- Good afternoon, everyone.
Call the seventh meeting of the infrastructure
and corporate services committee to order.
Please check the city website for additional
meeting
information.
The city of London is situated on the traditional
lands
of the Anishinaabak, the Haudenosaunee,
Linawampak, and Al-Adwandran.
We honor and respect the history, languages, and
culture,
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.
Currently, in terms of committee members, we have
myself,
Councillor Frank, Councillor Stevenson,
Councillor Ploza online, okay,
and we're waiting on Councillor Ben Mirbergen.
In terms of visiting Councillors,
we have Councillor Traszok, Councillor Ferrera,
Councillor Pribble, and Councillor Hiller.
Okay.
The City of London is committed to making every
effort
to provide alternate formats and communication
supports
for meetings upon request.
To make a request specific to this meeting,
please contact ICSC@london.ca or 519-661-2489,
extension 2425.
Looking forward disclosures of community or
interests.
Okay, seeing none online.
We'll move into consent items.
Do you have requests for 2.8 and 2.9 to be pulled
?
We'll deal with those in deferred matters.
So looking for a motion to move 2.1 to 2.7.10,
- 2.11, 2.12, unless there are any other poll
requests,
not seeing them.
So I would look for those items I just mentioned
to be moved for a mover.
Councillor Frank, I'll second.
Okay.
Those are on the floor.
And Councillor McMillan,
I just joined us.
Any discussion on those items?
Looking for committee members first,
Councillor Frank, go ahead.
- Thank you.
Just on item 2.2, in regards to the recycling
services,
I want to thank staff for coming back with this
so quickly.
As you can see from one letter,
And there'll be a couple of others coming forward
that there's a lot of small businesses
who are impacted by this and I think they'll
appreciate some other options as we've outlined.
And I just was wondering through the chair to
staff if we've heard any additional feedback
I know in the report there was the letter from
staff that had gone to the province and
their response essentially was that we're allowed
to go and pick it up ourselves if we
felt like it.
I'm just wondering if we had heard any other
feedback at this point from the province in
in regards to allowing non-eligible sources
to participate in the same recycling system.
- Believe Miss Chambers, that's you.
Go ahead when you're ready.
- Thank you and through the chair.
I was just trying to find the letter
that we received in the province.
It was dated March 13th, 2026,
and we've received no further information since
then
to suggest other programs would emerge.
- Followed, Councillor.
- Thank you, yes.
Then I suppose we'll continue to do our best to
advocate.
I think that being able to have the non-eligible
sources
picked up with the rest of the residential curbs
ide makes the most efficient sense.
But again, appreciate the work staff are doing to
try and bridge that gap.
Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Go ahead.
Thank you. I had a question on 2.1 and it was
really just a general question. I remember
earlier
in the term receiving a report that showed the
over budget amounts on by project and I don't
- I don't recall seeing that recently.
I just wondered when the last time council
would have been advised on over budget projects
and/or when we might see that.
- Go ahead, Mr. Chair.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If there's a request for additional funding,
it would be included in this report.
So last year, we did have a couple of projects
that required additional funding approval
and they would have been included
as part of this reporting out.
And the remainder of the reporting on our capital
projects
with respect to their overall budgets
is included in the mid-year and end-of-year
capital
monitoring, one of which is before you today.
- Hello, Councilor.
- Yeah, thank you for that.
And so do you recall what report I'm thinking of
where we had the projects listed
and several of them said that they were over
budget one by one
just so that we'd be able to track what was
originally
budgeted and what the total cost was?
- Go ahead, Ms. Chair.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So if we were requesting additional funds,
if individual reports for each project
would have accompanied the report today
because we are not, there are no reports to that
matter.
With respect to the status of all of our projects
,
that would be captured in the mid-year capital
monitoring.
We have not prepared a separate report listing
all projects
and their financial status.
So we would only report out if we require money
beyond our contingency within our approved budget
.
And we would have made that request today.
I think we had two or three last year
that required a small additional amount of
funding
a couple of the year before.
At this time, we have a couple we're monitoring,
but we are not asking for any additional funding
beyond what has been previously approved.
- Okay, thank you for that.
On 2.2, can you just remind me?
I thought we saved quite a bit of money
with the change in the blue box recycling.
And I just wondered, is there an annual savings
with the province taking it over?
- Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
- Thank you and through the chair.
As of mid-July, 2023, we've saved approximately
three to four million dollars per year.
It kind of depends on how many recyclables
we have going forward.
That money though, given the timing,
our green bin program rolled out January 1st,
2024
at about $5 million a year.
So anything offset for recycling,
we basically put towards green bin.
So we don't have additional savings at this time.
Budget now reflects.
It's all been rectified there.
- Follow up, Councillor.
- Thank you.
Were those unexpected costs for the green bin
or did we reduce those and then end up with a
surplus?
- Go ahead, Mr. Amers.
- Thank you and to the Chair.
The $5 million is just the cost
to run the green bin program annually.
There's no additional cost.
That's just the cost it is to run it.
I guess the point I'm getting to is that when it
comes to just recycling, we saved three
to four million dollars a year.
We'd already budgeted five million dollars a year
for the green bin.
So I just wondered, was there any consideration
of using the three to four million in savings
to then provide service to the businesses and the
ones that were going to be impacted
here?
Go ahead, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The funding for the green bin and the blue bin
savings were, sorry, the funding for the
The blue bin reduction when the province took
over that program was given up in the budget
at that time.
We had not at that point identified the
restriction for the non-eligible sources as that
was actually
only announced later last year.
We did as part of multi-year budget last year
give up the remaining funding for the non-
eligible
source blue bin program.
We had previously managed as it would have been
insufficient for a citywide program which
would be substantially more money
and would require new funding ask.
- All out, Councillor?
- Yeah, just one on this and that is,
but that net amount that isn't big enough
to cover the recycling, is that because a good
chunk
of it went to offset the green bin?
- Go ahead, Mr. Chair.
- Mr. Chair, the funding that previously was
given up
in large for the blue bin was removed from our
budgets
and that funding was no longer available.
There was a small amount of funding,
still funding the NES that we had retained with
the expectation we would be able to continue
to offer a commingled service on the routes that
were residentially picked up by the
provincial pros and that we would simply fund
that service for the businesses receiving
it previously.
It was late last year that that funding was no
longer required because we were not allowed
to pay the provincial processors and collectors
through that.
So that money was returned to its original source
which would have been used offset increases
in the mill rate last year.
- Okay, thanks.
That's helpful to have that just overall summary
because this is a really big issue for our
businesses.
You know, a lot of them are committed
to doing the recycling.
They wanna do it and they really don't have the
time
or the money to do this properly.
Putting it in the garbage hurts a lot of them to
do that.
And I don't think it helps us either with our
landfill goals.
So again, maybe I guess just one more follow up
on that
is what are next steps for the businesses?
Like are we looking at potentially
for the next multi-year budget,
providing services to businesses,
or is it just advocacy to the province on this?
- Mr. Edwards, Mr. Chair, what do you wanna take
on?
- Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this time, it would be very difficult to offer
a city-wide service for the approximately 21 to 2
,200
small businesses that could be eligible.
We previously had serviced about 535 businesses
because they were on our residential routes.
Because we're no longer allowed to combine the
stream
for collection and processing,
there's no longer geographic reason
to only support those businesses,
we would have to roll it out to all of their
competitors
who would be of similar sort of size and scale.
Managing a program throughout the entire city,
which is extremely dispersed, would be quite
difficult.
New businesses start up frequently,
they close frequently as well.
So the administrative side of trying to manage
a citywide program would be quite high.
If council wishes us to explore that,
we would be happy to bring back a business case,
but it will be well over a million dollars to do
that.
With respect to the 535 that could easily be re
accommodated,
should we be allowed to put them back in?
If there were changes from the province
allowing that comming going to happen again,
they could be serviced for a much smaller amount.
If they could be, if we could simply pay for them
to be collected with the residential blue bin.
So at this time, our focus is on providing the
opportunity
at the Enviro Depot's, adding the green bin
service
and continue to advocate for more flexibility
on the inclusion of non-eligible sources
on residential routes.
- I'll hope Councilor.
- No, that's good.
Thank you for the summary.
Like I said, it's helpful.
- Okay, thank you.
Just noting Mayor Morgan, you have joined us.
2.8 and 2.9 were pulled, but you did put up your
hand.
So I'll go to you and looking for other committee
members
that they wanna speak first.
So go ahead, Mayor Morgan.
- Sure, thanks.
I'll add my voice to the previous comments
that Councilor Frank and Councilor Stevenson
made about the ending of the Blue Box program. As
colleagues know, the reason why we did
this is it made a lot of sense. We were driving
by anyways. We ran the program. We contracted
out to Miller Waste Services. They're driving by
churches, small businesses. And why wouldn't
we stop and pick it up? It's not a huge
incremental cost in our part. Given we don't run
the Blue
Box program anymore, we don't contract the trucks
. And Miller Waste essentially has been
directed by circular materials Ontario to only
pick up from residential sources, to me the
easiest
solution is there are trucks driving by already.
They're they're not directed by us anymore. And
there's an advocacy piece here with the province
which has been a very pro-business friendly
government I think to have a meaningful
conversation with them to say there's probably
lots of
communities where this could make a lot of sense.
The costs are very incremental and I think there
's
a fair discussion to have with I think a province
that is relatively willing to listen
to say you've got trucks driving by anyways now
through circular materials Ontario they've got
all
the existing contracts they could just as easily
service these 535 businesses in our city and
others
maybe across the province by making a stop and
picking it up so I'm certainly happy to continue
that advocacy piece and engage within discussions
with the province on that. I agree with our staff
like us then to constitute a program for just
those 535 businesses would now be we're
developing a
whole new program for just a section of the city,
it probably makes sense that we would
develop it for 2100 businesses and that is going
to be something that would be a fairly
substantial budget cost. So, you know, I think
the path here as an intern step to allow some
drop-offs even though it isn't convenient, it is
fair to help them transition. Ultimately,
the best solution here is the truck's driving by
making extra stop and pick up some extra
materials
as we were doing when we ran the service. So, I'm
happy to engage in that advocacy.
I'm happy to have colleagues support me in that.
I know we'll have an AMO conference coming up.
We'll probably have lots of ability
to have side conversations with ministers.
But any interim, I think that there is a really
easy
solution here and that's do what we were doing.
Pick it up on the way by and help the businesses
out
when the residential routes are being collected
anyway still.
- Okay, thank you, Mayor Morgan.
Not seeing any other hands from committee members
.
I have Councillor Trosto for ARA and Pribble.
So go ahead, Councillor Trosto.
- You go first.
- Just to make the bottom line really short here,
I think we're all on the same page.
I think we all want to support this.
What's happened is really unacceptable.
It's outside of our control.
We're doing the best that we can.
Back in November, this came to the CAHPS
committee
and we instituted the sort of a chain of events
that resulted in the staff report we received
back today,
which was, it wasn't accepted unanimously,
but it was accepted by the council and here we
are.
So I just want to say as a member of that
original CAHPS
committee that sent this off,
was ultimately dealt with by two different
committees
'cause we had a change in committee jurisdiction.
But I think we're all saying the same thing.
But one thing I would like to request though
is you stayed in the staff report
that you did send that advocacy letter to the
province
and they did respond by rejecting our request.
And I wanna be really specific that we've already
done that
and it would be helpful to have that letter.
'Cause I think there's a little bit of confusion
when we say we should do some advocacy work.
We've already tried doing that.
We should step it up and do it again.
So I agree.
However, what's the problem here is the text of
the Oreg,
of the regulation that says there has to be
separate source
for the recyclables.
And I have yet, and I think everyone would agree,
we've yet to be provided with any type of sort of
rationale
justification from the province as to why that
provision
remains in the regulations and that's what's
causing the problem with being able to
pick these things up as we go along. So I think
that this is just something we'll have to follow
up on. I think the mayor is quite correct when he
says maybe we can work with some other
cities who are similarly situated at AMO. But all
in all, my main point here today is thank
you so much to the staff for getting this back to
us so quickly. And I think that we have a very
good solution for the green bin and I think we
have a very good solution to the blue box.
But I think it's important that we recognize that
those are two different policy problems
with different sets of rules.
But I think we've done the best we can do here
and I'll be supporting this at council.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Ferri, go ahead.
Thank you.
And I guess in tune with the last comments, I
appreciate staff's work on this.
I know you moved really quick on it, especially
when we knew what circular materials were
was going to come out with, and it was going to
be a producer-led responsibility.
But then late in the game, we kind of found out
that there was going to be a whole swath
of non-eligible sources that wouldn't be coming
through with that.
I remember the conversation I was having with Ms.
Chambers and Ms. Share on this and what
we would do to move forward.
So I do appreciate this report coming through.
I in line with what the mayor was saying, I think
our first conversation was, so the
Miller waste trucks are driving by these
locations, picking up residential eligible
sources and
skipping the eligible sources.
the first part of that conversation was about the
economy's scale, like it doesn't really
make sense to me. So I do hope that the advocacy
on that would be able to at least pick those
up because the trucks are already there. And it
would be much cheaper if the trucks would
be able to just pick that up. And then however it
works down on the back end. But with this,
with this, I guess, direction coming forward,
like I appreciate the work that you've done.
I do hear what businesses are saying, you know,
like, you know, there's still that gap
of how we're going to, we're going to have to
bring these materials to the Enviro-Depos
now, but I do see that we're trying to work with
something that will bring at least some
type of option forward.
So I do appreciate everything.
What Councillor Trussell said, I agree with the
regulations and just kind of how that
splits it up.
Maybe that could be a conversation that could be
had as well.
So I'm not going to go all over those points, but
I do want to ask some questions that I
saw with the report, and I do see with the Enviro
Depot recycling pilot portion itself.
I guess when we compare it to what I read about
the green pin, the green bin part, there's
going to be mailouts that are going out to the
potential eligible sources for the green
bin recipients.
But I didn't necessarily see that for the Enviro
Depot pilot project, so I just wanted
to know from staff, how are we going to contact
potential eligible, non-eligible sources that
they may be eligible for this project?
Mr. Chambers, go ahead.
Thank you, and through the chair.
Yes, we did have the addresses already for the 5
35, through previous work we've done,
so of course they can receive a letter.
But as far as the Depot drop off, we'll be
working with our communications department
to basically spread the word.
So that's the plan at this moment, is to do it
that way through public communications
and just say, "Hey, small business owners, check
if you qualify and you can bring your
recyclables."
Because technically those folks haven't had
really a recyclable option at all previously.
So we'll just try to do it through a word of
mouth.
Follow up, Councillor.
Okay, thank you for that.
So if I have businesses reaching out, which I do,
and they're requesting if they would
be eligible or not. I would be okay to just
forward that off to staff and see
if staff can see if they're eligible or not. Go
ahead Ms. James. Thank you and
through the chair yes you would be able to
contact our staff and we'll confirm
that they're eligible we'll have to register them
as such as well. All of
Councilor. Okay thank you for that and will there
be another staff report coming
back I guess before or during the rollout or soon
after the rollout just to see I
I guess how many of the non-eligible sources
were able to plug into this project on both sides
?
- Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
- Thank you and through the chair.
Yes, the report back is somewhat implied
in the fact that we're doing the pilot.
So we're using the pilot to inform
more or less the next multi-year budget process
because at this moment we don't know
how many participants there are,
therefore we don't really know the cost going
forward
beyond this coming year.
So there will be another report going forward.
It may just form a business case
is part of the budget though.
- Go ahead, Councillor.
- Thank you for that.
And I guess it's implied that the green bin
portion
will go on into continuity moving forward,
but the Enviro Depot portion is supposed to end
at the end of 2027.
So if we are successful with the province,
then this pilot project ends,
and then we are able to, I guess,
have the Circulars Material Ontario program pick
that up.
And if not, I guess that would be another
conversation it had.
So I just wanted to know, my confirming question
would be really is the green bin is gonna be
continued
and the environmental depo section, I guess,
depending on how things go, we'll have to go from
there.
- Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So the green bin program is expected to continue
as it's much like the previous recycling program
we were offering where the trucks are already
going by.
We have care and control over the contract for
organics.
so as well within our abilities
to pick up those 535 businesses.
So that will continue on beyond,
there's no pilot, it can just be implemented.
For those who are interested,
they can reach out to us and we'll get them on
board.
With respect to the other item
of the non-eligible sources for businesses,
they will see what happens to your point.
We'll continue with this pilot.
We'll be reporting back on the business case.
If anything changed with the province,
definitely we can pivot.
There's no question about that
and would welcome that going back to the 535
curbside for sure if the waste could be co-ming
led with the Oreg being
updated basically. Follow-up Councilor. Okay
thank you for that no follow-ups
I appreciate the answers I guess some comments it
seems that we are all aligned
here so I appreciate the work that we've done so
far I would obviously like to
capture more of the non-eligible sources than we
have right now but this is at
least something moving forward and I'm hoping
that we have some success with
the province so we can capture everybody or all
the entities that were I guess
removed from this program who want to be you want
to be part of it so I'll be
and I appreciate the work and thanks again to
staff.
- Okay, thank you, Councilor Perbal.
You're next, go ahead.
- Thank you, Chair.
And so to the staff, I'll start with 2.1,
the Sunningdale Road West.
And I just want to ask in the report,
it says $24 million, and we did receive,
and if we can confirm it, $18 million from the
province.
And I just wanna have a couple of questions.
Is the 18 on top of the 24, is the 18,
including the 24 and how it's recorded
in terms of the funding of this project.
- Councilor, you said San Angel, do you mean
myself?
- No, San Angel 2.1, a renew 2.1.
- Oh, within that problem, sir.
- Yeah, within that, sorry.
- It's on page 22.
- Yeah, staff, Mr. McCrae, is that you?
- Through the chair, those dollar values are
exclusive.
We'll have detailed financial information on that
project
when it comes to tender, which is anticipated.
and I believe the next council cycle.
- I love council.
- Thank you for that.
So just to confirm, let's say if it ends up being
24
from province 18, so that would be six
from municipal funding, correct?
If those amounts are accurate.
- Go ahead, Ms. Runcray.
- Yeah, can I recommend that we talk offline?
I just don't want to misquote any dollar values.
Yeah, I'd be pleased to clarify the information
with you after the meeting.
Council so you can follow up to you now Council.
And I certainly will do so. Thank you.
Thank you 2.2. Very happy to of course, very
happy to see that there are small businesses now
that when I talk to them, they are not recycling
and everything ends up being in the garbage bags.
So I do have a question though in terms of the
downtown because downtown didn't have the program
before in the past. Is this going to be
potentially an option for downtown businesses as
well to do
do the Enviro Depot or is it gonna be just the
ones
that have been so far lost on the program
that were on it before?
- I go ahead Ms. Chambers.
- Thank you and through the chair.
The Depot program will actually be open
to all businesses citywide.
So there is a bit of an improvement there
that actually everyone will have access
to a drop off location for folks who are willing
to go there.
I will note just for reference,
as I could have mentioned this earlier,
the small businesses were generating maybe about
300 tons
annually and our whole annual collections
usually around 21,000 tons.
So it just gives you a bit of order of magnitude
everyone
about kind of how much we're losing.
Not that we want to lose anything,
but just that in terms of the cost benefit aspect
.
- Okay follow up, Councillor.
- Okay, follow up actually.
And I'm going to go back, I think by page 39.
And there were some municipalities that actually
are continuing this occur.
And if I understand this appendix correctly,
there are some municipalities that are actually
continuing
is the program and to kind of follow up with them
how they do it in terms of the both kind of the
calendar
in terms of the collection and also the funding.
Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
- Thank you and to the chair.
We did do quite a bit of homework on
what other municipalities were doing.
A lot of them are offering different programs.
For example, in Ottawa,
all of the businesses pay for their garbage
collection.
So they've kind of just added that on as an
additional fee
that they'll pay for their recycling.
We've had other people that just went with
extending services as part of existing service
contracts.
So they were kind of already doing things like
this, Hamilton, St. Thomas.
They were already offering these types of
services.
So other municipalities operate their
administration differently as the short answer.
So in some cases it might make more sense than
others.
In the couple examples of the report we noted, it
's their choice to do it at a higher cost.
We don't know of the timeline that those
municipalities are willing to pay that extra
cost but again when we look at that kind of
magnitude of one to two million dollars again
to capture maybe 300 tons that's a lot of the
reason why we're not really recommending it for
this very very dispersed program. Hello Councill
or. Okay thank you for that answer 2.4 the South
Stale Road West and there's an increase of 50
percent and I know it states there in the report
what it's for or the reasoning but I want to ask
you is this because originally the Southdale
sector are we enlarging it the project or is it
something that we kind of after we started this
we decided to go with the slope stability
improvement environmental storm water
so I just want to if it was additional asks we
had for the 50 percent or even in large the South
dale
sector. Go ahead, Mr. McRae. Through the chair,
there are infrastructure needs outside of the
limits of the original project. It's been on our
minds to address these because it's affecting the
road stability. So now that we have additional
information to address that section, we are
expanding the limits of the South Dale Road
project to address those issues at the same time
for better coordination with the Southdale Road
project. So that is the bulk of the addendum
and then included in that is the other items but
the major reason is expanding the limits
to address all the needs in the area. Follow up
Councillor. Okay thank you for that answer
and last one 2.6. It's a project to projects and
it states there if I were to correctly that it's
part of the renew project of when I looked at it,
the Edinburgh Street and
vital path and country lane. They were not
included there. And my question is,
are all the projects included in the 2.1 or that
potentially some
smaller amount once that are not included? Thank
you.
Mr. McRae.
Sorry, through the chair. Just to give you a
little bit of clarity on the question
of the smaller projects. This is awarding the
resident inspection and contract administration
for two of our capital projects going on, and
this award is for those two projects.
Okay, does that answer your question, Councillor?
No, actually, so in 2.1, we have the entire
program, 2.6, and if I read it correctly, it
states that both of them are part of the
which is 2.1. But I went to 2.1. I did not find
them there. So that's my question kind of if in
the 2.1, all are included, or it's just in 2.1
certain aspects of the projects included. Thank
you.
Mr. Chair, you're going to go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2.1 highlights our top 10
projects that are being delivered in 2026. There
are dozens of other smaller infrastructure and
new projects throughout the city.
City, those have been contained in the ward maps.
We've shared with you, but if you want more
information
on any of them, please reach out.
We're happy to provide it.
- Okay, Councilor, any other questions?
- Thank you for that.
And I don't need any additional information.
Thank you.
- Okay, thank you.
And yes, those ward maps are always very helpful.
Great for town halls.
Looking for first-time speakers,
before we do a second round, okay.
Not seeing any online.
Councilor Stevenson, you wanted to go again.
- I did, yeah.
I just wanted to circle back on 2.2,
because, you know, I hear us saying,
well, the trucks are going past anyway,
the province would only let us pick up the other
stuff that would be great but for whatever
reason they've made it clear they're not going to
do that and they could very easily come
back to us and say we saved you 3.4 million a
year by taking over the blue box. Why don't
you just take care of your businesses for a
million dollars a year? You could even expand
it from what I understand from the 500 businesses
to all 2100 or 2200 for just over a million.
So when we look at the issues that are facing our
city and our small businesses are really
struggling.
And they're struggling for all kinds of reasons,
some within our control, some without.
And there's not, we don't have many avenues to
help them.
But this could potentially be a way to relieve
some costs or some service delivery issues
that they're having by addressing this blue box
need.
It meets so many of the things we say are
important in this city.
And so I struggle with going back to businesses
and saying, the province saved us three to
four million a year on blue box, but we already
put our money to our mill rate.
And so sorry, we're just going to have to let you
suffer with this.
So I, when people say we're all on the same page,
I mean, it's hard to say no to what's
before us, but it's really like a little more
than nothing.
Like I don't know how many businesses are going
to be excited about driving out there
to drop off.
Not charging them.
absolutely support. But I really feel like this
fall short of what we could would should do
as a council to support businesses. We have an
unemployment rate highest in the country.
Our small businesses are big employers here. A
lot of people. Well, it's my rationale for
saying I think that we could do a lot better for
our businesses here and maybe that's something
and that could come through our economic
development
or maybe when we're talking about that strategy,
but I don't think that we should leave it here.
Like, this is fine for now,
but I hope we're not gonna leave it here.
I hope we're gonna come up with something really
great.
- Okay, thank you, and you're at time.
Okay, I don't think staff need to respond to that
if you've put forward your proposal.
Looking for other Councillors for speaking,
Councillor Trosto, go ahead.
- I just wanna say, I think we are getting very
close
to being on the same page.
and I do think that this is to say that this is
almost meaningless. I think really undermines
a lot of the good work that staff has done and
the fact that we're trying to reach a
compromise here when this was sort of divided at
council and to say that it's meaningless
or almost meaningless I think is really unfair.
What I will say is that passing this does not
preclude us from making an additional
determination that we want to spend more money. I
don't think
I think that would be considered something
that needs reconsideration.
I think that would be additive to what we're
passing here.
And I would certainly be very happy to look at
that.
But it is going to require some additional
budgetary commitment that perhaps we couldn't
have made today.
What's so elegant about this proposal that's in
front of us
is that it's already been budgeted for
and we're not asking for any additional
expenditures.
And I think that's what makes the staff
recommendation doable right now.
But again, to address your concern, yes, we could
be doing more.
And I think we're going to have to see how this
plays out with the province, because I
think it's an absolutely arbitrary and
unreasonable regulation for them to, I mean, what
gets
mixed in with recyclables.
The worst thing I've ever heard is cheese on
pizza boxes.
And that's not really at play here.
We're talking about shoe boxes and I know the opt
ometrists have boxes for vision materials,
but this isn't really a good place for us to be.
So let's just stay together on this and then we
'll take the next step and figure out if
we need to do a multi-year budget business case
to expand on this, which I'd be all for.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you, Councillor Trusso.
Councillor Ferra, go ahead.
Thanks.
I just wanted to, I guess, touch on that too.
with when we talk about like the economies of
scale,
like the first conversation we had was,
we would have to have a whole collection system
with trucks, with operators picking them up
at these specific individual locations within the
city.
And the money with that alone would be
astronomical
from the conversations I've had with staff on it.
On top of that, we would have to have it on the
back end
actually go to the sites to be collected there as
well.
So when we talk about economies of scale,
like the cost that we have,
that we see that we've been talking about here,
it's much higher than that
if we were to actually implement that entire
system
and that system would be overlapping with the
system
that we have right now.
It would be much wiser, more prudent,
to advocate to the province
and have the province see if they would be able
to pick up
those non-eligible sources in residential areas
when they're already there with the trucks
because that would be much more cost efficient
in moving forward.
This is giving us a bridge to get there.
Obviously, I would like to see pickups
from the locations either to Enviro Depot's
or either to our collection sites.
But at the same time, how much does that cost
if we were to implement that on top
of the system that we have right now?
So I think this is a good path forward.
It does give us a bridge.
It does give us some time.
It does provide an opportunity.
But at the same time, I know staff have looked
into
the cost when it comes to the actual operators,
collection trucks coming in and picking all that
up.
And that would be a huge, huge amount.
So this is why this report,
and I would say this is a way moving forward.
like obviously this is not the best of it all
and I would like to see it be better
but we do need some time to figure that out
and I think the first approach would be--
- Point of order, Mr. Chair.
- Okay, point of order, go ahead.
- I believe the council already made these
comments
in their first round of speaking.
I think we're just getting a little bit redundant
as we're close to a vote.
- Yeah, he has five seconds left.
So if you wanna spend, go ahead.
- I'm just saying I think this bridges us to that
point
and speaking with the provinces,
the first right move to do.
- Thank you, Councilor.
I'm not seeing any others.
I do myself just have two quick questions
with regards to 210 and 212.
Just in terms of obviously we're waiting on some
amendments
part of this motion for 210 anyways is to give
staff
that authority to continue those discussions.
But even with 212, I'm just wondering,
are there any cost implications in terms of the
province
not having these things ready for us?
Obviously we have to wait until they send us
things
and we'll be given an update.
but are to 210 if we have any costs that we incur
because of that.
And with 212, I mean, we're still waiting for
information,
but do we have any indication as to when we get
more
details about that?
- I don't know who on staff wants to crack at
that,
but we'll keep someone.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
- Thank you.
And through you, Mr. Chair, I'll speak to 2.10
being the Court Security and Prisoner
Transportation Program.
So that is a program that is the responsibility
and police. It is included in the police budget.
And this funding is simply flow through funding
that the city then turns around and provides to
the London Police Service as an offset to the
cost
that they have already budgeted in their budget
for this program. Okay, and we are in terms of
the
other parts of this motion. This is just giving
the authorization for staff to conclude those
agreements when we get those amendments, correct?
That is correct. The approval here is the
the authorization to execute the agreement
and then to execute any required financial
reporting
under that.
- Okay, thank you.
And with regards to 212, just in terms of,
do we have any indication when we get more
information
about the Bio-Ontario Act
and how that will impact municipalities?
Go ahead, Ms. Berbon.
Is that you?
I don't know, you looked at me,
so I wasn't sure if that was you or who do we
have?
Okay, go ahead.
- It's through the chair.
I'll pass that over to Ms. Aurora.
- Thank you through the chair, yes.
We will wait for the, we will leverage the train
ings
which are available right now.
We'll be available starting from May 4th till May
13th
from the province.
And then we'll be reporting back to council
on any other additional resources or changes,
amendments of the controls.
We'll have to put it in our procurement process,
even the designs, changes and how it'll impact
the complete procurement lifecycle.
Thank you.
- Okay, and sorry, just to my earlier question,
terms of whether any cost implications for that.
Do we envision any of those yet or
if the province can eat indication as to us
having to absorb those? Thank you
through the chair. Yes there will be cost
implications in terms of resources as
well as designing and evaluating the major goods
reporting requirements from
the province and total procurement lifecycle
costing change orders so yes
there will be some cost implications.
- And thank you and any indication as to
whether they will be providing any funding
or is that something we just absorb?
- Thank you through the chair.
There is no indication there will be any
resources
to go along other than some of the guidance
that might come through by Ontario.
It's still early days.
It's a little hard for us to estimate
what the, excuse me, the total cost could be,
but certainly as we get any information
will provide reports back to council and
committee
as we hopefully get some more details than very
shortly.
- Thank you, and I appreciate the responses from
staff.
I know we don't have all the details,
but I still thought it was important that we
mention that
just 'cause down the road we'll have more coming
back to us.
So thank you for that.
Again, looking for any other comments.
This is on items 2.1 to 2.7, 2.10 to 2.12.
Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands.
We'll open that for voting.
closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero.
- Okay, thank you.
We do not have scheduled items items for
direction
in terms of deferred matters.
There were the two that were pulled.
We have 2.8, 2.9.
We'll just deal with those separately.
So I'll put 2.8 on the floor,
looking for a mover and a seconder.
Councillor Frank, thank you.
I'll second it.
So 2.8 is on the floor.
Going ahead for questions.
Councillor Stephens, you had this bullet, go
ahead.
- Yes, thank you.
So I did have a couple of questions on this one.
The contributions to the Reserve Fund,
that the Social Services Reserve Fund
and the Affordable Housing Renewal Reserve Fund
in B and C,
has this been done before, or is this something
new?
- Go ahead, Ms. Murray.
- Thank you, three, Mr. Chair.
So these are new, this is the first time
that you're seeing these.
And I would characterize these as a function
of not having the plumbing in place, if you will,
to be able to actually do these going forward
at this point.
So the London Regional Employment Services
is a fairly new service that the city provides.
And this is the first year that we have achieved
the targets for the realization of incentive
funding.
So that's the funding here in question and
recommendation B.
So this is the first year that we're dealing with
it.
The intention is to set that money aside
to reinvest in the employment system
and to utilize the social services reserve fund
in order to do it.
However, we do not have administrative authority
to contribute to that reserve fund
for this purpose as it currently stands.
So that's why it is included as a separate
recommendation
for council's approval.
Similarly, the properties,
the affordable housing properties,
specifically Sylvan in question here in part C.
These are fairly new properties.
This is very early on in their lifecycle,
and this is the first opportunity
that we've had to contribute a net surplus
from this property to ultimately reinvested
in the future lifecycle renewal needs
of our affordable housing bills.
So I once again, not something that we have
the administrative delegated authority
to do that contribution to that reserve fund
currently.
So that's why it is for council's approval
as part of recommendation C.
- Okay, follow up, Councilor.
- Yeah, thank you.
So are we looking at changing the policies going
forward?
- Go ahead, Ms. Mary.
- Thank you, three, Mr. Chair, yes.
The intention would be to then,
as part of our Reserve Fund Housekeeping Annual
Report,
to bring forward the necessary changes
to facilitate this process going forward.
Should Council approve?
- Thank you, go ahead, Councilor.
- Thank you.
The reason I really struggle with this
is a couple of years ago,
when we had property tax increases of eight and 7
%,
and we had $50, $60 million surpluses,
When we as a committee or council tried to say,
hey, could we use some of this money for other
things,
similarly to what's being done here,
11 and a half million for shelters
and now a half a million here and quarter of a
million there,
we were strongly cautioned against that
for reasons that are still true today,
as far as I understand.
So I'm just wondering, like I said,
if I go back and watch those meetings
from a couple of years ago,
we tried really, really hard to keep some of that
money
to address needs that taxpayers have.
And now in 2026, we are doing just that
and we're expanding it even more.
Beyond the shelter things that the mayor did,
now we're talking about other surpluses
going into reserve funds.
And the question would be why this, why not
garbage?
Why couldn't the three or $4 million in surplus
have gone to a garbage reserve fund
that we could have then used for things related
to that.
So can you just help me understand why there's
this change
that's happened in the last couple of years
and how expanded is this going to be
or could council and the public weigh in
on other things that they would like to see?
- Ms. Barbone, Ms. Marie, go ahead.
- Yeah, no, thank you, and three, Mr. Chair.
So what I would say is there has been no change.
This does not represent a change.
We still, in general terms, have a surplus
deficit policy
that guides the allocation of any
or the disposition of any year-end surplus or
deficit.
These are very specific things,
so as it relates specifically to recommendation B
,
I'll emphasize that this is a regional service.
This is not specifically a London taxpayer-
specific service.
This is a service that supports not only London
and Middlesex, but also Elgin and Oxford as well
as an entire catchment area.
and the intention here is to reinvest these funds
in the overall catchment area.
So this is not funds that are being sent aside
to benefit London taxpayers specifically,
it is to reinvest in the regional system.
Recommendation C is in keeping with the strategy
that was articulated by our municipal housing
development team.
I believe it was back in December
with respect to the future plans
to reinvest any net surplus as it pertains
to the baseline Thompson and Sylvan properties.
That report I believe specifically focused
on baseline primarily, but the intention is the
same
for Thompson and Sylvan as well.
So that we have the funds set aside to down the
road,
rehabilitate and renew those specific properties
when they require renewal.
- Oh, Councillor.
- Yeah, I have a lot, but I'll take them offline.
- On page 81, it talks about the total forecasted
expenditures continue to exceed funding
allocations
beyond 2027, and that's with regards to social
services.
And I just wondered if we could know more about
that,
or will there be a report coming as March 2027
as the only year away?
- Go ahead, Ms. Murray.
- Through you, Mr. Chair.
So I will refer you to the same page, in fact,
right before that, you're a little bit up
from that paragraph that you're referring to.
Our intention is to, as part of our mid-year
budget monitoring report that we'll be coming
later this year
to provide some further detail and quantification
where we can have some of those pressures
and kind of give you a,
or attempt to give you a more fulsome picture
of what those pressures look like
over the months and years ahead.
Follow-up, Councillor?
- Yeah, thank you and that's great.
I know we talked about that and I'm looking
forward to it,
but we've got requests coming to council next
week
terms of 20,000 a month and 85,000 a month for
outreach and daytime services when we don't know
if we're going to have shortfalls in shelter beds
or you know that kind of thing. So I feel like
it's a little bit more urgent when I read
something like this in a report and we're going
to make
funding decisions next week. The other question
is on the financial summary on page 82, we get
very high level amounts like financial management
as a $203 million a year budget corporate social
community services is 344 million corporate
services 80 million and I don't recall ever
seeing a line
by line for any of those areas like I can see for
police or library or any of the other ones that
have statements so when was the last time the
public and council got to see a line by line for
any of these. I don't know. Who wants to take
that one, Mr. Murray? Three, Mr. Chair. So the
results as
it relates to the monitoring positions have
consistently been reported at the service
grouping
level, which is what you see here. The next level
down, the service level, that budget information
is reported and available online through our
budget documents and our open data portal.
However, the monitoring has been consistently
kept at the service grouping level.
Followed, Councillor? Yeah, thank you. So the
budgets that are available, does it all
also have the actuals? Do we get to see the var
iances line by line?
Through you, Mr. Chair, no, it is strictly the
budgets. It does not include actuals.
Hey, follow-up? Yeah, and so I guess my question
was, when was the last time the
public or council got to see a line by line
variance for any of these big departments?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm going back many, many
years here.
The size of the budget binders once upon a time
did have that information.
As the City of London has continued to grow, the
size of the line by lines has also grown.
So the number of lines are beyond the thousands
and thousands of information.
That's why it's summarized because the actual
line by line and the level of detail
detail is so sufficiently low in our financial
statement would be very challenging to reproduce
and be very challenging to provide any summary
information to the public that would be useful
because it would be too low a detail and have
titles that would not provide any information.
So certainly, at least since well before 2015,
the information has been at a consolidated level
to be able to make it useful for the public and
for the council to have detailed information
about.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
And a follow-up, Councillor?
>> Yeah.
I hear you.
And at the same time, we've consolidated to one
line, right?
So we don't even know, I'll criticize other
things and say, how much is wages?
How much is overhead?
How, you know, what are the variances?
And we don't even have that for our own
departments.
And I've seen, I've looked at other councils and
they're receiving like very, very like
actual GL accounts, every single account.
I question whether the bigger the city gets, the
more line numbers there really are versus
the smaller ones.
And maybe that's true, but usually the numbers
just get bigger in the business world anyway.
And so I think there's going to be an opportunity
going forward.
There's a request for more transparency from the
public.
And I think, you know, it starts here at home for
us to say, do we even know what the
variances are within the departments that we
provide oversight here for?
So --
Council, you have 30 seconds.
Yeah.
It's an issue, I believe, and I think that there
's -- I'm going to look into how we can
request more information.
The same thing happened with the reserve funds.
We used to see the ins and outs, and that hasn't
been provided in a long time either.
So our tax rates are going up, up, up and what
the public gets to see is going down,
down, down.
Okay.
Thank you.
You're at time.
Looking for other speakers, for committee members
.
Okay.
I'm not seeing any, but I'll do Councillor Trozzo
then Councillor.
Just really briefly, and this is hard, but I have
to, I'm looking at, I'm looking at
the Municipal Act, section 224 that talks about
the role of Councillors.
And while I am not directing this as any
criticism towards anything that's on today's
agenda,
and I'm not directing this to criticisms of any
program or any member of civic administration,
but I think Councillor Stevenson is raising a
good point.
It's a broader point that I think, if not this
council, perhaps the next council is going
to have to look at in a little bit more detail,
because when we're told that the complexity
of the problem is too great to share because it
would be thousands and thousands of lines.
I don't think that's right.
I think we have to be given the opportunity to
see that level of detail.
I'm going to leave it there right now.
I'm certainly not going to raise this at council
or make any kind of amendment.
But we always have to go back to that section of
the Municipal Act to understand what our
special responsibilities are as a council.
And again, I mean, no criticism, no disrespect
of anything that the staff has put forward.
This is just a very conceptual item for the
future.
Thank you.
- Okay, thank you, Councilor Perma, go ahead.
- Thank you, I would like to start by making a
comment
and congratulations to the entire RBC place
for a great financial year last year.
We do have a request in front of us,
the how to deal with their operating surplus,
but I just wanna say that even though we are
going
through the very challenging times this
organization
actually recorded the highest revenue
during the history of this convention center.
So congratulations for that.
I do have a question.
And when I look at the surpluses last year
and this year last year financial management
was the highest $28.8 million not this year
or the amounts are not there.
And my question was when I look at this last year
financial
management due to delay in property reassessment
resulting
in lower appeals, of course, taxation, personal
contingency
savings.
My question is this.
In this list, and there are a few other ones,
there's no doubt that there have been changes.
We know interest rate has come down, et cetera.
But if you look at these items, aren't these
items still some
of them valid?
And I understand they are not $28.8 million.
but would they be in this list as well
with some solid amount?
- Mr. Murray.
- Thank you, three, Mr. Chair.
So I think what we saw last year
and what we had noted in fact,
as part of last year's results,
were a number of one-time kind of unusual amounts
that drove up last year's surplus.
You spoke specifically to the provision
for uncollectable taxes and tax appeals.
That was an example of a fairly significant
contributor
last year to the surplus in this area.
That was more so one time in nature.
It's not something that we would expect to see
and certainly not in that magnitude every year
and that certainly has played out this year as
well.
So some of those factors still can play in,
but I think last year there were some unusually
large
one-time surpluses that contributed to last year
's
overall surpluses.
- Follow-up, Councillor.
- Okay, thank you for that.
I will end the 2.8 by make a comment.
You know, the Council approved surpluses deficit
policy.
It was actually done even before our Council did
one.
I never agreed with.
I honestly believe that we should have it open
every year is totally different.
And I totally believe that we would still take
very seriously
the staff's recommendation.
I believe we are all very responsible
and therefore we wouldn't wanna jeopardize
the Moody's rating either.
But again, every year is different
and I think the council should have the ability
based on the needs which every year are different
.
We know how fast the world is changing
and we can anticipate even what's next week
that there should be a flexibility for the
councilors.
Thank you.
No more questions or comments?
- Okay, thank you, Councillor.
Looking for any questions or comments on 2.8.
Okay, not seeing any online.
We'll open this for voting.
closing the vote, motion carries five to one.
- Okay, we are on 2.9.
This is the 2025 year in capital budget
monitoring report,
looking for a mover and seconder.
Thank you, Councillor Frank, I'll second it.
Okay, that's on the floor, questions for 2.9.
Go ahead, Councillor Stevens.
- Yeah, thank you.
So on page 27, it talks about the 2025 debt level
in table eight.
And it says the total tax supported debt in,
As of the end of 2024, it was 118 million.
And at the end of 2025, it was 137 million
with authorized debt of 747 million
with a total potential of 884 million.
I just wondered if staff could talk more about
that
and the impacts that that's gonna have
on debt servicing levels and when those impacts
will start.
- Mr. Murray, go ahead.
- Thank you, three, Mr. Chair.
So yes, the table here in question shows the debt
levels
as of last year, what has been issued and retired
in 2025,
leaving a balance outstanding as of 2025.
It also shows the authorized debt as of 2025 as
well,
authorized debt being debt that has been approved
through the budget for capital projects.
That has not yet been issued but has been
approved
needs to be factored in and into our projections
in terms of debt levels and
debt servicing costs. So that when you add that
to what has actually been
issued reflects the what we call the total
potential debt that is outstanding.
This is consistent and in line with what we
reported as part of the 2026 budget
update back in the fall so in that debt section
of that budget we provided some
forecasts in terms of when we expect that debt to
be issued, as well as the resulting impact
on debt servicing costs out over the next 10-year
period, certainly based on the approvals,
the approved investments that Council has made at
this point through the multi-year
budget. And since then, we do expect debt to ramp
up over the years ahead, and we have
incorporated that in our projections and we do
update those projections every
year to kind of reflect where we are with
projects and how we anticipate them
trending and when we might get around to issuing
them that I will also mention
that we you know through our various financial
policies whether it be the
surplus deficit policy or the assessment growth
policy for example we have the
policy mechanisms in place that allow us to do
debt substitution, which is effectively
allowing us to chip away at that authorized but
unissued debt figure, basically avoiding
that authorized debt, avoiding having to issue it
and actually have it come to reality.
So that is the strategy we use to avoid having to
see this debt, this authorized debt materialized
and avoid those debt servicing costs into the
future.
So this is why we continue to advocate
for the importance of those debt substitution
policies
that we have in place that have successfully
allowed us to avoid, I believe it's a little bit
north of $100 million going back now to 2016.
Thank you.
- Great, thank you, follow up Council.
- Yeah, no thank you, that's helpful.
I guess I just see that ability to reduce the
debt
going forward decreasing as we change our
policies
as we have and start using the surplus for other
things
because we only have five million left this year.
The other thing I wondered is on page 101,
which is Appendix A, the Capital Budget Activity,
when it says budget adjustments in the last
column,
are those positive numbers increases to the
budget?
- Go ahead, Ms. Ray.
- Thank you, three, Mr. Chair.
Yes, those would be budget increases
where budget either has not existed before.
So, you know, for example, I would refer you
to source of financing number 25136,
which is the first one on the second page of that
table.
That's the replacement of STEAM services.
That's an example of one where there was no
budget
at that point in time for that initiative.
So a budget has been created to facilitate
that procurement in question.
Some of these others are examples where the
budget
in place has been insufficient
and additional budget has been added
to that capital project through
that associated source of financing.
- Paul Hope Councilor.
- Yeah, thank you very much.
Yeah, and I noticed like one of the first ones on
here,
two five zero zero two I think it's the east link
phase four twenty nine million
dollar budget with a budget increase of two
million I don't see any budget
decreases so with those show here are we only
reporting increases go ahead
story thank you through you mr. Chair so
typically this is what you see here
are the sources of financing that have been
awarded that facilitate the actual
award of tenders. Typically, what happens is we
're either within budget to award the
tender and there's no additional funding required
or there is an additional funding requirement
that is required in order to proceed. As it per
tains to budget reductions or releases,
this very report is in fact the mechanism to
reduce or release capital budgets as there
is surplus in those capital budgets. They get
released through the semi-annual capital
budget monitoring report.
>> Thank you, that's great, that's all for now.
>> Okay, looking to other committee members.
Not seeing any online, go ahead, Councillor Perot
.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff last year.
We had this column graph, which was forecasted
tax-supported debt levels.
It was this one, and I know this year I did not
find it,
and I found it really very useful last year.
And my question is, if it was omitted because it
's identically,
even though I don't believe it is identical,
but if it's not, will we be able to still receive
it
before the council?
Thank you.
- Go ahead, Mr. Mayor.
- Thank you, three Mr. Chair.
I'll refer you to the 2026 budget update document
,
which includes that graph.
It's the most recent iteration.
So if you go to the budget document that's
available
on our website, you'll find those very graphs
with the latest projections that we have.
- Thank you.
- Follow-up, Councilor.
- So thank you to the latest
and therefore most current ones, correct?
- That's correct.
- Okay, thank you for that.
And the second one's for the chair to the staff.
The capital source of financing
sank your diagram by classification.
When I compared it, it's identical last two years
.
Is it still valid that really with any changes,
it still will be very valid, identical to last
year?
Thank you.
- Go ahead, Mr. Mayor.
- Thank you.
Three, Mr. Chair.
I would say that this doesn't tend
to fluctuate very significantly.
This is kind of based on a longer term kind of
view.
And this is in fact based on the life-to-date
capital budget.
So this is the $4.4 billion of existing capital
projects.
So I would not expect it to change or to deviate
very quickly.
It tends to be fairly static, only changing as
each year more and more capital projects
are added to it.
But it would take a really significant kind of
deviation in a particular new capital project
to radically change this diagram.
- Follow-up, Councillor.
- Thank you, thank you for that answer.
And actually, I'll just go to the previous ones
because I'm quite sure it's gonna be faster for
you
than for me if you could please send me the link
to the column graph.
Thank you very much.
And more questions, no more comments?
- Great, thank you.
Looking for any other comments, questions?
Okay, not seeing any online.
We'll open this for voting.
- Opposing the vote.
Motion carries, six to zero.
- Okay, thank you, everyone.
We are now on to confidential items,
looking for a motion to go into closed session.
Councillor Frank, Councillor Mereberg, and great.
Thank you, and okay, thanks for voting.
- Opposed in the vote, motion carries, six to
zero.
- Okay, just give us a moment to move people
around.
Okay, we're back in public session.
We'll look to Councillor Frank to report out.
- Thank you, I'm pleased to report
that we made progress for the items
for which we went camera for.
- Thank you, looking for a motion to adjourn.
Councillor Frank, I'll second.
All those in favor of adjournment, any opposed?
- Motion carries.
- Thank you.