The last full year of records before voters decide who represents them
As London, Ontario approaches its fall 2026 civic election, the final expense accounting of the current council term has entered the public record — a quiet but consequential moment in democratic life. Fourteen elected officials, entrusted with public funds and public trust, have left behind a financial trail that speaks to their differing philosophies of the role. In the space between the councillor who attends national conferences and the one who charges almost nothing, a community is invited to ask what representation truly costs — and what it should.
- Eleven of fourteen councillors drew more than $10,000 from a $13,500 annual allowance, revealing how fully most members lean into the financial infrastructure of the job.
- Ward 4's Susan Stevenson topped all spending at nearly $21,000 when conference travel and board work are factored in — a figure that dwarfs the base allowance and reflects the layered cost of outside appointments.
- Council itself voted to trim the allowance from $15,000 to $13,500, acknowledging that the old ceiling was rarely tested — a self-imposed restraint that nudged overall spending downward from 2024.
- At the other extreme, Ward 10's Van Meerbergen and Ward 14's Hillier have posted near-zero expenses across the entire term, a pattern that invites questions about what minimal spending signals — thrift, disengagement, or a fundamentally different vision of the councillor's role.
- Released months before voters return to the polls, this report hands the public a rare, concrete measure of how their representatives have operated — and what kind of council they want next.
London's city council has released its 2025 expense report — the last full accounting before residents vote this fall on who will represent them in the next term. The timing gives the numbers unusual weight: they are both a record of the past and a piece of evidence for the future.
Council voted during the recent budget cycle to lower its own annual expense allowance from $15,000 to $13,500, reasoning that most members were spending well below the old limit. The move likely contributed to a modest dip in overall spending compared to the previous year. The allowance itself covers the routine costs of the job — office supplies, community events, professional development, and mileage — but several categories sit outside that cap entirely, including ward mail-outs and travel tied to external board appointments.
Ward 4's Susan Stevenson led all councillors with a total of $20,975, a figure that includes a trip to the Canadian Association of Police Governance conference in Victoria and travel costs for her work with the Middlesex-London EMS authority. Ward 9's Anna Hopkins followed at just under $19,000, with nearly $5,000 attributed to Association of Municipalities of Ontario board and conference work. Within the general allowance alone, eleven of fourteen councillors exceeded $10,000, with Ward 13's David Ferreira coming closest to the ceiling.
The contrast at the other end of the ledger is equally striking. Ward 10's Paul Van Meerbergen and Ward 14's Steven Hillier have recorded minimal expenses throughout the term — a consistent pattern that prompts its own questions about what restrained spending reflects.
As the fall election approaches, these records now sit in the public domain, offering voters one concrete lens through which to assess the council they've had — and consider the one they want.
London's city council released its final expense accounting before voters head to the polls this fall, offering a snapshot of how the 14 elected officials spent public money in 2025. The timing matters: this is the last full year of records before the civic election, when residents will decide who represents them for the next term.
The council itself voted to tighten its own purse strings during the latest budget cycle, reducing the annual expense allowance from $15,000 to $13,500 per councillor. The reasoning was straightforward—most members weren't spending anywhere near the old ceiling, so why keep it there? That decision likely explains why overall spending across the horseshoe dipped compared to 2024.
The allowance covers the ordinary machinery of the job: office supplies, equipment, community events, promotional gifts, conference registration, professional development courses, and mileage reimbursement. But the real spending happens in the categories that sit outside that $13,500 cap. Ward mail-outs can cost several thousand dollars. Travel to conferences for outside board assignments or municipal associations gets covered separately. These expenses can push a councillor's total bill significantly higher.
When you look only at the general expense fund, eleven of the fourteen councillors spent more than $10,000. Ward 13's David Ferreira came closest to the ceiling at $12,718.41, much of it going toward contracted assistants. Deputy Mayor Shawn Lewis and Ward 3's Peter Cuddy followed closely behind at $12,580.69 and $12,416.93 respectively. But these numbers tell only part of the story.
Ward 4's Susan Stevenson emerged as the council's biggest spender overall, with a total of $20,975.15 when all categories are included. That figure includes $4,176.71 spent attending the Canadian Association of Police Governance annual conference in Victoria, plus $1,134.27 in per diem and travel costs for work with the Middlesex-London EMS authority. Ward 9's Anna Hopkins came in second at $18,980.17, with $4,967.47 of that going toward board and conference meetings for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
On the opposite end, two councillors have consistently reported minimal expenses throughout the term. Ward 10's Paul Van Meerbergen and Ward 14's Steven Hillier stand out for their restrained spending patterns. Their names appear year after year with little to no charges against their allowances, a consistency that raises its own questions about engagement or perhaps a different approach to the role.
The release of these numbers in an election year is no accident. Voters are about to make choices about representation, and expense reports offer one lens through which to view how their elected officials have operated. The data shows variation in spending philosophy across the council table—some leaning heavily into professional development and conference attendance, others keeping their charges minimal. As London heads toward the fall election, these records sit in the public record, available for anyone paying attention to the machinery of local government.
Notable Quotes
Council members argued that most didn't come close to the $15,000 limit, justifying the reduction to $13,500— Council vote during latest budget cycle
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the council reduce its own allowance right before an election? Doesn't that look like they're trying to appear fiscally responsible?
It could read that way, but the vote happened during the budget cycle, not as a campaign move. The logic was practical—they looked at actual spending patterns and saw most members weren't approaching $15,000. Why maintain a ceiling nobody uses?
Fair enough. But then you have Stevenson spending over $20,000 and others spending almost nothing. What explains that gap?
A lot of it depends on which boards and associations a councillor sits on. Stevenson's conference in Victoria wasn't discretionary—it was tied to her role with police governance. Van Meerbergen and Hillier simply don't carry those external assignments, or they choose not to claim the expenses.
So it's not necessarily about work ethic or dedication to the job?
Not at all. You can be deeply engaged in your ward without attending provincial conferences or sitting on external boards. The expense report shows how you spend public money on professional activity, not how hard you work.
What should voters actually take from these numbers?
That there are different models of council service operating at the same table. Some councillors see the role as requiring ongoing professional development and external networking. Others focus narrowly on ward business. Neither approach is inherently wrong—it's about what voters value in their representation.