order to move it up to the first day and we’re gonna talk about it. Councillor Palosa.
Sorry, I was getting a chair to ask for comments. Just didn’t understand why we’re doing a change order on this one, but I see the votes open, so I’ll just vote accordingly. I was in the vote, motion carries, 4-1. Okay, so 2.7, we’ll start with that.
Look for a mover and a seconder. I’d like to move it with the amendment that I circulated to the clerk. So we have to deal with the amendments separately ‘cause it would contradict the motion. So.
Pardon? Your amendment would contradict the motion. So you have to do your amendment first. Okay, I’ll move it the staff recommendation.
I’ll second it. Staff recommendations on the floor. If you wanna put for your amendment, go ahead. I will put forward the amendment then.
And I’m sorry, I just gotta look for a seconder for the amendment. Thank you, Councillor van Beibergen. So that seconded, go ahead, Councillor Stephens. Yep, so it’s that civic administration be directed to bring forward a by-law amendment to by-law number A, 61, so proceed your by-law to delete the following provisions in section 3.1 .
A, one week without meetings to be set aside in each of the months of April and May and B, two successive weeks without meetings to be set aside in each of the months of July and August. It being noted that the proposed 2027 meeting calendar would require the rescheduling of two of the four standing committee meeting cycles by one week as follows. April 26th and 27th, instead of May 5th and 6th, May 25th and 26th, instead of May 19th and 20th, July 5th and 6th, instead of July 14th and 15th, and August 3rd and 4th, instead of August 11th and 12th. Do you wanna speak to that?
Yes, I will, and thanks for allowing us to move it up, Councillor. There was a Councillor that wanted to be present for this and isn’t able to, but we’ll just go ahead with it anyway. The reason that I’m bringing this forward is for this week, we’ve got standing committee meetings, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, which all go to council for a final decision on Tuesday. And we had this previously and we’ve got it coming up again.
And it puts a lot of committee work into one week and really makes it difficult to get the public engagement consultation or even to get the answers from staff. I’ve had to send a whole bunch of them in a short period of time. So this was something that was done previously to try to provide, I believe, constituency weeks. But I think it’s much better from a public perception.
I’ve had some people say to me, it looks like you’re trying to rush stuff through . And then there’s also the workload on council and staff. So I would just like it to be consistent throughout the year where we’d have two committee meetings each week followed by a council meeting in the third week. I think that would be much better for all of those reasons that I stated and I’m hoping to have committee support.
Okay, looking for other speakers. I’m not seeing any speakers, so we’ll open the vote on the amendment. So Robin, you got in just in that kind of time. Thank you and through you.
So I’m not a voting member of this committee, so I can’t vote on the amendment, but I would like to just, if possible, I understand that staff will do whatever the decision that’s made in the outcome after council on this matter. But I just wanted to ask if it’s possible, if this amendment has been reviewed, if staff feel that there were benefits or their drawbacks to the previous schedule that we had just agreed to about a year ago. Or so I just wanna find out if they can provide some commentary, if any, on what that might look like. Because part of the reason why we also considered this change was around having not just constituency weeks but also in terms of some of the timing for staff and others.
So I just wanna see if they can provide any feedback. City Manager, I’ll take a quick and then go ahead. I’m happy to, thank you through you. We, I think when we, for the 2026 calendar, we provided it, we did receive feedback, there was a recommendation brought forward through a committee to change the 26 calendar to this mechanism.
So with the constituency weeks, we implemented that council’s direction ‘cause it was approved by council. We’ve brought the next calendar back with the same tenants, same principles. If there’s a desire to go back to the way you were before, we’re happy to do that, but we took Council’s direction to do it in the first place. So we, I think what we did was we mirrored last year’s into next year’s, sorry, this year’s into next year’s I should say, but happy to take any advice about how you’d like that changed.
Followed Councilor. Okay, thank you and through you. And with those changes that are proposed in the amendment, How do we map out things like FCM and AMO and other things? And was any consideration given to whether or not those meetings will now fall on Mondays and Tues days instead of Thursdays and Fridays into those other weeks?
Faith the clerk’s gonna take this one, go ahead . Through the chair, thank you. We’ll have to double check, but there might be conflicts with the scheduled AMO and FCM conferences for the following year. Go ahead, Councillor.
Thank you, if I may. So, will we have that answer before council? Through the chair, certainly we can send an email to council indicating the dates of the scheduled AMO and FCM conferences. I’m not seeing any other speakers.
Sorry, I still have a question. You’ll keep going, Councillor, sorry. Thank you. And how will we make the determination if the meetings happen on a Monday, Tuesday, versus a Wednesday, Thursday of those weeks that are now being specified?
Because the conflicts with the holidays, is you’re also concerned about her, sorry, go ahead. Thank you. It’s just sometimes when we’re planning for these types of meetings, we’re planning council and standing committee meetings based on our schedule, but we also have agency sports and commissions that are planning around us and have their calendars somewhat set as well. So I’m just trying to find a way so that we don’t run into, and I know some of my colleagues have had this, and I’ve had this problem too, where we have conflicting meetings at different times scheduled from agency sports and commissions which we also have to consider in our schedules.
Through the chair, we don’t have authority to direct when agencies boards and commissions scheduled their meetings. We certainly provide the schedule for the following year so they can take that into consideration. But other than that, that’s all we do. But I think your question was more in terms of ensuring they don’t fall on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
Thank you through you. Yes, so in the revised calendar that’s in front of us right now, we have meetings going for Wednesdays and Thurs days as well. what I’m trying to understand is how, when we’re making those determinations around the schedule, how are we allowing for, for instance, when certain other committees, agencies, boards, and commissions have meetings set for every Thursday or at a set time every month. I’m just wanting to make sure that we’re able to check those kinds of overlaps as we make these decisions.
I’m not sure if the clerks have had time to go through and look at that. I know we kind of set our schedule and expect everybody else to work with us around that. But I just think we have to take that into consideration. Typically and before this term of council, our meeting schedule is completely different.
And now we’ve made our agencies, boards, and commissions kind of work around these new complexities of our schedule. So it is something we need to consider. And especially as we move into the next term of council, what we’re setting forward as the next calendar. I think that having our meetings on Mondays and Tuesdays has been our norm and if we can continue that, if we’re looking at this amendment, I think that that would be helpful.
Councillor, just to your point, I think we’d have to have a further amendment in terms of ensuring that the meetings have to be scheduled on Monday and Tuesday, just ‘cause right now it’s more in terms of the week count and just recognizing we got some holidays in there too, so that presents its own challenge through the summer. But yeah, maybe that’s something to bring to council for consideration. Unless anyone else wants to make an amendment, or any other comments, we will open the vote on this. Closing the vote, motion fails, one to four.
Okay, we are now back on to the schedule we had before in terms of going in order. Oh, yes, sorry, we have to, yes, sorry, now we’re back on the staff recommendation for 2.7. So, any comments on this? Sorry, we’re still on two points that we just have to vote on the actual staff recommendation.
Yeah, this is the main motion. Any comments, questions? Okay, not seeing them, we’ll open the vote on this one. Closing the vote, motion carries.
Four to one. Okay, so now we’re back on to the regular schedule. This is a 2.1, this is 2026 reserve and reserve fund monitoring and housekeeping report looking for a mover and seconder for motion. I need someone to move something.
Okay, Councillor Frank, Councillor Ploza, thank you. Okay, so that’s on the floor. Any discussion or questions on this? Councillor Steveson, go ahead.
Thank you, yeah, I had quite a few questions around this one. With this being the 2026 Reserve and Reserve Fund monitoring and housekeeping report, I’m just, I’m trying to understand how a report that gives us the uncommitted low balance forecasted in the next 10 years compared to the target value is the only information that we’re getting as we monitor reserve funds that, from what I can see in the last financial statement 2024, we’re $1.5 billion. And so it’s a ton of money. It’s been increasing quite a bit.
And in this annual report, we don’t even see what the balances are, the ins and outs. So through you to staff, I’d just like to understand how this is perceived as the the only monitoring that this Council and the public gets to see. Mr. Murray, you want to take that one?
Sure, I can sir. Mr. Chair, if Ms. Barbara wants to add anything, she can certainly jump in as well.
I think I think it’s important to just to distinguish between different information for different purposes. So the Councillor has referred to amounts that are reported in our financial statements. Those audited financial statements, of course, provide a historical kind of backwards-looking view of our finances in general, including our reserves and reserve funds. On the other hand , there is forward-looking information that would be information that we, of course, present in our budgets every year and in the monitoring report that you see in front of you here today as noted.
So I would say we’re dealing with different information for different purposes and what we focus on in this report is as the Councillor has noted the forward-looking uncommitted balances of reserve funds, those are certainly very different than what may be sitting as an actual current balance of a reserve fund by the very fact that a current balance doesn’t reflect future commitments that council has made against those reserve funds. So, ultimately, when we’re presenting the projected uncommitted balances, we’re trying give council a view of how much there really is to work with in those respective funds based on the commitments that have been already made. So we don’t want to be in a situation where we’re over-committing reserve funds and so by presenting the the uncommitted balance that gives a truer picture of what is available for council to utilize for future spending. follow-up counselor yeah thank you and through you i’m not trying to say there’s not merit in what is presented here because there is but what i’m saying is if in 2024 we had 1.5 billion dollars in reserve funds maybe i’m wrong but i don’t see any is there is there another report or budget that shows the actual amount that we have sitting in reserves because when i look at the budgets it’s it’s uncommitted amounts it is the only thing I’m seeing in there.
So am I missing a report that shows the extent to which we have reserve funds of over a billion dollars? Ms. Barbara, go ahead. Thank you through the chair.
What the Councillor is speaking to is our City of London consolidated financial statements that go to the Audit Committee in June of every single year. That is the balance. That is available at a point in time. The details are recorded on our balance sheet and there is a note that provides the details and the breakdown of what that is.
So this report speaks to the amounts that are remaining that have not been committed and are taken into account the commitments that Council has approved through its process. So certainly there are different times to look at what is currently at the money at a point in time and certainly our DCs is the next item which there is significant dollars in those reserve funds and we have a statutory report out on those balances at that point in time. So our financial statements are the view of the reserve funds at a point in time and that show the cash that is sitting there but does not reflect any of the future commitments. So certainly as Mr.
Murray had identified that is the point in time that is related to the cash that is there but unfortunately the financial statements do not take into account what those future commitments are and that is where the budget process then lays out what those other amounts are and those details are provided in the budget update that we bring forward every single year as well in terms of what those balances are and then what those commitments are spread out over the period of time for which they’ve been approved. Okay. Thank you. Follow up, Councilor.
Yeah. Thank you. Again, I’ll just say, but in the budget update, it doesn’t show the actual amount of the reserves. It only shows the uncommitted balances.
Is that correct? Mr. Murray. Mr.
Chair, that is correct. The focus of the budget is on forward looking information, not historical information. I hope, Councillor. Yeah, so I love forward looking information.
I love that. But I just feel as though, if we have $1.5 billion of taxpayer money set aside for reserves, that it would be nice to have some kind of a report that states that, aside from the audited financial statements, because nobody really looks at those, but that if we’re going to do monitoring if this Council and this committee is going to monitor the reserves and reserve funds, then somewhere in that report somewhere, I would like to see the amount that we actually have the amount to previous years. There’s a lot of public discussion and from the provincial government and through other agencies that are saying municipalities are increasing reserve funds at a very high rate. And at a time when we have high property taxes and there’s pressure on us to reduce DC charges.
I think we need to be really transparent and just explain why do we have all this money? What are we holding it for so that it’s clear to taxpayers? $1.5 billion is a lot of money and the reports that we see only talk about a few hundred million. So I’m not satisfied that this is an adequate monitoring report for this issue.
The DC reserves, we show the actual amount and then you see the committed amount. That would be great. Maybe I’ll ask through you to staff, was there a time when the actual amounts were reported and the committed amounts or how long does this go back this this level of reporting. Mr.
Worry, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a relatively new report.
So this has only been introduced in the last, I believe, three years or so, I wanna say approximately. So this is certainly not a longstanding historical report where we’ve provided this annual monitoring in this forum. So that there was no different version that existed previously. this is the version that has essentially existed since we introduced this report approximately three years ago.
Follow-up, Councilor? Yeah, I’ve got a few. So prior to three years— Sorry, just as Ryan, you have a minute left on this side. So there was no annual reporting of Reserve Funds prior?
Go ahead, Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So the financial statements, of course, and the budget would provide information on Reserve Funds historically. We did also bring forward an annual report every year, approximately this time of year. However, the focus of that report was historically on revisions that might have been required to reserve fund by laws. So, you know, if we were repealing a bylaw to terminate a reserve fund, for example, or if we were introducing a new reserve fund, that was historically the focus of this report before we introduced the monitoring element a few years ago.
Follow-up, Councilor? Yeah, if target balances were changed, would that be reported to Council right away? Mr. Murray, go ahead.
Three, Mr. Chair, that would be the intention of this report. It would be highlighted in this report. Well, Councilor?
Yes. How many new reserve funds have been set up in this term of council? Mr. Murray, go ahead.
Three, Mr. Chair, I believe there have been nine reserve funds set up, although some of them are similar reserve funds, although across different rate bases. So, you know, for example, we established DC exemptions, reserve funds, one for the property tax supported budget, one for the water budget, one for the wastewater budget. So similar purposes for all three, but three nonetheless due to the different rate basis.
So nine individual reserve funds in total. Oh, Councillor? Yeah, thank you. Is there a move to having more reserve funds?
Like just trying to understand this better? Mr. Mayor, you go ahead. Three, Mr.
Chair, actually the intention would be to the extent that we can reduce and rationalize the number of reserve funds. would be preferred from our perspective because the more reserves and reserve funds we have the more administration is involved with the the ongoing monitoring and management of those. So over the last say eight years or so we’ve been trying to actively where possible reduce the number of reserve funds and try and get them and keep them as manageable a number as possible. follow up, Councillor?
Yes, and I’ve lost it now. I forgot my question, but I’m not going to be supporting this because, as I said, nothing wrong with what has been provided. I just think it isn ‘t adequate for the $1.5 billion reporting and monitoring that is expected that I’m hearing is expected from the taxpayers. Okay, further speakers on this item.
I’m not seeing any. I will open this Closing the vote, motion carries, four to one. Okay, we are on 2.2, this is the 2025 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds. Looking for a mover and a seconder motion.
Councillor Frank, and now I’ll second it. Okay, that is on the floor, go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, yeah, on page 40 in under 1.5, it talks about previous iterations of this report included commentary of the DC revenues and expenditures for the year. This will instead be included in the growth management implementation strategy plan to be brought forward to committee in June.
And I just wanted through you to staff if they could just explain that change. That’s right. Sure, through you, Mr. Chair.
Yeah, absolutely. So the intention is to provide that commentary as part of the GMIS report. Our intention with this change is really to align that detailed information on actual revenue expenditure developments in the DC world with the decision making that will then be required or associated with that information in terms of implications on growth-related projects. Having that all in one spot as Council is making those decisions around project timing for growth-related projects, we feel that that will be helpful information to have all in one place as part of that report.
So the intention would be then that this report is effectively what it, reverse back to effectively what it had been historically, which is simply providing the legislative reporting requirements that we need to provide annually under the DC Act. Follow up, Councilor. Yeah, thank you. On that same page, it talks about the decision to discontinue the interim borrowing charge on the DC Reserve funds.
And I just wondered if through you to staff, if you could explain the impact that that’s gonna have going forward on the tax levy. Go ahead, Ms. Gray. Thank you through you, Mr.
Chair. So we don’t envision any significant impact on the tax levy associated with this. The impact on an annual basis has kind of been in the $200,000 to $500,000 range every year. That’s a relatively minor impact that we do not envision.
We’ll have a significant impact on our investment income budget. There are other factors, other market related or economic related factors that have far more significant implications or far more significant drivers on our future investment income budgets, whether those budgets are larger than they are, if interest rates go up, for example, or if they are lower if interest rates decline. Those are far more impactful than what we’re talking about here, which is in the neighborhood of a few $100,000 annually. Follow up, Councilor?
Thank you, yeah, I do understand that in the scheme of things, it’s small, and yet it is, as you said, $200,000 to $500,000 a year now that’ll be an increase to what taxpayers are paying or not have the credit for the interest. And the other thing is, in here it mentions about the financial sustainability of the funds is becoming a significant concern. So through you to staff, I’d just like to hear more about that, especially in light of what’s expected to be pressured to reduce DC charges going forward. And, you know, we saw Vaughn take theirs to zero for 12 months.
So I’m just wondering what this state does to those options for London. Yeah, Mr. O for phone, go ahead. Thank you through the chair.
So certainly this has been an issue that we have been flagging for a number of years now. And it is something that is certainly causing a little bit of concern when we look at the longer-term sustainability of development charges. With the recent changes that have been made that have created a significant number of exemptions, if you will recall, there was items put into the multi-year budget to support the exemptions and the back-filling of those exemptions. As a result, and those were continuing to grow over time, the decision was made through the council and through support of a letter that was received from the province that municipalities, although I’m not required to fill those backfills , could make the decisions to manage those.
So the council decided to remove those exemptions . So as a result, those exemptions remain unfunded and continue to grow over time. So what I can tell you is we had more exemptions in 2025 than we had revenue of development charges that came in the door. As a result, the continuing decline that we are continuing to see, well into this year with lower building permits coming through, we did not have a significant amount of revenue received in the first quarter, and as a result, all of those reserve funds, which are required and predicated to support the projects that are within our DC background study and that support the growth of the city, are not keeping pace with the expenditures that need to be made.
So one of the tools that we have, as we’ve noted in the past, is the GMIS process. And that is where through that process, we look at the financial sustainability of the funds and what the requirements are with respect to financing the housing enabling growth. So that report will be coming in June and we look at what deferrals can be made. You’ll also recall that we’ve made a number of deferrals with respect to non-housing enabling funding to be able to manage the shortfalls.
that were within those funds. So certainly as we see the shortfalls continue and grow, and the number of the expenditures obviously that need to be made to support a very large growing city, we are starting to get a little concerned and we’re starting to look at that. And that is based on the current DC revenue and rates that are in force and effect with respect to the DC background study. So the decision to defer the interim borrowing is one of those tools that we’re using to try to manage those shortfalls without having a significant impact on the property tax budget, noting the exemption backfill was taken out of the budget.
The only other tools we have at this disposal at this time is to continue deferring projects and currently approve projects to try to manage what those shortfalls are going to be. that is something that as we continue and look at the new DC background study and all of the master plans that have been approved by this council, certainly as we work through that process that there may need to be some choices in the future as to what will be able to be done within the funding that will be provided within the DC background study. So we’re undertaking that work currently now. The DC background study will come forward in 2027 .
So there’s certainly some things that we’re paying attention to and starting to look at much closer. But this is an interim step that we’re trying to manage it until the next DC background study is completed. But the pressure to reduce DCs further will have a significant detrimental impact on the ability to continue with the growth that we currently have giving the state of the revenue and that is coming in at this time. Okay, follow up, Councillor.
Yeah, thank you through you. So a city like Vaughn that reduced them to zero for a year, did they just have a healthier DC reserve fund than the city of London? Or are they doing that a different way, do you know? Staff know what the city of Vaughn’s doing, go ahead.
Thank you, Chair. I can’t speak specifically to city of Vaughn, but certainly when we look at the DCs at the city of London in comparison to other cities of similar size, city of London’s DCs are considerably lower than especially the cities anywhere near and around the GTA. Follow up, Councillor. Okay, that’s good to know.
And so if, you know, you say the only option is to defer projects, do we have the option to use debt financing instead? Ms. Carole, go ahead. Thank you for the chair.
That is currently something that we do quite regularly. You’ll note if you look at the details, there are many projects that are primarily debt funded. certainly the debt still has to be repaid. So there has to be sufficient to see funding coming in to ensure that those debt repayments can be made.
Obviously, when there is debt financing, there is a cost of capital that is also part of that. So it is a little bit more expensive as you spread it out over time. So it is something that is taken into account. Certainly, we would never want to move to a fully debt financed model.
So that we try to use as much balance between all of those based on the funding that is available related to the timing and the scope and scale of the projects. Followed Council. Yeah, thanks. Just my last question then is about the reporting ‘cause it does show the actual, I’m assuming these are the actual balances in the DC reserves and then the amounts that are committed.
So I just wondered why the presentation is different then for the reserve funds. Go ahead Ms. Mariah. Thank you.
This is a legislative report that is required through the development charges act. These are very specific in terms of the D.C. Background Study and the Development Charges Act has an extreme number of requirements that need to be upheld. So this is posted publicly.
It is communicated and provided to the ministry as well. And there are a number of constituents across including all the development community that actively uses this information through the ongoing discussions and monitoring at a community-wide level. Follow-up, Councillor? No, that’s all, thanks.
Okay, looking to other committee members for visiting Councillors, not seeing them, go ahead, Councillor Peril. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. And I had kind of a similar question in terms of this.
So the report, because first, when I read it, I was missing the DC’s monitoring. And then in 1.5, I heard it’s gonna be GMIs. I just want to verify that in the GMIs, we will receive the same information, same figures, same graphs, revenue analysis projected versus actual consolidated CSRFs depth payments to the DC ref analysis, because these reports are what I saw last year were really truly beneficial. And I just hope that the same information is going to be in the GMIS next month.
Go ahead, Steph. Through the chair, that’s a great question there. Yeah, what we’re looking at doing is we’ve evaluated what’s historically been presented in terms of our DC monitoring. We call them the DC lever.
So you’ve got your lever being the revenue have an element, the expense element, and the reserve fund side. We are in the midst of, again, just trying to identify exactly what the reporting is going to be. But it’s going to be very similar. I can’t use the words identical.
But it’s going to contain a lot of the really useful relevant information for the public and council to be able to assess the overall health of the D.C.’s. Okay. Okay. So thank you for that.
So I certainly hope it’s going to be improved, that it’s going to be even better. But I just want to let you know that certainly the report from last year was really beneficial certainly to me with both on understanding and visualizing the situation we are in. So I hope you keep it that because, again, those graphs and figures, they truly help tremendously. Much easier than just writing, and we can identify the issues much easier.
And so thank you for that, and I hope you will consider my comments. Thank you. And then based on the last comment, so last fall, we had a hundred and fourteen million dollars so the expectation in June that this number is going to be even larger. Is that correct?
Go ahead. So we’re going to ask you a reference to the hundred and fourteen million. What are for clarification, Councillor? It was in last year’s report.
I don’t have it in front of me, but it says that the DC shortfalls now are at one hundred and fourteen million dollars that was last year’s report. Yeah, thank you for the share. Thank you for the share there. Yeah, what’s happening is that we’ve had now essentially four consecutive years of net loss on the revenue side of when you look at the actual budget relative to the revenue coming in.
Last year in particular, 2025, you’re going to be seeing in the next report. It’s very significant. So we’re going to be identifying that cumulative loss of growing . In terms of continuing to present that number, we’re looking at modifying the presentation of that information because the number is becoming very, very large.
And we are implementing various levers to mitigate again through GMI’s project timing adjustments as well as through the annual budgeting process where we’re looking at our network e-capital projects and adjusting those timings as well but yes the bottom line is that the gap is growing in terms of that cumulative loss and that would be much greater than the one one 14 was presented last year follow-up comes I thank you for the explanation and the last question I have on the audit committee we get to once a year and I believe it’s the audit committee we get a report in terms of the developers in terms of how the value of dollars we assume on the infrastructure projects through the private developers and if I remember correctly over two years we were over 200 million dollars. How is that now let’s say in terms of how do we calculate with this with the DCs because yes DCs we stop charging for certain things again not just by us it comes from the province But on the other hand, we assume certain projects , as I said, over $200 million. How is this looked at in terms of offsetting potentially these amounts? Because I would imagine if the developer would not do it, we would end up doing it.
Go ahead, Steph. Through the chair, thank you much for the question there. What we’re talking about is local service costs. And we look at specifically our development charges background study by-law.
We have certain costs that are defined as local service. those are going to be costs that are essentially the responsibility of the developer. And that are typically going to be paid for by the developer and not on the back of the development charge, right? But you’re right.
If we changed our policy framework and included more costs that were not, sorry, reduced elements and policy elements that were taken out of the local policy, they would then form part of the development charges and the rate would effectively go up. What we do is we do extensive consultations specifically with development charges, study, reference group that is composed of LDI, home builders, the construction industry, and the urban league. So we have a lot of conversations on policy mechanisms and policy choices related to development charges, one of which is local service policy elements. So, again, that has been through a comprehensive review.
That will be embedded and baked specifically into the upcoming 2027 development charges background study. >> Follow-up, Councillor. >> Thank you. All you are answers.
I appreciate it. No more. for any other questions comments. Seeing any, we ‘ll open this for voting.
Motion to vote. Motion carries five to zero. Okay, we are on 2.4. This is the bi-annual procurement report and update, looking for a mover and a seconder for motion.
Councillor Cl oser will move. Okay, and I will second that as on the four. So, any questions, comments? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
Thank you. You had a couple of questions on, So on page 100 there was the discretionary benefits bed program 2.6 million. I just wondered for this one. My understanding was this was the first time it went to tender and I just wondered if that’s true and then what precipitated that change?
Ms. Barbara. I thank you for the share. So certainly this was previously it was a small dollar value to so it was not in it.
There was a a contractual obligation in place, but it was for less than it was an upset value of $50,000. So with the requirements of the program that have changed, the value of the program went up significantly, which is why it met the threshold to go forward for a tender. So based on the council policy and the amount that went forward for the tender process and was done through procurement for the first time given the value increase as a result of the program need. All up, Councillor?
Yeah, just trying to, so the program went from 50,000 to two and a half million. Miss Barbara, I’m glad. Thank you. This is through the Provincial Discretionary Benefits Program.
So that program is legislated and run through Ontario Works. So the program has gone through a number of changes in 2018 when this was last gone forward initially . Okay, thanks. Yeah, as I know we had a local nonprofit that lost that bid by just a little bit.
So I just wanted to know a little bit more about it. It went to a Toronto company, I believe. And then there’s a design and implementation of a new online public engagement platform for the city of London for $250,000. I just wondered if I could hear more about that.
maybe there was a staff report for that. Good style one, go ahead, I’m a stage speaker. Thank you, as part of our processes, through you Mr. Chair, as part of our processes, we are moving forward to ensure that we increase the engagement that we do across our platforms.
And so we have implemented a plan to put a new process in place. We’ve moved forward on that, but I’m happy to get more information in response to any counselor questions on this one. My story, I don’t have it with me today. Follow up, Councilor.
Yeah, no worries, so there was no staff report for that. Like wait, Council was not aware of whatever that change is that’s happening. Go ahead. Through you and Chair, I believe there was information.
I know, I do not know if the Director of Communications is on currently, but we’ll get the information to your Councilor for sure, okay? She is, she is on. Go ahead. Thank you and through you, Chair.
So this was, there was no report on a committee or Council agenda on this. However, it was an RFP that went out for the change in the platform that we’re using for public engagement, that platform went live at the very end of 2025. So it’s now being in place since for five months. And we did a competitive procurement.
And I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the amount that you mentioned, but the cost came to about 40,000. Follow up, Councillor? No, I’ll follow up on that offline, But I’ve got another one and it’s under the emergency procurement. So for the trailer rentals for the micro modular shelter, it says that emergency procurement required to support the original operational ization of the micro modular shelter program.
So when we talk about emergency procurement, are we saying that in us approving that micro shelter we created an emergency that allowed the procurement to be done that way I just I was just surprised to see that something that we operationalized fell under emergency procurement rather than just go through the normal procurement channels. Okay go ahead Steph. Thank you for the share so as as you know this was certainly through a mayoral direction and the response where there was very very limited time frames in terms of procuring what was required to get a micromodular site up and running. So with the urgency to have this done and through the reporting that was provided to Council, this is the provisions under the procurement policy.
Certainly we utilized through the cooperative purchasing, we looked at all the options and were able to ascertain that there were very limited suppliers that could deliver anything within that very limited timeframe. So given the timeframe and the requirements to get something up and running within a very limited time, there were no other options within the procurement policy to go out and create an RFP document and follow other provisions that would have taken us through a normal process. However, normal process still allowed us to follow the cooperative purchasing that was leveraged to be able to move this forward where through those co-ops there is a procurement process that is undertaken. So, um, certainly it was our intent and desire to follow as much public procurement protocols as much as possible.
Okay. Thank you. Follow up, Councilor? Thank you.
I’ll look into that a little bit more. Just again, it’s around the nuance of what is an emergency, I guess, in terms of, you know, if we’re just behind on things that they need to be done, can we use emergency procurement? And I guess that’s the benefit of having it publicly reported like this. Um, so, and then just in general, like, this is our first procurement report since we made the big changes and I just I’m just concerned because I’m getting a lot of concerns brought to me around our procurement process and then in terms of little things that have gone wrong or the perception that they’ve gone wrong and so just from an oversight perspective.
I just wonder is there any way for Council to know sort of how many issues there have been, how many went to a committee to be resolved, anything like that, could that be part of the reporting? Go ahead, Staff. Thank you through the chair. When we’ll bring back the annual reporting as per section 35, we will have more wholesome data to provide, which will include your non-compliance, which also include sustainable procurement initiatives, so right now we are in the middle after stabilizing we are in the middle we are putting those controls so that we can have more wholesome reporting done at once we complete one year mark with the updated procurement policy.
Just one other question then I guess any comment from staff around the issues that were raised through the audit committee. There were, I believe, several key things that were noted as a concern around our vendor programs. And I know we didn’t fund them through the budget. So I’d just, any comments from the staff regarding how this, um, these procurement report updates will help counsel adequately provide oversight over an issue where issues were raised.
through the chair to committee consistent with what Ms. O’Rourke indicated earlier about the annual review outlined in section 35.2 of our policy. We speak to a summary of vendor performance evaluations and resulting actions applicable as part of the procurement of goods and services policy that was approved by council based on the resources and capacity that procurement has, we have embedded some of the insights glean ed from the internal audit report that was provided to us to fold in some of those concepts to the degree that we can support and manage based on our existing resources. Reg rettably, it’s not to the extent that was identified by M&P at the time.
However, there are a number of council priorities looking at the limited resource base that we have so we ‘re doing what we can and we’ve folded into the policy what we can do. Thank you. Thank you and just a reminder council you just have a minute left so go ahead. Okay and when is that annual report come before council?
Mr. Collins. Through the charity committee we just reported out on the annual report for 2025 so we would suspect that the annual report for 2026 will probably be in the spring of 2027. However, within the policy, there is an expectation set out that we know later than such a date.
I believe that’s in May. So there’s a framework to govern that reporting. Thank you. Follow up, Councillor.
That’s good to hear. And so my other question is around issues that may come up during the procurement process. My understanding is that complaint can be I don’t know if, when cities have auditor generals if they’re able to go there with their concerns, but it just seems to me like there isn ‘t an avenue for issues with the procurement process that might rise above the administration that’s responsible for the process. I don’t know if when cities have auditor generals , if they’re able to go there with their concerns, but it just seems to me like there isn’t an avenue for issues with the procurement process that might rise above the administration that’s responsible for the process.
hearing from staff that there actually are avenues to address maybe some bigger issues that might arise. Okay, that’ll be the last question on that item. Go ahead. Thank you to the chair.
Yes, the supplier dispute committee is in in place. Whatever processes laid out as per the procurement and goods and services policy, the the supplier dispute committee follow that. In terms of reporting, all the disputes do not come to are not part of the annual report as as well as bi-annual report. But in terms of how many disputes have been received, what were the decisions that aggregate value can be provided to the council that is required?
Okay, looking for other questions, comments. Not seeing any, hope not for voting. Councillor Van Merebergen, closing the vote, motion carries four to one. Okay, we are on item 2.9, the contract award tender RFT, of consulting engineer, Boulder Road, water main, and cycling improvement project.
That’s a plausible move. I’ll second that, that’s on the floor. Any questions, comments? Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.
Yeah, thank you. My question is regarding the low bid is significantly lower than the other three. And so I just wondered through you to staff, how have we had experience with this company before? Do they have a good track record?
Given that it’s gonna be a main road, roller road closed for 15 to 20 weeks. This construction season just makes me a little nervous when I see one being so much lower than all of the others. Mr. Chair, Mr.
McCrae, who wants that? Go ahead. Through the chair, we do have some anecdotal awareness of this contractor’s work in other municipalities and that combined with the issuance of their bonding as part of their tender submission provides us the confidence to award the tender. Yeah, can you just explain the issuance of bonding in terms of how it like the concern with taxpayers is that we say 15 to 20 weeks and sometimes it’s a long long time.
And so if we’re going with a low bid, how do we protect taxpayers from a longer construction delay if there’s issues with with this? Does the issuance of bonding help at all that way to take the bonding question? I can start if any of the finance people want to chime in. But the bonds are insurance of financial stability and performance on projects of similar or larger magnitude.
There aren’t necessarily a guarantee of performance. And we administer our contracts with the mechanisms, the contractful mechanisms that are in them. And we hold our contractors to account and do our best through the administrative processes to hold the contractor to those commitments that are, they’re contractually signed up for when they accept and submit their bids. Follow up, Councillor?
Yeah, thanks. I’ll just take the opportunity to ask, you know, are there, ‘cause people ask me quite regularly, did we at least save some money when these projects go long? Like, are there financial implications to contractors not completing the work on time? But yeah, speaking in generalities, yes, there are.
There’s both incentives, disincentives in various contracts and in pretty much all contracts for linear construction on the roadway. There’s a concept of liquidated damages, whereby if a contractor goes past the completion date or the allocated amount of working days, the municipality charges money back to account for the additional social and administrative costs to the public and the municipality. Okay, thank you. That’s good to hear.
And just again, for education purposes, I guess, is it unusual to see such a discrepancy in the bids? Are there extra steps that are taken when you see a low bid that comes in maybe much lower than all of the others or lower than expected? Go ahead, Mr. Chair.
Yes, certainly all tenders received, particularly the low tender, are scrutinized. The line items are compared to the pre-construction estimate prepared by the consulting engineer and you know any red flags or look for any concerns and we satisfy ourselves that you know that submitted costs are within typical ranges to provide us the confidence and we rely on our consulting engineer for this frequently that they make a recommendation for or tender award after they’ve done their thorough review. Follow up, Councillor? Yeah, just one last question on quality control .
So does the consulting engineer also responsible for making sure that we get a high quality product? Go ahead, Mr. McCray. Yes, the consultant contract administrator administers both the processes to ensure that they meet the requirements of the contract and also the materials and is part supplied and that those also meet the materials specifications.
Follow up, Hilton? One last question, and that is a finance question. It shows that 1.85 million will be a debenture for the active transportation for the cycling lanes. So if people are asking, again, when we talk about how much we have in reserve funds, and there seems to be money available for active transportation, just remind me how this one part becomes a deb enture.
Go ahead Mr. Murray. Thank you and to you Mr. Chair.
So typically the financing decisions on our capital budget are driven by our capital budget and financing policy. The nature of the works dictate typically what the most appropriate funding sources are. In this case, we are dealing with growth related projects. And so, you know, to the extent that there are non-growth related shares of growth projects or non-growth portions of growth projects, typically one of the primary financing sources for that non-growth share is tax-supported or rate-supported debt for the growth share.
As Ms. Barboon noted on a previous agenda item, that may be a combination of direct draw downs from the city services reserve funds, the DC reserve funds, or the use of debt funded by the DC reserve funds or some combination thereof. So again, it’s all predicated on the nature of the project and the most appropriate funding sources based on that project’s nature. Follow up, Councilor.
Okay, looking for any other questions, comments? Okay, not seeing any. We’ll head for voting. in the vote, motion carries five to zero.
Okay, we are on 2.12. This is the appointment of consulting engineers sending Dale Road West improvements from Hyde Park to Jordan Boulevard, looking for a mover and a seconder for a motion. Councillor Palazzo, a mover second. If you wanna move, I’ll second that.
That’s on the floor, need for questions, comments . Hey, Councillor Stephens. Thank you, just a quick question, I think, on this one. I’m just paying a lot of more attention to the procurement piece of this.
So when we’re using, it says, you know, the deliverables can only be provided by a particular supplier, no alternative or substitute, and that only one supplier is capable of providing the required services. The policy that’s quoted is just so specific, and yet this seems like it’s just because the person had done it before, they have the most logical one to be able to do it at the lowest price. This isn’t something I understand all that well, but is it, you know, when it’s a subjective decision, is there a way to make it more, where you put it out there because maybe there is somebody who could do it for the same price that feels that they didn’t get the opportunity? So I just wondered if staff have anything to share there.
Mr. McCrae, do you get that one or Ms. Shear? Yeah, thank you through the chair.
There’s a few different aspects of this. the limited tender, that the work is being assigned to the consultant firm that did the design for the work. So there’s a few aspects, like they’re fully aware of the design work, obviously, the consultations, the relationships, the work ongoing with things such as utility companies, the work that spans both the design phase and the construction phase when utilities have to relocate. I guess the most specific reason why the design firm in this case, and in many cases for capital construction projects, why they should do the construction administration is because we require record drawings with an engineer stamp on them.
And that is an important foundation for our infrastructure database and our asset management systems. It requires an engineer to stamp the drawings as constructed so we know exactly where the sewer pipes and the water mains and all the infrastructure is built. If we were to bring a new consulting engineer in at the construction phase, that engineer would essentially have to go through the motions like of a complete redesign to satisfy themselves that the design is appropriate before they can put their engineer stamp on the constructed drawings. because they’re essentially taking responsibility for the quality of the design.
So introducing a new engineer at the final, at the construction phase of the project really requires that engineer to step back many steps in the project phase. And it really would cause delays and great additional cost to the project. Follow up, Councilor? Okay, looking for any other questions, comments ?
You’re not seeing any well of never voting. Closing the vote, motion carries, pipes through . Okay, that concludes our items. We just have adjournment looking for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Van Meregan, thank you. I will second that. All those in favor?
Motion carries. Good afternoon.