Sound check. 1 2 3 4. Sound check. 1 2 3 4. here shortly. >> Okay, we're live. >> All right. Uh, call the meeting to order, I guess. Good evening. We have a meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee, and we're still waiting for quorum, so we're going to go into recess. We're live. Drew, >> you're muted. >> Where's the Drew? >> I am muted. Okay. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Agriculture Rule Affairs Advis Subcommittee meeting. Let me get my thing back up here. Uh we have quorum present for tonight's meeting now and I'd like to call this meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Subcommittee to order. Uh reminder, please turn off your cell phones to a non-audible function. We have an agenda in front of us. Can I have a mover and a seconder to approve the agenda as presented? Councelor Casar and Daniel Vanderhout. Is there any discussion on that? All in favor or anyone opposed? I guess I'll say is anyone opposed? I'll call that carried. Any declarations of interest at this time? Hearing none, we'll move on to the minutes of June 22nd. Will there be a mover and a seconder to adopt those minutes as presented? I have councelor Casar again. I can't see everybody here. Is there a second? >> Okay, Janice. Thank you. Any discussion on those minutes? If not, is anyone opposed to approving those minutes? We'll call that carried. Going to move to item 7.1, agriculture community improvement plan feasibility study, the project update and feedback. And I will turn it over to Tyson McMahon to uh provide us with his presentation. through the chair. Drew, thank you. Uh, and appreciate everyone taking the time to join us today at the committee meeting. Uh, today, as Drew mentioned, this will this is a project update and a bit of a feedback session for uh, the agricultural rule affairs subcommittee. So, [clears throat] earlier in the year at our June meeting, we presented the agricultural CIP feasibility study that we had begun work on. Uh since that time we have done uh some more project research analysis as well as uh some significant consultation with stakeholders community and in the farming community as well. So tonight uh I'll be brief. I'll pass it over to Marilyn and Rebecca. They will provide an overview of the project work to date, the what we heard from stakeholders, some of those themes that we heard as well as draft recommendations when it comes to uh what we heard from the community when it comes to priorities for the agricultural industry as well as recommendations for what a draft CIP or community improvement plan uh could look like. Uh so with that I'll pass it over to both Marilyn and Rebecca who'll take us through the presentation as well as the feedback session. >> Fantastic. Thank you all. Can I just test that you can hear me? >> We can. >> Thank you chair. Yeah. Uh great. So Tyson uh said it if you recall our last meeting. We're here today to um reintroduce the concept and share back what we've heard and then uh gather your input. So um Rebecca, if you don't mind going to the the next slide, I'll go over our agenda. Our goal today is to um go over what the project involves, what a CIP is just as a refresher because most of you have heard it once or twice before. Um and then uh fill you in on what's been accomplished in the project to date. So that includes um our review of background data and policy as well as what we've heard from stakeholders so far. Um then we'll be going through the sector informed priorities. So basically the the analysis of everything we've heard and we'll take you through the draft recommendations that we have for the agriculture CIP and some other strategic initiatives the city could be doing as well. And then at the end of the presentation, we'd like to make sure there's some time to answer questions, clarify any points, um, and generally just get your feedback on these as we go to refine them into a final report. Um, so I'll hand it off to Rebecca to, uh, recap the project for you all. >> Perfect. Thanks, Marilyn. Uh, so I'll begin with a brief overview of the study, our objectives, and where we're at in the process. Um, so as you might remember from the June meeting, the study was designed to move from a really broad question about feasibility towards a locally grounded understanding of what would make a difference in rural Hamilton. So we began by examining the legislative and policy framework that enables the city to provide incentives through a community improvement plan and looked at how other municipalities in Ontario have used this tool in rural and agricultural settings. That research gave us some examples and uh but not necessarily answers for Hamilton. Hamilton has its own combination of farm types, land use policies, infrastructure, industrial capacity, transportation assets, and development pressures. So engagement with the local agricultural community, city councilors and staff, industry representatives, and the general public was central to the study. and that was to be able to identify local priorities um barriers, assess possible incentive structures and recommend practical approaches uh and funding considerations. So our central question is not simply whether the city can establish a CIP for the agriculture and rural areas, but rather how uh a CIP could be designed to meaningfully impact and respond to Hamilton's agricultural context and support investments that might not otherwise proceed. So the the studies progressed through five phases. Uh the work completed since May has sort of progressively narrowed the focus of our study. The background research helped us to understand what was possible and our stakeholder engagement helped us to understand what's needed in the sector. We are now in phase four where our research and consultation findings have been translated into draft recommendations that we'll be presenting tonight. uh bridging those two pieces together. Following today's discussion, those recommendations will be refined for inclusion in a final background report uh that will be presented to council for some consideration on next steps. So before we turn to the findings, I think it's helpful just to pause and clarify what a CIP is and what it's not. Um so as you might remember a CIP creates a defined and transparent framework for providing financial incentives and undertaking municipal initiatives uh where that investment is expected to produce uh a broader community benefit. So community improvement plans are increasingly used across Ontario because municipalities are otherwise limited in their ability to provide direct financial incentives or assistance to private businesses and land owners. So in rural Hamilton, what this could look like uh from a community benefit perspective, that could be more resilient farm businesses, greater food processing capacity, employment, uh environmental performance, or expanded opportunities for local food and agurism. I should note that uh a CIP doesn't replace uh the required planning approvals, whether that's building permits, environmental requirements, or other regulations. uh a project still has to comply with that framework. Uh but a CIP can reduce um identified barriers and encourage private investment in projects that produce that wider community and economic benefit. So depending on how a program is designed, incentives can include grants, loans, rebates or fees, uh re uh or rebates that are tied to increases in municipal tax. So a CIP can support um also municipal actions that create broader environmental, social, physical or economic benefits um with the important point being that the incentive should really respond to an identified barrier. So if upfront capital is the main challenge, a matching grant might help. If planning and technical requirements are creating uh disproportionate costs, maybe it's a fee rebate or a grant for professional services that may be more useful. Um if a project will substantially increase this assessed value of a property, a taxbased incentives may be more appropriate. And so for an agriculture CIP in rural Hamilton, the strongest model uh might be one that combines carefully targeted financial incentives such as these with broader municipal actions that improve the conditions for agricultural investment. I should note that Hamilton already does have considerable experience administering CIPs. The city currently uses CIPs to address housing, commercial revitalization, and environmental remediation and sustainable development. And that experience really is an important strength. The city already understands how to establish a community improvement project area, administer applications, structure incentives, and monitor investments. But the gap here is geographic and sectoral. [snorts] Existing programs are directed primarily towards urban priorities whereas farms and rural businesses operate within a very different investment environment and there is currently no dedicated framework focused on agricultural economic development. A CIP for agriculture in rural Hamilton would address a distinct geographic and economic context with different development patterns, investment needs, project timelines, and regulatory considerations. I'll turn it over to Marilyn here to walk us through the jurisdictional scan. >> Yeah. So, as part of our review, we took a look at other jurisdictions CIPs. Um so, um you'll see the the full list here that we um looked at in, you know, varying levels of depth. And you'll note that some of these are community improvement plans full, and some are referring to a specific grant that was that was focused on agriculture. And that's generally because there's two approaches um to focusing the topic of a CIP. In some cases, a CIP might apply to the entire municipality and it will include incentives that can be applied in rural and urban areas. Um and this offers um more of an equalizing approach where there's more opportunity for more applicants um for a wider variety of projects. And in this case, um, so Norfolk County on that list there is one example where there's a municipalwide CIP and they have one grant focused at agriculture and on-farm diversified uses. Um, so um, this is where we tend to see a lot of very com like commonalities across municipalities and how they offer those. Um, and then, um, the other approach is to do um, something a little more focused. And so this is where a municipality might have a specific CIP and a specific allocation of funding for that CIP towards a particular improvement outcome. Um so this is how the city of Hamilton currently operates their CIPs, their you know their brownfield specific or downtown specific. Um and this allows the city to really target a specific outcome or objective for improvement. Um and so while this approach is common for um lots of different types of improvement, it's not so common for agriculture. And so we reviewed um three in particular that do take a focus on agriculture. So Rebecca, if you don't mind going to the next slide. Yeah. So um the first of these is Heldman County. So they have a rural business and tourism CIP from 2013. Um, this one's the longest running one we found. It is currently under a review, so they might, you know, make changes to that upcoming. Um, and then, uh, in 2021, King Township updated their CIP program and included a stream specific to rural resiliency. And this one is is focused specifically at agricultural properties. And then most recently, there's the county of Brandt just next door who introduced one back in April of this year. Um and so um they act fairly similarly uh very similar objectives to supporting agriculture and agra food network. Um and what you'll notice is common as well is that the incentives all operate as grants primarily um and support you know a 50% cost matching for eligible costs. Um you'll note that the incentive types are all fairly similar as well. You can see common improvement types like facade signage um agra tourism um and things like uh waving of planning application or building permit fees. Um and then you'll also see that um in each of the three jurisdictions they've had fairly similar um financial allocations although with Brandt's introduction of this new CIP they they went larger for 2026. And then all three of them publish um a return on the ratio of their return on investment. So you can see there that um all of them have quite a good return. Brandt County especially has had quite a lot of success in their previous CIPs. Um but you know yet to see what this new one um will will bring in. In terms of the differences between them that I want to highlight, um, notably King Township um, identifies that that grant opportunity could be converted to tax relief instead. Um, whereas Halddederman offers a tax increment grant in addition to um, other costs or other grant opportunities and those are separate grants that work together. Um and then uh another sort of noticeable difference here um that's in the CIP programs is that along with the specific incentives for property owners uh the township of King has also um committed to a variety of municipal strategies and actions that they've decided to um commit to to work in tandem with the CIP. So, as they try to incentivize private investment, they're also um working on these uh public realm strategy, urban design guidelines, revitalization strategy, and then updates to their zoning ballot to go alongside it because they've identified that that will help to make it a little more successful. So, um, the key takeaways from these is that, um, while it's less common to have an agriculture focused CIP, at least in southwestern Ontario, um, there's a fairly strong indicator going as far back as 2013, that there's a business case to be made. There's strong return on investment, um, and that, um, these types of support for the agricultural sector are in demand and and fairly successful. So, I think there's something to be said that it's very timely for Hamilton to be looking into this approach. Um, you know, given that Halddeman and and Brandt do it, there's a bit of a patchwork of neighboring municipalities that Hamilton can join um to create more of a regional um support in this format for the sector. And then, Rebecca, if you don't mind going to the next slide, I want to highlight a few other examples. So, like I said, um the the CIPs highlighted the municipalities highlighted on this slide have municipalwide CIP. So, they're applicable to um lots of different types of uses or areas in the municipality. Um but, um what's interesting about these is they have one or two that are specifically focused for agriculture. And this is where in some of the language and and eligible um criteria for these CIPs, we see some of the innovation that municipalities are looking to when they want to support agriculture improvement. Um so you can see areas of uh Bruce County and George and Bluffs looking at areas of agricultural innovation specifically when it comes to um different types of crops um or different types of processing or doing uh direct sales on site. And then excuse me um we can see um other CIPs uh focus on things like reducing waste in uh production or looking at other types of environmental improvements to the soil or source water. Excuse me. Um general property improvement is a very common CIP. [clears throat] Excuse me. Sorry, I might have to grab a loge. Rebecca, do you mind taking over the slide and I'll be right back with you. >> Sure. No problem. Um, so on general property improvements, that could be things like farm labor residences where um the scale of the operation is large enough to warrant having additional employees beyond the owner operator. Um it could also just be um building expansion, retrofitting or conversion uh of different existing or new um new building types on the farm. Um in Brent County, this looked like commercial reuse of existing uh barns or other structures. Um so to to complement that onfarmm retail or direct sales uh approach that that they're trying to incentivize. Um and then on the last category that might look like infrastructure upgrades. So in Hton Hills they identified a lack of um high-speed broadband connection as being a barrier for continued um growth and expansion in the in the rural sector. So um one of the the categories of improvement in that case would be um working with uh utility providers to facilitate uh the installation of broadband infrastructure in Brent County. Um cycling and active transportation enhancement was a priority. So uh in some cases um the labor force uh a workforce in um the agriculture and rural sector um might not always have uh access to a private vehicle. there's not good transit connectivity to these areas. So, um providing that safe uh and efficient uh infrastructure for active transportation and other modalities um helps to then bridge that gap. Going to pivot gears to look uh now at the current context in Hamilton. uh looking at um some of the most recent findings from the agricultural census um the policy and legislative framework in Hamilton for um the rural areas uh and what this means for the agriculture CIP and I'll pass it back to Marilyn for this first slide. >> Thanks Rebecca. Apologies for that. I'm going to try to talk through it so uh excuse me if I need to take a few coffee breaks. Um, so first I wanted to make a note on our approach. When we talk about food broadly, we often fail to recognize the entire system that goes into getting food from production to the table. Um, and and what happens in between. [clears throat] And so to do that would miss out on some real assets in Hamilton. Um, we know from the outset of the project, it became very clear that we wanted to take a systems approach to our review. Um and so what you have here is just a very oversimplified um visual of the aggra food chain that shows the cycle of production and some of the other steps that are really key into making sure that Hamilton's agriculture is successful um the sector is successful and shows some of the assets that Hamilton already has as its as its disposal um particularly when it comes to processing and industry distribution um and then dining and tourism. Uh so we've kept that this approach top of mind throughout and that is uh really easily seen on the next slide. Um with some research, sorry Rebecca, thanks. I segueed too subtly there. Um so there's some research here shown that um demonstrates Hamilton strength particularly in agra business which includes both agriculture and food and beverage and and the secondary and tertiary um sectors within that agra food chain. So what you're looking at here is a map from Waterlue Economic Development Corporation research back from 2023 that shows um location quotient um and essentially North America's established clusters for food and beverage employment. And this is as a share of the national average. That's how they've grafted. So we can see that the biggest cluster is located in Toronto. The biggest green cluster which is they consider true employment is located in the Toronto area. And then there's a nice little inset there that shows um that the the real emerging clusters that make up the Toronto area actually includes Hamilton, Waterlue, and G quite substantially. And so I won't go too much into this data, but I wanted to highlight that, you know, we've heard so much talk about Hamilton as an aggra food hub and how it's just continuing to grow. And I think this um data really puts puts a nice picture to how real that is across the entire continent. And then we'll go on to the next slide and we'll talk um very quickly about agriculture. So as part of our review, we also took a look at census of agriculture and labor survey data um primarily as it was compiled for um Hamilton Biomafa. And I won't go into too much detail here again because you folks are already the expert on this side of things. Um but some of the key takeaways that we feel um really demonstrate what a CIP could support with include the trends that we can see in changing production types. So such as new animals being rared, um new crops being taken on or changes to organic product usage, things like that. Um as well as trends in technology uptake, um automation, looking for efficiencies that way. um increasing direct sales on form in a variety of forms. Um and then of course uh the demographic changes. So as population as this population is aging um and as farm sizes uh increase while the number of farms decrease as well. So we we know that that would translate quite well in terms of creating demand for the type of CIP that could support farmers in investing >> how you get two people >> value adding processing. was pretty much reading this >> diversified uses and other ways to increase profit margins or encourage more resilient businesses. Um, [snorts] so we can tell that there there would be demand for this in Hamilton. I'm going to hand it over again to you, Rebecca. Thanks. >> Thanks, Marilyn. Um so when we look at the policy basis for uh how a CIP could be structured in Hamilton uh really any municipal initiative has to operate within the larger planning framework and at the provincial level this includes the provincial planning statement the green belt plan and the larger escarment plan. >> Um so the provincial framework establishes two sort of equally important directions. The first being protection. So prime agricultural land has to remain available for agriculture for uh land use conflict has to be managed and new activities um can't undermine the long-term function of the agricultural system. The second is the systems approach. So provincial policies recognize that protecting land is not really enough if businesses can't adapt, invest or remain economically productive. The system also depends on infrastructure, services, processing, distribution and supporting businesses. These plans together support agricultural viability and diversification but within clear sort of parameters for uh land use and environmental protection. And the CIP has to strike that balance. It should support investment and diversification but without weakening the protection of the agricultural land base or impacting on the escarment's ecological and landscape values. Then just let me listen to the rest of the >> uh Hamilton's local policy provides a basis for agriculture agricultural related uses and certain onfarmm secondary uses and a framework for protecting agricultural land and supporting a viable rural economy. uh farming is directed to the agriculture rural and specialty crop designations to maintain that stable base uh where a wide range of agriculture agriculture related and onfarmm secondary uses are permitted. Um our review identified areas where the framework supports that agricultural investment as well as areas where greater flexibility or clarity might be beneficial. Um for example um stakeholders raised questions about permissions and processes for agurism, renewable energy, processing, retail and other activities associated with more contemporary farm business models. Um the policy direction in the official plan is implemented through the zoning bylaw with um detailed controls on permitted uses, lot sizes, setbacks, development standards. I won't go through those, but they're up here for your review. Um I will note um one thing that came up I mentioned just briefly um is the lack of um established permissions or regulations for renewable and alternative energy systems which I understand is a priority of council to uh to review uh and potentially integrate in the future um subject to staff's recommendations. So I wanted to flag that uh as part of our review as well. Uh beyond the policy framework, there is good strong strategic alignment for municipal action through a CIP uh through Hamilton's food strategy and the economic development action plan. They both identify agriculture as an important economic driver and recognize uh an agriculture focused EIP as a potential tool for addressing barriers and supporting reinvestment. Um the food strategy in particular supports a sustainable uh and resilient food system uh recognizing the need for infrastructure, coordinated funding, business support, innovation and diversification. Um so provides a really good basis for a CIP to build on those existing municipal directions >> rather than creating a separate or or disconnected program. The last thing I want to touch on um on the the framework side of things is the city enrichment fund which provides really valuable community events, education and not for-profit activities through a dedicated um funding allocation uh by council. Uh so this includes support for agricultural affairs, farmers markets, farm crawls, youth education, soil health initiatives, community gardens, public education, just to name a few. Um I I want to stress that this funding plays a really important role but it does serve a different purpose from a CIP. Uh it primarily supports programs, events and community activities whereas a CIP would focus more directly on those capital improvements, business investments and property related projects um and other eligible activities that might uh be intended to improve long-term capacity. So, if council were to decide uh to move forward with a CIP, the two programs could be complimentary. Um, but I' I'd stress that they shouldn't be treated as interchangeable uh with one replacing the other. Now, I'm going to segue to talk about uh what we heard from stakeholder engagement and consultation. Um, a really major component of this study was hearing directly from people who work in support and interact with Hamilton's agricultural sector. Uh, and this program was designed to test the findings of our background research against that practical experience. Um, so I think this is a really important thing to highlight uh before we get into what we heard. um we were able to connect with more than 93 participants across the first three pa phases of this project which um really lend lended itself to um a really diverse and detailed overview of of the sector. We heard from people who might apply to a future program uh people who would administer and review it, elected representatives who hear directly from rural constituents and organizations that understand those broader industry trends. Um, the workshop provided a space for that larger group discussion and allowed participants to react to examples from other municipalities. Uh, the one-on-one interviews gave us space to explore individual experiences with investment approvals, business expansion on firm diversification. Uh, and the farm crawl popup added the perspective of residents and visitors uh who are the customers and intended audience for many direct sales and farm experience activities. Uh and really our focus here um in structuring this engagement was not simply a request for a list of preferred grants, but asking stakeholders what is preventing investment, what improvement might look like, uh and what would have to change for a future program to be credible and to be useful to have uh good uptake and and good impact. And so the these next couple slides sum up some of the the themes that came out of those um different activities. Um first that Hamilton has a really strong foundation for agra food growth. Uh stakeholders pointed to the city's agricultural and industrial sectors, transportation connections, this momentum in building a food hub and growing interest in local products and and sort of buying local and shopping with small businesses. Second, opportunities related to agriculture and agurism are not yet fully realized. There's interest in farm experience, direct sales, value added production, and emerging technologies that can be tapped into. Third, the municipal development process is viewed as a barrier. Um, participants described complex requirements, lengthy approval processes, uncertainty, and difficulty identifying a clear path forward. Fourth, some sector se stakeholders believed that um policies and regulations haven't kept pace with the realities of modern agriculture um in particular in relation to processing, packaging, farm, retail, agurism, technology, renewable energy and farm worker housing. So this could be an opportunity um for future uh review um and update um following sort of um some targeted effort at looking at the policy framework in sort of greater detail. Um there was also strong support for a more serviceoriented municipal model. Um this could be a dedicated liaison or concierge who could provide early guidance um coordinate review uh between internal city departments and help applicants navigate requirements. Um that role could be uh helping a business owner understand really early on in the process what's permitted, what approvals are required, who needs to be involved, and what that practical path to compliance could look like before significant resources are committed. Uh the next kind of theme was on infrastructure and whether uh there's capacity within existing infrastructure to support those larger operations uh and business growth and expansion. So whether that's electrical capacity, natural gas, broadband, uh stormwater management, transportation or distribution infrastructure as important sort of considerations. Um, participants also described broader pressures including high land and capital costs, difficulty accessing traditional financing, labor and skill shortages, succession challenges, heavy workloads, and economic and climate uncertainty as being um major constraints. As well, when we talked about specific incentives, stakeholders emphasized that they needed to be meaningful, predictable, and easy to understand. Um, smaller grants might help with some projects, but they are unlikely to overcome these major uh, capital, regulatory or infrastructure barriers by themselves. Um, which kind of leads to the last point here. stakeholders preferred a sectorwide approach focused on productivity, innovation, diversification, market access, resilience, and opportunities for the next generation, which led to our our sort of central finding in this study um that a CIP might be valuable, but its effectiveness will really depend on those complimentary initiatives as part of a broader municipal effort. Um the public engagement at Farm Curl Hamilton reinforced several themes and added sort of another dimension to this story. Um attendees described how visiting farms and learning about local food production influenced their purchasing habits and strengthened their interest in buying locally. Young families uh valued the hands-on and educational opportunities that help children understand where food comes from and emphasized um the importance of protecting rural land for continued agricultural use. Farms were viewed not only as places for production, but also as destinations where people could connect with producers, spend time socially with friends and family, and experience Hamilton's rural landscape. A lot of those visitors came from out of town. Uh so from Toronto, Burlington, Oakville, uh even GE, uh Bmpton, Missaga, uh and described that as a way to get out of the city. So that has really um really potential economic value for farm operators through not only direct sales but educational activities, potentially dining or farm-based experience and broader community value by increasing awareness of local agriculture and providing public support for farmland production. So it's not just about attracting visitors to the rural area, but supporting activities that strengthen [snorts] the underlying farm business uh and connect food uh connect residents back to local food production. Um, so something to consider as we structure um the CIP and the types of programs or streams that might be incentivized. I'll pass it over to Marilyn to take us through the next section. >> Thank you. Yeah. So, um, at this point of the presentation, you've heard what the community has shared with us throughout this project. You've also heard a summary of the current Hamilton context through the background review earlier. Um and so we want to briefly sort of recap and um reiterate what it all means. We've done that through a simple SWAT analysis and uh summary of four key priorities that have informed the draft recommendations. So uh next slide please, Rebecca. As just a a refresher, a SWAT analysis is just an assessment tool to help identify all of the different factors at play when considering an action or decision. So it um can be a helpful tool at a at a time like this when we want to assess um what those factors are. We're going to start with internal factors and these are things within the city's jurisdiction um or influence um and so that includes things like um uh there were a lot of strengths we heard. So those include things like um the strong foundation that Hamilton already has for the aggra food industry whether that's production or um those other steps in the chain um distribution and processing. And then uh Hamilton's location is also a really key asset for the city. Um whether you know no matter the method um it can be shipped from Hamilton, right? It can be distributed. um there's there's so much opportunity there when you have access to the world that way. Then um internally um in terms of the city itself, there's um strong policy direction. So so at the municipal level and the provincial level um the the importance of agriculture is recognized in policy um and is protected uh quite broadly. The city also has experience with CIPs. So um there's no need for a substantial learning curve to implement something like this. And then in terms of the local industry um we've uh seen that there is significant capacity for innovation all across that aggra food chain. Um but particularly in agriculture there's demand and interest in adapting and innovating and farmers are already doing it. Um and so the opportunity is there and then uh I think you all are testament to this um that there is already a really strong network of of local champions in the farming community of a a strong social and professional network um [snorts] with expertise and desire to share those learnings and um desire to spread the word about opportunities that something like a CIP could offer. And then of course there's some um weaknesses or areas to work on. Um so as Rebecca highlighted, we heard quite a bit about the complexity of municipal approvals and how that can introduce a lot of uncertainty for businesses. Um and then with that comes relationships um in in need of some repair and some trust building there. Um you know whether real or perceived, there's an opportunity to strengthen those. um policies are also um perceived to not be keeping up with agriculture and how how modern agriculture operates. Um you [snorts] know and as a planner myself I can say that that is somewhat inevitable. PL uh policy will always be a step behind industry and and actual practice. Um and so um this is you know potentially the time to be reviewing that and making sure it is as upto-date and um as flexible for modern farm practices as is permissible. Then um as Rebecca mentioned, there are some significant infrastructure gaps that we've heard are um currently constraining farmers from expanding or growing their businesses um that are, you know, that are beyond the the um capacity for a single uh property owner to to overcome in many cases. And then we also um understand that there can often be a mismatch in funding when it comes to CIP grants. So for the the examples that you saw earlier ranged from $5 to $15,000 and um in some cases and as may be the case for some farmers um these are not large enough to move the needle on the types of projects and so there are some cases where those type of incentives would be very appropriate and some cases where they might not be and so that's something to consider. We'll move on to external factors. Please, Rebecca. Yeah. So, again, these are outside of the city's soul control. We look first at opportunities. Um, so we're seeing huge shifts in consumer demand, right? Um, people are shifting their buying habits for supporting Canadian and supporting local, supporting Ontario. Um and we're starting to see that shift in spending [clears throat] and um the support for the agra tourism industry is also very strong right now. Excuse me. I'll see if I can make it through this this section. [clears throat] Excuse me. Um [snorts] so I think farm crawl on the weekend. I'm so sorry everybody. Rebecca, do you mind taking over this one? >> Yeah, no problem. Um, so on the opportunity side, we see the expanding aggra tourism market and Farm Carl Hamilton being a really great example of that. Um, we were there for just a couple hours and managed to talk to um, you know, 40 50 people in that span. Um and in chatting with um Summit Station Dairy, they mentioned that in this grand scheme of private tours and uh the farm curl events from the year prior, um they'd had about 8,000 visitors through their farm uh in that year of uh 2025. Um so there's a really big market for um tourism to be driving um even just onfarmm retail. uh and the number of people that we saw on Saturday coming for their their weekly shopping uh of Summit Station's dairy products that kind of dovetales into the opportunity for value added diversification. So not only onfarmm retail or tourism but whether that's onfarmm processing, packaging, storage or other farm activities that could strengthen farm viability. uh in terms of technology and sustainability. Um sort of in light of a changing climate um increased frequency and severity of um adverse weather events um those technology and innovation um advancements are really important to um sort of be climate resilient um and sort of increase capacity and productivity in light of those uh changing contexts. So that could be um ranging from things like automation uh water management, energy efficiency and other climate resilient improvements. Looking at um the system uh investments opportunities could be um better logistics, port access partnerships or infrastructure that could benefit the sector collectively. Um so really getting um taking what's already been working so well already uh and the the fantastic asset that is the the port facility and tapping into that to to reach that broader network on uh coordinated municipal action. Uh we're at a time where staff are beginning to initiate uh an official plan review for rural Hamilton. So, uh, it's a great time to be looking at aligning the CIP or a future CIP, um, with those policy gaps and and, um, staff's sort of work in the future to to look at modernizing those policies where it's appropriate. On the threat side, some things that are outside the city's control. Um, one thing in particular is the overlapping approval requirements. So um there's in certain areas um where the Niagara escarment plan uh takes effect in rural Hamilton um there's a municipal development review system but then there's also that provincial permitting system that layers on top of it that can create some increased complexity for those projects in those areas. Uh so it's something that you know if that process gets overly complex or too costly with technical studies that might be required uh it can be a potential threat to to business investment uh as well the regional competition. So next door in Niagara you have an established uh agurism industry uh with wineries, ceries, distilleries, um other sort of pick your own or floral culture u operations that um businesses in Hamilton have to compete with as well. Uh I mentioned before the high land and c uh or uh barriers from risk averse lending uh or or lengthy approvals that make investment planning really difficult. Um if it takes it um a year or or more to get your approvals um having to sort of um line up the funding can be uh can be a challenge. Also heard about workforce and succession pressures. So in light of labor shortages, uh specialized skill gaps or an aging farm population, how that affects business continuity and growth uh over the long term. And then as well the risk of um economic, climate and land use pressures with rising costs, uh severe weather, uh encroachment of urban development, uh affecting the availability of prime agricultural land and land use conflicts that can affect farm resilience. The last real risk to contend with that's important to frame our recommendations is the risk of low uh CIP uptake. So um participation might remain limited if the incentives are too small uh or if those uh processes uh remain difficult to navigate. So this kind of brings us to the four priorities for an agriculture CIP that uh will be important moving forward. The first viewing the agra food system as an opportunity for investment. The second aligning uh the future program with policy and funding requirements based on the existing framework. The third scaling uh program incentives uh and the types of projects that will be meaningful to incentivize. And the last framing a supportive ecosystem and accessible process uh to support uh investment in the agricultural sector and and creating those conditions for investment um to to remove those administrative barriers. I won't go into too too much detail. It's a a recap of what we just heard, but uh this is here for you to go back to later if you want to look at it in a bit more detail. So the the next section will look at recommendations. Uh we'll first look at some strategic initiatives that the municipality could take um before diving into the specific uh incentives or program streams. Um we've paired this off in two ways. The the strategic initiatives might be something that are um sort of longer range priorities that might take a little bit more time to to move the needle on. uh whereas the the financial incentives could be smaller wins or those lowhanging fruits to to get the ball rolling uh and start uh making some real on the ground change. So the first uh the suggested initiatives for the city uh are kind of in three bullet points. Uh the first looking at opportunities to leverage large-scale investments in rural infrastructure. This could be working with external agencies to expand capacity for electricity and natural gas in rural Hamilton and increasing access to rural broad highspeed broadband internet. The second uh investing in dedicated staff resources. Um as we mentioned earlier, this could be something like a dedicated planning personnel to uh review development applications in the rural area that has sort of dedicated expertise and and specialized knowledge of um agricultural operations. Uh it could also be a dedicated staff to administer the CIP for the rural area that could assist with application intake. So that could look like somebody that's familiar with the program, familiar with farm operations, uh, and has relationships with farmers and operators in the area. That could even go out to the farm, um, with an application form, interview the farmer or the operator, uh, and help them uh, fill out the application form uh, and even do a site visit to sort of understand the the concept of what the farmer is trying to do uh, and the scale of the improvements that are contemplated. The last thing would be to consider policy updates whether that's for clarity, flexibility or reflecting common practice that's evolved um as sort of contemporary farming practices have um which could occur as part of the rural Hamilton official plan update uh and later zoning bylaw update um and that it could include looking at things like renewable energy uses at different scales um onfarmm diversified uses um where permissible under the the criteria from the province um looking at events and temporary agurism uses. Um and uh looking at sort of historically um the different minor variances that are granted for agriculture agriculture related and on from diversified uses. If there are common patterns of um specific provisions that are triggering the same type of application over and over again, maybe that's an opportunity to modernize those regulations uh and and reduce that administrative barrier. that's um affecting not just one but many property owners. So these would be things that uh would take sort of a a municipalwide or sectorwide approach um that would go in tandem with the the property level or um specific [snorts] um landowner uh initiatives that would be um sort of more financially focused. So, in this next section, I'm going to talk through um some of the goals and objectives, what some of those incentive types could look like and how they could be structured. Um some considerations for city staff in you know, if this project moves forward and how they structure those uh the administrative side of of the the program's uh implementation and then finally a sort of framework for monitoring and evaluation. So this is a bit of a draft of you know the goals and objectives the outcomes that the uh the CIP could look to um to achieve. So we I've structured it on on sort of four themes. The first being farm business viability and resilience, the second agood growth and diversification. The third improving conditions for agricultural investment and the fourth workforce development and succession planning. Um so these goals are structured and sort of intended to answer the basic question of what change should a future agricultural CIP produce. I uh the report does provide some more detailed goals and objectives, but I've I've simplified them here for tonight's presentation. Um, the first desired outcome is a strong base of farm operations that are successful long term, competitive, adaptable, and resilient. For some operators, that might mean modernizing equipment or facilities, and for others, it might be improving efficiency, adapting to climate and market pressures, or preparing for succession. The second on diversification, value added activity, and growth across the aggra food economy. Um, that could include reducing reliance on a single commodity or revenue source. uh remaining appropriately scaled and compatible with surrounding agriculture and supported by policy. Um while at the same time uh tapping into that opportunity to extend beyond production to processing, storage, distribution, innovation and direct to consumer activity and strengthening those connections to help retain more of that economic value locally. The third being that improved environment for investment. if businesses can't understand or navigate those municipal requirements, the availability of funding is unlikely to be enough. So, looking at structurally how to to set the those businesses up for success and really help to um deliver on that collaborative relationship between city staff and and the farm community. Uh and the final area being workforce and succession. So uh understanding that labor shortages affect the availability of farms to um operate and expand while at the same time the future of the sector depends on whether those new young and first generation farmers can see a viable path into agriculture. And all of these goals and objectives are deliberate deliberately outcome focused. Um, so they could provide a basis for selecting program streams, evaluating applications, and determining over time whether the city's investment is producing those meaningful results you're looking for. On the program streams, um, several potential project types could be considered as targets for incentives. Not every project type will be appropriate everywhere. um and its inclusion in the CIP wouldn't necessarily establish land use permissions, but the city would sort of structure those programs to reflect the different points at which an otherwise viable project might encounter a barrier. So for some projects that might be earlier on in the process where an operator might need professional advice or a technical study or a planning application before knowing whether the investment could proceed and assistance at that stage could really help to determine feasibility and and reduce overall risk. For others, the main hurdle might be the physical investment that's required to expand production or add processing or storage, improve worker accommodation, manage storm water, or create a visitor serving component. Um, while recognizing that, you know, those larger scale improvements can be balanced with smaller improvements that also matter. So whether that's signage, branding, parking, property improvements that might help a farmer, a farm become more visible. uh accessible and attractive to not only customers but also suppliers and visitors and really build that brand recognition and reputation. Um I'll note here that the intention is not to create a grant for every possible expense but rather focus on uh investments that advance an identified public objective where municipal assistance could really materially influence the project's timing or its scope or its feasibility. So funding projects that wouldn't otherwise move forward without that assistance. I'll note that the final program streams should also be screened against the planning framework uh so that eligibility remains aligned with the official plan, zoning bylaw, provincial policy and other applicable requirements. So, a really broad range of different project types all the way from building retrofit renovation, farm labor residents, uh planning applications or building permit fees, agurism uses, uh green infrastructure or low impact development practices for storm water management, property beautifification, grants for professional services, um all the way to to farm business succession planning. In terms of the administrative side to how incentives are structured, um we heard really loud and clear that how the program is delivered is just as important as what it funds. So the credibility will depend heavily on the applicant experience. We've structured some recommendations around four key principles. Uh it being simple and proportionate, guided and coordinated, uh predictable and supportive and practical. So um applying for incentives should be simple uh should match the scale of the incentives that are being offered guided and coordinated by internal city staff. Um receiving clear information about what's required when uh who might be involved and what next steps will be as they play out. Um and establishing sort of all of that from the outset so that it's a really clear [snorts] framework. Um the city will also kind of need to decide how to allocate limited funding. So some other considerations as this moves forward is the scale of funding that's allocated whether there's fewer higher value incentives or smaller lower value grants. Um how to approach application intake uh and whether to include an expedited or accelerated de development review process for targeted improvement projects. The last uh is on monitoring and evaluation. So um designing a future program that as something that can be tested, evaluated and improved upon um as it's sort of developed and implemented and put forward. Um the measures that are shown here are are just examples uh that could be refined as the program's developed. Um, I'll stress that, you know, c counting applications and dollars distributed will be sort of necessary for accounting purposes and for transparency, but it doesn't provide that complete picture. So, we'd recommend that city also asks whether those supported projects leveraged private investment, how they improved production or efficiency, whether they created new revenue streams, retained businesses, addressed workforce needs, or reduced barriers. And those process measures will be just as important. Um as if one of the projects object objectives is to uh improve the investment climate um the city could track approval experiences and applicant satisfaction as well not only just that completed construction and establishing this framework at the outset will allow the city to refine those underuse streams adjust funding amounts uh and demonstrate the public value that's generated through the program. So, I'll pass it over to Marilyn to guide us through the last bit here. >> Thanks, Rebecca. Um, [snorts] and thank you all. We've come to the end of our um presentation on the recommendations and and what's been done to date. Um, we had hoped to um grab a bit of discussion and gather your input at this point in the evening, but I know we are approaching time. So, um, I'll maybe hand it back to the chair, um, and, uh, just add that we'd really welcome any feedback you have, um, as our next step is refining these into the final recommendations report. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Marilyn. And, uh, Rebecca, are there any questions on the report? Yes. Uh my question is that I just saw one in one slide that uh in the during the year 2024 uh there were more than 3,200 agree business in Hamilton and they employed uh more than 26,000 people. Uh my question is that is are uh these employees are local Canadian or offshore workers seasonal workers. >> Thank you through you um Mr. Chair that's that's a Waterlue Economic Development Corporation's data. So, I'd have to go back and check um their sources and and specifically, but I'm assuming that's data from the the labor survey that they've done um that Statistics Canada puts out. Um so, I'm assuming that's um I'm going to assume that that is permanent full-time employment um for residents. So, I'm I'm not sure if that includes things like temporary foreign workers. Um and I'm sorry, I don't have that answer for you at this time. No problem. Thank you for responding. >> Are there other questions on the report? >> Councelor McMakin has a question. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, thanks Chair. Um, you know, different figures are quoted for different types of programs in different areas. Um uh how much money are we talking about and where is it coming from? And are there limits uh uh to the kind of support fiscal support that uh that could be had? Is is this a um well I'll just leave it there. Where where's the money coming from and how much is it? I can answer that Drew if that's okay through >> the chair. No, that's a it's a great question councelor McBen and at this stage with this just being a feasibility study that that's just what this is right now. So if if we come back to council with an idea as to we want to proceed with putting together a a CIP, that is where we'll be coming back to council to identify um budget sources, budgets amount. So right now we don't have uh a funding source identified for this program specifically. um that that's something where depending on the [clears throat] kinds of funding streams, the amounts we would be looking for council approval or direction on that counselor. So at at this stage we have not committed uh funding or a funding source. Is would the intent be to have a shared sense of purpose with with the other levels of government or is it intended to be strictly a municipal launch? >> Through the chair, ideally through with this being a community improvement plan, it would be a city launch. Now, we would look to see how our program would interact with federal or provincial levels of funding. I know what there's there's sometimes issues when it comes to um stacking of funding. So we would ensure similar to our the other CIP programs we have for the downtown or the commercial districts, we'll ensure that um our our programs are not uh duplicating but more comp complementing any federal provincial funding that that may be secured for similar types of projects or investment. >> Okay, that's helpful. It just uh it just occurs to me that uh you you know we don't spend as much time perhaps as uh as we need to or some of us would like to around developing partners with uh with other other levels of government uh I would I would think that uh to the extent that this is innovative and uh obviously adding to a substantial potentially substantial GDP be contribution in the province that there there there might might be some um benefit to uh opening a window of discussion with respect to building a partnership around some some kind of innovation >> through you Mr. Chair if I might uh add to Mr. McMahon's comments in response to councelor McMakin. Um there might also be availability through the rural Ontario development uh fund that supported this feasibility study and could advance um future work if council were to consider developing a CIP further from uh the results of this business case. Um it's my understanding that that could be up to uh approximately $50,000 uh with 50% matching between the city and the province uh towards developing what that CIP framework could look like. And there might be other opportunities through um through rod funding or other um economic development streams available through the province to advance that. Uh so it might be something to consider uh looking into further. >> That's that's kind of what I wanted to hear. Thanks. I'll just add that another possibility down the road is coming out of the national food security strategy that the fed federal government's putting together and there are opportunities there but uh some of the details aren't being haven't been flushed out yet. So as those things uh come to life there might be more opportunities down the road. Um Mark Tass did I see your you unmuted. Did you have a question? Maybe not. Okay. Are there any other questions on the report? >> What's the timeline for presentation to council? Again, >> thank you through you, chair. Um it's still somewhat to be determined um given the election timing. So um I think that's something that we'll be discussing uh with uh Tyson and uh [snorts] determining over unless Tyson you want to add anything to that. >> No thank you through the chair through the chair. Marilyn, you're right. Yeah. So, we're and we would love to take this back uh later this year, but I think just depending on with with the election and and the new council coming on board, I think we're just want to make sure we we time this right. But definitely, Drew, um timing wise, we're looking at end of this year, early next year at the very latest to bring back uh recommendations to to council. >> All right. Is there anything else uh anybody wants to add on this? >> Uh can I could I have the the floor? >> Yeah, go ahead. Um just one thing uh I know on the discussion slide and maybe we don't want to get too deep into discussion but uh you had said a point where there was uh what stakeholder engagement or industry uh informed priorities were surprising or interesting and I think the thing that really jumped out to me from your presentation and from the reading the slide deck beforehand as well um was just the the weaknesses identified as far as um some of the processes in the city being cumbersome to um navigate. Uh, and so I think um the only thing that I I would I think like to highlight from that as well is just hopefully whatever this form this grant takes doesn't mirror that issue as well and that it would be something that would be easy to navigate and something that would be um because especially if the grants end up on the smaller side. um it can be difficult to even justify going and you you've identified that well and so I think well good kudos to you for for highlighting that well but also hopefully whatever recommendations flow out of this that's taken well into consideration and maybe as an added point to that as well is like uh I think just internally in my own farm business I think the biggest barrier to improvement often is jumping through the hurdles um and so the community investment plan sounds like a great opportunity but also just an encouragement to the city as a whole to streamline some of those processes if we want to see the a sector flourish. That's probably the main area to improve, but more so even than handing out money. We've identified a lot of strengths. We've identified a lot of opportunities. So, how do we just keep those investments flowing easily? >> Drew >> Mark, >> sorry. Yeah, I uh I was on two >> Yeah, I was on two separate uh feeds and I couldn't talk and I couldn't see for myself from the one and I couldn't talk in the other. So, I think I got it figured out. Um is Drew is this something that maybe the city should consider taking to Roma and delegating for? >> Yeah, I think so. you know, just going back to the, you know, multiple layers of funding approach. >> Certainly, uh, you know, I think I think this is why we're here because we did take that ask to, uh, to Roma and and access some of that rod funding and, >> you know, if we can carry that discussion on and and find other revenue streams going forward, I think that's a good idea. >> Okay. And we also have, you know, a whole system in the mayor's office basically that all they do is they look for grant money. So we should probably address those Tyson those people and I'm sure you are doing it already. Is that true Tyson? >> The chair uh councelor Tadson. Yeah that's right. So we we definitely coordinate on what type of incentives or funding are available and and to your earlier point I think this would be a good thing to bring forward at Roma just to a demonstrate the work of the initiatives that we're looking at but also to Drew's point what kind of other levels of funding could we access to further support this CIP as well as uh some of those infrastructure constraints that I know we've identified in this study but also that that we've I think we've talked to at length over the past few years when it comes to how that infrastructure uh sometimes is an impediment to those uh larger investments we would have in the city. >> Okay, thanks Tyson and Drew. That's everything from me except I just wanted to say kudos to uh Ted McMegan for showing up tonight. >> Ted's coming in. >> Yeah, I mean like the only guy in person. That's what I mean. >> Ted and Carrie, they're having a great time down there. uh wanted to reiterate some of Daniel's comments as well and uh you know I think you've captured obviously I wasn't involved in all the consultations but certainly you've captured a lot of what I had to say I think in some of those uh discussions and I think it's um very well done and a very thorough report um that you've walked us through tonight. So yeah, I think if there are uh you know future changes, we'd probably like to get a glimpse of them before it goes to council. But uh by and large, I think you've got a good document here. >> Thank you very much. And I wanted to thank you all for the the time and attention tonight. Uh it's been great to have the opportunity to share uh our findings with you and uh to receive your feedback tonight. So so thank you. And you're still >> Yeah, you're still open to feedback. Uh if anybody comes up with anything over the next little while. >> Absolutely. I'll I'll make sure that Tyson shares our contact information around. Um you can email either Marilyn or myself or if you direct it through Tyson, he'll make sure it finds its way into our inboxes and uh happy to receive those thoughts after tonight's presentation. >> Sounds good. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Good night. Thank you. >> Can I get a mover and a seconder to receive the presentation 7.1? Councelor Tatterson and Daniel Vanderhout. Uh, anyone opposed to that? I'll call that carried. And that's all that's on my agenda. Was there any other business? Seeing none, I've got two kids to put the bed. So, I will look for a motion to adjourn. >> We don't need a motion. >> We don't need a motion. All right. >> Just adjourn us at the time. >> We're adjourned at 8:25. Thanks everyone. Have a good night. Happy voting in the election.