With millions of dollars set to be invested in supporting the city's most vulnerable through housing initiatives to address homelessness, the City of London's multi-year budget got a stamp of approval Monday night.

It will result in an average tax increase of 3.9 per cent over the next four years.

However, that number doesn't represent the tax burden for the average homeowner. Because commercial and multi-residential taxpayers pay a higher percentage of the tax hike, homeowners will likely be faced with an increase closer to 2.6 per cent this year.

Mayor Ed Holder was one of the first to praise the city's future investments.

"We're doing this for our most vulnerable, we're doing this for people who are looking for jobs and opportunities, transportation to get them there," he said. "I think this council can hold its head up high," he added.

"I'm so proud of London right now," said Ward 8 Coun. Steve Lehman. "London spoke with a clear voice and said 'what's happening right now on our streets is not acceptable.'"

"I understand tax concerns are there, but from what I heard from my constituents, it was London speaking," he added, referring to the more than $50 million that will be spent on social services, including housing and more support for the homeless.

But others, such as Ward 6 Coun. Phil Squire, were not in favour of this budget.

"What guides me is what I think is a reasonable tax rate for the citizens of London, the people that I represent, the people that are tying to find homes, apartments, affordable housing and, unfortunately, I can't say this is a budget that furthers those particular areas," he said, adding that he's not happy with the increases commercial and multi-residential taxpayers will see.

Coun. Michael van Holst and Van Meerbergen also voted against the budget.

In the spring, council will set its tax ratios, which will determine exactly how the 3.9 per cent tax hike will be split among the different property classes, including residential, commercial and industrial taxpayers.

Regulations for short-term rental accommodations get the green light

If the revised bylaws are approved, licensing short-term rentals may also allow the city to charge the same four per cent municipal accommodations tax that they do on every hotel stay. (Martin Bureau/Getty Images)

Politicians are moving ahead with the regulation of short-term rental accommodations, such as an Airbnb.

Councillors voted unanimously to have staff create revised draft bylaws in an effort to ensure public safety and curb noise and traffic complaints at short-term rentals.

"I'm very supportive of this moving forward given the concerns I hear in my ward," said Ward 9 Coun. Anna Hopkins.

A city report says that in 2019 short-term rentals were used 57,000 times, providing Airbnb hosts alone with $7.7 million in earnings.

A report by staff says recommendations could include requiring people operating the rentals to have a business licence, limiting the number of guests at the rentals to avoid them from becoming "party houses", and requiring operators to provide a local contact in the case of any complaints.

Politicians will still have to approve the new rules following a public participation meeting.

If approved, licensing short-term rentals may also allow the city to charge the same four per cent municipal accommodations tax that is imposed on every hotel stay.

Conestoga Huts project rejected

Conestoga Huts at the Overnight Sleeping Center in Walla Walla, Washington. (Community Supported Shelters)

Council shot down a Conestoga Huts pilot, which would consist of setting up micro-structures that resemble a covered wagon to house people who don't have a place to live.

The project, pitched by Coun. van Holst as a transitional housing solution, would have providided people sleeping rough with a small structure that has a locking front door and room for a bed and storage inside.

Before the vote, Ward 5 Coun. Maureen Cassidy questioned this type of approach to the housing issue in the city.

"We shouldn't accept that people would be living in huts like these without access to water, electricity or sanitation," she said." I think it is further stigmatizing homeless people."

"We need to seek permanent solutions for this and I really don't think this is the way to go, and when we have limited resources, I think any dollar spent that is not spent on permanent solutions with supports is wasted money," she added.

Van Holst said he did not consider this as an alternative solution to housing.

"I see it at is an alternative to sleeping on the street in front of a business ... I see this as transitional housing, which we don't have," he said.

In the end the motion to have staff draft a report regarding a pilot project was lost on a 10-5 vote with only councillors van Holst, Van Meerbergen, Hillier, Lewis and Peloza voting in favour.

Politicians voted against looking into fire cost recovery program

Politicians also decided to halt any further investigation into a fire cost recovery program for the city.

During the last community and protective services committee, councillor Elizabeth Peloza brought forward a motion to have staff draft a report on the program which would have had the city hire a third party collector who would bill a homeowner's insurance each time firefighters attended their house for a fire.

Peloza saw the program as an opportunity to recover money — already part of a homeowner's insurance policy —that would go back into the fire department's budget.

Many councillors expressed their hesitancy to support the motion, fearing that recovering the funds would drive up insurance premiums.