W. Steffler provided an overview on the service expansions, noting we will now go through item by item.
The Committee deliberated on the service expansions.
J. Erb noted that he had inadvertently voted in favor of the Downtown Waste Collection option during the previous item, but his intention was to vote no. The Clerks confirmed that the correction will be made.
The Committee requested clarification on the first Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) motion. R. Regier indicated that staff are committed to staging the hiring process to meet technical requirements. The expansion proposal included an approved 31.4 FTEs; however, due to the staging of the project and discussions with Council, only 18 positions have been recruited so far to align staffing levels with workload and reduce the budget. The remaining 13.4 FTEs will be hired next year as the program scales up. Theresa Mendler, Manager, Processing Centre, added that staffing adjustments are being made as necessary. The next batch of ASE cameras will not be live until September 2025, and staff will monitor the initial months of implementation before committing to additional hires. Staff have assured Council that the program will remain scalable. Of the 18 recruited staff, many provide cross-departmental support for the processing centre, administrative penalties, and other related teams. The processing centre and screening officer positions will remain permanent. The Committee inquired about costs, and M. Goetzke clarified that the ASE program still impacts the levy due to the associated operational expenses.
Regarding the Immigration Partnership Support Staff expansion, P. Sweeney noted that an application has been submitted to the federal government for funding to support new staff resources. If the application is not approved, the additional staff will not be hired.
Regarding the Accessibility/REDI Advisor, the Committee deliberated on the recommendation, emphasizing the need for this position. M. Goetzke explained that this recommendation is the result of a thorough administrative review. He noted that each area underwent careful evaluation, with reductions thoughtfully implemented and reviewed program by program. While some expansions are unrelated to FTEs, the overall reductions amounted to 30–40 percent. This recommendation is based on assessed community needs and the desired level of service. The Committee further discussed the details and responsibilities associated with this position.
Regarding the service expansion for Sunnyside Employee Wellness and Peer Support, the Committee raised questions about potential staff savings. P. Sweeney responded that the physical and mental workload for the staff team is significant, and this model is based on the approach used by paramedics. He noted that while overtime is not budgeted for, making it challenging to show a direct cost offset, the position is intended to help mitigate those costs.
Regarding the two licensing enforcement officers, P. Sweeney and R. Regier provided additional context. They explained that following the end of the pandemic, programming support was available to assist the business community in adjusting to challenges emerging from COVID-19. During this time, there was an escalation in chronic homelessness, which was the rationale for this funding. The Committee sought clarity on how these positions are being funded. P. Sweeney noted that there might be pending legislation soon and highlighted that the increase in homelessness has placed significant pressure on the enforcement team. Additionally, the team has had to rely on bylaw resources over the past few years, limiting their ability to address other priorities. William Short, Director, Council and Administrative Services/Regional Clerk, clarified that the positions are to remain contract-based, with the intention of extending their contracts. Tom Hudacin, Manager, Licensing and Enforcement Services, provided further clarification regarding the roles. C. James proposed an amendment to the motion, recommending that the extended positions be approved only for 2025, with funding sourced from the Tax Rate Stabilization Fund. The amendment carried.
The Committee further deliberated on each expansion before them.
C. Wilson responded to questions regarding the employment program pilot. He addressed inquiries about where reductions have been made compared to the previous year and noted that once something is included in the levy, it remains until it is explicitly removed. C. Wilson explained that the base budget amendments account for the expiration of temporary contracts. When the budget is created, the associated costs and FTEs for temporary positions are removed. He emphasized that the process involves numerous complex adjustments and clarified that this motion represents an expansion and would not be included in the budget unless explicitly approved. As of March, this program will no longer be considered in the 2025 budget unless this motion is moved.
J. Rose addressed the 18 temporary positions for waste collection. Jon Arsenault, Director, Waste Management, clarified that the unallocated budget surplus is currently being used to fund these positions. If any surplus remains, it will be applied to the bottom line. J. Rose further noted that a report detailing the communications plan and rollout of the cart collection program will be brought to Council in Q1. The Committee discussed deferring the matter until February 2025, pending a report with additional information
The Committee inquired about the motions and deliberated on whether to vote on them individually or as a batch. They also discussed the growing population, strategies to meet the demands of the community, and the importance of planning for the future.
C. Wilson provided an update on the current budget position, noting that, considering all the discussed expansions, it stands at 9.79%.