Thanks, please be seated. I just want to thank
everybody for making the time today on short
notice for a special meeting of Councils
Our 10th meeting but a special meeting which
means will only deal with the matters for which
the meeting has been called which is the
communications in
6.1 however is a formal meeting of Council, so I
will go
Through all of our regular procedures, and I'll
start with the land acknowledgement
We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the
traditional lands of the Anishnabek,
Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwok, and Adwondron peoples
.
We honor and respect the history, languages, and
culture of the diverse indigenous people
who call this territory home.
We acknowledge all of the treaties that are
specific to this area, two-row Wampum Belt
Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver
Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds of the
Haudenosaunee Nanfand Treaty of 1701, the McKee
Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty
of 1796, here on track treaty of 1827 with the An
ishnabek.
the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the An
ishinaabe in Honoshone.
Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to
London are the Chippewaas of the Thames
First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and
the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue
to live as sovereign nations with individual and
unique languages, cultures, and customs.
The City of London is also committed to making
every effort to provide alternate formats
and communication supports for meetings upon
request.
To make a request specific to this meeting,
please contact Council Agenda at London.ca
or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.
Just because there's only a limited number of
members
in chambers, I'm just going to list the members
who've joined us online.
So you're aware of how many are here.
Councillor Hopkins, Councillor ramen,
Councillor McAllister, Councillor Vermeerberg,
and Councillor Frank, Councillor Hillier,
Councillor Layman, and Councillor Ferrera
are all joining us online.
Councillor Palosa, Councillor Cuddy,
Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Trostau,
and myself are here in person.
And I'll move to, oh, we have a playing of O
Canada,
so we don't have a singer today,
but feel free to sing along if you like.
So I'll have everybody rise,
and we'll listen to a rendition of O Canada.
Can you please be seated?
Okay, I'm gonna turn to disclosures of pecuniary
interest.
Are there any?
Seeing none, we have no recognitions.
It's a special meeting.
We have nothing to review from in closed session.
We have no confirmation of previous minutes.
So we'll move to communications and petitions.
There is a report from our staff,
as well as three communications from members of
the public
and different industry representatives.
How we're gonna do this is,
I know Councillor Layman's willing
to put the staff recommendation on the floor.
I'm willing to second it so we could put that on
the floor
so that that's moved and seconded.
But our treasurer and her team are going to
present
on the item.
I'm gonna provide some additional context
at the end of the presentation on an Ontario Big
City Mayor's
meeting with the ministry that was occurred last
Friday.
And then we can move into debate and discussion
on the matter, questions and answers,
get all of the information you need.
So with it moved and seconded,
I will turn it over to our deputy city manager to
present.
And there's a slide show so you can switch your
screen
to the other screen if you like.
- Will we be getting a copy of it as well?
- Yeah, absolutely, for sure, yeah.
- Thank you, through your worship.
So I think certainly we're grateful to have the
opportunity
to walk the council through all of this
information
that is very, very current.
Before I begin, I need to recognize my staff
and the tremendous amount of work that they have
done.
In particular, Mr. Sinise's team and Mr. Murray's
team
have been working extremely hard over the last
two weeks
to pull all of the information together.
And this has been a little bit of the ground
moving
in beneath our feet as we've been doing the
calculations to try to determine how best the
city
could proceed and take advantage of this program.
So why we're here today? The program was
announced
on June 1st. So with two weeks to start to look
at this information, we received a great deal of
new information on this past Saturday morning.
And with that additional clarity that the
Ministry
provided on the program requirements. It provided
us with a great deal of information that was able
to clarify how the city could proceed with this
program in a manner that would be favorable for
the city of London without utilizing taxpayer
funding that is in addition to what is already in
the current budget. So noting that the ministry
timelines are extremely tight, we have to submit
an application to be considered for this program
by no later than 10 a.m. this Friday morning,
June 19th.
So in the event that the City of London is
successful and is able to proceed with the
program,
we anticipate that a TPA, a transfer payment
agreement, will be provided and that will be
brought forward for Council's approval in August.
So they are moving very, very quickly with this
program. So moving forward today only authorizes
the ability for civic administration to submit
in application and subject to the ministry's
review we shall see if we are
successful and are able to move forward and it
will be subject to the council's
approval and determination at that time with
greater details known to be able
to move forward. So certainly the DC rate
reduction will take place and will
be retroactive back to March 30th date that the
ministry has provided. So just
to walk you through a bit of the program summ
aries.
So the program is a competitive application-based
funding opportunity.
So with this program, there has been a sum of
money provided
over a 10-year period of time in combined federal
and provincial funding.
So the intent of the program is to reduce
residential DC rates,
specifically the residential component by a
minimum of 30
to 50% for a three-year period of time.
So the intended outcome is really
to reduce the pressures on the housing costs,
as well as advancing development more quickly
to be able to provide housing enabling
infrastructure
and to accelerate some of the potential growth
related works
that are currently within the DC background study
and within the approved city of London capital
plan.
So just to walk you through a bit of the key
dates
and how quickly this is moving.
So although the program was announced in June,
here we are today to provide direction to staff
to submit an application.
It is retroactive to March 30th,
and it is based on the DC rates that are in
effect
at that time related to residential building
permits.
So what this does is this would commit the city
of London,
should we be successful to a three year reduction
over which the projects,
which would be submitted through the application,
would be looked at and would provide funding
based on eligible program costs.
So there is a very specific period of time
over which the works are to be begun
and to be completed no later than October 31st,
2035.
So there are many components within this timeline
that we need to look at,
but most notably the DC rate reduction would be
in place
until March 31st, 2029.
So as you look at this, there are certainly
some other elements that pose some other
questions
and things that we don't have answers yet to
with respect to our current DC background study,
but certainly what this would do
if the city were to be successful
is that there would be certainty
with the rates in that reduction up till March 31
st, 2029.
So there are three assessment criteria
that the province will be looking at
with respect to the competitive application
process.
These are the things that they will be judging
all of the municipalities on with respect
to their application to determine who
and what municipalities are successful.
So the first item is the level in which
the DC rate reduction is recommended.
So certainly they've identified that greater DC
reductions
would be subject to potential higher recovery of
grant funding.
The second component is to have a municipal
contribution
that is a minimum of 10%.
They have indicated that contributions above that
10%
will again be received more favorably.
This is one of the very key points
that we received the clarification on.
Originally the thought was that the municipal
contribution
was to be in addition to the tax funding
and the rate supported funding
that was already within the municipal budgets.
This would have created a rate pressure in the
future
or would have used reserve funds
that are already identified for specific sources.
So this is probably, there were a number of
municipalities
that had gone very, very quickly to their
councils
last week and earlier this week.
Without that clarification, a lot of the
information
that would have been provided at that time
would have actually changed subject
to Saturday mornings, clarifications received.
So that's one of the things that we've been
working
diligently on is to get additional clarifications
as we work through the many, many pages of the
guidelines
and the requirements for which to submit an
application.
So the third housing impact piece is the
eligibility
that they will be looking at in terms of the
extent
to which the units that will benefit
from the DC rate reduction are anticipated.
So this would be related to the number of permits
that we expect will be issued over the next three
-year period
and that will basically be able to take advantage
of that rate reduction that will be in place over
that time.
The other component of that is the number of
units
that will be enabled through the infrastructure
projects
for which the city will include within their
applications.
So certainly in terms of looking at all of these,
I mean, those are three, look like very simple on
paper,
but there are great deal calculations and
analysis
that is within here, and the team has been
working
very closely with Mr. Mather's team
and Ms. Sharer's team to try to look at all of
the things
that are currently within our approved capital
plans
and DC background study to look at what things
would potentially support the lost revenue
that we are potentially estimating over that
period of time
to maximize the potential competitiveness of an
application.
With any program, there are always some financial
risks,
and certainly we've been trying to look
at the cost benefit of these.
And until a signed TPA is provided to us,
it will be difficult to quantify at this point in
time.
However, one of the key factors
that I would just bring to your attention is that
there is a potential revenue gap that could occur
in the event that the DC relief ends up being
significantly
higher than the lost funding and that the funding
that would be anticipated and provided through
this TPA
should the city of London be successful in its
application.
So certainly something that our calculations we
are reviewing
and trying to put forward our best calculations
to ensure that any potential revenue loss
would be mitigated by the potential grant
application
that could be put forward and revenue
from the province and the feds.
In addition, the application clearly states
that the city is responsible for any cost escal
ations
or project overruns that might be associated
with any of the eligible costs.
These are not unusual for any of infrastructure
funding
programs, however, it's certainly something
that we need to take into account
as we put forward an application.
And also common with other infrastructure
programs
is that because it is milestone based,
the city needs to provide the interim financing
of the capital costs as the projects
are completed over that 10 year timeframe.
So certainly, should the city be successful,
we would bring forward to you a full assessment
of what financial risks are at the time
that council is contemplating the completion
and the execution of the TPA,
which we anticipate will be in August.
So based on the work that the team has been able
to do
thus far and that we have diligently been trying
to pull together since Monday morning,
we are recommending that the city proceed
with an application for a proposed 50% DC
reduction.
So based on what we now know to be clarified
as part of the ministry guidelines
that have been provided to us,
that would offset a significant portion
of the current DC rates in effect at March 31st,
and would maximize the most competitive
application
to enable the most number of housing units,
and as well as eligible funding under the program
.
So one of the key pieces that we now need to do
and complete in preparation to have a final
application
submitted for 10 a.m. on Friday morning
is to determine what that revenue loss will be
in conjunction with the eligible costs for
projects,
as well as the housing units that will be enabled
for any potential infrastructure projects
that we would put forward.
So certainly the intent would be to submit the
projects
that will enable the greatest residential unit
benefit,
but also ensure that the minimum recovery
will offset the anticipated DC revenue
to ensure that the city is at a neutral position.
It ultimately, in our opinion, is a good program
given the clarification that has been provided
to proceed with.
And although there may be some risks,
so we believe at this point in time
that with the benefit through the 90%,
that would be offset through the DC revenue
and with bi-eligible funding,
that this will be a win-win for everyone
to be able to proceed.
So we are seeking Council's endorsement
to proceed with an application
and the team will continue pulling together
all of the relevant information
so that we can find the projects
that are the most advantageous to maximize the
funding
in equal to the amount that the DC revenue lost
as well as enabling the most number of housing
units
so that we might increase our odds
of being successful in this program.
I will turn it back over to your worship.
- Yes, and I'm gonna turn the chair over to Coun
cillor
Flosa, I'll continue with some more details
on the presentation before we get into debate.
- Thank you, I have the chair recognizing Mayor
Morgan.
- Yes, so I just wanna add some additional
context
based on what the deputy city manager said.
So as of Thursday of last week,
one of the biggest barriers to the application
was the way the municipal contribution was going
to work.
As was described, as of Thursday night
engagements with a ministry staff. The
expectation was, irrespective of how much money
you have
in a project that is non-DC related, because if
you recall, a number of our projects have
growth related components and non-growth related
components, you were not going to be allowed to
count your non-growth related components towards
the municipal contribution. In other words,
within the DC envelope, we were going to have to
find an additional 10% of dollars on projects
that
could be hundreds of millions of dollars. Find
that for me the municipal tax base or some other
source which is basically going to be municipal
taxes or rates to be able to participate in the
program which was a significant barrier. Friday
we convened a meeting of the Ontario
big city mayors in Waterloo where almost all
mayors participated and the main thing we
discussed
to be engaged directly with ministry staff at
both the political and ministerial level.
there were a number of concerns and questions
raised. One of the main concerns I raised was
municipal contribution piece. I emphasize that
should the province allow municipalities to count
their non-DC already budgeted or rate collected
portions of a project towards municipal
contribution,
we would be able to participate at a much deeper
level. We would be able to make applications that
would be targeted towards more units of housing.
And there were a number of other questions that
were raised from different municipalities. There
were a number of mayors who were very concerned
because they had gone to their councils, got
permissions, realized that now they're on the
hook
for tens of millions of dollars of potential tax
increases, they came to that meeting seeking
that clarification as well. To the ministry's
credit, and I want to thank Minister Flack's
office
for the representation that they had at that
meeting, as well as the ministry staff,
they listened to our concerns. And this is an
instant where the province had a meeting,
They listened to the concerns of mayors. By the
next day, they were provided the necessary
clarification on a number of factors that allows
for a participation of cities like the City of
London without any net new impacts on the tax
rates from the application. And what our staff
now have the job to do is to craft together the
application that can make it the most competitive
,
which means, you know, targeting the 50 percent
rate is going to make it more competitive.
gathering the number of projects that we have
within the existing D.C. approved background
study,
and we can only use projects within the existing
D.C. approved background study to maximize,
minimize the risks, and maximize the housing
benefit will be the job that they have next,
and then they will submit those projects. So we
'll have a chance at the transfer payment
agreement
component to have an assessment of here's what
the ministry has agreed that they're willing to
fund.
here's the risks, here's the projects, you know,
here's the depth of DC reduction that we
actually landed on. They're targeting 50%. It
could land around that depending on the projects
picked because the province will fund projects,
not just a direct loss of DC revenue. And they
will pull out the gathering council will have a
decision to that point on whether or not to
participate in the TPA. So just to be clear, we
will still have another vote to decide whether
or not to participate with all of the full
details on what it actually looks like for the
city of
of London. It will be clear. This will look
different in every single city because the
province is funding projects. And it's
competitive. I spoke with Minister Flack last
night. He
would love to see the program oversubscribed.
They don't know how many applications will
come in, but they expect it to be competitive.
One of the questions I asked him, and he's
very open to, it'll be something to determine
later, is if this works as the province intends,
And remember, the goal of this program in
participating in it is to get many of those
municipal permissions to actually move and turn
into actual units on the ground.
If that works and development moves and we get
lots of activity and it aligns with our
estimates, you know, we'll be in a good spot.
If for some reason it goes even better than
expected, which is not a bad problem to have,
we would forgo more DC revenue than we have
projects.
And so my ask was, if there's still money left in
the envelope, or if the province is
willing to put in more money, would you consider
municipalities being able to add more projects
to be funded to actually maximize and offset the
pressure on the DC funds with additional
projects?
And as an answer to that, it was totally not
opposed to that, and very interested in trying
to build housing, and I think they're willing to
put even additional dollars on the table,
but it didn't depend on how long the program is
subscribed.
So I wanted to provide that context for council
as well beyond what the treasurer said because
there was a political element in engagement to
this as of last Friday.
I want to also thank our staff.
I know that we've had many conversations and I
appreciate all the prep leading into the
Friday meeting of Mayors.
This is consumed all of their time, the amount of
calculations to even figure out what's
possible, what's not, that they will need to do
in the coming days to submit to the application
by Friday morning is tremendous.
I know they're laying the groundwork for that now
and have been.
So I thank them for their dedicated work.
And I think that there's a real path
to participating in this program in a way
that has no impact on taxes
and offsets the necessary dollars.
And hopefully achieves the province's goal
of getting all of those permissions
that we've made moving and turned into housing.
So I add that additional context
and I'll sit down now, Chair.
- Thank you, return the chair to Mayor Morgan.
- Okay, so we've got all that.
I'm sure there's going to be a number of
questions.
I do, we'll just note for councilor strategically
,
it's council.
So if you want to ask questions and do debate,
it's kind of a good idea to kind of hack all that
,
all those pieces together.
And so just remember, we get to speak once.
So I anticipate you want to be thoughtful about
your time
and get the questions in,
but also your thoughts for your colleagues
to hear about participation in the program.
- Point of order.
- Yes.
- I think under the circumstances,
especially since I think most of us
are just looking at this for the first time,
it would be useful to suspend the rules
and allow a little bit more back and forth
and a little bit question
and then come back and ask another question
and not be subject to the strict procedural rules
.
So I'd like to ask if you could relax that
without having to make a motion.
- Yep, let me get an answer for that council.
- Okay, so let me give you a path forward
counselor
'cause I agree with your assessment.
So what we could do by two thirds majority
is suspend the, you only get to speak once rule.
We've always had the ability to extend time
if we need to, if someone gets the end of it,
but we could suspend the speak only once.
I could track time, get asked some questions,
you could way back in the debate later
if you save some time.
We could go that route with it.
I would need two thirds of counsel
to support that to enforce it.
- In which case, I'd like to move that
notwithstanding.
- Could you just wear a council so I'll just have
you stand.
- Oh, that's right.
- It's the morning, so.
Notwithstanding the normal council procedure
rules,
they be suspended to allow counselors
to speak more than once.
- Okay, we're just gonna word that up.
I got a seconder for that.
We're just gonna pull up the actual reference
to the by-law in the motion just to make it very
clear.
Okay, I'll read out the motion.
Pursuant to section 2.3 of the council procedure
by-law.
the speaking only once provision provided in
section 9.7 be suspended for the June 17th
council meeting. Good with that language? Good.
Okay. That requires two thirds all members
of council whether the president or not to pass.
So it requires a 10 vote threshold.
No suspension of the rules is not not amenable,
not debatable. So that's the motion before
us. We're going to open it for voting.
- Chair, my e-scribe isn't working.
Councilor ramen votes yes.
- My e-scribe is not working as well.
Councilor Hopkins votes yes.
- Councilor Trosto votes yes.
- Councilor Layman votes no.
- Closing the vote, motion fails nine to four.
- Okay, that required 10, we got nine.
So I will proceed with the regular procedure by-
law.
And I would ask colleagues to just think
thoughtfully about your time
'cause you'll be able to ask questions and debate
at the same time.
- Point of order.
- Point of order, go ahead.
- Thank you, Mr. Ware.
There is audit committee at noon.
I know we're a little ways out from that,
just looking to see how procedure you're going to
handle it,
if we'll have to, just if people are speaking,
for example period of time,
what we're going to do about audit at noon.
- So if we run into that, we'll pause.
You'll convene audit, lucky you.
Then you will suspend it, so the meeting starts,
as long as you start within half an hour
to start about it, then we will continue with
this.
And then when we're done, we'll switch back to
audit.
But if people keep it tight, that'll be great.
But if they don't, there's lots of questions.
It's a big decision.
got to let it go the way it goes. I appreciate
that just we have a member of
the public who also serves on audit so thank you.
Yeah if you're waiting for the
audit committee we're going to get to it don't
worry. Okay so I'll start a
speaker's list now on this item I'll look for
speakers. Okay go ahead
Councillor Stevenson. I just want to say that I
support applying for this what I
am struggling with is the the lack of information
provided to council and the
lack of a role that council is going to play in
the decisions that are going to be made,
which are big and important.
And I appreciate the work of staff.
This isn't derogatory to them.
I'm sure they've been working very, very hard,
but none of that work is visible.
This application is due in less than 48 hours.
And the thought that projects haven't been sc
oured, that percentages haven't been calculated
is difficult, difficult.
The city of Windsor has a meeting right now at 11
o'clock.
And their council has details, information.
They're being asked to support in principle a 70%
DC reduction and a 59% municipal contribution.
They have numbers and information around that
municipal contribution about the risks associated
with choosing projects where costs were estimated
a while ago and maybe updated costs aren't
known or increased, known increased costs are not
eligible.
So, I'm not an expert in this, but I would like
to be informed on the behalf of taxpayers.
We received an email last week saying there was
going to be no special committee, no special
council meeting, and that we would be informed
after the fact what the application looked
like.
And yes, we will have a final say, but it will be
a take it or leave it at that point
and we won't have provided information, nor will
we know what our options were.
There might have been several different options.
We won't even understand how competitive our
application will be.
So now and now with a vote of council doesn't
even want us to discuss it as members of councils
,
as representatives of our awards.
This has been indicative this entire term of
council, something that I've experienced
that I've spoken about, something that I struggle
with, I have sent email communication
and we got this meeting.
This was just a general thing that we knew before
.
We talk about the issues with last minute stuff.
We'll deal with the government.
It's always like that.
As a tax accountant, it was ridiculous.
They would announce programs and people would be
filing tax returns and we wouldn't know
the details yet.
That is the reality in which we work.
All of us.
And it is appreciated.
It is appreciated what staff is doing.
But as I've said, through emails to the mayor and
to the city manager and to the deputy
city manager of finance, under what authority and
direction is this application going to
be filed without council's involvement.
is going to make the decisions between now and
Friday morning. And you have to have a draft.
You have to have been looking at this. I
understand it's not finalized, but you have to be
have
been working on this for the last couple of weeks
. All that work, as I said, is not visible
to the public. It's not accountable. It's not
transparent. And we are being asked to vote
today, blindly, blindly, when other cities get
information and data. And this is something
that I've been talking about this entire term, I
will be abstaining which I
understand counts as a no vote which is
unfortunate and I understand not allowed
to abstain but I'm going to abstain anyway
because I don't have the
information with which to make a decision and
that's most unfortunate on
something as critical as this, a program that all
of us are excited about and the
development industry is counting on. Now maybe
there's a way that this the
leadership here can make this right, can we get
information in an email, can we
we have another council meeting tomorrow.
Like how can we do this the way other cities
are able to do it?
I'm gonna say again that I wanna support this,
but what am I supporting, right?
It could be a hundred,
they could put forward an application that's 100%
DCs.
It could be hundreds of millions of dollars
as the mayor is saying.
We were fortunate enough to get financing for the
BRT
and it's cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars.
We understand the risks,
hopefully that council back then was more
informed
than we are right now.
But I have an obligation on behalf of taxpayers
to ask for more information.
It is here, somebody has it, somebody's guiding
this ship
and I thought it was gonna be council.
I don't think I need more time
because I don't have anything to talk about
that I haven't read in the newspaper two weeks
ago.
I'm looking at other city's agendas
trying to get information that isn't being
provided to me
as an elected official.
I don't know whose responsibility that is,
but I would like to speak with them
And I would like to find out how we can do this
better.
- Other speakers, go to Councilor Roman.
- Thank you and through you.
So I appreciate the work of staff and the mayor
on this item.
And I understand the timeline issues that we have
.
I do find it rich that we're being asked
to provide this information in such such a tight
timeline
when information was only fully provided on
Saturday
and clarified to our staff and to the mayor.
And I thank the mayor and other mayors across
Ontario
and elsewhere who are asking the right questions
because I think that's really important.
But I am rather concerned about the lack of
information
to make this decision at this point.
Unfortunately, again, I feel like I want to
support this
but I don't have enough information to do so at
this time.
Is there any other, I guess my question to staff,
is there any other information that will be
provided
to Council following this meeting?
- I'll go to Deputy City Manager.
- Thank you for the chair.
So one of the things that we try to do
is to put forward as much information
as we have with certainty.
Certainly all of the other municipalities
that have brought forward reports
receive delegated authority to complete the TPA
and not come back.
So with their submission of the application,
they're not actually going to be reporting back
until after they've committed the municipality.
We did not choose that approach.
We chose to put the empowerment in council
so that when, if the city of London is actually
accepted
to proceed with this program, that at that time,
all of the risks and all of the information is
known
since there are many variables that could vary
between what we submit versus what is actually
accepted
through a potential successful application and T
PA
that may be presented for canceled design.
So certainly that was something we took
with a great thoughtfulness to ensure
that we weren't going forward to rush
to bring you information that was going to change
.
So we have estimates and many, many estimates
that we are trying to refine.
I did not feel it was prudent to put forward
estimates
that we're going to change possibly before we
submit,
but I am happy to provide that information
as soon as we're able to finalize it
and submit an application.
And unfortunately, this amount of work
is something that we would typically do
over two months of time.
So to collect all of the detail
that is within this application
that is incredibly nuanced and detailed,
the staff have been prioritizing this
above all of the work we have
to even get to this point today,
to have estimates to give you certainty
that we are looking to submit at 50%.
So absolutely, if council would like a note prior
to receiving any successful outcome of this
application,
we're happy to provide a note to council
to let you know what we're submitting,
but there is no guarantees based on what we
submit
will be anything remotely close to what is
accepted
and what ultimately would be required to be
signed into TPA.
So if that's certainly something the council
would love
to know Friday, once we submit the application,
we'd be happy to create a note and provide
what we've submitted to the council at that time.
- I go ahead, Councillor ramen.
- Thank you.
So yes, I would appreciate receiving a memo to
council
or to, I personally would appreciate that.
That aligns up with our submission.
I think that would be helpful to have.
I want to get a sense also.
The mayor alluded to the fact that this would
help us
to meet the permissions that have already been
made.
But this is a 10 year agreement.
How does that work with future permissions
or future numbers?
Do you think we will feel added pressures
to meet housing demands because of the fact
that we are signing on to this agreement?
how I can go to the deputy city manager on that
if you want.
Or I think if I could help, sorry, I don't know
could you hear what Council Raman's question was?
I see some confused faces.
Essentially the Council is asking if it's a 10-
year program
which is funded over 10 years,
do we have the housing pressure for the 10 years?
So if you could just comment on the,
it's the projects being funded with housing
estimates.
Once the projects are funded and the agreement is
reached,
the amount of housing that happens
is gonna be the amount of housing that happens
from it.
So there's not a digital pressure.
It's basically the unlocking the pieces in the DC
fund.
I think that's pieces around those contexts.
I think is what the council is going for.
- Perhaps I'll start.
And if Mr. Mather says anything else to add,
he can proceed.
So there's many components to this project.
So the decision points with respect to the
applications
and things that come forward will be council
decisions
and will be separate and apart in part of the
normal process.
However, as part of this program,
when they look at where we are trying to estimate
,
potentially, what the number of permits
would be pulled over the next three years
to try to balance out the number of the projects
for which we are bringing forward
to ask for funding as part of this program.
So the program works is specific to 90%
of the eligible projects for which the province
would approve through this process.
Those are projects that are already within our DC
study
and that we would look to recover those costs
over time.
So one of the, I mean, one of the key risks are,
if we continue to do all of this
and the housing doesn't actually materialize,
we've received funding that would allow us
to create the infrastructure,
but for which perhaps the province did not see
the outcome
of the number of permits for which we anticipated
.
that could be a potential risk that may be
addressed
through the TPA that could result in clawback of
funding.
Those are all unknowns at this point
and things that when we identified
that we don't have all the risks,
they're challenging to quantify
because they'll be subject to whatever is in that
TPA
that the city of London will have to fund.
So the infrastructure funding through this
program
will be independent and separate and apart
from ultimately what the building permits are
and what the approvals that council will grant.
Those will still come through the normal process
and would be subject to the normal planning
review
and site plan applications
and whatever housing is created through that
period of time.
So that's where if, you know, from that process,
it'll be separate and subject to the reports
that Mr. Mather's team will bring forward.
So there'll still be independent decisions
that council would be making
as those planning applications come forward.
- Go ahead, Mr. Mathers.
through your worship.
Also, I'll just add in that on that annual basis,
we'll be able to course correct through our GMIS
process.
So that goes with management and implementation
strategy.
You'll have the next report.
I'll actually be at the next planning committee.
That's just in the next week.
And any other projects that, if there's a
slowdown
or if there is increased activity,
we'll be able to adjust the timing
through that process as well.
So whatever we submit through this application
will be fairly fixed projects,
but there is some other flexibility within our
program
that you'll be able to review on an annual basis.
- Councilor ramen.
- Thank you.
So from a project perspective,
knowing some of the projects that we have,
that we were planning to move forward with,
how do we know when and if and how
they will be housing-enabled infrastructure?
So I'm just thinking about, for instance,
just to give you an example,
the Sunnydale Road continuation Richmond to
Adelaide,
which we were able to get housing enabled funding
for the portion from Wonderland to Richmond.
So I assume that next tranches is potentially
eligible.
But how do we know that that went into the
application?
I guess, are there just certain projects
that we're looking to advance
that maybe we can have some kind of indication on
right now?
because I want to make sure that that's a
priority
and continues to be one.
- I'll go to Deputy City Manager to start.
You can throw it off to more Mr. Mathers, go
ahead.
- Thank you through the chair.
So as we look at all the projects
that are within our development charge background
study,
all of the projects have associated impacts
to the number of growth and housing enabling
units
that it could link to.
So I'll just use a specific race and example
with some of the water and wastewater projects.
As we look at certain projects,
a water wastewater project would have so many
homes
that it would enable as a result
of making the pipes bigger, for example.
A road will allow so many new homes
to be upgraded within a subdivision.
Those are the calculations that we are now,
so we've created some sort of a matrix
to help us assess all of the projects
that are within our DC background study
to try to work with all of the service areas.
So this is where we've been working very closely
with Ms. Sharer's team to look at all of the
projects
and start to look at all of those units
that could be enabled through the various forms
of infrastructure.
So for example, a road has allocations
to certain traffic zones that would estimate
how many homes and residential units could be
built.
So those are the kinds of things,
which is why there's so much analysis
that is going on behind the scenes
to try to estimate what those are and refine what
those are.
So that's the work that's taking place,
and those are the calculations that we're doing.
So as we look at all of those matrices
to look at the costs, as well as the associated
housing enabling parts that come with it,
we're able to refine and look at the values
as well as the housing units that could be
created
to see what the best applications
the variations of applications could be created
to fund a project that we would put forward.
Hopefully that's helpful.
- Councilor Raman.
- Thank you, it is.
Just one final question, I guess,
or a series of questions.
And my question is, is the ultimate goal
to reduce the cost of housing for potential
buyers?
- I'm happy to take a shot at that.
Yes, the province is trying to reduce costs for
buyers.
also get housing moving, support the construction
industry.
They feel like this program combines
with the HST GST cut in a way
that could really bring down the costs of new
housing
and get a lot of those housing units moving.
So I think it is both a cost reduction
that actually would trigger sales in the market,
which would trigger building,
which would trigger housing units that they want.
So that's my understanding of,
it's also my understanding of the speed
of whether moving with the amount of speed that
they are.
This is a government program.
Like we've never had this short amount of a time
to pull together and apply for.
They're trying to get their programs up and
running well.
It's within the window of the HSTGST cut
at the federal and provincial levels on new
housing
so that they align and create a catalyst effect.
I don't know if Mr. May, there's
or anybody else has anything to add to that.
That's my understanding of the government's
motivation.
I mean, you could always ask the government,
but from everything I know,
it's all of those pieces together.
- Through you worship yet, that's absolutely
what we've understood from our conversations
with different levels of government on this issue
.
Absolutely, thanks.
- Councilor Roman.
- Thank you.
And I'm just wondering about the checks and
balances on that.
If they shared anything with you at that meeting.
And lastly, what's the impact to current homes,
not new homes in the market?
And how has that analysis been done
and what's factored in on that side?
- Yeah, so the only details that they would have
shared
on that is just the stuff that I've shared with
you
as well as the communications that they've made
in their announcements as well as their
commentary
in the media on the confirmation of their
motivation
for bringing forward the program.
I'm not an expert on existing sales.
I can imagine incentives for new sales
probably push the market in that direction
and away from resales for a period of time.
But that's, I mean, that's more of a real estate
question
than the question that I can answer.
I'm not sure if our staff have any commentary on
that.
No, they wouldn't be able to answer that either.
- Thank you.
Just my final comment on this.
So I see this is something I'm going to support
because it's a report back next step and more
details.
But ultimately, I mean, I think we all need
the federal government to tighten up.
This is loose, it's speculative.
And it to me, it's not well planned at this point
,
but I'll wait to see what the what that comes
back.
- Okay, thank you, Councillor Hopkins, you're
next.
- Yeah, thank you, your worship.
Maybe I'll just start off with thanking staff
for getting us some information.
I know the timelines have been really tight.
It reminds me of other legislation that has come
to us
in the past number of years, like Bill 23,
where we had a little information as a council.
We had a big learning curve.
so I am a little bit frustrated with that and I
would encourage staff to share and give
counsel as much information and update us as
possible. I want to thank the Mayor too. I
appreciate
what he has relayed to us from OBCM. I'm glad to
hear that some changes were made from that
meeting. I'm also very appreciative to understand
that our taxes aren't going to go up yet. So
thank you for that. I am going to be at an AMO
board meeting in the next two days.
DCs are always a big concern with most
municipalities, so I'm quite interested in
hearing
back from what other municipalities are
experiencing and what they're doing and happy to
relate that
information onto Council as well. I want to just
maybe stick with the risk here in the revenue gap
.
The cash flow, the costs, they are something that
I have heard loud and clear and that we are going
to be responsible for, but I really don't know
how that's going to look like. I'm just sharing
that concern there. The assessment that's going
to come back to us I do have a question about
that
the mayor mentioned it's called the transfer
payment agreement. I'm glad we're not really
making any decision right now but if I could go
through your your worship to staff and have a
better understanding what that is going to look
like. Sure happy to just any context and give on
on the transfer payment agreement process
and the decision being made at that time.
- Thank you, through your worship.
So, consistent with many of the provincial
or federal grants, the province and the feds,
provide an agreement for which sets out
all the terms and conditions,
as well as the projects over the defined period
of time
for which they will, the manner in which they
will pay,
cash flow and the reporting requirements that are
there.
So certainly through this application,
we do not know what a TPA will look like
at this point in time.
We haven't been provided a draft,
but I expect many of the terms and conditions
will be very similar to terms and conditions
that are in previous transfer payment agreements
that the city has signed with the province
and the federal government.
So from that perspective, certainly what we do
know
is it will be a 90% funding of eligible program
costs.
So based on the application and the projects that
we submit,
those would look to pay 90% of what those
eligible costs
are going to be, 10% needs to be born by the
municipality.
And specifically, we are identifying projects
that show and demonstrate what the city's
contribution
already is to those projects that involve
already taxpayer funding.
So as Mr. Mayor had said at the very beginning,
there are a number of projects.
There are only a certain component of a total
project
that is actually funded through development
charges.
The large portion of it is already funded
typically by the municipality
because the projects may go over a much larger
timeframe
than which the growth for the development charge
background study supports.
So we are putting forward an application
that maximizes as well when we look at all of our
projects,
the amount of the municipal contribution
that is already there.
So what we're trying to do is take all of those
criteria
the province has put forward as part of their
guidelines and looking at everything to try to
maximize and put forward as best an application
that could be forward. So that's what we know
will
be reflected as part of the transfer payment
agreement that will come forward with respect to
if there is higher or lower DC revenues
associated than our application. Those are still
not known
at this point, but there certainly has been
considerations that the province said they may
consider could be stipulations within the
agreement so until we see what the
form of that agreement is going to be we don't
really know for certain which is
why it's important we feel rather than having
delegated authority now that we
bring back whatever we are successful with noting
that that could be very
different than what we submit this Friday to be
able to bring something
forward so as soon as we have that information we
will endeavor to bring
that all forward for councils approval and
anything will be retroactive at that
point in time and we would need to also look at
the mechanism in which we
provide potential changes to those that have
already paid their DCs since that
March 30th date. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, just
as a follow-up to that. So would
the province be picking the projects then? Go to
the deputy city manager. Thank
you for the chair. The province will be
determining what portions they fund of
the projects that we are going to submit through
the application. So that is
where through the matrix that we are looking at
all of the eligibility criteria to make the best
assessment to maximize the projects we put
forward that we will submit on Friday as part of
the city's
application to achieve a 50 percent DC reduction.
The city will choose the projects. We are looking
to put forward the projects that will best meet
the housing enabling portion of it, what will be
eligible to maximize the lost DC revenues as well
as maximizing the city's
contribution in excess of 10 percent. So the city
will choose what the best
projects are that fit that criteria that we will
submit on Friday and then
subject to the assessment the province will
determine how much of those they
choose are deemed to be eligible and how much
funding potentially could be
provided. Councilor Hopkins. And last follow-up
question to that is so the city will be picking
that the projects province will be assessing it
all that information will come back to us in
August. We will at that time be making a decision
. I understand that we're having a PPM for the GM
IS
so our strategies and assessments how much do
they play into these projects or is it just
strictly
project by project that qualify for DCs. I'm just
trying to have a better understanding
how we as a city are determining where to go
forward with the funding application.
Mr. Mathers is going to take the first shot of
that. Thank you.
Through you, Worship. So the submission will
reflect the timing that is being brought forward
to committee and council in the next run in the G
MS report.
So we've taken account and ensured that both
teams
are discussing that timing
and that the application that is submitted
will reflect any kind of revision and revised
timing
provided to the council through the GMS process.
- Councilor Hopkins.
- Yeah, thank you.
I'll just finish off with some.
I really like the days when both used to pay for
growth
and I know we are going through a number of
challenges
with housing infrastructure.
For me, the August meeting is where we are going
to be,
I guess, signing on or not.
And that's gonna be an opportunity for us as a
council
to make further decisions on this application.
So look forward to that meeting.
Thank you.
- Councilor Frank.
- Thank you.
I just wanted to share my thoughts before we go
into vote.
To me, it sounds like if we don't apply this week
,
we have no possibility of this money.
If we apply this week, we have the possibility of
this money.
It will all come back to us for a final decision
at a later time where we'll get fully-costed
projects,
we'll completely understand all the impacts
of the decision that we're making.
So I'm okay with that because I don't want
to miss out on this opportunity.
I'm a big skeptic of DC rebates and refunds
and even myself being a skeptic,
I'm okay at this point to save the opportunity
for us
to make this decision with more information
and with the potential of having funding.
So I'm not going to avoid that opportunity.
So I'll be supporting that today.
Thank you.
- That's for Ferreira.
- Thanks, Chair.
I say same sentiments as the comments from Coun
cillor Frank.
I just wanted to ask, like, will this result in,
unless I guess tax dollars going to, I guess,
supplement for loss DC losses. Like I know we, if
you could just remind me, in the past we had some
budget items come through where we were paying
for some DC losses. So I just wanted to know, in
the end, will this result in, I guess, less of
our tax dollars going into any potential DC
losses.
deputy manager. Thank you to the chair. So, this
program specifically essentially
takes the DC funding that would have otherwise
been provided through the DC
Reserve funds and collected over time and is
replacing it with 90% of the
federal provincial funding. So, it is a it's
basically a displacement of what
would have otherwise been funded through
development charges with the recognition
that we received on the weekend, that our
existing city of London 10% contribution would
already be
recognized for the funds that we're already using
. So they're based on the application that we're
reviewing and with the clarification that we
received on the weekend there are no new tax
dollars
that are required to submit into this program.
That was an important clarification that we
received
over the weekend that as of last week was not
what we understood and what had been provided to
us
through the program. So the really good news is
that at the end of the day through this program
should the City of London be eligible it will
take some pressure off of the development charge
reserve funds because it would basically replace
the dollars that would have otherwise been used
for projects that are already within the study
and offset it with provincial federal funding.
Go ahead, Councillor Ferrell. Thank you for that.
So with I guess with respect taking the
pressure off of the development charge reserve
funds that would mean that if let's say we did
not
follow through on this or depending on how the
transfer payment agreement comes back we
potentially
if we still have that pressure on we may
potentially in the future have to I guess look at
the tax base
to be able to replenish those those pressures so
this is the way I kind of hear it is this is an
an opportunity to mitigate that future pressure
on the reserve funds.
- Is that a statement or a question, Councillor?
- A question.
- So go ahead.
- Yes, Councillor, that is correct.
This is an opportunity based on the clar
ifications
that we received over the weekend from the
ministry
where we would displace funding that otherwise
would have been required
through the development charge background study.
So essentially where the risk occurs
is depending on our projections
of what the growth revenue would be over the next
three years,
but that is certainly something that we are
trying
to put as competitive an application forward
and do the proper analysis to ensure what we put
forward.
We'll limit the risk to the city of London
in whatever way possible.
- Councilor Ferra.
- Okay, thank you for that.
So I would support this in principle as it is
right now.
I do wanna see, I guess when the report comes
back
to see all the details and the risks
and just how that would reduce those pressures in
the future.
I do see that from Councilor Robbins questions
that it will reduce the cost of new housing.
But at the same time, I also would like to see it
not have that or reduce that future pressure
that we potentially could have
on our development charges reserve.
So I'll support this in principle at the moment.
And then I'll look back for what the report comes
back
to make my final decision at that point.
- Councilor Cuddy.
- Thank you, Your Worship and through you.
You know, I just want to repeat what Councillor
Frank said,
so succinctly, this application gets us in the
game.
Without this vote today, we have no skin in the
game.
So this should be a simple decision, respectfully
.
This should be a simple decision by council.
Get in the game, let's be players.
And the information will come back to us later.
So we have ample time to discuss it later in
August.
And this simply is our allowance to be a
participant
in an opportunity to be in a really good position
for building in the future.
So thank you and I'll be supporting it fully.
- Other speakers, Councilor Trossal, go ahead.
- First question to the chair.
Is there some way we could see a more detailed
application
that has a more robust risk assessment
before we approve this?
In other words, instead of approving this today
and then getting a memo,
is there some way we could get this information
back and reconvene later in the week?
- So maybe you can comment on for this decision
and then future decision point of what you'd have
then.
So what can you provide now and what's possible
and what could you provide at the TPA portion,
which is the point of which we actually make the
decision?
- Thank you, Chair.
So given that it's 10 a.m. Friday morning
that we have to have all this information
compiled,
we are concurrently working on trying to gather
all the elements to submit the application.
I do not suspect until we get that application
in the door, 'cause it closes at 10 a.m.,
that we will be in a position to be able
to provide further details
on what we're actually going to be providing,
failing us working 24/7 literally until that time
.
We are happy to provide a memo that will
summarize
on Friday afternoon, all of the details
that we're submitting for the application,
noting that until we get any response back
from the province, we won't know what will
actually
be accepted and whether there's any funding that
will be allocated to make the program
viable for the city of London.
So certainly as soon as we receive any
information back from the province at that time,
we intend
to bring forward a fulsome report that would have
-- and we would begin that work right
after we submit on identifying what our
application was, what was submitted, what was
approved,
and then ultimately what that TPA is with a fuls
ome assessment of what all those risks
are and that will fully depend on what the
province approves at the end of the
day, the extent to which the risk will be for the
City of London.
Councillor Troso. Who actually is deciding what's
applied for? Is that going to be
driven by developers with applications? Is that
going to be based on our
assessment of what we'd like to see? Who is going
to make that decision in
terms of what's applied for? Go ahead. Through
the chairs. So essentially we
We have to pick projects that are already within
our development charge background study.
It is specific to identifying the projects that
have a municipal contribution, that have
the number of housing units that are enabled, as
well as the very specific time.
Projects have to begin no later than 2030 and
need to be completed by the end date in 2035.
So there are very narrow specific time frames for
which we need to begin and end all of
the infrastructure to be eligible for the costs.
So that is the assessment.
It is our background study that currently exists
and is approved by council that is driving
the assessment for what is going to be submitted
as an application.
Councillor Trossa.
Can we direct the housing to any particular mix
of owner occupancy rental?
Can we direct the housing to any particular mix
of low-income affordable?
Can we leverage these funds, for example, to
support some of the building efforts that
we've heard about building deeply affordable
housing?
What control do we have over that at this point?
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Through the chair.
Specifically, the application is based on
eligible projects that the City of London would
be building as part of the development charge
background study.
it is specific to eligible projects
and the DC reduction would be specific to 50%
of what is in our development charge background
study.
There is no relationship to mix
or any of those other items that the counselor
has noted.
Those are outside the scope of the project
and would be subject to council's approval
of what housing is built going forward.
But certainly until we see the TPA,
we believe those are completely out of scope.
- Councilor Trussa.
- Next question, the city's minimum contribution
of 10%.
Where would these funds come from,
based at the level that we're requesting in this
application?
- Go ahead, Mr. Sens.
Thank you very much for the question through you.
So the municipal contribution,
the minimum requirement of 10%
would come from the ineligible component,
which would include the non-growth share,
which is already currently funded by non-DC
findings sources.
- And those funds are rate supported
or tax-supported already in the budget?
- That's correct.
- Councilor Trossa.
- Can I get a sense of what amount that would be
based on the 10%, assuming that we just stick to
10%,
which is the minimum?
- Go ahead.
- Thank you, thank you, thank you, through you.
So that depends on the project mix.
So that's what we're doing for the work we're
doing now.
We're trying to identify the appropriate projects
.
The maximize the benefit and the maximize our
opportunity
to be successful in this application.
But depending on the mix again,
some projects have a higher or lower growth
number or share.
And again, the municipal contribution,
we are trying to maximize.
We are trying to identify projects
that are not 100% growth related,
but do you have some element of a non-growth
share?
Councilor Trossa.
- In section 3.0, the report talks about risks
and other considerations.
Again, where would the funds come to offset
the costs of any of these risks,
should these risks materialize?
So these are concerning because while we may get
money
for capital funding, the growth and associated
revenues
may vary from the estimates.
And I would be more comfortable if I had a sense
of what that potential variance would be.
And again, what the source of making up that gap
would be.
Would this be coming from the taxpayers?
- Yeah, I think that's the question that I talked
to you
about, about where the risk is,
sitting in the DC fund and how that would work
if the estimates weren't exactly as we
anticipated.
Go ahead.
- Thank you through the chair.
So certainly until we know for sure,
the TPA will identify what potential risks
could actually be there based on the amount of
funding
and the projects that the city may or may not be
approved on.
Irrespective of that, right now what we are
trying
to identify is what the calculations are
of how much we believe the growth revenue
would be over a three year period
to then try to match with the eligibility
of the projects for which we would submit
to so that they would offset.
failing those not being equal,
there could be a risk that the municipality
may have money clawed back.
That will be subject to the TPA and the
negotiations
that occur to bring something forward.
And then further to what the mayor said earlier
in the event that building permits go through the
roof
and are far in excess of our projections.
And the lost revenue is greater than the funding
that we are receiving.
That is where we would need to go back
look at potential other ways to go to the
province or the federal government to see if
there are other applications that we could submit
for additional project funding.
So that is a risk, the extent of which we will
not know until we see what the approval
will be for the City of London and also how the
building permits materialize over the
next three years, which will be a bit of a
crystal ball will not know what the outcome
is until the three-year period is over.
- My last question to the mayor is,
and then I'll make a very brief comment.
If the goal is to decrease costs to buyers,
how do we know the resulting savings
will actually be passed on to buyers?
- Go ahead.
- Thank you for the chair.
So certainly that is a question that we have
outstanding.
We know that the city of London, if they were
successful,
would reduce it by 50%.
We anticipate that that cost would be passed
along.
However, there are other factors.
And certainly we're not certain at this time
if there's any legal mechanism
to compel that for happening.
Certainly we know that as a discussion
that has happened in other municipalities
and something that we have further questions
but that would be subject to the building
community
to pass those on to their buying customers.
- Those are chosen.
- Okay, then I'll just make a brief comment.
I can't support this at this point.
And I hear what my colleagues are saying
in terms of, you know, let's file the application
and see what happens, but I really worry
that we're gonna come back in August.
And it's gonna be sort of like trying
to push a big boulder up a hill
that has already started rolling down the hill.
I'm very worried about this.
I don't think this has been,
and this is not a reflection of any kind of step
work.
Again, I wanna make it clear.
I am not criticizing the staff.
you're working under very difficult and rushed
conditions.
I feel like we're working under very difficult
and rushed conditions.
There are too many risk uncertainty factors
out there right now.
I appreciate Councillor Stevenson showing me
the Windsor application,
which I think really answers a lot of the
questions
that I would have had.
And they're working under the same timeframe
that we are. So unless I hear something
compelling in the next period of time, I am going
to
be voting no on this. And again, that's in all
due respect to the probably large amount
of staff work that's already been sunk into this.
But these sunk costs add up and I don't
want to keep going with this unless some of the
types of questions that I've tried to
set out and this has been very difficult just
getting this file at the last minute and just
trying
to compose these questions. I do not want to
create a situation where we're creating sort of a
unfortunate situation for the next council or for
this council during the election season or
for the taxpayers later on, so I've not heard
enough to make me satisfied that I can approve
this. So right now I'm in no vote and I guess
before I sit down I better collect my thoughts
because that's it and I'm out of time. But thank
you very much for hearing me out. I would very
much like to be able to participate in a program
like this, but I just don't like feeling rushed
and pressure. Councillor your time's up. Other
speakers? Okay, I'll put myself on the list.
I'll turn the chair over to Councillor Ploza.
Thank you. I have the chair recognizing Mayor
Morgan.
So thank you. So I guess I'll try to make a
compelling case to Councillor Trozau.
I don't think I've ever convinced you with that,
but happy to give it a go this time.
Point of order. Oh, sure. Sorry, not to be
difficult, but we... I appreciate the Mayor
recognizing that. Sure. I have the chair
recognizing Councillor Stevenson for Point of
Order.
I'm just wondering because we said that we could
only speak once at council and the mayor spoke at
the beginning. So I think it was a
response. I appreciate also where we're at at
time. We also have an audit coming up as well.
Mayor Morgan, if it's just a response, if you
just have clarifying information as well.
I'll say at the start, I was asked to present
contacts from Ontario, big city mayors as part of
the presentation. I'd like to actually debate the
item. So I'll look to see how the chair wants to
rule on that.
I will review that you did speak on behalf of the
BCM information you brought
forth beginning and have actually not spoken your
personal opinion to this
matter convincing others or otherwise. Councillor
Simaels, I will time though
proceed. I would expect you to and cut me off if
I get into five. So I'm happy to
share some thoughts. What I want to say is we had
a discussion on Friday. There
are lots of municipalities who are doing
different things. There are some
municipalities who actually move forward with
just complete delegated authority
to their staff to say I don't know what the
program is going to be we want to be
part of it go apply for it let us know what that
works out to be. There are
others who actually approved envelopes of funding
who on Thursday night
realized that they'd be on the hook for a
significant amount of property tax
dollars to actually backfill the program when
they realized that maybe they
couldn't actually commit to using non-growth
related funds for the
project. There are a number who have to revisit
their decision based on the new
information on Saturday, and there are a number
who decided to move forward not
really having a problem with putting taxpayer
funds beside trying to maximize
their municipal contribution. So what I will say
is every municipality is going
to do this differently. Every municipality is
going to have a different suite of
projects in their DC background study to draw
from. Some may have a very clear,
very large project that they can say this kind of
fits all the parameters of the
the program, very easy, put one project forward,
put it before council.
A competitive application, a competitive
application,
is going to require a couple of things.
One, what is the DC rate reduction?
I think that's why you heard the treasurer say,
we're gonna target 50%, we wanna be at the upper
end
of the minimum scale that they're looking for.
Others may go above that, but we've gotta be
also responsible.
Two, what's the housing impact gonna be?
So the projects that we have within our DC fund,
we gotta look at which ones are going to unlock,
what amounts of housing support, what amounts of
housing?
That's a measure of competitiveness.
And of course, the municipal contribution,
you know, 10% is the minimum,
but we may be well above the 10%.
If we submit a transportation project
and I'm just making it up, that's $100 million
and 40 million of it is already in our budget as
non-DC,
but rate and or taxpayer supported,
that would be a 40% municipal contribution.
So we want to also put projects in
that have significant already budgeted amounts
within the DC fund that kind of balance
all of those things to make a competitive
application.
You know, we could try to do that
before Friday as a municipal council,
but we're gonna have no time for our staff
to actually finalize the work and prepare the
application.
What will be very transparent to everybody
is what we applied for.
The staff are going to give that no doubt.
I'm happy to have a press conference
and say this is what we applied for.
We don't know if we'll get it or not.
But at the end of it, when the province has
assessed it,
and they've discussed with our staff,
and we have a possible TPA to sign,
all of these questions will be very clear to say,
these are the applications,
these are the values in the projects,
the staff can do assessment of the risk related
to that,
we'll know the municipal contribution,
we'll know the estimates on what we think
housing is going to do over the next number of
years,
and then we can decide whether we wanna
participate
in the program or not,
whether it's something that is valuable to
municipality.
You've heard several times our staff say
there could be a benefit to taking pressure off
at the DC fund by participating in this program.
We're gonna know that very clearly
when we know what the province is willing to
approve
out of our DC fund as projects,
where the risk is in the future on this.
And again, we'll know have some sense of the risk
,
but not a complete sense of it by the end of it.
How am I doing?
is if we are under, let's say we are projecting,
I don't know, 8,000 units over the next three
years
of growth, and we're under that, the province,
and this is a question asked for probably,
the province could say, you didn't collect enough
,
we're gonna claw back money for one of the
projects.
That was challenged and said, if we start a
project,
are you really gonna claw it back?
And they basically said, no, we're gonna deal
with this on a case-by-case basis.
It's a tool we have, but we actually want to
build
these projects out of the DC funds,
And we're just looking for good estimates
at the time of the application.
And the province is gonna approve those estimates
.
So if they're off, the province also looked at
them too.
If things go very well and we're way above our
estimate,
we do 10,000 units of housing or 11,000 over that
period,
that was my question to Minister Flack,
as well as a question at the meeting.
Can we put more projects in?
Because if we don't, where the pressure lands
there
is the 10% gap or the gap within the DC fund
that the program is not, it's not 10%,
but it's the amount of foregone DC revenues
based on the reduction in the DC fund.
And how we deal with that as a municipality
traditionally is through the GMIS process.
We push projects back to basically balance the
fund.
So the risk is in the DC fund.
There's an easy solution to that if we land in
that spot.
The province can let us do more projects.
We do more projects out of the DC fund.
And so I think that this is a great opportunity
for us to move forward, participate in a program
as Councillor Cuddy said, we can get the
application in.
Everyone can know what we applied for.
Every Councillor can make a decision
based on what we know at the end of the day.
So I'm gonna support the proposal for us.
- Thank you.
I have no further hands up in chambers,
but we'll return the chair to Mayor Morgan.
- Okay, I think everybody in chambers has spoke,
so look to anybody online who hasn't spoken.
I see nobody.
Okay, so what we have before us is the motion in
E-Scribe
that everybody should be able to see,
It's the same direction as in the report,
as well as the receipt of both our staff's
presentation,
which will be made public.
It's attached to the record.
We'll distribute to all the counselors
and the correspondence that was sent in
by a number of members of the public.
That's before I moved by Councillor Layman,
seconded by myself.
Councillor Vameer, we're gonna are you looking to
speak?
Or are you just trying to vote?
Just trying to vote, okay.
All right, we're gonna open that for voting,
sorry.
Can you just separate A and B, please?
- For sure, yeah, just give us a second to do
that.
So just for people, we're gonna separate A and B.
A has received the information.
B is the direction to apply.
We'll attach the A being noted to A,
which is the correspondence piece.
So the first vote we'll do is A, receive the
report
and noting the presentations and submissions.
And the second vote we'll do is B,
which is the direction to submit an application.
We just need a minute to break that up.
- So close on audit for you, Councillor Palosa.
Okay, we're opening A for voting,
which is received the report and the app being
noted.
- Councillor Layman.
- Councillor Layman votes yes.
- Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.
- Okay, and next we'll open B,
which is the direction to our staff to apply
for the program by the deadline this Friday.
And an app being noted about the transfer payment
agreement
for funding would come back to council
for its consideration if we were successful
in the application, so that should be open.
So to the Councillors who have been abstained,
Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Trostoff.
The only way you can abstain under the Miss Black
is to declare conflict of interest.
I'd ask you both what your conflict of interest
is
so that we can put it on the record for municipal
council
'cause that is how you abstain.
So does other Councillor wanna declare
the conflict of interest openly as is required
under the act?
- I do not have a conflict to declare.
I would prefer to abstain
because I think it's just more respectful
of the position that my colleagues and staff have
put forward.
I'm not prepared to vote yes on this.
If I'm forced to leave the room or vote no, I'll
vote no.
But I think abstain is a better reflection
of my position right now.
- So there is no mechanism to abstain
if you don't declare a conflict when the click.
So I want to be clear that if the counselors
do not change their vote from abstain,
it will be changed to a no vote in the record
under 12.7 of the councilor by-law
notwithstanding the provisions of 12.6 of this by
-law.
Every member who has not recused from voting
by reason of a declared conflict
shall be deemed to be voting against the motion
if they decide to, if they decline or abstain
from voting.
And that is a provision of the Municipal Act 2001
,
section 246, subsection two.
So if the Councillors don't want to declare,
just realize that your vote will be changed
to a no for the public record.
I'll just seek one more time
whether there's any declaration of conflict.
- I have no conflict.
So I'll be changing my vote to a yes,
but I'd rather do that than step out.
And I think I made my point earlier
that there needs to be some mechanism
beyond saying no when we're not presented
with the information to make a decision.
- Appreciate that, that you would like to do that
.
I am bound to follow the rules of the Municipal
Act
and the procedure by-law.
So I appreciate you changing your vote.
We need Councillor Layman's vote as well.
You can vote verbally and--
- Councillor Lehman votes yes.
- And Councillor Trossau, you are not changing
your vote
so it will be changed to a no as per.
- May I speak?
- Well, you don't get to debate again
but I'm asking you, will you declare a conflict?
- I have a question about my vote.
- I'm asking if you're declaring a conflict
that's the only thing you could declare at this
point.
- I'm not but I think that what Councillor
Stevenson said
is a good way to do this
and I'm gonna do the same thing she just did.
- So a vote yes but it's very clear
what my position is on this.
- So Councillor-- - Really feel pressure.
- You were gonna put you as a yes.
- Councillor Stevenson is a yes.
Has everybody got their votes in?
Okay, I'll let the clerk read the.
- So if they say it's in there.
(mumbles)
- Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.
- Okay, we have no motions to which notice is
given.
No reports, no added reports, no deferred matters
.
Can't do inquiries 'cause it's a special meeting.
Are we can, but only on this matter?
I don't see any emergent motions.
There aren't any bylaws.
We just have the confirmation bylaw
that we do every meeting for council.
So I'm gonna open, oh, I need to move her in a
seconder.
Councilor Cuddy's willing to move.
I'll second them all.
This is the confirmation by-law
and we'll open first reading for voting.
- Councilor Layman votes yes.
- Councilor Joceau.
- Just the confirmation by-law for the meeting
that we do every meeting.
- Yes, one question.
- No, you can debate at second reading,
but you can't ask a question of first reading,
but it's not a question, it's debate.
So first reading is open.
- Two votes yes.
- Closing the vote, motion carries, searching to
zero.
- Okay, second reading, same over in a second,
or is there any discussion on second reading?
Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you, I'm just wondering if there's any
concern
about not having the information to know whether
I have a conflict given that I don't know the
list of projects.
- So first off, the clerk wants me to say,
we don't actually get to debate the confirming by
a lot.
You can make comments, too, but you can't debate
it,
so I'm gonna allow that.
The question is related to, so I will say clearly
,
I can give advice, neither can the clerks
on someone's conflict.
The piece of information I can give you
is based on previous decisions on the DC
background study
or any works on GMIS, all of the projects
that we're contemplating here are ones
that are contained within that envelope.
So if someone's declared on previous things
within the GMIS, then maybe they would have a
conflict,
but I can't answer the question about if you do,
because no, we don't know what the projects are.
And until you know what the projects are,
you couldn't seek advice.
So I can't answer your question.
I'm not sure anybody here can
on that particular piece, Councilor.
Other comments on the confirming bylaw?
Councilor Trossa.
- This puts me in a very, very difficult position
.
And I think I really wanna go out of my way
not to have a conflict.
This could be at Kings.
I mean, I don't know what's on that.
Is there a list that we could look at right now
to see if we're within the range of any of the
projects?
- I don't have a list of the entire DC background
study
in front of us right now.
We also don't know which projects would be
submitted.
So again, I can't give you advice on a conflict.
I can't even tell you what I would do
because I would be giving advice.
But the answer is don't have a list
of all of the DC background projects here.
Even if we did, you wouldn't be able to determine
which ones staff are making the decision to apply
for.
So you're not actually making the decision to
apply
for that project staff for doing that
under the motion that we put here today.
So that's the best I can give you, Councilor,
I'm given the circumstance.
Okay, we're gonna open that for voting.
- Councilor Layman votes yes.
- Okay, Councilor Trossai, you voted to abstain.
I have to ask if you can declare your conflict
for the abstention.
- Well, I don't have enough information
to affirmatively declare it,
but I don't have enough information to say
I don't have one.
So I think I have to, under those circumstances,
declare a potential conflict based on information
that I don't have.
Therefore, I think my abstention is in order.
- Okay, Councillor, that's fine.
You can declare a conflict in whatever way you'd
like.
You've got to, actually, I've just, as a courtesy
,
remind you you've got to fill out paperwork
as required on the thing that's blacked on it.
So I encourage you to do that.
- I'll do that with pleasure, thank you.
- Thanks.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to zero,
noting Councillor Palosa's absent and there's one
abstain.
- Okay, and third and final reading on this,
we'll open that for voting.
- Councillor Layman votes, yes.
- Councillor ramen, Councillor Trossa.
Closing the vote, motion carries 11-0, noting one
abstain.
- Okay, that concludes the confirmation by-law.
I only have a motion to adjourn last left,
so I got Councillor Cutty, seconded by myself.
We could do that by hand,
and I'll just look to the screen, all those in
favor.
- Motion carries.