- Anyone speaking?
- Maybe.
- Good afternoon, everyone.
Call the 11th meeting of the infrastructure
and corporate services community to order.
Please check the city website
for additional meeting detail information.
City of London is situated on the traditional
lands
of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee,
Leno Wampak, and Adwondron.
We honor and respect the history languages and
culture
that diverse indigenous people
who call this territory home.
City of London is currently home to many first
nations,
Métis, and anywhere 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 all members of committee,
either present or online, and Councillor Pribble
is also joining us.
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@london.ca or 519-661-2489,
extension 2425.
And we'll look for disclosures of peculiar
interests.
Not seeing any.
On consent, we have had request for items 2.3, 2.
4, 2.7,
and 2.10 to be pulled.
So I would look for a motion for the other items.
Okay, Councillor Frank and Councillor Birmingham,
thank you.
Okay, so 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8,
and 2.9 are on the floor, and looking for
speakers.
Okay, looking for any committee members first?
Okay, not seeing any, go ahead, Councillor Perv
all.
- Sure, Mr. Chair, I'm online.
I do have my hand up.
- Oh, sorry.
Go ahead, Councillor Plaza.
- Sorry, thank you.
That's okay.
And Jerry and I, Councillor Perboon,
I might be speaking to a few of the same items
as we were all copied on an email
that I know Kayleigh's addressed.
In regards to item 2.2 on page 15
for the provincial government,
looking up for the new landfill operating
committee,
looking to see what the timelines would be on
this from staff.
- Yes, staff.
Ms. J. Morris.
- Thank you and through the chair.
The new land cooperating committee
is currently under review with the Ministry of
Environment
as it involves part of our larger indigenous
community's communication plan.
So we're waiting to hear back for approval from
that.
And once that approval is received,
then we would go forth and canvas the related
indigenous
communities if they'd like to form and join a
committee.
- Follow up council.
- Okay, so it just, it does the fluid timeline.
Then it could be a few months,
could be whenever the province does that approval
.
is my understanding from those comments made by
Ms. Chambers.
- Thank you to the chair and yes,
that is we are waiting on them at this point, yes
.
- Okay follow up Council.
- On that one, I appreciate that of just waiting
on the province before we go out and do the
engagement
to see who may be interested in that capacity.
In regards to I am 2.5 being the equipment rental
and operators for W-12A.
Looking at the tenders, just looking to staff,
I realize that we're,
the recommendation is the one that we currently
use.
just any comments on the one being essentially
half the cost of the other
tenders that we're looking at going with. Thank
you through the chair. For sure
we've been in touch with JBL construction who is
doing the current
operations and they're confident that they can
deliver the same service for
that price. Being the incumbent they do have
already a lot of investment in the
equipment and kind of having that advantage of
being already set up shop.
So we're comfortable and confident that they're
still be delivering for that
- Excellent price, go ahead, Chancellor.
- Thank you.
And just one further overview,
realizing Councilor Pillow might touch
on some things as well,
had heard from the chair of the PLC at the landf
ills.
A few of these reports do relate to landfill
things,
but we're not a public notice distribution.
If staff could just comment
that they will forward those reports
just to the chair for their concern,
I know Council motion won't be required,
but just if they're watching that,
they'll know that they can get a copy.
these reports coming through them,
and they can distribute them as they see fit.
- Go ahead, Sam.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, we can, in addition to sending the links
to these specific reports, we can also in future,
make sure that the Chair is apprised of reports
coming forward to committee if they relate to W12
A,
and we'll add that to our procedures.
- Any other comments, Councillor?
- No, I appreciate that.
Realising our current Chair of the PLC
is more tech-savvy than some we've had in the
past,
and it just helps with the flow of information,
so I greatly appreciate that.
and that concludes my questions, thank you.
- Thank you, go ahead Councillor Pribble.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff.
I do have a couple of follow-up questions
on the 2.1 regarding the review of the vehicle
speeds.
And the question is, do we consider
when we do these studies intensifying these
issues
for such that the roads are narrow, there are no
sidewalks,
there is no, there are no barriers between the
street
and also the pedestrians, the citizens.
- Mr. McCrady, do you give that one?
Go ahead.
- Yes, certainly through the chair,
the studies were done in response to the concerns
identified by the property owners.
So it was focused on measuring speeds
and comparing to speed limits.
- Hello, Councillor.
- Okay, so thank you very much,
measuring on the speeds.
But the question is, in this study,
does it include or in any of the studies,
do we include such things as the narrowness of
the road?
no sidewalks, no nothing between the street and
pedestrian. So it's kind of more dangerous
and what the residents are trying to say, it
intensifies the issues with the speed limit.
So is this being considered or in some cases or
in this case? Go ahead, Mr. McCray.
Through the chair, yes, certainly when we study
streets, traffic operations,
all road users and adjacent land uses are taken
into consideration when when the results are
processed and considered. All up, Councillor.
Okay, thank you for that answer. In terms of
the demand drive, no truck should be allowed on
the street, no entrances and no exits. This road
was not designed for such traffic. It was not
properly paid to take on all this traffic. The
truck should be taking Wellington and not cutting
through their subdivisions. Can I please receive
give a feedback on the statement from the
residents.
- Go ahead, Mr. McRae here, Mr. Chambers.
- Through the chair, the identified operating
routes
to the landfill, identify the Wonderland Road
and Wellington Road and Manning Drive.
So not directing trucks onto Dingman Drive.
So that is certainly accounted for.
And then with respect to the overall nature
of the road network, Dingman Drive is classified
a rural thoroughfare, so it's a higher
classification than the other rural roads. And in
general
for all rural roads, according to the official
plan, the priority is on through movement
of vehicles, farm equipment, freight, and goods.
So although we try to limit truck traffic
along Dingman, some is to be expected, just given
the nature of the function of the road
within the network.
- Follow-up, Councillor?
- Thank you, so just last follow-up.
So the big heavy trucks that are driving through
are they legally allowed to drive along Dingman?
The trucks, I'm not talking about the farm
equipment, et cetera.
The specific trucks, are they allowed to drive on
Dingman?
- Go ahead, just through the chair.
Yes, there is, I mean, aside from Highway Traffic
Act rules,
they are permitted to use the road.
- Follow-up, Councillor?
- Thank you, no more questions.
- Okay, thank you.
I did have a question in terms of 2.6.
Just for awareness, 'cause I have a few people
look at this
and say, oh, these are the only new traffic
signals
or pedestrian signals in terms of how we
prioritize,
but then also if there are other opportunities
in terms of these happening outside of this list.
Look to staff for that one.
- Through the chair, this report is sort of the
final step
in the process of the city evaluating requests
and our regular monitoring of the traffic signal
network
for new additions, new additions of signals,
pedestrian signals and pedestrian crossovers.
So we are certainly happy to take requests
through the service London portal.
And those are processed by staff and if deemed
warranted,
they would end up in a future report.
This is an annual process for implementation.
Okay. Thank you. And then just to confirm, this
is just for new for ones that are approved,
but still in the works, they would not show up on
this list, correct?
Through the, Mr. Chair, yes, that is correct.
Locations that were approved in previous years,
reports that are, you know, still in the design
process or just starting construction, yes, that
those are still in progress and don't need to
be, you know, that their approval is intact. Okay
, thank you. And looking for other questions,
go ahead Councillor. Thank you. I forget once
through the chair to the staff 2.9 the
expropriation of the lands. I have a question on
the 3.0 financial implications. It states
there's a budget available for Western road and
starting our own Philippines. Unless I missed
it in the report, I don't see there. The question
is where is it available this budget?
Mr. McRae. Yeah, through the chair. The purpose
of this report is for the purposes of the
property
acquisition and expropriation process. So there's
no financial commitment being requested here.
The comment is in relation to the project being a
funded one and the project financials are shown
in the overall budget wrap-up documents. Follow-
up, Councillor? Okay, thank you. Okay, looking for
any other comments or questions in the items
before us. Okay, not seeing any and just for a
reminder this is for 2.1, 2.2, 0.5, 2.6, 2.8, and
2.9. So open the vote on those.
Councillor Palosa votes yes, might you describe
it as malfunctioning?
I'm having trouble with mine too, I vote yes.
Yeah, it's just a bit slow right now, I've just
given this.
Councillor Frank votes yes as well.
Councillor Vermeer Wriggen.
It just came up, yeah.
Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero.
Okay, we have no scheduled items.
Items for direction, so on to deferred matters,
which are the ones that we moved from consent.
We will go in order on those.
So 2.3, can I look for a mover and a seconder for
that?
Councillor Frank, okay, I'll second that.
So 2.3, looking for questions or comments?
I'm not seeing any.
We'll open the vote on 2.3.
So Councillor Steeves and you're able to vote
correctly.
Let's hold on.
- Closing the vote, motion carries four to one.
- Okay, thank you.
We are onto 2.4, looking for a mover and a second
er on that.
Okay, Councillor Frank, I'll second that.
2.4 is on the floor.
Looking for questions or comments.
Okay, not seeing any.
We'll open the vote on 2.4.
- Closing the vote, motion carries through to two
.
- We're on 2.7, looking for we were seconder on
this one.
Councillor Frank, I will second that.
2.7 is on the (mumbles) comments.
Go ahead, Councillor Stinson.
- Thank you.
I asked a similar question last time.
I'm just looking to understand,
given the value of these contracts,
when we continue to use the same consultant
and just ask for them to send in a submission,
Is there a change in procurement policy
that's allowed this or is this been an ongoing
practice?
- Remlin, go ahead.
- Thank you, through the chair.
So this has been an ongoing practice.
So that this was allowed under the previous
policy
and under this policy.
So it is a limited tender
because it is basically an extension of the
services.
So when we have an engineer perform the onsite
inspection,
it's best under engineering practice
to have the firm that did the design work,
also ensure that it's built to match the design.
If we were to have a separate consultant come in,
they would then have to perform basically a peer
review
on the design in order to then take
responsibility for it
to perform the inspection work.
So that's why it's to the city's financial
advantage
and to rate payer's advantage as well,
to have the same consultant
to do the contract administration inside
inspection
as did the design.
to follow up, Councillor.
- Thanks, I appreciate that.
So is it safe to say that it never goes out
to tender these then?
It's always just offered to the existing
consultants.
- Go ahead, Ms. Marilyn.
- Thank you, through the chair.
They are subject to a competitive process at the
outset.
So when the design work is sent out for proposal,
that is a competitive process.
So these were originally awarded that way.
And then at some, for some projects,
We actually award the construction administration
work
with the original project or with the original
design work.
Other projects, we don't,
because there may be some question about the
scope,
the timelines, et cetera.
And so it makes sense to get the additional price
later on.
But because of the total dollar value,
that does mean that it comes before committee
and council for transparency.
- All of councilor?
- No, I think that's good.
It is just the amount, it's close to half a
million dollars.
So just double checking.
- Thanks.
- Okay, looking for any other questions, comments
?
Okay, not seeing any, we'll open 2.7 for vote.
- Opposed in the vote, motion carries five to
zero.
- We are on 2.10, looking for a mover,
seconder for this, Councillor Frank,
and I will second that.
Oh, Councillor Pelosi, I saw your hand.
Okay, your seconder on that one.
Okay, and looking for questions or comments.
Okay, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
- Thanks, yes, I did send in some questions
and thanks to staff for getting back to me on
these.
I'm just wondering a whole bunch of questions
around this report.
We have $1.7, $1.8 billion here in the investment
portfolio.
And I noticed if I go back to 2022,
there was a Canada CPI graph.
Just wondering why that's not included this time.
- All right, Mr. Collins, what do you, go ahead.
- Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So we are constantly assessing what we think
is the right information in telling
and giving a picture of what is driving the
financial markets
and what is driving our investment portfolio
returns.
So from year to year, we may adjust or present
something
slightly differently.
That kind of helps to indicate what
the drivers of our investment portfolio
performance was.
For example, we've provided information
as it relates to, for example, bond yields
and yield curves that kind of help to illustrate
kind of some of the relevant information
that effectively tells the story for this year.
So the information or the graphs that we include
in kind of the narrative of the report may shift
slightly from year to year, but generally it's
about
trying to explain kind of what drives
our performance each year.
Follow up, Councillor?
- Yeah, thanks.
I noticed the other graphs are all the same.
it's just that one is missing.
Same as the appendix last or in 2022 at least.
The cash and cash equivalents were included
and this time they're not in appendix A,
so just wondering why the change in presentation.
- Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
Thank you, three, Mr. Chair.
So this report has evolved to be specific
to our investment portfolio, specifically our
investments
and not our cash.
And really kind of the genesis of that
was the implementation of new financial
instruments
reporting and accounting standards
that came into effect a couple years ago
that really drew that distinction
between cash and cash equivalents
and investments portfolio investments.
So this report is focused on portfolio
investments.
Follow up, Councilor?
- Yeah, thanks.
That actually makes sense to me
given the way it's presented on here.
So thank you for that.
The other question I have is I was looking up
what other cities do and there was an interesting
report that talked about whether a city did
standardized reporting, enhanced reporting.
Has the city looked at possibly doing more
enhanced reporting for the portfolios?
I noticed that other cities provide the details
of all the investments that are, you know,
and given the amount of it, the 1.8 billion.
Go ahead, Mr. Roy.
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Chair.
Of course, we're very much interested in
continuous improvement, and if there's
opportunities
to enhance the information that we're reporting
on, we're certainly open to considering that.
I think we provide a pretty good snapshot of our
investment portfolio and performance
through this annual report.
It aligns with our legislative requirements, it
aligns with our investment policy.
I think the important thing to note as well is
that our investment portfolio is not small
uh, in terms of number of investment securities.
Uh, as noted in the report, we have north of, uh,
180 different, uh, investment, uh, securities in
our portfolio. So it is a fairly, uh,
sizable portfolio and in terms of, uh, number of
securities. So, uh, you know, a pretty, a pretty
good number, uh, to, to, uh, report on should, uh
, we include that level of detail. So, you know,
having said that, we're, we're always open to
opportunities for improvement. And if there is,
specific things that Council wants to direct us
to include in the future. We're
happy to receive that direction but otherwise
happy to continue reviewing
what others are doing as well and considering
whether we can incorporate
additional relevant information as well into our
report. Follow up, Councilor?
Yes, thank you and through the chair. Yeah, I
think I'm gonna work on this, I'll
reach out to staff and some of my colleagues
between now and Council because
it's the same thing as the multi-year budget. If
we have 180 different
investment securities, and we're managing 1.8
billion of taxpayer money to have one line,
or two lines, be nice if there was just something
in between those two. I also, in best practices,
there was reference to some cities choosing the
prudent investor program. Is that something
that staff have looked into? Go ahead, Mr. Ray.
Thank you, through you. So, yes, we have reviewed
the prudent investor program. We continue to
monitor developments in that area. It is
a relatively new option that has been introduced
in the last few years to Ontario municipalities.
I think there's a couple important things to note
though that go along with the prudent
investment regime. One of them being that council
would give up some measure of control over the
investment function to an external investment
board. So that's, you know, I think one big
consideration that if we were to ever move in
that direction would need to be
considered carefully. The other I think important
thing to note as well is that
the designation to opt into that prudent
investment regime is irrevocable. So
once you're in you can't opt back out. So we
haven't we haven't gone in that
direction to date. Our new kind of in-sourced
investment management function
is only a couple years old at this point, but if
we down the road assess that we're not
able to kind of adequately meet our broad
investment objectives through our current model
and our
legal list framework that we currently utilize,
and then it's possible that we may bring
a recommendation in the future to counsel to
consider the prudent investment regime. But again
,
it's something that is not without implications,
and we'll keep looking at the developments in
in that space in the years ahead.
- Follow up, Councilor?
- Thanks, yeah, just a couple more questions.
When I go back to 2022, again,
it talks about percentage of the portfolio
externally
versus internally managed.
I don't see that here.
Is it all internally managed now?
- Go ahead, Mr. Mayor.
- Through you, Mr. Chair, yes, we have,
we have in sourced the investment management
function
at this point.
So the only component that is externally managed,
if you will, is the equity component of our
portfolio.
That is through the One Fund program
that is offered through subsidiary of AMO.
And it is the only means of us being able to get
exposure
to equities in our portfolio.
So that is something that we cannot implement
internally
ourselves if we are not in the prudent investor
program
and therefore that is the one remaining
kind of externally managed components.
Follow up, sir?
- Yeah, just a couple more.
So when I look to, since 2022 to now,
the investment portfolio looks like it's up
about $300 million, is that budgeted?
Do we know where we were expecting to be at this
point?
- Go ahead, Mr. Ray.
- So I think we need to kind of differentiate
here
between the component of our investment portfolio
is operating related versus those that relate
to reserves and reserve funds.
So operating investments or investments of
operating funds,
that investment income forms part of the property
tax budget
and that money offsets funds that would otherwise
need to be collected through property taxes
or through some other source of funding.
So that's the one component, the other component
And certainly the majority component is
investments on reserve funds, and that is not
budgeted,
but is included in the forecast and the
projections in our reserve fund schedules, in our
reserve
fund forecasts in the budget document.
So that is kind of the two components of it.
Ultimately, on the reserve fund piece, if we
exceed our targets for investment income
on reserve funds. That brings us closer to
achieving the target balances on those reserve
funds that
we articulated back last month, in fact, in our
reserve fund monitoring report. It also helps
fulfill our capital plan requirements. So if we
exceed our projections for investment income on
reserve funds, that allows us to then look at the
contributions that may be going into the reserve
funds and adjust them accordingly as part of the
next budget development cycle.
Follow up, Councillor?
Thank you.
That's what I was hoping was that there might be
some cost savings for the taxpayer.
So did I miss a report that showed whether we
were exceeding in terms of our investment
income on reserve funds or not?
Go ahead, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, through you, Chair.
So we don't report out specifically on the
investment income component, but more broadly
on how the balances of our reserve funds are
progressing towards their target balances.
So it's part of the reserve fund monitoring, and
I was keeping a report that we bring
forward annually.
Follow-up, Council?
Yeah, thanks.
I'll follow up on that one a little bit more
offline.
So when I look at 2025, the investment income was
approximately $112 million.
In 2022, the report showed it was $36 million.
And then the operating fund investments, it's 0.5
million this year, but it was 11 million
back then.
So I know things change, but if we're looking at
it as a huge swing in both ways, anything
that staff can share about that?
Mr. Ryan.
Thank you and through you.
So the one thing I will point to that comes to
mind, you know, very specifically is going
back to the previous question around the change
in the focus of this report.
what you would have been seeing in 2022 would
have been inclusive of not only investment
income but also earnings on cash in our bank.
This and I believe the chart that you're
referring
to is specifically related to investment earnings
in this portfolio investment report. So that
is the one big component that I can that I can
refer you to. I mean of course our investments
are
all subject to market returns and market
conditions and certainly interest rate
environments now
are very different have been very different in
the last couple years than they were say back in
2020-2021 and 2022 where interest rates were much
much lower so we would naturally expect higher
investment earnings just because of the very
different interest rate environment we're now in.
follow-up council. Okay, thanks. The other thing
I looked at was, you know, given the amount of
the reserve or the investment portfolio, when I
look at other cities as a comparison of the
amount that's in their investment portfolio
versus their annual budget, ours seems to be
significantly higher. Like a couple of the cities
are 50 percent or one is 85 percent,
one's 30 percent. We're 125 percent. Is that
something that staff look at? Do we know sort of
of are we in line with where we should be or is
that even a relative statistic?
Go ahead, Mr. Ray.
Thank you, through you.
So going back to my previous response, I think it
's important to note that the majority
of our investment portfolio relates to reserve
funds.
So I'll refer to Appendix A in the report.
I think about 95% of our investments are related
to reserve funds rather than operating
funds.
I think what I would say in relation to other
municipalities is I suspect they have very
different reserve funds for very different
purposes.
They no doubt have very different reserve fund
levels that they're comfortable with
and targeting to have.
So I think that is likely to be a contributing
factor as well.
I suspect other municipalities, I don't know what
they are including or excluding as well
in their investment income reporting, others may
have, you know, different approaches to
investing or not, for example, some
municipalities may choose to simply leave a
greater portion
of their financial resources in the bank and not
invest it in the same way that we do.
So that may lead to differences in terms of our
investment portfolio relative to others.
So it's really difficult, I think, comparison to
do on the basis of operating budgets because
there are a lot of different factors that could
play into why those differences might
exist.
Follow up, Heather?
No, fair enough.
I'll just make a comment that I appreciate that
this is what is required and that there's
nothing wrong with the report that's been given
to us, but I'm going to vote no to receiving
it for the same reason I did with the multi-year
budget and the strategic plan and that kind
thing is I just don't feel that it's adequate
reporting to the public to have
two lines for 1.8 billion so I'm going to be
voting no and then I'll look to see
if there's a motion or support on council to do a
more enhanced reporting
as some other municipalities are doing especially
when there's a lot of talk
about that right now and a lot of desire from the
public. Okay if any other
questions comments not seeing any we'll open the
vote on 2.10. Wasn't the vote
motion carries 4-1. Okay thank you we are on to
confidential matters I look
for a motion to go into closed session. Okay Coun
cillor Frank, Councillor
Mirberg and thank you and we'll open the vote on
that.
Motion to vote motion carries 5-0. Okay we're
back into public session I'll
look to Councillor Frank to report out from
closed session. Thank you I'm
pleased to announce that progress is made for the
items for which we went in
camera for. Thank you and I look for a motion to
adjourn. Councillor Ben Mirberg
Councillor Frank, all those in favor? Any opposed
? Motion carries. Thank you everyone have a good
day.