Okay, good afternoon everyone. This is the uh 14th meeting of the infrastructure and corporate service committee. Uh please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek, Honi, Lenwamp, Adawand people. We honor and respect the history, languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Matei and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. Uh we do have uh in terms of committee members, councelor Ploa, councelor Vanir Bergen, myself and we have councelor Frank online as well and the mayor is joining us today also. City of London is committed to Oh, and Council Ramen is also online. Sorry. City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact ICSC atlondon.ca or 519-661-2489 extension2425. I'm looking for disclosures of community interest. Okay, not seeing them, but I do have a request uh for a change of order. Uh looking to councelor Van Mirgan to move that >> uh seconder >> can you just disclose what the change of order is? >> Yeah, this would be to move the confidential item um to just before consent. >> Okay. Seconded by councelor Posa. Okay. And we'll open that in the vote. One second. >> I'm going to vote in favor. I'm not logged in yet. I vote yes as well. >> Okay, sorry. We just have to cancel this and set it up again. One second. Okay, we'll open that for a vote. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, just give us a moment to get settled. Oh, sorry. Now we need to vote to go into camera. >> I'm in favor. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, thank you. Welcome back. Um, look to uh, Councelor Frank to report out from close session. >> Thank you. I'm pleased to report that progress is made for the items for which we went in camera for. >> Thank you. Uh, we are now on to consent items. There are six items. Um, looking for anything to be pulled. Okay. Uh, not seeing any. Uh, can I get a mover and seconder for these six items? Councelor PLA, Council Van Mirburg, thank you. Okay. So, those items have been moved. Are there questions? Okay. Looking around. Oh, sorry, Councilor Frank. You're right in front of me. Okay, go ahead. >> Thank you. That's okay. Um, I just had one question for item 2.6. I've been getting lots of questions about AI data centers and our industrial land strategy. So, I'm just wondering if staff could comment on if uh a data center would be an applicable use for um the industrial the municipal industrial land. >> Okay. Looking to staff. >> Yeah, thank you. And through the chair, uh presently uh our targeted industries do not include data centers. Uh so businesses that store and process data for retrieval are are uh not not part of the targeted industry um specifications for the program. >> Followup councelor. >> Thank you. And then just to confirm so then staff would not bring any recommendations forward that type of use be used for municipal land. >> Go ahead staff. >> Uh thank you. through the chair. It the ILDS team would review any any suitors uh and in the context of of vetting them against the targeted industries. I I would say no >> followup. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Okay. Looking around for any other questions on these items. All right. Final call. Not seeing any. Okay. We'll open this for vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay, we are now on to scheduled items. Um, this is the uh tribunal for the develop development charge appeal. Uh, just give us a moment with that. Okay. So, uh I need a mover and a seconder um for us to sit as the tribunal. Okay. Councelor Van Merberg. Council Posa. Thank you. Okay. Um and I will just read this out. Um that the infrastructure and corporate services committee now convene as the tribunal under section 26 of part 4 of bylaw CP551-227 to hear complaint under section 20 of the development charges act 1997 and provide the complaint an opportunity to make representation. Um, this is a hearing of a complaint made by McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP on behalf of Sereno West Village Incorporated in Westell Development Corp. under part four of bylaw CP1551-227 as amended uh the development charges bylaw in respect to the development charges imposed by this corporation of the city of London in connection with the lands municipally known as 15 Capulate Walk, London, Ontario. And I will look for any declarations of pec interest. Do we need Okay, we're actually going to do the vote first. Motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, >> thank you. And now I will look for any declarations of community interest. Okay, I'm not seeing any. Um I will now look to see who is representing the complainant and who is representing civic administration. >> Okay. Uh I see the planet up in the gallery. Okay. and for civic administration. Okay, thank you both. Ry go to the mic state. >> Okay. And I I just need both to identify. So, um go up to the mic first and then we'll go down to staff. >> Hi, my name is Paul Kitson from Westdale Developments. >> Okay. Thank you. And then staff. >> Thank you, Chair. I'm Kyle Wilding. I'm the senior manager and deputy chief building official. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so I just need to advise that infrastructure and corporate services committee and the parties to the hearing that the lawyer from the city solicitor's office is here to answer any legal questions of the infrastructure and corporate services committee >> in camera. >> In camera, sorry. Um, so the hearing shall be conducted as follows. A, certain documents will be identified for the record. B. The infrastructure and corporate services committee will hear any oral evidence, receive any further documents, and hear any submissions on the matter in public. C. The order of the proceedings is as follows. The complainant first, civic administration second, and then the complainant responding to any new issues raised by civic administration. D. No party to the hearing may cross-examine or question the other party on either any written document or uh oral evidence. E. City clerk, acting ed registar will keep a written record of the hearing. F. The infrastructure and corporate services committee may decide to go in camera to receive legal advice. Neither the complainant nor civic administration except the city clerk acting as registar may be in the room. If the committee receives legal advice in camera. G. If the committee convenes in camera to receive legal advice, it will reconvene in public to deliberate the merits of the complainant and make its recommendation. H. After hearing the evidence and the submissions, the committee will either adjourn the hearing or make a recommendation with reasons to the municipal council on the merits of the complaint. And I, municipal council will make the final decision on the complaint under section 32 of the bylaw. That is municipal council may one dismiss the complaint or two rectify any incorrect determination or error that was subject of the complaint. Okay. Uh, I will now ask the clerk to identify and mark the following documents for the record. Exhibit one, notice of hearing dated August 24th, 2026. Exhibit two, written complaint from James Eley uh McKenzie Lake lawyers, dated August 7th, 2026. Exhibit three, staff report dated September 14th, 2026 from the deputy city manager, housing and community growth. Okay, I will now look for the representative of the complainant to uh come to the mic if they wish. Okay. Uh just before you speak, sorry. Um so identify the written documents that is relying upon in addition to exhibit two the written complaint and provides copies of those additional documents to the infrastructure and corporate services committee which shall then be entered by the clerk into record and numbered as exhibits. uh b provide oral evidence if any and c make submissions on the complaint. Okay, so if you'd like to go ahead you can. >> Thank you chair. Uh my name is Paul Kitson. I'm the senior vice president of planning and developments with Westell Developments. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today regarding 15 cap walk on our request for relief from approximately 553,000 in deferred development charge interests. Many of you may remember the groundbreaking of this project which was attended by Mayor Morgan, uh, Minister Rob Flack, Council Layman, members of staff and the Westell team. That event was significant because 15 caplet was the first project fast tracked through the housing development fund or the housing initiative fund and was publicly recognized as an important project for the city. Through the city's TSA zoning that came into effect last year, the project increased from 17 stories to 26 stories, significantly increasing the amount of housing being delivered. Approximately 10% of those units will be provided as affordable housing through the CMAC's MLI select program. When the city asked the development community to help accelerate housing construction, Westell saw this as a call to action. We deliberately advanced the project and accepted additional costs and risks associated with winter construction so that foundations could be completed within the required time timeline and help support the city's uh provincial housing funding objectives. We were aware of the upcoming legislative changes addressing um deferred development charge interests. However, we proceeded in good faith believing that any concerns arising from the transition could be worked out with city staff. Unfortunately, we now recognize that staff uh did not have the authority to address those matters outside of the required legislation and city bylaw and we respect that and we're not here to challenge staff's interpretation of that either. What we're asking is for the committee to consider it. What we're asking the committee to consider is the fairness of the circumstances surrounding the particular project. So our alternative payment agreement was signed 12 days before the legislative change came into effect and the building permit card was issued 4 days before it came into effect. Staff challenges that section 26.1 does not apply when section 27 when a agreement is signed under section 27. So the important question for us is had we waited until November 3 to enter into that alternative payment agreement which would be under section 26.1 and submit our building permit would the development charge interest be incurred and would we still be here today asking for relief of that 553,000 in interest and the answer is no. That timeline difference is important because delaying the permit would have affected our ability to complete foundations on time or before the end of the year which was the reason why we pushed to start the project to begin with. So once we learned that staff could not uh resolve the issue, we considered cancelling and reapplying the building permit. that would have resulted in another 310,000 in additional costs and that outcome would not benefit Westell the city or delivering much neededed housing. So our request today is straightforward. Uh we could have taken a more conservative approach and delayed the building permit application and delayed signing that agreement. That's something we could have done. Instead, we chose to move forward the project, accept the additional costs and the risks in order to keep the project on track to help support the city's housing objectives. So, that approximate 555,000 in deferred interest is a result of a very narrow timing difference. A building permit issued 4 days before the legislative change. So, in the and in the context of the project that the city was asking us to help advance. So, we're just asking the committee to recognize exceptional circumstances here within the discretion that's available to to them uh for us to be able to move the project forward reasonably. And we appreciate the mayor's support, support from council uh and the project that the that we received the support that we received from everyone and the time that's taken to consider our requests. So on behalf of Westdale and Iman who is not able to make it today, uh we thank you for your support. >> Okay. Uh thank you for your oral submission. And now I would look to the committee if they have any questions of the complainant. >> Go ahead, Mayor Morgan. >> Yes, I have a question. Um now just so I I want to follow the rules of the tribunal. Can I ask questions of municipal staff about the timing piece that are that may be relevant to the tribunal or do I have to ask questions directly to the two uh proponents? >> It's just the uh complainant right now. >> Yes. >> If after municipal staff gives theirs, if I have a question of the proponent, can I come back to that at that time or do I have to ask any question I have now? territory. >> Yeah. Um I'll look to the city solicitor. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. Um generally the rules of uh fairness in tribunals would uh allow the decision maker to ask questions uh of each of the representatives following their presentation. >> Okay. Yes, we'll come back. >> I'll wait for the staff presentation then. Okay. And now I will ask the uh representative for the uh city um to make their submission. Um so identify the written documents uh that is relying upon in addition to exhibit 3 its report and provide copies of those additional documents to the infrastructure corporate services committee which will then be entered to the clerk into the record and numbered as exhibits. Uh provide the oral evidence if any and make submissions on the complaint. Um so go ahead uh city staff. Thank you and uh through the chair. Um in addition to the staff report, uh civic administration has reviewed the development charges act, the city's development charge bylaw, and the executed alternative payment agreement. Um so civic administration's position is that the complaint does not establish any of the statutory grounds for relief. On the first issue, the applicant voluntary voluntarily entered into a section 27 alternative payment agreement that expressly requires interest to be charged. Because a section 27 agreement is in place, the statutory installment provisions under section 26.1, including the November 3rd uh amendment, do not apply. The timing may be unfortunate, but it does not make the original determination incorrect or establish an error in applying the bylaw. On the second issue, the 23 proposed affordable units may qualify for an exemption. The required affordable housing agreement had not been requested or executed when the development charges were determined. The exemption does was therefore not available at the time. If the applicant continues or completes that process and the units are confirmed as eligible, the city will adjust both the development charges and the related interest accordingly. Civ civic administration recommends dismissal of the complaint because no incorrect der determination or error in applying the development charges bylaw has been demonstrated. So are there questions uh from committee members um to civic administration at this time? We there will be an opportunity. So just Okay. Uh I'm not seeing any. Um I will then ask uh the representative for the complainant um if there were any uh issues that civic administration raised that you would like to respond to. Uh no, not necessarily that we disagree with staff's position. We understand staff's position. We're just asking based on what's available, the discretion that's available to the committee to consider the circumstances that's um been presented. Okay. So now we'll go to questions which can be asked to both parties. Um just noting if there is a need to go in camera um that that also be um brought forward at this time but I will now look to uh committee or visiting member um actually. >> Yes. Okay. So visiting members can also ask questions but I'll look to the mayor as he wanted to speak first. Um >> yes and I'll let you direct the questions um because I'm I'm not sure if Mr. Wilding or Mr. Mayor I'm not sure who to ask this to. So um I want to understand the situation as has been articulated here. Um uh staff uh have essentially determined to say here's how the the development charges bylaw and the legislation works. Um our hands are tied because you know it's very technical legislation. It says things very clearly and if you read this very clearly uh and accurately um you come up with the staff position to say um sorry this doesn't qualify. Um the applicant does not necessarily disagree with staff's u reading or interpretation of uh the legislation. Uh but there is this piece here um that is I would say concerning to me um that I my and I'll get to my question in a second. I appreciate the leeway where the only reason we're having this discussion is because the city of London said, "Help us meet our building faster fund target by doing things sooner so that we could get the $12 million that we ended up getting because of projects like this and because they moved their start date or their their building permit date onto the other side of the the line essentially the November 3rd line. I believe they pay $500,000 in interest that if they would have waited and were on the other side of that line, they would not have paid. Uh, and that if they were on the other side of the line, there's very little chance they would have been able to meet the pouring of the foundation and the conditions uh of the building faster fund. So is that like a correct articulation of of the situation as I understand it from maybe our staff? >> Go ahead when you're ready. >> Uh through the chair. Yes, that is accurate. Um as as well on top of this, we were very much focused on trying to get this housing started building. It was uh so there was a mayoral direction related to trying to fasttrack this work and uh and these units would count towards our housing accelerator and ideally would have counted towards our building faster fund as well. And uh very uh uh as as far as that even that timing of year, yes, it becomes more and more difficult as you get closer to to December to be able to do things like poor foundations. And uh I I understand from um the uh the applicant that that was one of the challenges that they were facing. You want a followup? >> Well, that's all I have for questions. I'm I I'm happy to share my thoughts as a tribunal member about what we should do, but I I don't have any further questions. So, maybe I'll leave it for others to ask questions first. >> Okay. Uh looking for any other member questions. Okay. I'm not seeing any. Um if you want to provide your comments, go ahead. >> I I would like to provide my comments. So, this is a situation where I completely understand the position of staff uh and I completely understand their reading of the act uh and I understand the concerns that the applicant has. Um, this is one of those situations where you're doing the municipality what ends up being a $12 million favor and the position they put themselves in is a half a million dollar bill that they otherwise wouldn't have. And so to me, that seems like something that we need to rectify. um because there was no reason for them to move up their application date or their building permit date aside from helping the municipality meet its housing targets in time to get almost $12 million from the province of Ontario which obviously we desperately need for housing enabling infrastructure. So I guess my question is, you know, I may be able to read that as that the amount of development charges was incorrectly determined given the circumstances uh and all of that happening at once. I understand staff's direct reading of the act. Um, I guess my question is, can I do we have the flexibility as a tribunal to grant um to grant the relief? Uh, and if we do, what are the reasons that we have to use to grant the relief? because I I certainly if if it's possible I would like to grant relief for this individual but I would like to do it grounded in the proper legal processes that it is like a fair and legitimate granting of the relief given the circumstances because I think there's a there's a right in my opinion there's a right thing to do here um and that right thing to do is to try to find a way for them not to have to pay this charge they wouldn't have had to pay if they would have if they would have proceeded with their plans as they had them before we asked them to move them up And by we, I mean us, municipal council, civic administration. Um, and I'm very thankful they did because we got $12 million out of it. So my question, I guess, to maybe our our legal staff is can can we grant the the relief? Um, and and do if we do so, do we have to pick one of these reasons in the act to do so or can we grant it based on um the circumstances, the total circumstances of of the day? like do we have the discretion to to to make a decision or are we bound by some sort of parameters to make the decision within? That's my question to staff. >> Okay. When you're ready, go ahead. >> And council Roman, I do see your hand, but uh just wrapping this one up. Thank you and through the chair. Uh with respect to the development charge appeal, the um grounds for granting relief are what is set out in section 20 of the act which is that the amount was incorrectly determined uh that there's a credit available or that there was an error in the application of the development charge bylaw. So if council is satisfied that or committee is satisfied that it applies to one of those three reasons, it should uh grant the appeal. The other alternative would be to dismiss the appeal and then uh sitting not as the tribunal but as the committee uh there could be a direction to staff to go and reopen the APA and work with the applicant to uh amend those provisions. >> Follow up. >> Well, I definitely need to follow up on that. Would and this is really relevant to the tribunal's decision too for me. Would opening up the APA, would a direction to open up the APA have the capacity to grant the relief that they're being asked here today? >> Uh, go ahead, Stephanie. Ready? Uh thank you and through the chair. Um so because the the act has a a very limited um discretion for the tribunal if it's something where council wants us to take the approved template for example which is what is happening here and um remove the interest provisions for example. That's probably outside of the complaint process because it is an agreement that uh has gone through council versus um you know an incorrect determination or an error in math or or that sort of thing. Oh, do you have a followup? So, and again, I appreciate that we're in the tribunal. This is uh very important for me for the way I approach the tribunal. So an alternative path to granting some relief is direct civic administration to go back to the APA for this applicant and remove the interest provisions given the changes that the province has made to the act and the proximity it's within a month so or whatever time frame given the proximity of that time frame I grant you the ability to go and and and renegotiate the APA with the removal of the interest provisions that's something that could be done which could grant the relief and maybe we box maybe we box a time frame around that because of the proximity issue to the legislation that would be possible through the chair. >> Go ahead Seth. >> Uh thank you and through the chair. Yeah, that would be possible. >> Then I I do have some comments from the tribunal given given that um it is my opinion that staff have correctly interpreted the the development charges act. Um I and I think it's a very unfortunate circumstance because there's there's there's a lot of me who wants to say, "Hey, we we you did us a favor. We put you in an awkward situation." I I greatly appreciate the pathway that staff have outlined to an alternative for council to grant relief outside of the tribunal because I think it would be a very awkward spot to be to ground the relief and the reasons under section 20 of the act um as they've seen as as they are very prescriptive and and in even the um even the complaintant is not disputing that the act was properly followed by our staff and their interpretation. Um, again, that doesn't that doesn't mean I won't vigorously pursue um doing the right thing through the renegotiate of the APA after the tribunal is over. But I think given the given the parameters under which the tribunal is sitting and given the um the legislation under which we can grant decisions, I support staff's recommendation to dismiss the complaint. I would strongly encourage the applicant to pursue the 23 units of affordable housing through the path that staff have outlined which would adjust development charges should that agreement be able to be signed. And I will say I I fully intend to raise the issues of fairness uh outside of the tribunal process which is where they would rightly where there is a proper um path to do so which would not put us out of alignment with the development charges legislation. And so, um, I will say I'm I'm supportive of the staff recommendation before us, and I appreciate, uh, the discussion within the tribunal, which I think has given a path that may be able to reconcile the concerns that the applicant has, um, which, uh, this tribunal complaint would not be the right place to settle them given given the restrictions in section 20 of the act on what we can grant an approval for. >> Okay. And thank you, Mayor Morgan. And yeah, just for everyone's clarification, uh, I will get to you in a moment, councelor Boza. So, we would still as a tribunal have to choose one of the options before us. Um recognizing that we would still be on this item once we um finish as the tribunal and if there is a will to bring forward a motion as has been discussed here, we can do it at that time. But just recognizing separating our role as the tribunal and then our role as the committee uh and being able to bring that motion forward. That would be after we we finish as a tribunal. Recognizing that we are still on as a tribunal. So looking to the committee members, I know councelor Robin, sorry you had your hand up. Uh councelor Clo, did you have questions? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> Go ahead. >> Uh and thank you for outlining that that process that once we dispose of this item. We're still not completely done with the item and that be an opportunity. Uh so I'm hoping that uh maybe Morgan's clerking something as as I go. Um a question for you uh to staff. I I shared the mayor's sentiment on this one that the applicant did step up to help make the city reach our housing targets and meet those winter construction timelines uh to make the project happen and looking for the most um I guess the easiest way forward or the most clearcut and uh appreciate the reasons the tribunal has set out uh with se section 20 and that staff followed um everything that was laid out uh legally. and did not misstep in any way. This is really a a one-off of of community partners coming to the table. Can staff, if they're able to, um I was on page 52 when it says the affordable rental unit development charge exemption agreement for the 23 units. Um what is the process like for that if trying to see outside of the tribunal how long that process takes versus just how we might word a motion when we come out of this today if we felt of a different uh a different way forward. Uh go ahead when you're ready. >> Uh thank you and through you uh Mr. Chair. Uh so uh the initial conversation that we had with this applicant started on our dollars to doors application. Um, but because what we look to do is we look to because we're funding through the dollar sed doors, but we also stack on top of that the affordable housing exemption under the DC. We didn't actually progress to the DC exemption conversation because we were still talking, excuse me, about the dollars to doors applications. So um if they are eligible for the dollar sedor doorors because we've aligned the two programs so that they are um they're very similar and they work together they would then effectively be eligible for the DC exemption. So once we've finished this work uh we'll be able to work with them to include that exemption for the DCs in the future once all of this is complete. >> Followup counselor. Uh yeah, just through you um is there a timeline roughly um just looking at which way to go of that versus how a person might um direct civic administration in emotion of which is the easiest clear coat fastest realizing the longer we wait the more interest there there's accumulating >> go ahead when you're thank you Mr. chair. Um just uh last cycle at community and protective services, we approved the um the new dollars to doors MLI program. So um effect the the DC exemption is part of that conversation as well. So once council is approved or reviewed and made a decision on that program, we'll be able to enter into those formal discussions on the on the DC exemption. Uh we have a template agreement available for um for the DC exemption. So it should be relatively quick process for us to work with them and be able to enter into that agreement. The key part is that the DCs aren't payable and uh until uh occupancy. So we do have time for them to complete the construction before uh we actually have to have that completed. >> Followup. >> Uh thank you. And once the time comes that you have a formal agreement with the applicant, is staff authorized to do that on their own or is it okay? I'm seeing yes, it's just radio that's coming back. Uh and I appreciate that part of the conversation. Um, I'll leave it to the mayor as he he's he's clerking something that uh I always appreciate Tommy and what we're trying to do and always mindful that it might come to council and we think it's wrapped up and then something passes and we put it all back to staff and then it takes several cycles to come back to us again. Sometimes that's just the process but mindful of uh what we do as a collective when we get there to council. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. I'm looking for committee members. Okay, not seeing them. And sorry you've been very patient. Uh, councelor Ramen, go ahead. >> Thank you. My questions were asked. I put my hand down. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So now we need a motion in terms of the options that are before us as the tribunal. So I will look to uh members for putting forward something. Sorry, Mr. Chair, could you just lay out what those terms are? Is there was only one recommendation in the staff report to start it off? >> Yeah, dismiss or allow. >> Go ahead, Mayor Mor. >> Yeah, based on my previous comments, I support staff's recommendation reading of the act that we would dismiss um the uh uh dismiss the appeal under the provisions of the tribunal. >> Okay. So you're moving the motion to dismiss. Seconder, councelor Van Mirburgen. Thank you. And yes, we can still afterwards come back to this item. But um that motion is now on the floor. So that is to dismiss. Any discussion on dismissal? Okay. I'm not seeing any. Then we will open the vote on that. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. >> So, a motion to adjurnn as the tribunal. Okay. Mayor Morgan, councelor Van Mirburgen. Okay. We'll open that. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. So now we have our other hat on. We are now the IC committee again. Uh and I will um look for alternate motions. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. Is this where I could provide some direction on the APAs? >> Yes. So, we're just going to give staff a moment because they have to work on the wording for this. And if staff could email that to the clerk or send it our way, that'd be appreciated. Thanks. Okay. Do we have some wording? Go ahead. Uh thank you and through the chair. So, we have um given the clerk some wording uh that would uh what it would do is uh uh direct civic administration to consult with any applicant that entered into an APA up to 50 days in advance of November 3rd, 2025 regarding agreements entered into pursuant to section 27. 7 of the Development Charges Act regarding applicable interest provisions that otherwise would not have been incurred as a result of the legislative change to the Development Charges Act on November 3rd, 2025. And then it would delegate authority to the city treasurer to amend agreements to remove the interest provision as applied after November 3rd, 2025. with the reason for the delegation being in case we enter into a uh lame dunk period. >> Okay. And does that work for you, Mayor Morgan? >> Yes, I'm I'm happy to move that and then I I would like to make some um comments on it to encou and to make the case for colleagues to support it. >> Okay, I'll second it and then you can speak to it. >> Okay. So um colleagues, you'll recently recall we just had a tribunal where an issue was raised that was uh inappropriate to be dealt with at the tribunal level because of the provisions of the act. Uh and it seems to me that there is uh there's a way to remedy a situation where um uh the city was helped out um by projects being moved forward uh at our request uh to meet uh our building faster fund uh targets and which ultimately led to us receiving you know almost $12 million from the province. Um I I what I appreciate uh in this in in staff's advice on the motion is that um there's a time horizon to it that seems reasonable and I didn't pick it. drafted um that would say this is kind of the time horizon that APAs would have been entered into that would have actually made a difference of you know uh that that um November 3rd legislative change um and actually would probably would have fallen in the parameters of us asking people to to move things forward uh to meet the housing targets. Um and so I like the time the time lock on it because I don't think this should be opened up indefinitely to any APA we had going back you know hundreds of days or even a year. I'm not sure how uh how many there would be or how far they'd go back. So that that that time horizon is important. Uh it also recognizes that that the only reason someone is paying interest charge. And let's make no mistake, this is just interest that's being paid. This is not taking money out of the DCs. This is not taxpayer money going back to a developer. This is just saying we recognize that this the province changed the legislation to say you don't have to pay this interest on this side of November 3rd, but you do on this side. And so this gives us this gives the delegated authority for our staff to open up the APAs and grant relief to anybody who may have moved themselves across that line into what can be a half a million costly situation uh simply by doing us a favor to receive $12 million. I think from my perspective this is this is very much us trying to be fair. Um because the answer could have been no thanks. uh your housing targets and your money from the province isn't our isn't our business interests. So, we're we're going to do what's right for us and and go after the November 3rd deadline, not put the foundation in the ground by the end of the year. And, you know, doesn't matter what happens, you know, with your targets or whether you get the money. That that's not what this particular developer and and maybe another or two uh may have done here. They they said, "No, we want to be a partner in the city on housing. We recognize provincial dollars are at stake. We're willing to move that up." And I think their their very fair ask in that is please don't penalize us significantly financially for helping the city achieve its housing targets and and and and receive significant amounts of dollars from the provincial government. So I strongly encourage colleagues to grant this authority to have staff open up the APAs within that limited time horizon. It would allow this situation to be dealt with and staff to look at any other APAs that may have fallen into that window. Uh, and I think um this is this is the fair and right thing to do that does not cost taxpayers money because we're simply um not collecting the the interest charges on on the DCs which is common place today given the current provincial law. So um encourage colleagues to support this motion. >> Okay. Thank you Mayor Morgan. Looking for other speakers. Go ahead councelor Po. >> Thank you. Staff had selected 50 days. Just looking for a little bit of insight of why the 50 as per the parameters and how many they applicants they might think this might uh affect. >> Go ahead when you're ready. Uh thank you and through you uh we were looking to capture this particular um APA. Uh so if if council prefers a different amount uh that's fine but we were just uh focused on 15 capulate. I I think um I guess to the counselor's question, it would be more would this capture any other applicants or is this more just to capture this one >> and I'm fine if staff needs time to look at it and come back. >> Uh thank you and through you. Uh this would only capture this development. >> Okay. Followup council. The remainder of my comments are in line with what I've already said. Grateful for a housing provider uh seeing the city's call of what we need to make sure we hit that that deadline to get millions of dollars back uh here in London for for what we need it for to help taxpayers out. And this building that's going to include 10% of affordable housing. It's something that I know the community really needs and this is getting the shovels in the ground and it built and not looking to penalize anyone who steps forward uh to be partners with us. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Councelor Frank, go ahead. >> Thanks. Um I'm just wondering to the chair of staff uh could they just explain the normal process for DC payments? Do we do developers pay them at the beginning of working on the site or at occupancy? Okay, go ahead staff. >> Uh through the chair, that's an excellent question. It really depends on the on the development type. So when we're talking about uh non or when we're talking about rental housing developments, they're u required under under section 26.1 of the development charges act to pay in six annual installments beginning at occupancy. Um I think that's the most relevant here. There's going to be other circumstances where they pay a permit issuance. Um, typically those are going to be for industrial and commercial and then most other residential would be paying at permanent issuance. Thank you. >> Followup, counselor. >> Yes. Sorry, I kind of missed that. So, in this situation, would the since the building's not built yet, they wouldn't have to pay DCS already? Sorry, I kind of I didn't understand the answer. >> Okay. Uh, if you'd like to repeat it, go ahead. >> Yeah, I think the chair, let me be more clear on that. So, for this type of development, it's it's a rental housing development. take the API out of the out of the equation here. What they would be doing is they would be paying in six annual installments. So, six uh payments with the first payment at building permit occupancy. >> So, occupancy uh council Frank. >> Okay. Which hasn't happened yet. So, they wouldn't have had to start paying now. Throw the APA thing away, but they would have had to start paying now in normal conditions. Uh >> yeah, Steph, just want to confirm uh verbally. Go ahead. Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, I mean, if I can say some comments and I guess that's now's the time. U, given that understanding, I feel okay with this approach because, um, it sounds like under normal conditions, we wouldn't even be getting these DC's money. So, it seems weird to levy interest on it when in normal conditions, we wouldn't even be getting it yet. So, I'm okay with this approach and appreciate the work of the committee. >> Okay. Thank you. Looking for other speakers. U Mayor Morgan, >> I just wanted to add one other thing that is not part of this motion. Um uh although the other issue that was raised at the tri tribunal that wasn't appropriate to deal with was about the DC rates on the 23 affordable units. Like I I there is a path that staff outlined in their response to that for the applicant to pursue. I would strongly cons I would strongly encourage the applicant to work with our staff to pursue the other matter that was raised of which there is a there is a fair and reasonable path to uh to seek relief on. Um those affordable units are really important to the city. Uh and I think uh they should be going through the process of making sure that not only they get built but also they get the proper credits for them on the DC side by working with staff under that that agreement that they can access. Um, so again, not part of this motion, but there's already a path out there, which is why I didn't felt it needed to be dealt with here. >> Okay. Uh, thank you, Mayor Morgan. Uh, again, looking for comments. Um, not seeing, I'll just make a few quick comments. Uh, I do just want to thank everyone for the collective effort today, uh, to find a path forward and a resolution. um appreciate um the mayor us making the suggestion staff your quick work in terms of coming back with something uh and to the applicant um for helping um meet our targets uh and the affordable housing component which is um very important to all of us. So thank you for that. Uh and with that um not seeing any other speakers, we will open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, that dispenses with our scheduled items. We have no items for direction. No deferred matters or additional business. Uh and we have already done confidential. So I am just looking for a motion to adjurnn. Okay. Councelor Van Mirburgen, councelor Pelosa. Um so we'll just do this by hand. All those in favor of adjournment? Motion carries. >> Thank you everyone.