Okay. Uh, welcome back everybody. So, this is the, uh, special council meeting uh, for Wednesday, June the 17th. And, uh, we're back in session. We ended off uh, at the fifth item on the agenda, which is schedule business. So, we have um a development charge reduction program potential uh application from the city of Richmond Hill and we have a presentation by Gigi Lee, director of financial services and our treasurer. Um and it says here, please note that this is a 20-minute presentation, but I can promise you right now that I am not going to stop you at 20 minutes because this is very complicated and uh so take as much time as you need quite honestly. Thank you. >> I had pizza. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, Mayor West and members of council. I'm here to do a short presentation on the staff report uh agenda item. It is uh SRCM26.12. So this is regarding the development charge reduction program and the city's potential application. This presentation summarizes the staff report and the decision required from council. The city has a limited window to determine whether to participate in the provincial federal DCP, which is the development charges reduction program. staff are recommending that council authorize the submission of an application recognizing that a further report would come back to council if the city is successful and before entering into any final transfer payment agreement with the province. So what you see here on this slide is the highlight of the purpose of this meeting. It's really to provide council with a brief overview of the program also to see council's direction on the application and we have highlighted the recommended approach which I will talk more in details as part of this presentation. So what is the development charge reduction program? It's an $ 8.8 8 billion funding program over 10 years from the province and the federal government supporting municipalities that reduce residential DCs and advanced housing enabling infrastructure. As part of that program, the municipalities that participate must reduce their residential DCs by a minimum of 30 to 50% for three years. Also, as part of the program, up to 90% of the eligible project costs may be funded from the grant funding with at least 10% municipal contribution. The program also requires that municipalities provide an estimate of the number of housing units that will be enabled through this program. And as I've noted earlier, the applications are due at 10:00 a.m. on June 19th, which is this Friday. and the agreements are expected in August, two months from now. I'd like to highlight that the program is competitive and it places a strong emphasis on the depth of the DC reduction, the number of housing units that are enabled, project readiness, and the municipal contribution. So, it's it's uh it's all of these factors that will help the province in assessing our application. The program is intended to align with broader housing affordability measures and to encourage municipalities to lower the upfront cost of development. Based on the published program information, municipalities are encouraged to be ambitious in the applications, but obviously at the same time have to be carefully managing that with our long-term financial risks. This slide outlines what the program will actually pay for, which is important context before we get into the Richmond Hill specific application. The province has been clear that housing enabling infrastructure projects will be prioritized. These are the water, wastewater, storm water and transport transportation investments that directly unlock new housing supply. So projects that demonstrate the strong link to enable housing will be the most competitive. Community infrastructures will also be considered but they sit lower in the priority order. So we should expect housing neighboring work to carry the strongest case. In terms of eligible asset types, the program covers five categories. Drinking water, storm, wastewater, transportation, and community infrastructure. That gives us reasonable flexibility in choosing projects, but I note that the first four are the ones that are most directly tied to enabling new development, which is what the program is designed to reward. on eligible costs. The program recognizes both land acquisition as well as hard construction costs. That's helpful for us because it means the funding can offset more than just the build itself. As we move to the next slides, keep these eligibility rules in mind because they shape which projects um staff are putting forward as potential projects to make the stronger case for funding. Richmond Hills context is different from Greenfield communities. Growth is increasingly concentrated in buildup areas as we talked about in the earlier meeting where infrastructure upgrades are more complex and are driven by development. Recent legislative changes have created both revenue shortfalls as well as timing delays in DC collections. This means the city must carefully balance the opportunity to support housing with the need to protect long-term financial sustainability and maintain the infrastructure that's required to serve new residents. You see on this slide uh the proposed Richmond Hill application which is a 50% reduction in the citywide residential development charges for 3 years retroactive to March 2026 and a 100% reduction in the area specific residential DCs in the Hefford area for the same period and the two projects that are being put forward for the application. ition. Staff are recommending these projects because they align most closely with the program requirements and the city's broader growth and service needs. Together, they are intended to balance housing enablement, project eligibility, and managing municipal exposure. The city would also continue refining housing unit estimates and supporting documentation as part of a submission package for the application. From a financial perspective, the opportunity is significant, but so is the potential exposure. So, what you're seeing on this slide essentially is the financial application should council direct staff to proceed. The estimated three-year revenue impact from a 50% reduction in residential DCS is approximately $44 million. The proposed projects total $47 million out of which only 90% will be eligible for funding. So the city will have to absorb the 10%. So overall the estimated net city impact is approximately $6.5 million. Subject to final elig eligibility project approval and the program terms. Staff are also exploring the use of housing accelerated fund or other reserve funding sources to mitigate the municipal impact. Otherwise, there could be a one-time tax levy impact. So, I said earlier the program may offset a substantial portion of the revenue impact that is associated with reducing DCS, but it does not eliminate all risks. The final municipal contribution and any broader financial effects will depend on project approval, the eligible cost and the terms of the future transfer payment agreement. For that reason, staff are recommending that any final agreement come back to council for future consideration before the city commits to implementation in August. As I mentioned earlier, there are opportunities as well as risks associated with the application and there are some considerations for council. Council should be aware that this is a time-sensitive opportunity with unresolved program details. While the applications can be submitted now, the city would still retain the ability to review and assess the province's final offer before entering into a binding agreement in August. This approach will allow us to preserve the opportunity while maintaining council oversight over the final financial implementation commitment. So as you can see on this slide, there are some key risks that council would need to consider. First point being the actual development activity may differ from historical assumptions. So as part of this exercise, we did confir we did receive confirmation that we should be basing our revenue forecasts uh when we're looking at the DC reduction based on historical information. So I would add to that it does not appear there there is a mechanism to cap municipal exposure which really means should the actual uptake of the DC rate reduction exceed the historical information that we're using to base our application on. There will be additional impact and exposure to the municipality because it will exceed the funding that is committed to us. The projected housing units may not materialize because as we all know we don't build the units. So it creates a potential scenario where the province will claw back the funding. So they did mention that between the two levels of government they will be providing us up to 90% of the project cost. Um it was also confirmed to us that if the units do not materialize there is a potential for clawback of a portion of the 90%. As I mentioned earlier our application is still subject to review and approval. So there is a likelihood or there is a possibility that the province may not approve all of our proposed projects or propose and impose different terms than what we've assumed. Last but not least, reducing DCS may improve project viability. However, it does not guarantee housing starts or the affordability outcomes, which is something that we don't have control on. the city will remain responsible for any ineligible costs, overruns and any remaining funding gaps. So essentially what it means is once we get the confirmation of about our projects and the percentage that would be funded, anything that is over and above would be the responsibility of the municipal contribution. The recommended decision today is whether to keep the city positioned for this funding opportunity. Submission of an application does not finalize participation, but it allows Richmond Hill to remain under consideration and continue discussions with the province. If the application is successful, staff will return to council with the final details, including any changes from our assumptions outlined in this report and this presentation. As noted on this slide, these are the recommendations of the staff report. Uh, so it is that staff report be received and that council directs staff to submit an application to the DCRP. Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Thanks. And you're under budget on your time. Good. Good job. We have a time surplus. Um, okay. U here's what I think we should do. I mean, first of all, I want to say thank you to Gigi and all of your staff because honestly, in my time on council, I'm not sure that um we have called each other more than the last little while. So, I want to say thank you and Le uh as well, thank you very much for helping us navigate the government relation uh part of this equation, which was very significant. Um, and it's kind of an ongoing process. So, both of you and your staff, thank you very much for that. What I would recommend that we do here, council, is um spend the next round asking questions about the presentation. So, we'll save our comments for when we get into it, but I think this is a really good opportunity to ask questions about the presentation that we just had to make sure that we understand it before we get into the uh before we bring the the uh the staff recommendation forward. Yes. Is that a question of me or a question? No question. >> Okay, hold on one second. One more. Just hang. Did you have a question about that? >> Sorry, I'm confused. How do we separate the information in here from the report? I'm confused of what you're asking me to ask about >> what when we in under our procedure uh when there's a presentation like this, you can ask questions of the presenter. So, if there's things that you didn't understand or you want clarified about what Miss Lee has just presented, now is the time to understand and seek clarification for those pieces of information. >> Okay? >> Once we finish a round of that, uh, for anybody that wants to ask questions, then we will move the, uh, the staff report forward and we'll have a discussion about the merits of the of the, uh, staff report. Okay? Does everybody understand that? Sorry. So, we're we're asking questions without actually moving it yet. Correct. Next round, we're moving it. >> I mean, I suppose we'll do a motion to uh receive the staff presentation >> and and then the the next thing we do will be a motion to to discuss the staff report. So, okay, region local counselor Chen. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Um now that we're the clarification um I would like to move the motion receive the presentation with thanks and also seeking clarification as relating to the presentation itself. I just want to follow up on uh director Lee um I believe um you might have said something along the line um maybe just not quite the same but I'm thinking about uh perhaps a question for Mr. share to you is that um to what extent that the city has control of I think you might be saying something along those line may not be the right way but um so for example not slide number eight is kind of the risk um in some way almost sounds like disincentive but on the other hand what's the incentive things that maybe we have control when when you put forward the uh um application if it's approved later through Mr. Chair. >> Okay, you're >> I guess the point is what are we asking for, right? And then how much control we have that to the extent that we have through Mr. Chair. Is that a fair question or not? Quite >> uh through the chair just to clarify what are staff asking for. >> Yeah. >> Well, on the application in the application, we'll be asking for things, right? There there was a slide about that about >> the two projects. >> Yeah. What staff is recommending is a is a 50% reduction in DC's that's our part and then two projects that are in our DC bylaw that the that the provincial and federal government under this program would would pay for and uh and that's the Vogal road bridge and the operation center expansion. >> Correct. So So am I Thank you u uh Mr. chair, Mr. Mayor. So slide number six, I have it too. So what we're looking at presumably if we council in the end say apply and if you get it, it will be a 90% hopefully of the total of 19 plus 28 million. That's what we're aiming for. Correct. I just want to get a sense on slide number six as by the mayor uh >> through the chair. That's correct. >> Okay. Okay, fair enough. I will leave the other uh comments or question later on and uh receive the presentation. Thanks. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh councelor Davidson. >> Thank you. And please stop me if I'm asking the wrong question at the wrong time, but through you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the presentation. Um so I'm confused about the numbers. So we have two projects, the OPC center and the bridge, and they would cost us $47 million to do. And then if we applied for this I don't know what to call it other than a grant from from two other levels of government the best case scenario is we would get 44 million back right roughly of 40 I guess 4.7 million there'd be 4.7 million left if we're getting 90% of 47 million right >> right so that would be our contribution of the 10% >> yeah right and then aside from the 4.7 you said that the The defer the getting rid of 50% of development costs for every other project not related to those two things is 44 million. Is that right? >> Through the chair. That's correct. >> So how I I'm so confused by the 6.4 number. It's actually 44 million we're not going to get plus the 4.7 we're short because the funding would never be 100%. So that's to me closer to 50 million that we're in the whole not 6 million. I'm I'm totally confused by where we're covering the actual reduced DC charges once we got the bridge and the op center. We still have to figure out the 50% of DC charges we're missing for every other development through the chair. So, councelor Davis to your question. Uh you were correct in adding those two numbers which was the 44 plus the 4.7. So, that comes out to about $48 million. What we need to subtract from that number is the actual grant that we're going to be getting. Right? Right? So, we're getting the 42 out of the 48. So, our net impact is the difference between the two. So, you've added our our impact from revenue loss. You've added the impact of the 10% that we have to contribute to, but what needs to what needs to come off of those two numbers is what we're getting in grant funding, which is the $42 million. That's why they net out to the 6 million. >> Okay. Sorry. So, one more time. So the bridge in the op center cost $47 million, right? And we're going to get or we'll get everything covered. It's up. Let's just for argument sake say 5 million bucks. 5 million bucks outstanding. >> So my question is where does the 40 where does the 44 million in missing DC charges in the city everywhere else? Like it feels like the best we can hope for is 44 million, but the liability is the bridge and the op center plus all the missing the 44 million missing DC charges. That's the part I do not understand how that adds up to 6 million. >> It's through the charity councelor Davidson. So perhaps I can answer it this way. Out of the $44 million that we are now not collecting, we would have been collecting for those projects. Right. >> Right. But so now that we're not collecting, yes, it is a loss, but we're getting funding for the actual projects. >> Right. But what about all the other places DC charges would have been collected? Where does that hole get filled? like the 44 million in DC charges that we're not collecting wasn't just related to those to the new development with the Vogal bridge or they were related to every development in the city right so I still don't understand and math was not my forte if you can figure that we're going to get 40 let's just say for argument sake we're going to get 44 million bucks and that's going to cover the 44 the 47 million for the two infrastructure projects that we want to apply for but there's still 44 the how much is it going to cost for the missing 50% for every other development? That's got to be more than $6 million >> because by getting 40 x whatever it is million dollars from the government in a lump sum amount of money, there's infrastructure costs that we will no longer need to pay for because they they they will be advanced through a grant for the government. So the government is making us whole except for the 10% part >> but just for these two projects not for every single development infrastructure DC project. >> So we're still in the whole 50% for every single thing outside of the Vogal bridge and the op center. Am I just tell me where I'm thinking or wrong. you were saving up for five things that you wanted to get and grandma came and gave you a lump sum fund, you would have to then uh save up less because some of the things that that you got the funding for got funded externally. So you you your your need for saving up will now become less because you got a lump sum amount and you took things off your wish list. So you now don't need to collect as much for the remaining things. And that's basically how it works, >> right? But through Thank you. I still don't get We're taking the money we're getting and we're putting towards two projects. Where are we going to make up the shortfalls for every other development where DC charges will now be half what we would normally have expected. Where do we make up that money? Because it's we've already spoken for the grant. The grant's spoken for. It's the bridge in the off center. where I I understand we're going to ask for less overall. The budget needs less because now we don't have to ask for that because we're getting it from the government, but every other development is now going to get a 50% reduction. And I don't understand how we're going to make that up or how much that is. So I think what we have to take a look at is also the timing horizon as well because the timing is really just the first three years of reduction and that's where the gap is. So essentially um these projects would have been further down in your forecast that you're advancing that you're getting funding for. So then essentially the grant is also offsetting some of that. So there will be some internal allocations that we have to do. But overall when we look at the high level what we presented here is the actual estimated gap of the funding which is 6 million 6 >> six and a half. Yeah. So where so previously correct me if I'm wrong this you as you mentioned the city has identified approximately I'm going to say 153 million in shortfalls in DC charges because of previously um new you know funding structures and and things that the province has made municipalities do right so are we already is that a projected 153 million or over the next few years or is that the wrong number to That number was based on the future and the forecasted units coming into fruition. So that number is related to bill 23 and bill 158. So essentially as a result of um foregoing DC's on affordable housing units and and you know purpose bill rental. So that was the calculation, but we would only recognize and realize that loss if those units actually come forward, >> right? >> So we don't experience that loss until they come in and say, "We're going to do 300 units of affordable housing." That's when we actually see the impact. But until then, the 153 remains a projection. Should these units all come in as affordable, that's our anticipated loss. But if they don't, it's doesn't matter, right? But potentially the city's exposed tens and hundreds, millions of dollars in reducing DC charges already and now we're adding to that debt because we're not going to be anyway. Okay, I'm I'm going to I'll say that. So, um, we don't know what the clawback would be, right? So, how do we figure out what kind of financial exposure the city is at if we go for this and then we don't do the units? Like, can we even figure out what the clawback would be through the chair to councelor Davidson? So, um we have no indication of what that clawback would be. It was um through one of the sessions that we had with MMA and AMO that they did identify that should the units not be achieved there could potentially be clawback. So, we'll continue to seek clarification on that piece and hopefully um you know more information will be provided between now and August when the decision is made about the projects and then um when they're reviewing our applications hopefully they will provide that assessment as well but as of right now we have no information about what that potential clawback is which increases the municipality's financial exposure. Thank you. I'm sure I'm running out of time, but um so you said historical data was used to project how many units would be built, but we have thousands of units that are approved. What happens if 50% off is so good that a lot of these approved units are triggered? Don't we end up now the 44 million doesn't look so good because we now have to give 50% off many more units coming which yes builds houses but leaves us in the hole through the chair to councelor Davidson it 100% um we agree and that's why we've identified that as one of the risks right so currently we're looking at rejections based on the known information and there is no mechanism to cap what the financial exposure is. So we're looking at um as stated the report we did look at the last five years of history to develop these numbers. So should the actual uptake be higher than essentially the province the the grant funding they've already capped at what they're going to provide to us. So then if let's say we projected a thousand units but we ended up with 2,000 units then that impact falls on the municipality because they've already capped their funding on the initial 1,000 units as an example. Thank you. And I just want to confirm that uh when we if we if it has voted to do an application for this that final decision even if the province accepts every single thing about our application final approval to actually go ahead with 50% reduction in and get the grant it it lies with council today. We're not we're not agreeing to it even if the province agrees it will come back for approval at council >> uh through the chair. That's correct. So, uh the recommendation for today is for council to direct staff to submit an application uh with full intention for staff to come back um to share the results in the assessment and then also to further talk about the the program projects and what the financial impact and how the implementation will look like for us. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh councelor tree. >> Okay. Thank you m chair uh mayor as well. So thank you so much for our Dr. Gile present this one. I'm a little bit confused. Well if we don't enroll this three years DC plan totally we don't submit this application. Can we keep our DC charge as now >> through the chair to councilor tree? Yes. Then then it's status quo. We keep our rates the way they are now. Yes. >> Okay. Is there any mandate from provincial say all the municipality you must reduce your discipline like 50%. Do we have that type of mandate from provincial government here? >> Uh through the charity council tree it the application or submission of an application to the program is not mandatory but it is strongly encouraged. So as long as we submit this one is our commitment from city we're going to reduce 50% of our residentials in the next three years. Is that right? My concerns here for as I members you may be not right. So 50% residential reductions approximately around $45 million. So I'm assuming for three years, next three years, our DC charge is around $88 million as total. As long as we apply for this one, we reduce 44. Is that right? >> Through the chair to council tree. That's correct. >> So we need to make make a balance here. If we apply for this bridge, we're going to lose around $45 million for the next three years T charge. If we apply, we can get how much? Around $47 million from federal government. Oh no, from provin government. Right. So that is my understanding. If you apply for it, we can get a 47 and we have to contribute $9 million. If we don't apply for it, the money for entire project is 47. We have to contribute by our owns. The DC charge we collected will be still in our hand. I'm assuming we're collecting more than that, right? through the chair to councilor tree we are collecting DCs for this project for these projects so if we don't participate in the program we will continue to charge at the rates the the current prevailing rates that is correct >> to try and balance which one we can get more money from if we hold for three years we can get more DC we pay off for the bridge better if we're losing money to apply for this one why we do why we doing we have to do it right I just see what's the number if we reject this plan and we continue our current blind discharge do we have a deficit or do we have benefits >> so if I may through the ch to counselor tree the program is about incentivizing development which is currently not happening at the rate that we would all like that that is the purpose, right? So, so I think what we're looking at is yes, a financial contribution in reducing the rates and that is to encourage development that will then help with future DC's DC revenues, future property taxes and all of that. So is there any I'm not sure maybe time manners is there any way end of report you can generate a application uh benefits worse we don't apply for this program and there might be a different money values we're going to see is we apply for it going to benefits us for next three years we don't apply for it what is the result will be is there any combination combination here so we can see easily to determine Otherwise this number we don't know. >> So through the chair to council tree the the challenge we have now is there is no development right so I'm we're doing an analysis and a comparison of what could have been would have been But it's something that is actually not taking place. So I don't believe that is a fair comparison because on the one side we're saying if we reduce we're going to try to incentivize. On the other hand there is no development taking place. >> Okay. Yeah that's the risk. >> Hang on a second. Did you have a comment? >> I just wanted to clarify that um >> use the microphone. >> Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that we're not obliged to take any of this action at application. It's only if our application is selected. So >> there's an offering. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Uh councelor Silvitz. >> Um thank you uh Mr. Chair and thank you Gigi and and everybody for these the report and and the presentation. I'm I'm with councelor Davidson. I this is just completely over my head. So I'm trying to understand it as I could as I can possibly best understand it. So So in other words, so putting it simply, we are in camera. We're being held hostage. >> No camera. We're not in >> We're not being held hostage. >> We're not. >> We're not in camera. Oh, we're not in camera. I thought we were in camera. Okay. Well, then I still believe we're being held hostage. Okay. But we're being held hostage. >> We're being held hostage by the provincial government and perhaps by the developers who are waiting to see what our what our decision is. Sorry, I thought we were in camera. Never mind. Um so on slide three where you say municipalities must must reduce residential DC's by 30 to 50% or more for 3 years that must is if we are going to take the program >> is that correct >> yes >> it's through the sure that's correct >> thank you okay um then it says up to 90% of eligible project costs may be funded by the province and federal government with at least 10% funded by the municipality. So they're telling us that we'll we'll be we'll be fun we'll have to fund 10%. But they're not telling us that that's just like holding a carrot in front of us. I I I'm sorry but I have to be honest here. I mean, up to 90% of eligible projects costs may be funded by the province. That's like saying, well, you know, this necklace is going to cost you $100. You know, we may give you 90% off. What's the incentive through you, Mr. Chair? So, I think I think if I could the like I get what you're saying. I have a lot of the same concerns and I've been expressing that for quite a long time now. But the the um the reality is the way that this works is we put in a proposal. The government decides whether our proposal is acceptable or could be modified and then it would be acceptable whatever but it comes back to us. It's a it it will be it wasn't initially presented this way, but it's been quite obvious from my discussions in the last little while that it's there's so many unanswered questions and so many questions that municipalities have that it's going to end up being a a negotiation back and forth. If we put forward an application of any sort, it still has to be accepted by them. So the up to 10% thing, I mean, we we're putting in what we want to see and if it ends up not being something we can afford, then it will come back to us and we'll then have to make a decision on whether it's acceptable or whether it's not. So I understand your concern, but at the end of the day, um, by by our actions today in directing staff to put in an application, we are not approving anything. It is a proposal. That's all it is. We're exploring options with them to based on the the criteria that they've given us so far. GI is that fair >> through the chair that that is correct. So we are uh staff are recommending to put our best foot forward knowing uh what some of the program criterias are and then also at the same time trying to mitigate and minimize the financial impact making this financially viable for us. >> That's fair. Um that's fair. Um but unfortunately there are still so many unknowns here. there there are so many that we I don't even know how we can make any kind of a decision here. Again, this is very unfair as far as I'm concerned. Um and um the provincial government should handle this better. If we don't get our DCs, we can't do anything. We're going to have to raise taxes and we're going to have to put in levies and um that's going to be a huge problem for our residents if we don't even know what the clawback is, the risk is. um the province may not approve all the proposed projects. >> Okay. >> May impose different terms. Again, it's the same thing. We are we I don't understand how we can vote on something that we do not know what the actual final parameters are. That's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Okay. Councelor Leu. >> Thank you. Um Friday is the deadline. Do we know how many municipalities opt in and how many opt out? through Mr. Mayor >> through the mayor and chief councelor Lou. Um we are aware of other municipalities that are doing what we're doing taking a report to council seeking direction on the application. So we are aware of a few of them that have completed their process and that they have received council direction to proceed with an application. We are also aware of uh a few of those municipalities that have made the decision to opt out. >> So as I said earlier, I think this program is unique in that it may have different impacts to different municipalities. Right? So this is where you know that's why staff are taking um the approach in providing the background information to council so that council can make an informed decision about whether to apply or not. Um there are a lot of uncertainties associated with this application as councelor Silvitz noted earlier it's up to 9% funding municipal contribution can be as low as 10%. >> Mhm. But there's really nothing that else that we can work with other than what's described in the criteria. And as I mentioned earlier, the application also will be assessed based on the depth of the DC reduction. So 30% to 50% that's the minimum. >> Mhm. Okay. Thank you. Um I think it has the most impact to smaller or slower growing communities. Um um my next question is um you talk about the reduction rate so 30 to 50% or more. >> Um I'm just asking just asking why don't we go more than 50 to be more competitive? Have we ever calculate if we go like 60 or 55%? I'm just asking. Yeah. >> Uh through the charity counselor lead. That's an excellent question. Staff did take a look at that. Um, but again, we're trying to balance what we're losing in revenues versus what we can potentially get funding for. So, when we assess what projects may be eligible, the math just wasn't working out for us. >> And and there's an increased risk by by having higher amounts that aren't backed up with the with the proposal that you're putting in as well, I believe, too. Right. >> Correct. So um there's the potential the risk of clawback if we don't achieve the units and then at the same time imagine now our 50% go to 75 our 10% is that much more because now it's a bigger number of projects in monetary value. So our 10% also goes up. >> Thank you. No I kind of understand that but you know to me the math doesn't work anyways. So thank you. >> Okay. Um, councelor Thompson. >> Um, thank you. I think one of the key things to to note here, and we keep talking about the 90%, but that's not even guaranteed. I mean, they're going to they're going to come back from whatever our proposal is, and they may say, "Yeah, we could we can sort of see your your project may be doable, but you know, we could only give you 46% or something like that." So I think this is why it's good that we're looking at this from the standpoint that this is coming back to council with whatever the counter offer if that's what they end up doing, you know, and then we can make the decisions because I think everybody's saying here we don't have the information to make decisions on. And I get that and I think councelor Leu really touched on a very important point here and you mentioned it in your presentation that um we're not a high growth municipality. So, you know, it's a this is substantially different for us than it is for other municipalities. So, I would suspect the ones that um uh you mentioned that have already said they're they're not going to opt in, they're probably already built out similar to us, I would imagine. Am I correct in that? >> Um just remind C. So, this is questions. >> Um but but I mean you're I I hear exactly what you're saying, but is there a question that we can answer in there? Um, no. They they answered the question that it's not going to, you know, we may not get 90%. So, >> yeah. Okay. No, fair enough. Okay. Um, Mr. Clerk, just could you remind me uh there we do still we we're not really allowed to do two rounds on questions. >> Thank you, Chair. our our practice has been especially when there's a presentation there's only one round of questions related to the presentation and then two rounds related to the actual >> Can I can I suggest for those that have asked for a second round could we I mean we're going to get two rounds uh coming up is that okay all right is there any more questions from anybody that hasn't asked a question yet okay seeing none so let's uh pass the motion to receive this uh presentation with thanks actually with a lot of thanks Thanks. Okay. Uh that passes unanimously. Thank you. So the next item then on the agenda would be to um to start talking about the staff report. So we have a staff recommendation uh A and B. So I'd like somebody to move that region local counselor depalo seconded by councelor Shu. So go ahead councelor depollo. >> Yeah h happy to move this. I I think uh I think we we definitely have to put it in an application and uh and see where it lands and I think the recommendation's very good and and as to how we go about that. Um I think it's it's pretty clear um it's like if we're were if if someone were applying for a job, they would also have that the opportunity if they get the job to decide if the contract was satisfactory to their terms. So, we can um you know, we're going to be deciding at another date whether to go forward or not, but uh we have a deadline of Friday morning to get in in an application. And um I think we would be remiss not to uh at least put in an application on our terms to see if that happens. And I think we'd be highly criticized if we didn't uh uh go go and at least try and put projects forward that could potentially benefit from from this funding and and um you know make the attempt if it's not too costly to our taxpayers. In fact, my preference would be not spending any tax dollars to to um you know facilitate our participation in this. And you know, we're going to find out some things uh what what if any uh half funding we're allowed to use to offset costs and and other things I'll mention in the report. The report's excellent. It's come forward so quickly. Um DC's are payable on construction start on taking out a building permit >> occupancy. >> It's through the chair. It's now at occupancy. >> Yeah, we we've we've switched that. So um and the duration of if if if what we applied for is approved as applied, the duration is three years on the on the reduction. So wouldn't wouldn't this only really apply to projects under construction or almost immediately pulling build permits >> through the chair ready for permit issuance >> and and they can't have started already. I believe I mean it's retroactive to March but but if you were like threequarters of the way through the construction you don't get a reduction in your DCs. >> Is that correct? >> Retroactive to when >> Good question. >> Retroactive to when they paid. So only if they've paid >> since March 2026. >> Okay. Are they not eligible? So yeah. So it it it could be coming in the day or week after this this approved. If if the the federal government agrees and we go forward um that next day or next week, they they may be at the occupancy stage and then benefiting from things that are done. >> So through the chair, I just want to make a clarification. The actual DC rate reduction wouldn't apply until the signing of the agreement. So we would then backdate to anyone who have paid since March. But the DC rate reductions are not in place until the agreement the time of the agreement which would be at least end of August. >> Okay. So the DCs are due on occupancy but there's an established uh amount that is triggered at the time building permit is applied for or site sub site plan agreement. >> It also depends through the chair. It also depends on the type of development. If it's a site plan, it has a different process. But overall, the process is typically it would be at building permit issuance, which is now deferred to occupancy. >> So definitely if anything happens between now and then, we'll work it out accordingly. >> So if we get into a deal, we're looking at the three-year period essentially when people are getting building permits during that three-year period. um retroactive to March, they would uh they'd be looking at this reduced rate. Okay. So, that's still um you know, they pretty much have to be significant along the way. It'd be pretty tough to I don't I don't think any new application like it's supposed to be an incentive program. um supposed to have incentivized work to be done, but if they come in um you know in 2027, it's likely uh they won't get through the process in time to to benefit from from this. So I don't I don't you know I just wanted to ask that question and thank you uh thank you for that answer. It's it's something to consider. um it doesn't change what I've what I've said in terms of uh it's the the right thing to do to put in this application as structured and um if you know if if we're if we're approved and if the terms are satisfactory then we consider considered a later date going going ahead with this or not but um you know I do I I I do see several ways in which this would be problematic. And this this uh going into the next budget period, just as a budget chair, we can't absorb $6 million cost over this over the next three years. I I don't know how that would happen. And um you know, some something dramatically would have to change for for that not to just translate strictly into a tax increase. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Council Shu, did you want to make some comments? >> Yep. Uh I would like to second the motion and also uh say a few words. Um actually uh DC are used for things like uh water, waste water, storm waters, roads, transit, library, emergency service, uh parks and recreation something like that. So under the planning act or relevant bills like bill 23 like uh 185. So is a city actually required to include all of these infrastructures or is there any flexibility to skip some of them through Mr. Chair to save more money >> uh through the chair to councelor Shu. So the development charges act prescribes a list of DC eligible services. Um, so essentially those are services that a municipality can can levy DC's on and then I think individually the what the city um or what the municipality chooses to do it's it's based on the services that are provided right so I'll use an example of transit we can't be charging transit because we don't have transit right so it's going to be based on the services that we provide as a municipality >> so how about if those things like uh recreation parks and library that's not an urgent thing for any development. So could could we skip some of them like that? >> Sudature, when you say skip, what what exactly do you mean? >> Library services, um recreation, could we some of these items when we plan? So >> So community centers, libraries, like these are what we call softservices. they are part of our development charges and we levy DC's on those because these are the soft services the the facilities and amenities that help create a complete community. >> So we can remove them. Um, but if the intent is to get funding from the government for it, we're not going to get funding for that because they've only identified their priority as housing enabling infrastructure. So to that end, there's no real benefit for us to remove it because we're not getting anything back. >> Yeah. But are we sure that the uh shortfall of the DC to cut 50% is a similar amount with the funding from the senior level of government? We are not sure about this for now. So just just ask questions maybe happened if there's not a equal amount from the fundings from the senior level of government and also the shortfall of the DC they are not equal. So what's next >> through the chair? Um, so what's next is is we would have to bring something back to council to identify what that funding gap would be and and options on how we address and then whether this application is still um worth pursuing from the municipality's perspective. >> Okay. So from your perspective, so is the property tax increase is the only way to to to address this matter? uh through the chair to councelor Shu. So staff are exploring the use of the housing accelerated fund. Uh we have not allocated to potential force payment. Um so that's an option that we're exploring. Um, you know, the the program is very specific about the municipal contribution uh being nondc and own source revenues, which means it doesn't have to be taxed, but it just can't be DC. So, it could also be from our reserve funds. >> Mhm. >> And then the last resort would be uh a property tax levy. Okay. So I just want to ask a what if questions. If we don't join it, what happens then? Is uh does the report does the program say um what the outcome is for those city op out for this program >> through the chair to councelor she as far as we know the program is entirely voluntary. It's not mandatory. It's up to municipalities to um assess their own situation and determine whether it's financially viable, whether it's um beneficial for them to enter into this application. There's no requirement to do so. >> Okay. But uh our competitive will be less than the other city would opt in for this program because the DC is much higher in our city. Right. I I think that's the problem is that is, you know, and I've said this too, I think it's a disadvantage of the program because it's a competitive situation and all municipalities are in different situations that they can't really compete on a on the same level, frankly. Um that and that's a design flaw in this in this system. But I mean at the end of the day um what I don't want to see is a municipality that could have been able to make this work end up not making this work and then be at a competitive disadvantage uh visav the rest of the municipalities in and around them. So I you know and I guess the final thing is too that I mean there is the potential here the the program is designed to accelerate housing and in a time where we're it's very bleak out there when it comes to meeting our housing targets and building housing for people to live in. And if we as a community are are, you know, trying desperately and creatively to find ways to accelerate housing and a program like this comes in and we don't want to participate in it at all, then I think that maybe doesn't speak so well to our uh, you know, to our commitment to wanting to be building housing. And you know having said that I understand there's lots of reasons why we shouldn't do this but I think the risk of us passing this today are quite small. >> Yeah. So in my opinion is very crucial to know or do some research for our neighboring city if they join or not. If Markham join it if one join it if we don't join it so we lost we'll lose our competitive that's my opinion. So we will see the other neighboring city what they will do and to see this program because we are we are competitor for the housing building. That's my opinion. If we can get some little bit more information on that that would be very helpful for our decision. >> Madame CEO >> uh through you Mr. uh mayor if I may. Uh just for clarification first of all uh the application is due Friday morning at 10:00. We're sitting here Wednesday afternoon. uh staff are seeking direction on the two projects that they're proposing uh and suggesting that we're putting an application in for the 50% reduction in DC's uh based on all the information that the mayor and I have gleaned from and and our our two staff members have gleaned from the training is once that application goes in the negotiation starts. So the the ministry staff are going to come back to us to talk about those two applications um and you know back and forth and yes and no and we'll have a good understanding um of what the impact will be uh financially for our municipality. Um, as uh Miss Lee has indicated, there are funding options available to us uh for that 10% or plus depending how much the government feels are going to uh fund those projects uh in our reserve funds uh as well like we will explore all those options before we would ever uh talk about property tax uh increases. The other thing uh I can tell you is um a number of the municipalities if not most of them of our size in our collective benchmarking um are opting in. They're going to apply and see what happens as a result of that. The municipalities that I'm aware of in the region of York um that are not opting in are the smaller municipalities as councelor Leu uh alluded to. Those smaller municipalities just don't have the DC collections or uh financial wherewithal to to fund anything in that program yet. But we will not everybody's all over the map on it is what I can say. There's no cookie cutter to this. Um, so the two projects we're recommending, it's really today, apply or don't apply. Um, if we apply, uh, which for all the reasons the mayor has stated probably puts us in goodstead with the pro provincial government and our sister municipalities. Uh, we do know, uh, that information. Uh, Vaughn is already reduced their development charges. Uh Markham went uh to council yesterday. Um we'll be back to say we applied for those two projects. Here's our negotiation from and you step in Gigi if I'm overstepping my bounds, but here's the negotiation that we have. We're coming back to say this is what it means for us to councelor Davidson's questions. Um, so all those projects and and you alluded to those as well, councelor uh Shu, uh, the recreation facilities, the library facilities, etc., they're not eligible for this. It the soft services are not eligible for this program. It's hard infrastructure only. and the minister, believe me, we went down that path with them and they're very clear uh in the four categories that the treasurers presented to you today. So, I just hope that that clarifies why we're here and the decision in front of council is apply and come back or don't apply. >> Okay, clear. So, uh my last question if we are not on the camera, I I just want to ask this question. >> We are not in camera. Oh, we ran the camera. >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> I'm not playing games, bro. Okay. So, Okay. That's all my comments and questions. So, I will talk maybe talk offline with the uh >> Okay. >> All right. Um Councelor Davidson and then I've got Councelor Silvitz and Councelor Leu. >> Thank you. And I'm going to try to talk fast. Um so through you um Mr. Chair. So based on just the preliminary guess for what pro like if there's shortfalls, we're going to have to figure it out, right? So for example, I think the 2027 budget for Richmond Hill, and I know we're going to whittle it down, projects a 5.07% tax increase. The region is also going for DC reductions, which will potentially be passed on to taxpayers, right? So, in my mind, we can can potentially think that we're going to have to go back to taxpayers for anywhere between 7 and 12% tax increase. That's where the rubber hits the road because now we may be pricing existing residents right out of the neighborhood. So this idea that we'll make it up somehow plus the burden from the regional breaks, can we project that we could get into tax increases as between as high as 7 to 12% overall? I know you can't speak to the region, but added together, couldn't they become quite high? I if I may, uh because I'm on regional council council obviously, um they're in exactly the same boat. council at the region uh put in an application. However, it it's it's pretty it it's it's pretty good and I mean for the region and whether or not it'll get uh approved is quite questionable. Uh I mean we don't know and I mean questionable I mean I we don't know whether it'll get approved. So your question there's a lot and I I'm not suggesting it's not a good question because it is but there's a lot of whatifs there. Um and and also the whatifs on our end. I mean, one of the things that we're looking for is to use the halfunding for to to so that there won't be a tax impact. And so there's a there's a whole bunch of whatifs, but again, today we're just deciding are we going to apply or are we not applying? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Go ahead, G. >> That's okay. I I'll move on. Um, so you said that the so so a brand new development like the one on on um Elgen Mills and the one that's starting up in my neighborhood which is Bloomington and Young, they've already started, right? So they're not going to get a 50% DC charge reduction at all. Right? Because they've already got shovels in the ground. Like an existing development that's already happening is not going to get a 50% DC recharge reduction. >> Uh through the chair as far as we know. Yes. Un unless it's from March. >> Yeah. Okay. So, >> if it's before March, then no. Um but we the the program does require that we back date to March 2026. >> March 2026. Okay. Yeah. These were both started before that. So, is there any scenario where that could lead to those developers suing the city for a similar break? I mean, how do we how do we argue with them? There's no one living in them yet. In my neighborhood, it's just a bunch of dirt that's been moved around. I mean, doesn't this open us up to having other developers who are just at the very beginning of development saying, "Hey, wait a minute. Why should we pay when everyone else going to get 50% off?" Can you imagine that? I know you can't proceed predict the future. >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Certainly. Certainly. Someone can sue us for anything. And there we have quite a few unmemerous claims that I'm currently dealing with. Uh it's a potential for sure. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and to um to um staff, so we have thousands of approved developments. They don't yet have a permit. If if their units have already been thousands of approved units, is it a quick deal to get a permit for those when they've already come through council and they're approved? So potentially many developers could hit that three-year mark because especially the ones or in particular the ones that already have unit approvals. Does that mean they could get a permit in less than 3 years the chair to councelor Davidson? Yes. If they are sitting on approvals, uh all they need to do is apply for a building permit and we would accommodate the building permit process for those uh applications and there are many in that instance, >> right? So potentially we could get a deluge of people wanting 50% off because if not between now and 2027, why not? Okay, thank you. Um, is there anything in this uh application that would indicate that DC charge reductions would be passed on to the consumer or I'm sure it doesn't, but I just want to ask the question. If we give 50% off DC charges, how does that trickle down to new home buyers or does it? >> It's a good question. There's nothing in the application that speaks to it. I think we're depending on the developers who receive the discount to pass that on. >> Y right. Okay. So just so I clarify 90% funding for two projects, 0% 0% funding for the 50% DC redu reduction as a program as a whole, right? The 90% funding is just for two projects. The 50% off that we're going to have to live up to if we agree is going to is just we're going to figure it out how to make that up wherever we need to. That's the part I've been stuck on. the the the DC the the grants cover two infrastructure projects the 50% that we have to give up in DC charges is on us to make up >> no it's not >> everywhere else but Vogle and yeah um through the chair to councelor Davidson um so in the staff report we did highlight the table and the financial impact and essentially What we've outlined is that the cost of those two projects and the funding that we expect to receive almost equates to the 50% the $44 million >> three years >> over the three years. >> Sorry, but how does that work when those two projects alone cost 47 million? That's what I don't get. The bridge and the op center cost 47 million. you're getting money from grandma. >> So we get that. So the grants almost cancel out Vogal Op Center. Now we got to deal with the 50% off we're offering everybody else in DC charges. >> Right. So as I through the chair as I said earlier the cost of these projects were in that number >> but the number for those two projects is greater than the 44 million because as I mentioned earlier the DC rate reduction is time bound. We're looking at a three-year loss whereas these projects were in the background study. So, we're talking about a timing difference as well, and that's why this is a little bit confusing, but I can certainly take that offline and and we can walk through the numbers, but that's essentially what that is. So, so the two projects lived in somewhere in the DC background study. So, the numbers are almost matching. That that is really the reason why we're coming forward because we want to make sure we're getting to as close as the 44 as we can. But I can certainly take that offline and we can walk through the projects and the numbers. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and here's my hesitation with applying. I feel like we're giving a nod to the province that Richmond Hill's willing to eat 50% of DC charges. And when they come back to the point where they legislate DC charge reductions, which I think this government could possibly do, has said they will do that. We've already put our hand up to say, "Well, we can live without 50%. We're good." I I I just feel like it's a number that we're thrown around that could have long-term um implications. >> So, I hear what you're saying and and I again, they're excellent questions and I I've said very similar things. The only thing I would say though is that we're not signaling to the government that we can knock 50% off or any% off our DCs willingly without commensurate funding back to us. So in fact I think this discussion today and the application that we're going to be putting in I can't imagine a more clear message to say to the government that whole you got to have skin in the game thing as far as I'm concerned that's the problem. We have no more skin. We've been skinned. That's the thing. And and I mean honestly this discussion and many discussions frankly that this council has had over the last little while I'm quite quite pleased at our honesty and our our bluntness about that exact situation. I mean I can't think of a municipality that I know of that's made it more clear that like this program well look at let's put it this way. If the government gave us 100% of the funding for us to drop our DCs by 50%. I would have done this the day before yesterday. We're done. >> Yeah. >> Right. The problem this entire conversation here is due to the fact that somebody decided that they we were we we were not being like we were just kidding when we said that we have no no more skin to give. And so the program was designed the way it was designed. We are here where we are here today. there. I mean, this the decision today is can we make an application that that frankly I think for the most part at least works for us at the city of Richmond Hill, our particular situation. And if the government says, "Yep, that'll work," then we'll have a decision to make. Do we sign the agreement or do we not? And if the government says, "No, no, that's not going to work. You need to it's going to cost your tax payers a bunch of money." then I I mean me and I'm sure the rest of us are going to say, "Well, no, thanks very much. Have a nice day." And that'll be the end of that. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I just you know DC reductions we're constantly talking about future residents but my heart is with existing residents and I really don't believe in development at any cost and I understand the arguments for competitiveness but when we saddle if we're going to saddle our current residents with possible tax increases and hey um Gormaly or North Leslie you're not getting that community center because we can't afford it anymore and hey pickle ball we're not going to build all those because we have to um you know subsidize the charges. That is my problem. So, I I just I'm so torn, but I just don't see how this works for existing residents because we're constantly focusing on the next generation of residents and this will cost the existing residents. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, councelor Silvitz. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I agree with councelor Davidson here. Um, if I may just ask one question through you uh to um our staff, whoever wants to take it. Um so I understand that it's this only applies to hard in future hard infrastructure projects that we are applying for right it's the bridge and the op center so how did we come through you Mr. share. How did we come to those two projects? >> Is it because we we were doing the math and that was the the best the best way to to to make it sort of you know balanced. math was involved in >> Sorry, I don't want to get >> um but when we first got the guidelines, we started with looking at what was in the DC background study because the projects that are eligible have to be in the DC background study and then sat down with staff to understand can this project start by the deadline? Can this project finish by the deadline? What other factors make it shovel ready? So, we had a narrowed down list to start with and then looking at trying to balance it with the DC reduction that um would maximize our chances of being successful. >> Okay. No, I understand that. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's what I That's what I thought it that's what I thought it was. It's just um you know, I I I stick with what I said before. I I find this very unfair. I think we've been put under duress here. That is unnecess Sorry. Go ahead, Missy. >> If I may just ask you, the chair, the program guidelines are very prescriptive in that the projects will have to not have started. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, nothing that has started construction yet. Um, also when we look at future projects, also we're looking at projects that can start construction before 2030. So we're working within a very narrow, very prescriptive framework. So we went from a very long list of projects. Oh, one more thing which is very important is that we have to be able to clearly identify the units that are being abled by the infrastructure. >> Yes. So that was very difficult for us. >> Yes. Thank you. I thank you. Um but again just to say that we we are not really enabling those units to be built because we don't build them. The developers build them. So that that's where I have this real problem. But I understand where we are. Um I think like I said I I find this unfair from the province. I find this has put us under duress and it's duress that we don't need at this any particular time. um it's like holding the sword of damicles over our head and and it's just not something that we need um or appreciate. So I do want to say that um however I do agree with my colleagues who have said that we we need to put in this application. I I don't disagree with that because if we don't we don't and and that's that's not a good thing. So, at least by putting in the application, and I'm very gratified to hear that it is just the application, we still have to vote on what may come back to us um as to whether or not it's it's satisfactory to us. So, um I I agree with putting in the application. Uh staff is has the knowledge and the wherewithal to advise us on the best uh the best projects and the best way for us to to get the most of this. But um I it's I I just find this so stressful and it's it's just not something that we should be dealing with, but we do because the province holds all the cards. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, uh Councelor Leu. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't have any questions. Um I just wanted to thank staff, um Gigi, Lisa, and and the whole team here. This is something like mission impossible, >> right? It's you you're doing it all from unknowns and you make up this great report. So, thank you very much because after all, I want to say to my colleagues, this is not about math. This is about politics. So, you don't have to count the numbers. It's not going to work anyways. So I I think at this point of time what we're trying to do is to do whatever we can do to make sure that we file the application. I don't think we have an option here. Um um not only competitiveness but I I think that that there's a loss of meaning behind this that we at least file an application. Um there's no win for us and I don't think there's any win for the buyers is all win for the developers. That's for sure. But I think you know what we can do at this moment is um how do we make sure that we get the 90%. And I think what we can do on this bench is to give pressure to our MPs and MPPPS. >> We have a minister in Richmond Hill. I'm sure every other single municipalities are doing that. and we have to make sure that our MPPPs, they have to show us some muscles. Um, that's my comment. So, I I I I and I thank you for for making the two good choices, the op center and and and the bridge. Not because it's in what three, but I think well the joke is yet to come because I think we can at least, you know, collect some toll on the bridge if we don't have money. >> All right. uh >> you mentioned >> oh that's all my comments so once again thank you very much >> okay um if if I may I will say one thing I I don't disagree with you at all about the advocacy but um I I we have spent an inordinate amount of time at the Ontario big city mayors talking about this and and they are I was very very very vocal in the last couple of meetings about this and some of the concerns that I have we had a conversation specifically with the ministry of municipal affairs and housing and there it it you know people were not holding back right I mean so there advocacy I think we could we have an advocacy role here individually but there's there's lots and lots and lots of advoc advocacy going on uh through OBCM and and as well so um but anyway thank you for those comments uh okay the last person I have signed up here is regional local counselor Chan >> thank you Mr. Mayor, I I I I want to echo a country news. Thank you for doing and um you call it right, mission impossible. Um I mean I for one I always think that we over here making decision. We want to have all this information, data, evidence or even scenario that we can make informed and relatively reasonable decision based on what in front of us in this this almost like a classic textbook case on crystal ball glancing with no guarantee of anything. And um so I just stay up front and um one of the things that this is a comment because I got an answer already. I was about to ask because one of the slides earlier on say we have to specify the number of housing units that will be enabled assuming we get the 90% of this but I heard uh you we cannot provide that number right um is it correct through Mr. care. >> Um, >> give you an estimate 1,000 units, 3,000 units. >> So, units >> as we speak, um, our staff are working on the 32-page application and working with planning to try and do some forecasts about what's in the planning pipeline to provide an estimate. Um, it's as best that we can do. Yeah. But we don't have a sort of really estimate at this point other than both Bill and as well as uh Goldberg U group provide letters but there's no guarantee those numbers would actually materialize. >> No guarantee and I also don't have those numbers yet. >> We have to yeah that's the thing. Um one of the thing is that that's why we really doing crisp glazing. So on one hand uh as some of my colleagues said uh it would we don't want to bypass uh the opportunity to obtain at least some money maybe up to 90% which is about 44 million that we're talking about on the other hand we're dealing with a lot of unknowns um and that's the will define our as I said early on we try to make informed decision and based on all those information and we don't have those information It's really we are really um making decision and based on hope hope this will work out hope this would not lead to 4.4 for increase of um impact as page 10 was saying um with something not materialized meaning that we cannot use the housing a ser fund we cannot do this do that to cover 10% assuming we get the money so is on one hand it say well apply that you may potential get for a million dollars and hopefully to try to help out with the uh DC reduction that in terms of the gap that's what we hoping for is it not the case through Mr. Chair. I mean that's the whole incentive so to speak or rationale to apply now before 10:00 a.m. on Friday through Mr. Chair. >> It's through the chair that that is the reason that's the rationale for application. >> Got it. I I got it. It's just that if you don't apply you don't even have a chance to get for a million dollars. So the easy answer to that is yes apply. But having said that then we really have you know a lot of unknowns there. But one of the things is about timing. Um, so the transfer payment agreement has to be signed by a August 21st. Is that correct? >> To the chair. That's correct. August 21st. >> Correct. But then I'm also hearing we come back to council. So council would then in September because we don't be in August unless we call a special council meeting for Mr. Chair. >> Thank you through the chair. So I have had conversations this would likely result in a special counsel being meet called in August. So >> that's what I thought because otherwise under normal schedule won't come back until hopefully it's before 2 p.m. but anyway um Okay, got it. Okay. Um I guess really based on hope that it would help um but not to apply that means you're missing out getting the 44 uh million dollars. Um last but not least for you Mr. Chair uh I don't know it's to our staff or uh uh city solic may have some sense. I heard the word negotiation. Is that correct or or this is basically this a template we're expecting from the province? Here's here's the template agreement. sign it if you want money through you, Mr. Chair, or do we know or not know? Let >> me start first. >> Um through the chair to deputy mayor Chan, I think um the guidelines are clear, but as we talked throughout this meeting, there are still a lot of unknowns. >> Yeah. >> So, through the process of of municipalities trying to seek clarification, we got the answers from the ministry of we encourage you to apply. Well, perhaps there's some flexibility. They didn't quite use the words negotiation, but they did say just apply. Give us what you have and we'll review them. >> Um, thank you. Um, well, I done negotiation other uh parts of my life in the past. It doesn't sound like negotiation, but but that's fine. Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I said, it's uh we're based on really hope and not with really um data objectively or even subjectively in front of us. Uh but it's also the kind of thing you will miss the boat if you don't act within the 20 odd hours from now. Um no further comments on question. Um but yeah, talk to our MPNPPS, I guess. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the report. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Thompson. Uh thank you very much through the chair. Yeah, I I have all the same concerns uh that everybody else has raised here, but I think those concerns are something that we will actually be raising in August. I mean, right now, and I think the city manager tried to direct us about half an hour ago to say we're only talking about putting forward an application at this point. Yes, all those concerns are valid. Let's get to those uh at the right time. But right now it's are we going to put in the application? And I agree council councelor Silivitz that uh yeah this program is unfair. There's no question. We're not talking apples to apples across the ministries. Uh as a matter of fact, it's a competition for funding if I'm not mistaken. So you put in an application, what's the likelihood our application is going to be one of the top ones? It's not. you know, I'm I'm sorry, but I mean, the reality is, you know, the other municipalities that are are growing, they're going to have a very attractive application. They're likely going to get that 90%. They'll, you know, we'll put in our application. It's probably going to come back and they're going to say, "Well, it's not as attractive as what we can get over here and there." So, we're going to make sure that we're going to be able to disperse that funding that we've set aside to all those other ones. So, we're likely not even going to be anywhere in the conversation at the end of the day. That's that's my personal perspective. But, uh, in summary, the way I see this, if we choose not to apply, we actually eliminate any possibility of receiving funding. So, that doesn't didn't make sense. So, if we do submit the application and we're unsuccessful, well, then we're no worse off than where where we are today. So finally if they do accept our application and then they come back with and you know give us whatever the terms and conditions are we'll have that conversation. So for all those reasons I I think yeah let's support getting the application in and see where it all lands at the end of the day. Those are my comments. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Seeing none. Um, these are kind of random thoughts because I there's been such so so much good discussion here today. So, thank you. Um, I have been watching this come down the pike now for a long time, ever since we were at FCM a couple of years ago and uh, Prime Minister Carney, brand new at the time, stood up and said, you know, we're going to fund infrastructure and we're going to make you whole. Um, that was my expectation and I've done a lot of work on the the executive at OBCM uh and and other advocacy to make sure that we design a program that uh works for everybody. It's fair, it's equitable, it recognizes that every municipality's in a different situation and has different um goals and aspirations, but we're all on the same page when it comes to building housing. We need it. Um, so that hasn't happened and it's disappointing. I I it's it's very disappointing to me uh because it's clear that this program was specifically made not to keep uh municipalities whole and you know the skin in the game has come up and I honestly you know to be honest with you I'm not sure why we need to be um incentivized or whatever you want to call it to have skin in the game. We didn't have skin in the game when we agreed to the halfunding and we've done excellent things with the halfunding and we've done it in a customized way that allowed us to get stuff done and done well and done the way we would do it and the results are good. We've bu we're building housing because of that incentive. So I don't know why we need that incentive to somehow behave in a certain way. um this if we're to be successful in the end on this and I've said this to everybody I've spoken to, including our staff, we need to do this on our terms. We can't put in an application that's going to be raising taxes on people substantially. We can't put in an application that's going to make it harder for us to build things in the future. It has to be done in a way that works for the city of Richmond Hill. That's who we're elected to serve. So, um, you know, the this the idea of a clawback on there not happening because I'm telling you right now that that we've dealt with this in the with the building faster fund about, you know, somehow being measured on our ability to build houses. We don't build houses. The clawback is based on us on developers taking this incentive on and actually building the houses. It is completely beyond our power and control to build the houses. We can set the environment. We can set incentives, which is what we're hopefully doing here, but we can't build the houses. So, that needs to be uh said in at some point in this process, either in our application or in the end. The second thing is the halfunding. So we have that fourth trunch of half funding that is still coming to us and that halfunding has done good things and this is another thing that frankly if we were able to leverage that halfunding to make this this program work it is going to be incentivizing um units citywide right um I I agree and I disagree with what councelor Leu said. I I am skeptical that this is going to be wildly successful, but I will say that that DCs are have become quite obvious in this depth of despair that the market is in right now to be a significant disincentive for builders to pull the trigger and build housing. But do I think that a 50% reduction in DC's in Richmond Hill is going to all of a sudden flood the market with housing? No. Because the market won't bear that. Nobody is going to flood the market in Richmond Hill all at the same time with housing because the builders will lose their shirt. And there so I mean there there are realistic controls in the market that are I mean I think there will be some success in this program but I'm not convinced that it's going to be wildly successful. Um so those would be my comments. Um, I I truly do believe that, you know, I I think we're putting Richmond Hill or we would be putting Richmond Hill at a competitive disadvantage if we did not at least apply for this. And um this has been a very frustrating road and I have a feeling that we're not finished yet because it's going to come back in August and and we're going to have to, you know, make a decision on it if um if there's something to make a decision on. Um but I would also say that, you know, 8.8 8 billion dollars is not a lot of money. And I can tell you right now that the ones that I've heard of and the ones that I know about, if you add all those up, you're getting very close to $ 8.8 billion. And and municipalities like Richmond Hill have not even, you know, joined the the party yet. So, there's going to be a whole lot more than $ 8.8 billion worth of applications coming down the pike. But again, we won't know uh if we're if we're going to be successful here unless we put the the um the uh application in. And and I I will tell you right now that um I will continue to advocate through my channels to, you know, make sure that we understand this. And I again I I I just want to say thank you to staff for this has been really really really intense and difficult and um and you guys have been following the bouncing ball the entire time helping me to understand it as I go. I've been trying to give you heads up when I hear of things and it's been a really great uh partnership in this and I really do appreciate that because I think at the end of the day it's um important for us to be, you know, getting as much as we can um in the environment that we're operating in right now. So, okay, with that being said, is there any desire for a second round or are we all talked out today? This has been a long one. Okay. Uh so we have a motion before us with uh staff recommendation A and B. Uh all those in favor oh uh we have a second. >> Yeah. All those in favor opposed. Okay. Uh that carries uh only and uh we will uh I need a motion to confirm the proceedings of this uh meeting through a bylaw 6826. Councelor Bilovitz, Councelor Thompson, all those in favor opposed. That carries and a motion to adjourn. Councelor Shu, Councelor Tree, all those in favor opposed. Thank you very much, council. been a great discussion.