It was time to take a careful look at public spending today, as councillors quizzed city staff closely, demanding value for money or suggesting cutbacks over and over. While groundhog-botherers engaged in vapid nonsense elsewhere, at sensible City Hall it was all about fiscal responsibility. Awesome! Everybody loves getting that bang for your buck, right?
Right! And… wait, London City Hall? Where two months ago they agreed a 3.4% property tax increase, per this CTV News report? Part of a series of the biggest property tax hikes in, well, forever? You should just be feeling that kick in now - I noticed it came off my bank account on Friday.
A conversation about fiscal responsibility is all well and good, and let’s add some context related to property tax increases:
2024: 8.7%
2025: 7.3%
2026 (present point in the dystopian timeline): 3.4%
2027 (as planned in multi-year budget): 4.7%
Can you spot which year is the election year? Clue: it’s the one with the smallest number. Well then.
“That’s what the public has been saying to me.”
Let’s set this up properly. Council members were there for the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee, and you can find the full agenda here. It was a pretty short one, of six items, and two went through smoothly. The other four were… subject to some scrutiny.
And when Stevenson said: “That’s what the public has been saying to me” it was an important moment. It was in reference to consultants’ reports in which she sees little value, and a clear indication of intent going into an election: the Ward 4 councillor is preparing a campaign with some cost-of-living, small government messaging.
This may come as no surprise, given her well-publicised ambitions to become a federal Conservative MP, and, to be fair, her active involvement in controlling tax hikes. She also voted against that pay raise for councillors. But the intensity was worth noting today - Stevenson arrived on a mission to question things, and she did, referring to sundry costs as “all these little things”, undermining them all neatly.
Here’s what vexed her:
Tourism grants
First, in the discussion about the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund, Stevenson wanted better reporting of the smaller payouts it makes, and successfully led an effort to create a new staff report with more information. It’ll go to councillors annually, so it’s unclear if she’ll even see it, but she got it.
Then she had concerns about $1.6 million debt servicing costs, and staff had to explain those were for the extension to Canada Life Place, and the revenue can be expected to rise as a result of the investment.
And that was just the first item.
Energy audits
This one went on for a while, and the gist is $385,000 to be spent on feasibility studies into reducing emissions at nine community facilities ($200,000 comes from elsewhere and the City pays the rest) and, if you like, there’s a pretty good summary in the staff report (item 2.2 here).
EDITED to add full list: 1. Dearness Home 2. Fire Hall 09 3. Tourism London 4. Stronach Arena 5. Canada Games Aquatic Center 6. City Hall 7. Carling Heights Optimist Community Center 8. Museum London 9. Exeter Road Operations Centre
Politically, Stevenson had a statement to make. This was where her quote came in - she said people want her to resist paying for reports that “remain in drawers”, claiming they are not well-used. City staff, and Councillor Skylar Franke, talked about the value of investing the money to save costs later, and Stevenson stuck to her point, but did eventually support the item.
Sunningdale Road pipeline
This item also went through, and will be the subject of a CTV report I’ll share later. Basically, taxpayers seem to be on the hook for $7 million for work on an oil pipeline but will likely get much of the cost back. And Rahman repeatedly made the point that the city is “negotiating with a giant”.
And Stevenson had questions about the costs for the taxpayer.
Smart commute program
By the time we made it to the last item, everybody was joining in. Stevenson again led the charge for value-for-money, but others agreed this one was problematic, including committee chair Councillor Corinne Rahman. Let’s break for a piccie:
…because Councillor Shawn Lewis, not a committee member, also had something to say. He pointed out that 22 participants out of 28,000 city staff isn’t fantastic, and everybody agreed. They voted to kill it, effectively, as poor use of money.
From Groundhog Day to Labour Day
Of course, it’s not really about this cost or that cost. It’s about the unignorable fact that we’re all paying more than ever for municipal services and quite a lot of people are unhappy about it. Susan Stevenson’s re-election strategy is clear; I think we can expect a few rebel incumbents to pop up and say “a big kid did it and ran away” in the debates and doorstep chats coming this fall. These are all people who were in the room when decisions were made, and should be held to account.
What will you accept, as a voter? I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you make a good decision, based on facts and a good understanding of the issues.
I think I can help with that. Stick with me.
Meeting reports - freshly baked by a bot
Here’s some basic reporting from agenda items as they came up. All items go to the next Full Council meeting, which is on February 10 (next Tuesday).
Always open to corrections on these. My GPT, City Hall Editorial Assistant, generated them from meeting papers and info I gave it, live in the meeting.
Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee
City of London
Feb. 2, 2026 | 1:00 p.m.
Councillors demand annual reporting on all tourism reserve fund payouts
The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee voted unanimously to require annual reporting on certain Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund expenditures.
The committee considered a staff report on the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund. During discussion, Councillor Susan Stevenson questioned why payouts under $100,000 were not included in the report. City staff said $100,000 is the threshold for items brought forward to Council.
Stevenson said Council oversight of the fund could be improved and that information on reserve fund draws should be publicly accessible. She called for annual reporting on smaller payouts.
Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen supported the proposal and offered to second an amendment. Councillor Skylar Franke asked staff whether such reporting would be a significant undertaking. Staff responded that it would not, citing limited activity in the fund.
The committee voted 5–0 to approve a motion directing Corporate Administration to report annually to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund draws under $100,000.
The motion was moved by Stevenson and seconded by Van Meerbergen. Councillors Jerry Pribil and Hadleigh McAlister, voted in favour, along with Franke, Stevenson and Van Meerbergen.
Stevenson also raised concerns about debt servicing costs associated with the fund, noting they effectively cancel out income. Staff said the costs relate to the Canada Life Expansion Project, included in the current multi-year budget, and involve a $1.6 million annual commitment against the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund. Staff said increased revenue is expected following completion of the renovation.
Committee unanimously advances environmental study grant, despite concerns
The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee voted unanimously to advance a Green Municipal Fund grant agreement supporting environmental feasibility studies at nine City facilities.
The committee considered a staff report recommending approval of a grant agreement with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities under the Green Municipal Fund’s Community Building Retrofit program. The agreement would provide up to $200,000 toward feasibility and energy studies, with the City contributing the remaining costs within the existing adopted budget. Staff said the study would not proceed without City participation and described the work as part of life cycle renewal planning for municipal assets.
Councillor Susan Stevenson raised concerns about overall spending pressures on taxpayers and said she was reluctant to support expenditures for studies that may not be acted upon. She said the public has expressed frustration about reports that “remain in drawers” and emphasized the importance of openness, disclosure, and follow-through.
Councillor Skylar Franke supported the funding, describing it as a modest investment with potential long-term benefits, including lower operating costs at City facilities. He said staff analysis is necessary to ensure council can make informed decisions on technical material.
The committee approved the main motion unanimously, recommending that Council approve the Green Municipal Fund grant agreement and related by-law at its Feb. 10 meeting.
ENDS ENDS
Thank you for these updates. This fills a gap in coverage left by Megan Stacey's old Twitter account, but with great background, good links and delightful language like "vexed."
Thanks for this, Mike. It's been a long time since we've had a much-needed voice such as yours reporting on City Council activity. Much appreciated!