Oh, okay. All right. Uh good afternoon everyone [clears throat] and uh welcome to the council meeting of Monday, June the 15th, 2026. And uh we're just going to start the territorial acknowledgement. I offer this acknowledgement with respect and gratitude recognizing that my life has unfolded across lands governed by long-standing treaty relationships between indigenous nations and the crown. These treaties, historic living and often unfulfilled, shaped the places that have sustained me and continue to guide my understanding of responsibility and reconciliation. My life began in Toronto on lands covered by Treaty 13, the Toronto purchase of 1805 made with the Missagas of the Credit. I was raised in Woodstock, Ontario within the treaty governed by the Upper Canada treaties, specifically treaty 3, the between the lakes purchase of 1792. These agreements involved the Hodnoni on the neutral Ottawa people. As I moved to Waterlue for university and early career opportunities, I lived and worked within the lands encompassed by the Halddederman tract granted to the six nations in 1784, six miles on either side of the Grand River. This region also falls within the between the lakes treaty territory of the Missosagas of the Credit. During my time as president of Professional Engineers Ontario, I traveled across many treaty tero territories throughout Canada. These journeys deepened my awareness of the diversity of treaty histories and the responsibilities they carry and how these agreements continue to shape the identities and governance of the provinces and territories. Since August of last year, I've been privileged to work in the Northwest Territories on lands governed by Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 within the traditional territories of the Yellow Knives Deni First Nation, Dry Geese Territory, and the North Slave Matei. In preparing for engineering work at Iperwash recently, I undertook a two-day awareness program to learn about the history of the Chipawas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, whose lands are shaped by complex and painful treaty relationships, including the legacy of Treaty 29 and the broader Upper Canada treaties. Through this learning, I was reminded of the seven grandfathers teachings which continue to influence how I understand my responsibilities within treaty relationships. Across each stage of my life, these treaties remind me that I am a guest on lands whose histories long predate my own. I acknowledge these treaty relationships as ongoing commitments, ones that call for learning, respect, and meaningful action. Just to pause for a moment of reflection. At the beginning of this council meeting, we paused to think about the needs of our community. May we show wisdom and compassion in all our decisions. Disclos disclosure of peinary interest council and the general nature thereof. Seeing none, we're on to the consent motion. And I understand that there's two items at a minimum that people would like to see pulled. And those are items D for community services and item F related to parking rate rates. But is there any others that people would like pulled from consent? Seeing none, may I have a mover for the other consent items? Moved by councelor Hammer, seconded by councelor Vasic. All those in favor? That is carried unanimously. Um, we're looking at items moved from consent. So, the first one is item D, community services. And I believe there is some questions on this item. >> Yes, thank you. Thank you through your chair. Um, I appreciate that. And a couple of these questions, unfortunately, councelor Row is is uh unable to be here today and there's a couple of questions I offered to ask in her absence. So um one of the questions is you know overall the comments uh that I share with with councelor rower just around the general affordability challenges that many in our community face and how and I I know that staff are very cognizant of that as well but how that what consideration was given um in term in in the process of setting these rates um particularly as it relates to the fee for the leisure access fee because the report references that there's been a 40% increase of requests. Um, so I'm curious how much additional funds were put into this program. Um, and if other municipalities have a policy that with every 5% increase in fees, if that translates into an automatic increase in the leisure access fee >> through you, Chair Freeman to the mayor. I'll maybe uh start that answer and uh we do have um the various directors from community services here as well as uh Brad to to help layer on to um to to my answer here. So yeah, certainly acknowledge um that there's definitely a balance between the fees and charges and and affordability um with everything going on in the e economic climate right now. So, um, in terms of the first part of your question around the the fee assistance program, um, as you'll note in the report, we are, um, through the additional revenue generated from the fees and charges, we are proposing that $100,000 of that be, uh, essentially reinvested back into the fee assistance program, which does um, support uh, low-income uh, individuals with accessing both sports and rack and arts programming um, both cityrun as well as affiliate run, which is really unique to the city of Waterlue. And so um you know the staff are very conscious of that affordability element and so that was a deliberate decision to reinvest some of the additional revenue that would be generated back into that program. Um and then sort of a similar vein with the facility rental discount program which again um provides a a discount to um affiliate groups for for use of space at city facilities. Uh the report also does note that a proposal for $150,000 would also be reinvested into that program. Again, both with the lens of providing um affordability uh to those individuals and circumstances where where that is needed. And so um I I hope that addresses uh um that part of your question and maybe I'll look to the the staff table there if there's anything else to layer on. >> Uh thank you Kevin through you um Chair Freeman. Yeah, when setting um the recommended user fees, it's a very complex process. We need to consider lots of factors and and affordability is one of them. Um but when we look at uh the various cost inputs uh that go into delivering these programs, so in this case, recreation programs, um there there's been significant cost pressures across the board. Um things like the labor costs have gone up significantly. those are um casual positions that will be compensated in accordance with living wage. So that that adds some cost elements to the um to the programs u but also just material costs. So things like chlorine, stuff of that nature, those are going up far in excess of of a standard inflationary increase. So we need to take that into account and then we also need to ensure that the fees are comparable. So um hopefully you'll see in in this uh year's report um kind of across the board but in particular in community services we did try to provide additional context in terms of the local comparators and I think in many cases um we we do compare very very well. So the affordability piece is tricky because we're creating a fee structure that is seeking appropriate cost recovery kind of across the board from an average user but then we also need to be mindful that there are those that this will be more impactful to than others. And then so as Kevin alluded to, that's where we see the fee assistance program um being being there um mechanism to kind of help offset that that pressure. And so we we are recommending um as part of the 2027 budget, it would be an increase of 100,000 to fee assistance. And we'll continue to monitor that to ensure that program is is properly funded. And and we may see that part of the solution is additional funding needs to go to that program in the future. So, um, very very complex, uh, process, but we try to take all that into account. Thank you. >> Thank you. C, can you give us a sense either through you, Brad, or Kevin or Jill, um, like the $100,000 when there's a 40% increase in the request, like approximately how much will that tackle? Do you have a sense of or is that a Tiffany question? [clears throat] Hi, Mayor McCabe. Um, to answer your question, we um the $100,000 will uh go towards that increase in users, but we we were seeing this increase in users accessing fee assistance throughout the last year, year prior. So, since the pandemic, it's been on the rise. So, we're hopeful that um it will allow anybody that applies for fee assistance to be eligible for fee assistance to um access that program and not be over budget at that point. >> No, I was just wondering how many more people might be able to access or kids I guess really how many more kids or youth might be able to access programs because of the increase in leisure assistance funding. if you like kind of ballpark that like would it take the 40% maybe that aren't getting it down to >> 20% or >> someone's trying to get your attention back there. >> Yeah, Jill has sort of indicated that it might be close to 250 people that would have additional access. The challenge is though that we are already seeing a demand above and beyond what we were funded at last year. So I to say that that's equivalent to us serving another 250 I think is just unknown at this point but yes it will that's what it would be equivalent to. >> Okay. Thank you. That that's helpful um to know. Um I appreciate the work that staff puts into this to try and help balance the the various needs of various people in our community. Um okay that's helpful for the um for the fee assistance piece. The other question was around the vacant building building monitoring just so um the um how many vacant buildings approximately does the city currently monitor and have staff considered a broader vacant vacant homes policy or sorry vacant homes bylaw that could be used as a tool to address long-term long-term residential vacancies? We may have addressed this or asked this previously at a year or so ago, but again this is I'm I'm asking this on behalf of councelor row. >> Certainly through you chair. Uh thank you mayor mccabe for the question for councelor row. Currently um meases is monitoring approximately 26 properties across the city. Um it does fluctuate though as um buildings are occupied or sold. Um, we have identified the need to update our current vacant building bylaw to establish a more formal registration system and that will be on our work plan for 2027. It was highlighted for this year. We had some other constraints and other projects this year. So, it certainly is on our um work plan for 2027. >> Okay. Okay. Um, question about the rental renovation licensing application fee. I think that's probably a you question, Nicole. >> Okay. Um because it references that it's $650. I was just curious like who pays that fee? How is it collected? And is this fee is the purpose of this fee to help fund the program itself or can just unpack that a bit. Certainly. So it isn't going to fund the program but offset a small administrative portion of taking in a uh for the application fee, processing the application. um reviewing the application as well. Um so that is we set the fee based on what Kitchener was setting theirs at to be comparable. Um it is lower than Toronto. So we just being that it's a new program um we sort of looked did a municipal comparator to help us establish that fee, but it certainly will assist in some cost recovery for administering the program. >> Okay. Thanks. So who pays that fee? So, the applicant um the property owner that would want to be doing the renovation and getting the permit in order to uh Okay. >> Okay. I was worried that Okay. I was worried that this was if you were applying if you were trying to fight a renovation. This was Okay, that wasn't really clear in the report or maybe I'm just didn't read it properly, but okay. Just wanted to um just wanted to be clear on that. Okay. Thanks very much. Um, and then I just had a question about the fire services as well, which I guess is back to maybe Oh, >> hi Chief. >> Because there's a lot of different fees outlined there. Um, and I was curious about what we charge for false alarms because and because I believe we get quite a number of false alarms um through, you know, on a regular basis. Um, and so I'm wondering if well what the fee is, but my follow-up question depending what the answer is is um if there if if we should be considering a significant increase to prov would that provide any deterrence value for false alarms for people that just pull the alarms. >> Yeah. Uh so we have uh four different categories um of fire alarms. Equipment malfunction, failure to notify fire services. So that's like someone is doing uh some construction and then the alarm goes off um and then malicious. So someone pulls the fire alarm and um then the fire alarm when the owner doesn't respond within 45 minutes. So we respond to a fire alarm and then the owner doesn't come uh within 45 minutes. So all those fees are 195.84 84 this year and $200 96 next year. Uh, as for increasing that fee, I'm not like I have no insight whether or not that could be a deterrent for uh owners of uh these these facilities. Um, it is the person that does like pulling the alarm is not the one who's getting charged. It's the owner of the building that's getting charged. >> Right. So, um, but would that like incent them to do more education or anything like that of that nature to try and avoid anything like that or is this just a real spur of the moment someone pulls the alarm or do you know >> if it's a building where it happens uh regularly? We do provide communication to the owner and have maybe an information session for uh those that live in the building. Um, so it really depends on the building. So if it if if it happens multiple times then we would as fire services feel uh the necessity to actually connect with the owner and communicate with some of the uh the tenants. So for students for example uh we provide communication what happens when they pull the alarm and how many trucks are uh actually responding and that is taking away from the response for the rest of the city. >> And do we know does that has that had an impact? Has that made any changes? It has in in individual situations. Yes, it does have some impact, but it's it's hard to say. Well, we're not tracking really the data um when it comes to all the fire alarms, but if we like I said, when we focus on one building, we do see an impact. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks for that. And sorry, I do have one more about the facility rental fees. Thanks. Thanks, Chief. Um so the comment was well some community groups can absorb the increase in facility rental fees. Um others cannot and I and I believe the report references nonprofits. Um but we continue to hear from community groups that the cost of renting city space is already a significant barrier for many. Um so it's a concern. So I um so are we differentiating between nonprofits and charities and are and or is there a way to do that? And some nonprofits have more um some nonprofits are more can can more easily afford the fee versus other nonprofits. So just curious if you could provide some information about that. Um the current affiliation policy does not differentiate um the various not for-profit groups saying that uh our work upcoming through our sports and recre action plan will be looking at uh the various groups and how we can um provide for your lowcost space depending on um kind of that affordability lens. Right now basically if you're affiliated with the city you receive facility rental discount otherwise you do not. So, >> okay. Um, so I guess that's something we need to take a pretty close look at because again there's like charities who are probably very low income in lots of cases. Maybe not all cases, but then the difference between the nonprofits and you know charities I think really needs to be taken a look at there. >> Yes, we intend to do that. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I think that's all from that perspective. Councelor Hanmer probably [clears throat] thought of some more stuff with your questions. >> I do have just one. It's more a comment to your last comment. I think we have to be careful with the not for-p profofit and not for-profit charities because there are some of our organizations who are not eligible to be charities. They very much may like to be, but the uh federal regulations don't allow them to do that. And I know staff will take that into consideration so that we are continuing to be as uh equitable as we can be. The goal is we want to have people to access the the services. I do have a question though. Um the mayor started one of uh down down a path of of what else is considered with the fees, but I'm wondering if we could uh comment and it maybe to you Kevin to comment a bit more on what's considered with the different groups and how you're coming up with the fees. who else do we take into account or what other considerations are there as we're setting the fees for the various affiliate groups >> through you uh chair Freeman councelor Hammer. Yeah. So just on that piece I I I do want to say that there's been a lot of thought and effort that's gone into setting the various [clears throat] fees and charges both from our finance team and community services team. And so um we you know staff look at a number of different things. Um cost escalation is one when we're setting fees. Um things like utilities we know have gone up. um you know substantially over the last year, labor, equipment, supplies, things like that. We also take into consideration and do a lot of work um in particularly this with with this year's report around a comparator scan within our local uh and and regional context. And so we do very very much so look at um what the regional comparators are charging for similar services and and by and large I would say the city of Wateroo is is either uh slightly below or or on par with majority of those um throughout the region with the exceptions noted in in the report here. Um we also do look at things like adding a minimum um inflationary baseline and then in certain circumstances look at recovering costs over and above that. But um you know that's all to say that staff really do um take the affordability piece into consideration and as we've discussed with fee assistance and facility rental discounts as an example. Um also community grants um other other things like that the the free use um pilot that that Tiffany had alluded to as well. And so there's a lot of factors that kind of go into to that overall assessment. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And still on the community services. Yeah, >> that prompted me to councelor Hanmer's comment prompted another thought or question. Would it would it make and this is for takeaway when we do the um uh the spa the master the planning around space use of space. But like for me like the charity versus nonprofit thing is more about like how much access how what kind of budget do people have to work with, right? like that's really more so what it's about. Um, so should it be is should it be should we consider like it's more about their budget versus whether they're a charity or a nonprofit and what difference that may make. But I don't know if that makes a difference or or if we're allowed to think of it that way, but that's my question if you want to answer it now or you can take it away. >> I can just maybe make a comment that um that is how we evaluate our community grants right now. So um we do take into consideration the budgets that folks are bringing forward in their application and the financial resources that they might have available to them. So whether that approach uh moves forward into for your lowcost space use we could definitely consider that. >> Okay. Thanks. And just my other question because the inflation piece was referenced a couple of places but I think I saw a couple of numbers 3.5 and and another place it's referenced is two to 3%. So just curious which number we're actually using >> through uh chair Freeman to the to the mayor. Um kind of a range I guess in in terms of the inflation is the tricky part with looking at inflation indices. So right now um when we look at the um when we look at CPIX for what will kind of inform budget it's it's in the range of of 2.5 2.6% on a on a 12-month rolling average. that's really trying to predict what we're going to anticipate in cost increases in in the future. But it's really just one of many uh factors that we need to take into account um because other cost inputs for these programs may or may not be in align with that level of inflation. So um labor as an example where you know labor may be going up at a at a rate of closer to 3%. Um Kevin alluded to electricity we're you know in the last couple years it's going up you know 8 to 10% uh chlorine significantly higher than any rate of inflation. Um fuel continues to be a big input. So the the the consumer price index or the Ontario consumer price index or or um CPIX which removes the most volatile items is really just intended to give staff and council kind of a framework or a range um that we're working within. But there's there's a lot of of different factors that we need to consider. So, you know, we would kind of prefer to, you know, reference a range. So, kind of two to three percent um is is kind of where economists are saying we're we're headed into the later part of 2026 and into 2027. Um but yeah, it's really just one of many many factors to consider. So, hopefully that helps me. >> Sorry. [clears throat] Yes, it does. Thank you, >> Council Wright. Thank you through you, Chair. I had many of the same questions when I was reading through these reports. But then later in the package, I saw on page 172, user fee modernization review, and I wondered what is this and how does it relate to the previous reports in the package. And so I thought I would just ask about this >> through Chair Freeman, councelor Wright. I think that's a question for for myself. Um, one of the the things that the budget committee has been uh contemplating is is many of the things that we're talking about today with with council. Um, and so we um through the leadership of of the senior leadership team through CMT u put forward an idea to to look at a user fee review um as part of the the work that we would do in 2027 that would help inform the 2028 to 202030 budget. And it's a lot of the things we're looking at. Are we um recovering costs at the appropriate level uh for this fee? Are there certain fees where um staff and council are the goal is not full cost recovery or closer to full cost recovery because we have different objectives which is supporting um the community to have access to that. Um and then the the goal there is to maybe go a little bit a little bit wider with that and you know are there assets that we could be uh entertaining for other purposes. So looking at are there underutilized assets that maybe there's an alternative um strategy that we could look from a revenue generation perspective and really just with the goal of of getting creative to help inform the the 2028 to30 uh budget. So early days is that review is not fully scoped. Um but the staff tabled budget that we're working on that would be released in December. Um the intent is that you would see a project in the capital budget that would then allow staff to embark on that review with with a consultant. So um more to come on that in in December. Um but good uh good pickup. >> And just a very quick followup. And so my understanding from that uh later report in our package is that that would be an all of city of Waterlue user fee review, not just community services. Um, yeah, through you, Chair Freeman. I would say um more fees than just community services, but I would I would be careful to say all fees because it it may not be a a line by line fee review. And and I think it would be kind of a targeted strategic um fee review. There are some fees that um obviously generate um large, you know, revenue based on volumes and then there's others that are are a little bit more less frequently used. And so I think um I think it would be a strategic review of of some of our most critical fees. Any other questions on the community or the corporate services fees and charges? Seeing none, is there a mover for this motion? Moved by councelor Hanmer, seconded by councelor Roach. All in favor? That's carried unanimously. And now we'll move on to the other item pulled from consent, which is the 2027 parking rates. Um, and I think that Mayor McCabe, you had questions on this one. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Excuse [clears throat] me. Um, I just want to make sure I understand our uptown parking rates and and particularly how they compare to other municipalities because so the report has that after two hours it's we charge 3 point $3.50 an hour. Um, I guess what I what kind of jumped out at me is that so people can park in uptown for three hours. It'll cost them $3.50. 50s. Um, and that's like almost the cost of like it's only $4 to take public transit, right? Like so it's it's cheaper than the cost of public transit to park for three hours in one just one way in one like one way on public transit costs more than three hours of parking in uptown. So you don't have to respond to that. I do have another question, but I just it it just really jumped out at me that that is a heck of a deal to park for three hours in Uptown for $3.50 or $116 for an hour. So, I guess the question is um are we underval undervaluing the cost of parking in Uptown >> through you chair to Mayor McCabe. So, as part of um as part of the recommendations that are in the report today, uh we would like to do a parking utilization study in 2027 and then look to do a parking strategy in 2028. And those would be the types of questions we would be looking to address as part of that work. Okay. All right. Um that's that's fine. I guess we'll wait. That that's almost two more years, but um but I think it's something that we really do need to take a really critical look at because as I said, it's it's cheaper. It's cheaper to park for three hours than it is to take a transit one one transit trip um you know to uptown or to anywhere else. Um I was also just curious about um because we moved you moved recently or in the last few months to a new system for the monthly parking passes. So how's that working? Has that created efficiencies? What's sort of the the what's an update on that front? >> So through your chair to Mayor McCabe, we have not implemented a new system yet. We are still working through that. We did have a vendor secured. Unfortunately, that contract, we weren't able to move forward for that contract. So, we've taken some steps back and we're looking internally at reviewing our needs again and then we'll move forward with a new NRFP for a new system. >> Oh, I wasn't aware that that hadn't been implemented. Okay. Because this was supposed to inre create some efficiencies in the system, was it not? >> Yes, this will provide us with some opportunities to create some efficiencies. >> So, when is that coming back then? >> We are hoping to have the new RFP out in the next three to four months. Uh, and then we'll look at an implementation time implementation timeline based on what the vendors come back with. >> Okay. Because when was this originally supposed to have um been implemented? >> Like I thought it was last summer. >> The contract we were the decision that we weren't able to move forward with the original contract was made last September. >> Okay. So, it's taking a year to get it retendered or what has something changed within that within that process or within the contract? >> We are looking instead of of um moving forward with just a parking permit management system, we're looking at now tying it to an automated license plate recognition system for enforcement as well. So, we're viewing all of those needs as one for the new bid that will go out. >> Okay. All right. >> It kind of sounds like maybe this is a briefing note piece since it's not really a user fee. >> True. Okay, true. Like I was I wasn't aware of that. I get my next I was going to ask if like what if where I I assume that the BIA has been kept apprised of this because I know this was a a significant issue that they were hearing from some of the companies, but you're right. It's not a user fee thing. It's a it's a Okay. Um so my question then around to go back to the user thief thing with the the WDSS and it said that the the um need to do maintenance on our parking lots and it said there are significant asset rehabilitation needs. I was just curious what those are. Um is it like just filling potholes or is it like full repaving or like what how like what kind of shape are our parking lots in? It is full repaving of some of some of our parking lots that are now approaching the end of their useful life. And is that and do we need them fixed more for the events that we run out of there or is this like degrade? Like I'm I'm just not really sure. I guess I'm curious why what difference a kind of chopped up parking lot like with potholes makes for for for parking, right? Like it's just a car is going to park there all day or are we doing it more for the events that we run out of there? The resurfacing work isn't being done for the events. It's being done to maintain the integrity of the asset. So the parking lot itself. So while you're parking lot is different from a roadway if it vehicles travel slower. So potholes or things like that aren't as much of a concern. There are still liability concerns from slip and falls if there's cracks in the pavement or uneven quality. And also if we leave them too long, we would have to replace the complete underneath the base as well at an additional cost to the city as opposed to doing the repairing the area on top which comes at a lesser cost. Okay. All right. Um, and then my other question was around the EV infrastructure because it says, >> [clears throat] >> um, I guess I'm curious like because it said there's a recommended increase is, um, is equivalent to the cost of parking for three hours. That was in the in the report. I guess I'm wondering why the city's providing this infrastructure versus third parties would provide this EV infrastructure. So we do have some circumstances where third party uh third parties are providing some of the infrastructure. So the only EV charging station that kind of parking owns per se is the one that's in the waterl town square north lot. The ones that you see on William Street or on Father David Bower Drive those on street stations those are uh they're in partnership with Grand River Energy and with through the an agreement Grand River Energy has permission to locate them on city land. So there are partnerships and few that are owned by the city. Okay. But are we're are we investing in more EV infrastructure? Like because that's my question like why would we invest in it and maintain it and have to have the responsibility for it versus third parties >> through Chair Freeman to the mayor. Um there are a few uh different um EV chargers that we are considering uh in partnership with with organizations such as Grand River Energy. Um and a lot of times what we're seeing is Grand River Energy needs to partner with the municipality um to gain access to to grant funding. So there are some uh provincial grants that are open currently. um charge Ontario's one and so through a partnership we're able to um secure significant funding for the EV infrastructure um and then we you know operate that in in partnership with with Grand River Energy. Um really the goal of of adjusting the the fee and the fees and charges bylaw is to ensure that the rate that we're um listing for what we're charging will work for Grand River Energy from their model as well. Um you can see the fee is is significantly uh low at this point in time uh based on even just you know the goal of recovering the electricity cost. Um not to mention the the on andm that goes with with these units and then you know future replacement. So um through conversation with with Scott Pos and and Heather in the uh facilities team um the opportunity was that if we could get that aligned um to a more appropriate level then it will also ensure that you know Grand Rivers using that fee um on the partnership units as well. So as Christine noted we only have um a couple of of actual city-owned uh EVs that are kind of from legacy arrangements and I think on a go forward basis we're looking to partner wherever we can. Um but that was the intent of that adjustment. You will see as a percentage it's a little bit higher but it's really to account for the true cost of those of those units. >> Okay. If we're accounting for the true cost that's one thing I like and and I mean obviously I'm really supportive of people transitioning to EVs 100%. I just you know um was curious why it was would need to be the city's responsibility to to to provide that versus you know the way gas fired vehicles are you know we don't we don't provide that kind of service. But I'm also just aware that there's a lot of damage done to the EV chargers as well. So like what we're kind of opening ourselves up to in terms of like constant operation and upgrades and things like that. I just don't want these things to become, you know, small money pits for us. That's really what the the my line of questioning was. But if it's required that we partner with them in order for them to get grants, I guess we don't really have a choice then is what you're saying. Or they don't have a choice if I'm understanding that correctly. That's correct, Mayor. >> Okay. All right. >> Right. Is there any other questions on this item? Seeing none, do I have a mover? Moved by councelor Bassik, seconded by councelor Bodley. All those in favor? That's carried unanimously. Okay. So, we're moving on from the consent agenda to staff reports. And the first one is the 2026 asset management annual review. And I'm sure that Cassandra is going to mention this, but I was going to also mention it. There's a a book on your desk entitled Inside Public Sector Innovation: How Local Governments Put into Action. And chapter nine, starting on page 146, is the chapter written by our own Cassandra Pacy. And uh it's outlining the um asset management plan we use here at the city of Waterlue. And I love the fact that it is within the whole idea of innovation because I think that that's um a true lens by which we look at our asset management. So with that, I'll turn things over to Cassandra. And I believe everybody has a signed copy too of this book. Um so thank you for that, Cassandra. It's really kind that you supplied those to each of us. Well, thank you, Councelor Freeman or Chair Freeman, members of counselor, corporate management, the members of public and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Over the next few minutes, I will highlight a few key messages from the city's 2026 asset management annual review and also talk about the book. This report is being tabled today before council to provide a clear and consistent annual update on the state of the city's infrastructure assets. It also f fulfills requirements under Ontario regulation 58817 which calls for an ongoing review of asset management plans and progress. The report outlines the city's progress in implementing our asset management plan while identifying factors that are limiting implementation as well as strategies to address those challenges. We continue to make progress in implementing the city's asset management plan. This includes strong collaboration with our subject matter experts, which is critical to advancing this work. We are also seeing ongoing improvements in data quality, validation, long-term planning and performance projection analysis. At the same time, there are challenges implementing progress. This includes inf insufficient funding for rehabilitation and replacement of assets as the city has an annual infrastructure funding gap of almost $65 million, $43 million for taxbased funded assets, and $22 million for enterprise funded assets. We are also navigating internal and external complexities that affect timelines and delivery. Examples of external complexities include changes in regional, federal, and provincial direction, economic and market uncertainty, and regional funding constraints. Internal complexities include data maintenance, asset maintenance challenges, and increasing project complexity. In response, we are leveraging council's reinvestment plan funding plan to support progress. We are adjusting project timelines as needed, focusing on manageable projects that can be delivered within existing staffing levels and when needed, using consultants and/or contract staff to advance these projects. And as councelor Freeman noted, the city continues to innovate. In 2023, staff submitted an abstract on the city's asset management approach, which was one of 17 case studies selected to be included in an academic publication on municipal innovation. The book inside public sector in inside public sector innovation was released earlier this year and I had the opportunity as councelor Freeman noted to author chapter 9 with support from comm corporate communications. I'd sincerely like to thank council, corporate management, Brad Whitell, the asset management team, and all of our subject matter experts for your ongoing support and commitment to advancing asset management at the city of Waterlue. As a token of appreciation, a copy of the book has been placed at each member of council's and CMT seat and there is one in asset management for anyone who chooses to read it. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions. Uh, thank you very much for your presentation and as always I I really appreciate all the information that comes through on the asset management system and I also value how we use that to to help guide infrastructure and other financial decisions. Um, in a way it feels more equitable to distribute resources based on that asset management plan. And so, um, it it I mean obviously as council we still have lots and lots of work to do, but the asset management plan is just such an important piece. Not notwithstanding the fact that it's regulated to do it, I I still think that even though we meet the regulation, we use it for other other purposes. So, I appreciate all the work that you do on that. Um, questions. Councelor Wright. >> Thank you. Through you, chair. uh everybody knows this is my favorite report. Um so I just want to tap into uh the innovation aspect of uh the asset management system and there's two things in particular that struck me in the report. One is um where you talk about uh the inclusion of scenario analysis tools um and where that might be headed. And the second one relates to uh the maturity of the data and the challenges that we face in continuing to collect good quality data because garbage in garbage out. Um and so I just wondered if you could speak to both of those >> through you chair Freeman and councelor Wright. So the DSS we continue to innovate it. We have recently um through one of the team members on um the asset management team Rob Alsworth we recently completely overhauled and re redid the DSS to become more innovative in the fact that we now we can run alternative scenarios. So when the team is saying oh well can we change this projection or change this ESL to see what is what's happening. We have that capability now a little bit more detailed than we had before. before it was more perhaps at the higher level. So now we can go a little bit deeper. We can run those scenarios. We can go in and add funding um to see what what we can do. And so we're continually talking about what we're going to innovate. Right now we're in the infant stage of the DSS 3.0. So I can't tell you exactly where we're going, but we're pretty excited about having some more tools available to us to be able to look at things differently for staff and for council. And then in regards to data maturity, um we're always looking to improve um some of the [clears throat] areas. They they have limited staff capacity to be able to necessarily work on different things, but we are seeing some improvements since we started looking at data maturity and talking about that. So I'm excited to see that that improvement and working with staff because they are interested in working with us and seeing what their their data can do. But some of it is is literally limited to staff capacity and what the other side is necessarily able to do with us. >> So just as a followup um you know the the conclusion that I would take from this is that um the quality of the data and the data maturity probably also impacts the um quality of the scenario analysis that is made possible. Would would that be a good assumption to make >> through chair Freeman and council right that is correct that depending on the quality of the data depends on whether or not the scenario provides the best information but it's a starting point and one of the things with asset management is you just need to keep you need to start you need to keep going because everybody's at a different level and so for example in parks they might be at a lower maturity level but they are getting better um so we we continue to see that improvement. Um but yeah, and some of it's the condition data. So if we don't have condition data, then the the information may show a higher or lower um infrastructure funding gap than it might otherwise. So yes, we are continuing to see progress. Please don't take anything in the report to say that nobody's working on it because we are desperately working on it to make sure that we are giving you the best information possible. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Mayor McCabe, >> thank you. And uh thank you again for the for the report. All the reports are my favorite. I can't just pick one. But [laughter] um I just was curious around like because you're you're referencing data analysis and the maintenance of data and um you know the use of data to you know determine um where we need to put our investments first or our infrastructure dollars first which is all really great. So, I'm just curious because we're in this um high-tech hub in Can in Waterlue um how or are we working with local uh partners to to help us particularly on the data management and the technology pieces? Are there things that they can assist with or help us with or point us in the right direction? >> Through you, Chair Freeman to the mayor. At this point, we haven't engaged anyone outside the city because our staff are the experts. So, it hasn't been something that I've specifically been searching for. Um, I do know of an organization that's being funded from ENCAN, I think, NRCAN that is looking to do something similar for just the underground assets. So, we have an organization that is looking to do something very similar, but we haven't reached out to our tech industry to see any see if there's anything specific that they can do to help us. >> Okay. Uh, or what about um which is fine. I mean if we have the better expertise within the city that that's great to hear. Um there's also the future cities institute which has you know they they bring in a lot of research and access to students and my tax funding and things of that nature to help on a variety of projects that cities are working on. I know we have the WDSS in place and you're on the third version of it. I'm just curious if there if there I mean I'll leave it with you but there might be an opportunity to you know access co-op students who could assist with some of this or you know and then through them access to some of the research dollars that they can like the the program if I remember correctly like they fund half the cost of a co-op student if I'm if I'm remembering it correctly to to to help on I mean they help they're helping across Canada and in some cases in different international companies or countries to to assist on um city challenges. So, might be something to look into. >> Can I ask a followup? >> Sure. >> Okay. My other question was how does this tool um in the third version that you have um how does this tool measure changing infrastructure impacts due to climate change particularly regarding increased storm increased storms the increased verocity of storms you know year round you know from winter summer spring uh fall as well as increased heat like can it evaluate um infrastructure degradation or breakdown through you chair Freeman to to the mayor. At this time we haven't em embedded climate change into the tool. Um there's some limited information that we have. So that's one of the things that I need to work with um Michelle Lee and her team is to to figure out how that does. We suspect that oh say a road resurfacing maybe instead of happening every 20 years maybe it needs to happen every 15 years but there's limited data to tell us that in regards to storm in particular. Again, we have some information, but not enough to give us something that we can specifically do to to project out the performance just yet. So, it's it's definitely on our radar, but it's we are still um sort of in the infancy stage on that as well. >> Okay. I know from having spoken just been in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago with the Federation Canadian Municipalities, I had a chance to speak to some staff from Edmonton Sustainability Office and they are starting to embed climate risk within their within their budget, which they already do a carbon budget, but they said they're starting to embed climate risk in to help evaluate um you know again the risk and the costs with decision vers um you know um materials used and etc. So might be a place to look into as well. Okay, thank you very much >> and thanks for the work you're doing on this. >> Yeah, thank you. That's an interesting question on the the climate change and the climate resiliency because I know that FCM has the modeling associated with risk in particular with um I'm going to say horizontal infrastructure storm sewers in particular. I would think that we would lean into that in terms of understanding the cost risk but I'm not sure whether it can be used that way. I'll leave it with you. Yeah. Uh thank you. Is there any other questions, council? Uh, seeing none, uh, we have a recommendation. Is there move or the recommendation moved by councelor Wright since it's her favorite staff report and seconded by councelor Hammer? Is it also your second favorite staff report? [laughter] All in favor? That's carried. And thank you again for the book. Um, we are now on to item uh 6B, the 2027 budget update. And um there's some intro introductory remarks that we'll be receiving from Mr. Witzell. >> Thank you uh Chair Freeman. Uh no formal presentation, just some introductory comments as um some of my time was occupied on the matter that we're going to talk about after this this item. Um good e uh good afternoon, Chair Freeman, mayor, members of council, staff, and members of the public in attendance are watching online. I'm here today to provide a high level overview of the 2027 budget update report. The staff tabled budget will be released in December. Public engagement on the budget will occur throughout December, January, and February with mayor and council consideration of the budget and public feedback with final budget approval in February 2027. The 2027 budget will be a one-year budget with the following budget cycle then returning to a multi-year budget covering the periods of 2028 to 2030. So this report is primary primarily an update report that is seeking endorsement of the budget timelines as it will be the next council that ultimately considers and approves the 2027 budget. There are however a few policy recommendations for approval today that will inform the 2027 staff tabled budget. In particular, I'd like to highlight that staff are seeking approval of revisions to policy FC012, the capital budget policy, which will align the capital inflation rate used in the budget with more recent lower levels of capital inflation. This adjustment will also reduce the required increase to the city's main capital reserves which are funded through property tax base which would result in an estimated savings of 554,000 or an approximately 0.5% property tax avoidance for 2027. The report also provides an update on the work completed to date by the budget committee and all staff across the corporation. Developing a city budget is a significant undertaking and I would like to thank everyone involved for their collaboration and commitment to date while acknowledging the work that still lies ahead. Lastly, the report highlights the new capital project submission system or CPSS. This is an in-house developed system that was led by the asset management and financial planning team. I would like to thank Cassandra and Michael and the entire team for all their work implementing this new system. It's already produced very positive early results and we look forward to the benefits that it will bring as part of this budget and the future budget cycles that will come after. At this time, staff are happy to take any questions that council may have on the 2027 budget. Thank you. >> And thank you very much and thanks for the the report and the work that went into it. Um, I'm looking for questions. I think you answered all the questions in the report. I know that I really wanted this to come forward too just to also as a I guess a a footnote for council to have in mind when the strategic planning starts so that we have kind of this this um bookmark or place setting I guess to remind us of the work that we have to do um what budget pressures there are what we've already committed to and so um maybe we can keep that in mind when we do our strategic planning because we know the strategic planning oftentimes informs the three-year budget. And so kind of keeping our own feet to the fire at that strategic planning level before we get to the point where we have to try to find more money, I think is going to be really important in the coming years. So that was one of the big reasons why I was hoping this report would come at this time. So um thank you. Uh, seeing no questions, is there a mover of the recommendations moved by councelor Hanmer and seconded by councelor Wright. All those in favor? Thank you. That is carried unanimously. So that takes us on uh to item 6 C. This is our uh revised agenda item and we have introductory remarks again by Mit Mr. Whitell. And I just I have to say that um kudos to staff for the for the focused effort to create this briefing note and this recommendation and this whole report in time for today's council meeting and in alignment with some very very difficult provincial deadlines. So thank you very much. Thank you, Chair Freeman. Yes, this was the other uh item that I was referring to that has occupied some some time. Um so, hello again. Hello again. Uh next, I'll provide an update on report corp 2026 034 and the city's recommendation um to submit an application under the development charge reduction program which has been uh coined the DCP. This grant program was announced on June 1st and under very tight timelines, the staff team has reviewed the program and is recommending an application for two housing enabling growth projects that are included in our most recent development charge background study and bylaw which was approved by council on March 23rd, 2026, which is a requirement of the grant program. The city's grant would be seeking up to 14.8 8 million in grant funding or the equivalent of 90% of project cost for the following two projects. The conservation drive sanitary pumping station and the Herbsville Iron Needles to Columbia Street water main expansion. It is staff's view that both projects align well with the goals of the program and will help support the addition of upwards of 2,850 housing units in the years ahead. In exchange for the grant funding, the city would be required to reduce our current residential development charges for all residential categories by between 30% and 50% and hold those reduced rates for at least three years. [clears throat] In recognition of the responsible management of our residential development charges over many years and the fact that our current DC rates are among the lowest of all qualifying municipalities and lower than most regional and GTA comparators, staff are recommending that council approve a 30% DC reduction and that this lower reduction for waterlue is justified. This reduction um if approved today would be in principle only which is an important program element from a reduced revenue and financial risk perspective. The DC reduction would become effective only once a transfer payment agreement is signed between the province and the city approving the DCR funding but would require a retroactive adjustment to any permits issued on or after March 30th, 2026. Staff believe this is administratively feasible. However, would require some rework and some prioritization of work. The amount of grant funding being sought is based on the calculated impact of a 30% DC reduction over three years with the city aiming to be 90% cost recovered. Municipalities have been communicating the need to ensure that any DC reductions intended to lower housing cost and increase the rate of building come with funding to keep municipalities whole. At 90% this program comes close to achieving that goal. Municipalities are required to contribute 10% from non-development charge own source revenue. So for waterlue staff is recommending that the city's 10% share for these respective projects would be funded from the sanitary sewer and the water capital reserves which in staff's opinion is a reasonable source given that these are creating sanitary and water infrastructure projects. staff will highlight um one slight adjustment to recommendation 10 which would allow the city to proceed with executing the grant if approved in full or substantially in part. This amendment um is being brought forward to provide necessary flexibility to ensure that the agreement can be executed during the summer uh if required as indications are um the TPA may need to be executed as early as as um mid August. We appreciate this is an important decision and staff will do our best to answer any questions uh that council may have regarding the program and our recommended application. And I just thank you to the members of council that reached out um since this became public on Thursday afternoon um with with some of your questions and hopefully we were able to answer them best of our ability, but we're happy to take any questions today. So, thank you. >> Uh thank you. Uh questions, council. Okay, I guess everyone's questions were answered. Councelor Bass. >> Uh yeah, I I'm I have a question about the timeline. I know you said it's in principle only. Um but is this basically council's time to approve it and then especially if it's um work that needs to happen in the summer? Um it's in principle, but we're approving it now. And could we anticipate that it comes back to council for a not in principle but for a definite approval later or is this it >> through chair Freeman to councelor Vasic? It would be the intention of of staff with the with approval of this report today that the reduction would be in principle only subject to securing the grant funding. Um if the grant funding is um awarded to the city in full or substantially then we would be um with this approval proceeding with the reduction and we would not in in staff's opinion need to return to council um seeking further um uh guidance on that. We would of course be keeping council um up to speed on on how this application um proceeds and if we are or aren't successful. If the um grant I'll say offer from the province is um not in the range of what we are seeking that is where staff then would be um likely looking to return uh to council to seek um direction whether or not we would proceed. um the guidelines are uh a little bit um to be determined in some places and so it's difficult for us to say what our our grant funding may be. Um the the program guidelines does say that the province may um recommend or or award a revised amount in which case um we may need to return and and seek direction from council. But um if we are approved for our amount then it would be in in staff's view that it's it's close to covering off um what we would be foregoing and then we would proceed to implement the reduction. >> Okay. Thank thank you uh sorry through you chair Freeman. Thank you. That's helpful. Um and and the other question I have is about the uh the impact or and the evidence about the sort of alleged or hoped for impact on increasing housing. So um my my big question is in the report it talks about how the hypothesis that the HST rep rebate um and also the um uh DC reduction would um get us closer to meeting our projected uh residential building that was from the DC background study. Um uh but I'm I'm having a difficult time sort of understanding how that would happen because the report also says that we have some of the lowest DC rates. Um and still we're not um seeing the kind of housing we're not meeting we're not meeting the pro the projections uh in that study and our our targets in general. Um and so if the idea is that lowering DCs will result in more housing and that's not obviously happening in water. Um, can you tell me then how we think lowering DC's more is going to help >> through Chair Freeman to councelor Vasic as um you may have seen through some of the communication that's been putting it out by the Association of Ontario Municipalities or or AMO um through their uh DCP primer. there, you know, is some of that uh uncertainty whether or not um lowering DCS will provide enough incentive to to see these um units advance. Um through some of their work, it it's, you know, referencing that it'll be enough incentive for some, but maybe not for all. So, it's a difficult um question for staff to answer to say that if if council will approves this and we are successful and we lower DCs that we will for sure see um the amount of development uptake that that we're anticipating. Uh but based on um the communication that we have had with the industry, obviously they're they're very keen to see this supported today and this to move forward. And there are um a few developments in particular um the development at 85 Bridgeport where a reduction of this nature would would really help that um 550 unit development proceed as one of the you know impeding factors is development charges and how the um CMHC loans and and financing works. Um what we are contemplating the um grant program provides some flexibility to municipalities in terms of how this is implemented. So one of the things we are contemplating is whether um instead of providing a blanket discount if we provide the 30% um reduction as a grant. So that would be um that would be provided when the um permit moves forward. So we would have some certainty that it's um actually going forward um which may be uh a mechanism that we we would like to see applied. The only other thing I can offer is, you know, sometimes history does help provide some indication and when we had a DC corerary exemption um years back, we did see that it had the intended consequence and it did spur um some of that development activity. But um it it is very difficult for us to say that this will for sure um lead to the outcomes that the program is is aiming to um which is more housing faster. >> Yeah, it's it's I mean I think the uncertainty is what's most concerning to me and interesting that maybe it spurred something on before um but it's uh not context that we have a good understanding of and so we're kind of just being asked to approve this based on vibes you know uh feels bad um and I I'm did I miss that in the report about the 30% reduction as a grant >> through chair Freeman councelor Vasic I do not believe that would be noted in the grant as or in the report. So, at the time of of preparing the report, we didn't have all of the program uh information. Um late last week, um uh the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing through the Ontario big city mayors have been providing some clarification. And so, that is um some information that we got in the slide deck and and we now have the um grant application. Um it's been downloaded from uh the province's uh grant submission which is TPON. So given the timeline, staff has begun preparing the application in case um council does approve it today. And so within that, it is um a section that talks to how would we um provide the reduction and um doing it through a grant is is one of the options. And so um I know it's something that uh legal teams across many municipalities are also reviewing what's the best uh mechanism to provide the reduction. Um there are alternatives that that you could look at. You could um push projects out of your uh bylaw. So you could shift um some projects outside of the window with the goal of lowering DCS and and you would have to work with your consultant to see where's that right mix. Um but I don't think that was the um preferred path that um city staff had come up with. We just spent a lot of time going through and updating our bylaw. All the projects were were heavily scrutinized and I believe council would like to see those all um go forward and remain. And so um we're leaning towards a different avenue which would be um either lowering the rates um or doing it through a granting process. Um but yeah, it's it's been a very tight timeline and and the information is coming out at different stages which um is making it a little bit trickier, but I would say the report before you is is a pretty solid reflection of where um the program has landed and um staff are confident that um we can we can make this work and subject to being approved of course for the funding. >> May I ask a followup? Okay. Or I guess this is maybe more of a comment. Uh but um I I appreciate that council and this is an excellent report. Very good tight timeline. I mean you can only do as much as you have been given from the province and the federal government to to do to to give us what you can. Um and so this is very thorough and helpful. Um, and I also appreciate that like when things come to council, we don't we're not going to have our hands in every single operational detail, nor should we, of course. Um, but that a a grant seems like a pretty big program component that uh I would anticipate a staff report would come and say, here are the different, you know, major program components uh or ways we might be able to administer it. And so to me, it seems like you're just getting new information on Friday about how to do it now. And we're going to approve potentially a report uh that we have. We're really not going to be clear on council about how to um administer it. You know, we've we've not approved other things on council for not having like much less operational detail um and have dug for more and more and more that we probably shouldn't even have been digging for. But now we're just going to be like, "Okay, just make the program however you want." And not to say we wouldn't trust you to do that. I I would um but it's a pretty it's a pretty big ask um to say yeah sure go ahead um please do this and then for me not to have any real idea about how the program is going to uh roll out uh except through briefing notes and whatever but like we're decision makers for the city. It's a it's a big responsibility it feels like to me and I would like to have enough information to be able to make a decision where I think oh yeah that seems like a really solid way to administer the program. Uh, I feel like I had enough information to make that decision and I just don't feel like I have enough information not to even mention my actual concerns about um uh reducing uh DCs and sort of not knowing when the the the I'm so bad at saying but when it stops, you know, like we can do a million things. Uh, and I I just don't inherently believe uh that this is going to spur on housing. And um I mean we could see, we could try and maybe it will, but I don't think it will. And when it doesn't, we're going to be asked to do more and more and more. We do a ton. We're great partners with the development community as much as the discourse um uh around there says we're not. And I have a number of things that I've done a little bit of research on to show that we are. Um, and so those are some of my concerns, but now I have other major concerns that we don't actually have enough information to make this decision. Um, so anyways, I can play nice with the province, I guess, and the development community, uh, which would imply that we're not playing nice, and I haven't played nice before, which I think isn't uh, true. So, if we have to do this because we need the money and we're going to look bad to the province and to the development community, I can see that that's one reason to approve this, but also it doesn't feel good as a decision maker to do so. Thank you, councelor Bodley. >> Just just through uh chair f just maybe a couple pieces there. I think um for context, we do have certainty in terms of how long the reduction would be in place. So, we would be um agreeing to a three-year reduction. So, that um that is um clearly outlined in in the guidelines. Um there is very um robust reporting requirements uh outlined in the guideline and the TRA and the and the application. So um I'm sharing that with with some acknowledgement that Michael Puglazy and the and the team will have a fair bit of administration uh to do to track this. We would be reporting to council um whether or not it's a requirement in the TPA on an annual basis. So, we do have an annual um development charge uh update report to council where you could fully expect that this would have a a new section within that report. Um so, this is the um reduction loss through a 30% um DC reduction if approved. This is the grant funding we secured. So, we will be tracking that and we will be able to um articulate at the end of the three-year program uh whether or not we were, you know, 90% funded or or slightly lower. So, um that is um in in my view will be um taken care of and administratively reported to council. So, you have that line of sight on a on an annual basis. Um and maybe I'll just leave it with those items. >> Uh just I have a small list just letting people know I have councelor Bodley right handmer and then the mayor. So, councelor Bodley. >> Thank you. Uh through you uh chair Freeman. I I I'm going to signal pretty early on here that I I don't think I'm going to be able to support this uh application uh or uh this proposal here. And that's not a reflection on uh any of the work that staff have done here. Uh the timelines are ridiculously tight and uh I guess uh uh the province and the federal government can move real quick when they want to give billions of dollars to developers. Um, the question that I have that is unclear to me that I'm hoping that you can provide uh a little bit more clarity on for me is the timing uh of how the money comes in and and goes out. Um, I was just having a hard time sort of following. We're giving a reduction to developers of 30%. And so we are just not getting that money that we otherwise would have got when we're receiving it. When does the province and the federal government give us the money uh for that uh lost revenue, I guess, not that we're being made fully whole, but that 90% of of being made whole. Do we have an idea? Has it been made clear in this uh very short time frame how and when exactly we're getting this money if we if we do? through uh Chair Freeman and Councelor Bodley. Um it is uh in the guidelines kind of outlined that you would the municipality would receive grant funding over uh numerous years uh based on uh project uh milestones. Um and so from from that perspective, if you look at um the grant program is tying it to development charge eligible projects. And so from a city outflow perspective, we are, you know, expending those outflows um for the purposes of our projects, you know, in a couple years time. So we we know that they would start in in 2030 and 31. So we would in all likelihood see the grant funding uh coming in based on eligible expenses over that over that timeline. So in terms of the inflow, it wouldn't be inflowing grant funds in in 2026 or 2027 um necessarily. Um but you would start to see some of that revenue um foregone as as early as as this year if if supported. But from an overall cash flow perspective, we need to look at the reserve model uh and our ability to to kind of cash flow and finance this. But with our grant projects being a couple years out, we don't have any immediate um concerns from from what that would look like. But they are treating [snorts] it a little bit more like a traditional grant where um the grant revenue will will flow with eligible expenditures within the project is is uh how I'm I'm interpreting it and then some various milestones on those projects. So um funding at you know contract award and and funding at certain milestones within the project is is how it's kind of being rolled out at this point in time. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And then uh a second question uh my last question if I may. Uh, and I apologize. I did not ask this uh in advance, so I I I'm sorry to put you on the on the spot on this one, but one of the projects that's listed here is for uh the Herbsville Road Water main expansion. And uh it is my or it [clears throat] would be my assumption that that project is only moving forward if the region is indeed uh widening Herbsville Road as they show in their capital. What happens if they don't? uh we're we're not going to be able to do this project if the region for some reason has to delay that uh that project through Chair Freeman, Councelor Bodley. Yeah, it's a it's a good question. Um and there there is I guess an element of of risk. We tried to identify a couple of of larger um projects there. There's maybe a couple uh alternate projects. Obviously, um the the if we scroll up a little bit, the um the pumping station uh project obviously is was our our immediate top candidate um it's it's going to support 2,000 units. It's entirely, you know, at city's discretion when it when it proceeds. Um so that, you know, we did kind of go back and forth on on the alternative. Um so there is an element of risk on that one. And so I mean if if council was, you know, interested in in moving this forward and and wanted to kind of direct staff to swap that project out for an alternative, um we we would be, you know, open to maybe making that work. We'd have to do that relatively quickly. Um but the goal there was to we did a calculation on what are we foregoing in in DC revenue at this um level of reduction to generate an approximate amount of cost then that we tried to recover. We're permitted up to five projects. Um I don't think we want to apply for five. The administration on that would be fairly significant. Um but we could, you know, look to find one or two other projects that um are are in that range if there is some concern about the ability to um fully control that project and its and its timing. >> Thank you, uh councelor Ray. >> Thank you. go through you, chair. Um, I guess number one, I just want to register my disappointment that this is how the upper tier governments are uh intending to fund infrastructure because it really does just introduce a lot more complexity and uncertainty into the mix. And and what we're really looking for is more certainty and a better uh funding model for um for infrastructure um so that we can make plans and stick to them. Um my question really has to do with um a reduction in DC's that would be across the board, but we are only allowed to apply for certain projects for the grant funding. And so I'm I'm trying to understand how that works and how you uh reverse a program like this once I mean they they're saying it's a three-year period but how do you reverse a program like this after it's been in place for three three years >> through chair Freeman council right very good questions um I guess I'll take the kind of project eligibility one first so the the guidelines are fairly flexible Um they're obviously uh the term housing enabling infrastructure. So whether that be a sanitary pumping station, um water manes, sewer mains, um roads, um they're they're certainly uh eligible projects. Um it also includes community infrastructure, uh fire infrastructure, um you know, that kind of support housing, those would also be eligible, but the guideline does indicate that housing enabling uh projects may be uh prioritized for funding. So, um, staff had to kind of make a bit of a calculated assessment as to which projects may be, um, the most likely to be successful. And so, that's where we landed on on the housing enabling, but um, we may see other municipalities who are putting forward, um, community, uh, type of projects. And so, um, just so council's aware, we did um, consider that the, um, three-year timeline. and and what do we do in 3 years time when there's the potential perception that um the city is uh increasing DC's by 30%. In reality, what we're doing is um ending a program. Communication will be will be critical. Um and so I think you know leading up to that expiry date, we'll need to be doing some some uh advanced uh communication. Um, and that's where the grant model may be another nice way that maybe there's the ability to weave some language into that. Um, and it would be a little bit more transparent. So, you would see the full development charge less the grant and we could put some some communication around that that it's like a a time uh a timelined um grant. And then I think just through some of the commentation earlier today, um CEO Anderson noted, you know, when the core area exemption was expiring, we did see kind of a bit of a of an increase in volume at the end. And so it was well understood that the that the offer was about to expire. So those are some of the things that we would be considering. And um but we we would need to make it very clear that three years from today, we're not all being um asked why we're increasing development charges by 30%. We're actually returning them to the levels that they would have been. um without this grant funding. >> Which brings me to my next point which is really that we have done this before as you were saying as a form of stimulus or incentive to development in the core. And so can you just speak briefly to how effective that was as a model? you touched on it there, but just maybe expand a little bit because that's what I'm really trying to understand is there are a lot of different measures that have been thrown out there in the last few years and it's hard to see any of them sticking to the wall. >> You chair Freeman and if if any of my colleagues uh to the left would like to add on, they're they're welcome to. Um, I would say it was successful based on the um, information that I seen in terms of the cost to the city. Where this program in in my opinion is is a better program than that one is that we needed to as a municipality uh, fund that um, discretionary exemption in its entirety. So, we funded that through the tax rate stabilization reserve. this program as um we're applying would cover 90% of that uh foregone reduced um DC collection and what we're being asked to do is is provide 10%. So if we're successful in the application comparison to the previous program where we had to fund it in its entirety, this would be you know a better ROI for the for the city. Um, and so as you'll see, we are recommending that our 10% come from the sanitary sewer and water reserve, which I alluded to in my opening remarks is those are the assets that we're focusing. But it's also a little bit easier for them maybe to kind of absorb that uh cost or unanticipated cost in the near term um versus asking council to fund it through tax rate stabilization. So those are just a couple of comments, but I don't know if anyone over there has wants to add to that or if that's, you know, covered it. Michael Scott something. >> Mr. Poo Glazy walked up to uh to hold your hand. >> I don't know if he wants to add more to this. >> I I just wanted to provide a bit of context for council. So through your chair Freeman. Uh in terms of the exemption like the core area um any exemption is is really susceptible to the amount of uptake and much like this program too if we reduce DC's. It's a unique program where we're getting funding based on a project, but the DC reductions are based on actual activity. So, if there's say there's no activity because of this reduction, then we're not really out any development charges. Um, but we could still potentially get funding for a project. On the flip side, if you know, if the attainment is 200% of what we anticipated, we could be forgoing a lot more DC collections than we're actually getting back in funding. Um, so that's the the uniqueness of this program and and the government was and their program details was very specific on using realistic expectations for what you feel your attainment would be over, you know, we took a five-year history of what our attainment could be. It's up and down. Some years it's very low, some years it's very high. Development is very sporadic depending on market conditions. Um, so I just wanted to add to context that this program is it's kind of like two sides of a coin. >> [snorts] >> The reduction is based on how many people are actually applying for permits and how much we have to reduce the DC by and then the funding component is based on the application that we're putting forward for these projects a fixed amount of funding. Uh and what we might get from the province, we might not get what we're asking for. I just want to provide that clarity. Um based on what Brad was saying as well. >> Yep. Thank you. And and I did I did want to draw to council's attendant attention that there's a slightly modified recommendation on the screen here as as this conversation goes through because because it there is some we we are kind of revolving around if we get the grant money or if we don't get the grant money what happens. And so, uh, what you see highlighted there is is kind of additional language around if we don't substantially receive what we're asking for. We don't have to choose to do this. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. So, um, uh, councelor Wright, sorry, I wasn't trying to jump in on your question. That was really helpful um to to point that out and because what I'm looking for is you know uh we're dealing with a lot of uncertainty and what I'm looking at is where we're mitigating risk really. Yeah. Uh and then the the third question I have is really about uh you know this council has been very focused on affordable housing and this uh DC um rate reduction is focused on market based housing. And so I just want uh to know a little bit more about in comparison how is the the granting the infrastructure related granting for affordable housing uh that's been coming from the upper tier governments. Is it does it eclipse what we're talking about here in orders of magnitude? Because obviously we think affordable housing is very important and we would not want to be prioritizing uh the market-based uh or or harming our affordable uh housing outcomes through a measure that is specifically subsidizing market-based housing. through Chair Freeman. Uh to council right, I will attempt to to answer that one and maybe be a few parts to that. Um the first thing I'll note is um through legislation through the provincial government um affordable housing is exempted as a statutory exemption from paying development charges. So that's I think an important piece of of context to note. So currently uh any um development that comes forward that has affordable units or is entirely affordable that meets the definition is not paying development charges. So this program um would be focusing or targeting market-based um uh development is as only those that are paying development charges um would be benefiting from the 30% reduction. I would um you know kind of note that you know just any um housing that can be added you know kind of to the housing stock along the various spectrum is probably good for for where we are in kind of the current climate. Um and so if the cost of housing is is being reduced I think there's benefits um across the board. Um I'm sure Michelle and others maybe could could kind of layer into that. Um the other thing on affordable housing they're also not required to pay uh property taxes. they would be exempted from from property taxes. And so we have a rather large affordable attainable development that's underway um at 2025 that is um taking advantage of those programs. Um but where market-based housing kind of really helps us as a city is through that uh property tax generation and assessment growth. And so we see that, you know, coming back to us in terms of property taxes and and how that helps our budget. And as um you may have noted in the in the 2027 budget update, we do continue to face some assessment growth shortfalls. So um the one view of this is anything we can do to help kind of spur along even market development um it'll help us in in some of those other areas. So um that that's kind of my best answer on on that question. So, just to clarify the infrastructure investments that the upper tier governments have been making that support affordable housing because I what I'm hearing here is the city is doing a lot to help support affordable housing by removing DC well I mean the the province removed DC's but um rolling back property tax etc. the these measures have largely been city uh measures, policy measures. And so I'm I'm wondering where the the federal and provincial governments have stepped up to offer the infrastructure funds to support the affordable housing. >> Thank you. Yeah. So I I won't have that information um to be able to put it in terms of dollars. So um this is an $ 8.8 billion investment um through the the province and the federal government um combined. Um and as kind of noted targeting market-based housing. So what is the equivalent investment in in affordable housing um I won't have that uh number. All I can say is um through the federal government we were very successful through the housing accelerator fund um you know securing upwards of over $20 million which that program was um was more targeted towards affordable and and attainable housing. Um but I don't have the number and I don't know if Michelle does but uh she's joined me which I I greatly appreciate. through Chair Freeman. Um I I don't have a full accounting of all the the funding that the federal and provincial government have put towards affordable housing specifically, but I would just remind council of the 22 million that we received through the housing accelerator fund, which um about a third is going to be going towards 2025 University Avenue East to support actually very specifically the infrastructure to support that development. So, it's it's a a fairly sizable chunk of funding that we haven't seen coming from higher levels of government for some time. >> Um, next up is councelor Hanmer. >> Thank you through you, Chair, and I'll be very short because my questions in essence have been asked by the other two. My big concern, my big concerns and worries with with this were um just around the uh cash flowing it and when we were going to be receiving the funding because it's quite something to have a reduction and being able to pass that pass that on, but yet we still have to finance these these pieces. So, I appreciate that response. Um and my second area was what's our exit strategy and and what's compelling us to do this at this point and I appreciate we've got the exit strategy right now. Are there do that it's full or substantial and we can decide whether we want to keep going? But is there anything that would be negative for us not to even put an application in? And I'm thinking probably more the small P and the big P politics of sometimes you just do things because you need to be seen to be doing it whether you are 100% behind it. Um, and so I I think of further down the road ramifications if we don't put are our hands tied a little bit, I guess, is really what I'm asking >> through Chair Freeman. Um, counselor, very difficult question. I uh I think it's it's certainly a factor to consider. um as a as an organization, as a municipality, we've been very um successful in in grant applications over over the the past uh recent years. Um we had received a recent inquiry from a resident about, you know, what are we doing to to try to keep property taxes as low as possible and and part of our answer there was, you know, actively pursuing grant funding through federal and provincial governments. And so the numbers in the top of my head and and over the, you know, last five years and and the magnitude of $45 million. So um you know that is a factor that I think we should we should consider. I will share a lot of municipalities that that Michael and I have talked through through our our finance um counterparts as they're looking at this is you know in their view and I think ours to some degree is a negotiation. So we're going to put forward a proposal and and we're going to see what the province comes back with but there are still some some exit ramps if if needed. So, if the terms of the transfer payment agreement are uh consequential that we think that could be something that we um are not sure we can enter into without council, we we can return. Um if we're not receiving full or substantially full grant funding, that would be another um uh exit off-ramp, if you will. So, um that that's kind of our our thought is that, you know, there is probably um in staff's opinion um some some good rationale to apply and and see if we're successful um in in this range. But we also appreciate um that there's pros and cons to this program. So, it it is by no means perfect. Um but I do think that um there is a recognition here um through the the federal government and the province that um they're hearing a little bit what we've been saying about we need to be compensated. So while not compensating entirely um it is a shift I think in in a positive direction and if we're able to get upwards of 90% um that's that's pretty close >> and I think I'd add to that 90% of projects that we know we need to be moving forward. So, this is a funding opportunity for it. And I'm sorry for putting you on the spot, but just from a a risk standpoint, I had to ask it. Thank you. >> Um, and Mayor McCabe, >> thank you. Um, and through Chair Freeman and thanks to my council colleagues because you've asked nearly all my questions and thanks to uh Brad and the team for putting this report together so quickly. I can tell you because um I hosted the Ontario big city mayors in Waterlue um on Friday, Thursday night uh but then Friday and this was this and one other item were the only topic of conversation with the min with ministry staff and there it was a good opportunity to have some very frank dialogue including you know pointing out some of the the areas where of improvement where this program you know could have could have could have been developed. much more collaboratively with the municipalities and in a way that kind of worked a little bit more uh well collaboratively I think is the way to say it but uh but they were there to answer questions we had and they and they certainly followed up on areas where they didn't have answers uh over the weekend so we certainly appreciate their they're being there for and providing that additional information. Um I just just want to note that um you know they there there certainly are there certainly is a housing challenges and you know some people have called it a crisis but I did want to note that in 2024 the city of water did hit I believe our we hit 127% of our housing target that was set by the province I mean we got that big BFF B building faster fund check. So we have we have been doing well. Um and then in for 2025 um I know we're very close to the 80% target. Um and we're having some dialogue just double triple checking I don't know uh check checking the numbers on that. So again we're like we're very very close for 2025. And so, you know, it is a there certainly is that narrative out there that uh and it's true in a lot of communities about the the housing crisis. Um, and certainly there's not enough affordable housing 100% in in Waterl and Waterl region. But, you know, we know we've hit our targets. We've nearly hit our target for 2025 and as I said, we're negotiating, but we more than hit our target for 2024 and certainly in Kitchener, which is our neighbor, they've hit that target as well. So um so you know kind of overall like h housing is being built um in this community and in and in Kitchener. So just wanted to put that on the table. Um and also to councelor rights questions. You know we have contributed uh stat through our statutory development charges reductions that the province tabled $8.7 million already um to build affordable housing. So certainly the plus there's the build now uh project that that we've taken a big big stake in. So we we very much are doing a part as we know municipalities across the province are. My question though is um is can you just explain how this works for us from a two-tier municipal structure because some of the municipalities are a lot of municipalities are single tier. We're two-tier. How does this affect the city of Waterlue with respect to we we know the region is going to put some projects forward as well and those will be big ticket items. Um so how does that impact us and and any further potential reduction we may or may not have to make. Thanks. >> Thank you mayor through you chair Freeman to the mayor's question. Um so the uh DCRP guidelines uh make it uh very clear that in a two-tier system um one or both or neither um may opt into the program. So if we um are aiming to apply the region would not be obligated to um and the alternative would also be um correct. Obviously in a single tier the you're applying you're you're committing to that reduction. Um so what we can note and I believe this was outlined in the report um locally u we've been in close contact with our counterparts um across the region um and they're entertaining you know similar um reports as as what we are today um so the city of Kitchener is considering um an application today um and the region of uh water I believe is considering their report on Wednesday um June 17th and I believe the city of Cambridge is also today so obviously with the Friday, June 19th deadline. It's it's pretty tight timelines here for for all the respective councils. Um but yes, the region is is a big um factor in this in that you know, they're about 2/3 of the residential development charges, you know, plus or minus uh depending where the where the lower tier portion is. And so um if the region um is to apply and is successful then um we would also see development charges lowered on the upper tier portion um under similar parameters as what we're talking about. So for a three-year period um and you know subject to them being secured for funding. So I don't know if that report is is in your hands yet mayor. Um we had um reviewed the pack and I hadn't seen it released yet. So it may be forthcoming. Thank you very much for answering uh all of these various questions and again thanks for the work that staff have done on on this uh on this report in very short timeline. >> Um and councelor Roach had some questions. >> Thank you um through your chair Freeman and thank you Brad and Michael for all your work your your group's work on this and just a couple like I really you know I looked at you know your excellent work here in the ma on your math and just I have a question. Am I right in assuming or are saying that the 14.8 that we stand to gain from the grant exceeds our 13.9 uh loss in developer reductions. Correct. >> Through uh Chair Freeman, that is correct. So we um we we've applied for a little bit above what our our calculation is and so um you know the province may um do a little bit of negotiation there. Um, but it's a byproduct of the the two larger projects we we picked to kind of be in that, you know, very very close to the ballpark. Um, and and as Michael touched on, there is a little bit of variability in that based on on attainment. So, this is based on 100% attainment um, uh, within our most recent DC background updates. Um and so you know we could see our foregone revenue increase if we're a little bit above target and you know it may decline a little bit um if we're a little bit below but yeah as presented um we would be seeking a little bit more than than what we're calculating in reduced revenue. >> Excellent. Thanks. And um I'm leaning towards supporting this recommendation. And just to confirm for the record, because the team successfully leveraged our historically low rates um to keep us at that minimum 30% reduction threshold and tied it to uh the uh explicitly to grant approval. This is essentially a riskfree way to get a 90% discount on like $16 million uh worth of infrastructure costs that uh can unlock almost 3,000 new homes. >> Through Chair Freeman and Council Roach, I say it's entirely risk-f free. We've tried to minimize the risk as best we can. Um at this stage I would say it's it's a fairly riskadverse application um that has come through in in Amos communication as well is that you know at this stage the reduction is in principle subject to getting the funding and I think that was a very early piece of of the program that we did seek clarity on and so that um that alleviated uh some some of the risk. the um ROI at 90% is is is is pretty good is is fairly good. It's it's certainly um better than than previous programs. And so the mayor did touch on you know previous statutory exemptions um where we are getting 0% recovery on those and and those are already in place and impacting us. So um I think staff are are leaning with where you are on that. This is this program is is representing a a pretty fair return. >> Thank you, Brad, and your staff. >> Councelor Bassik. Okay. Um, is there any other questions? Okay. Shall we put a motion on the table and then we can receive comments on that if that makes sense. So um we have a recommendation. It's been slightly changed as you see uh in item 10 with some intention of giving you know another decision point shall we say down the road for uh for the mayor and clerk um if if we you know in full or substantial part. So did you want to move what is here? I [clears throat] wanted to just just listening to um my colleagues comments around it sounds like there I don't want to put words in people's mouths but maybe a little bit of hesitation around the substantially in part like so I'm just wondering if people if would be more amanable to if we gave that like a if it's within a 15% of of um or of the application or or if we wanted to put a target around that >> councelor Hammer Uh, thank you through you. Just to respond, I'd be more comfortable leaving it just as it is right now. I worry that substantial could be a portion of one project and nothing of the other and then I think it's a totally different decision. I think we need a little bit of I think staff need a little bit of of flexibility and also we heard from some of the responses to the questions that there will be trigger points that bring it back to full counsel. And I I would expect that if it is substantially in part, we'd hear about that, too, before going too much further. So, I'm okay with leaving it as it is. >> Okay. >> Did you want to move it as it is? >> Oh, I can. Sorry, then. Okay. Oh, go ahead. >> Uh, sure. Or I'll second it. >> Okay. Did you want to >> No, go ahead, Council. >> Okay. Moved by Councelor Hanmer, seconded by Mayor McCabe. So, it's on the table [clears throat] and um um councelor Bodley, you wanted to make some comments. >> Yeah. Thank you through you, uh, Chair Freeman. Again, I I want to, uh, echo everyone on council here's commentary about how much work this has been on staff. Um, so, as I noted earlier, I'm I'm not comfortable with this u um, program. Uh, lot of uncertainty and still in my mind some pretty substantial risk, particularly given the timing and the rush. I know I note the exit ramps, but notwithstanding this being a negotiation, as Michael and and Brad had noted, if it is approved, as it is by the province and the federal government, I I not comfortable with it. Uh I'm also very concerned with the president. Uh it's in theory, as council right noted, a three-year project, but assuredly at the end of this, the development industry is going to say it needs to stay. Very likely, they're going to tell us it needs to be more, which is going to put uh more substantial financial pressures on the city. But nevertheless, uh we we just went through our DC update. We know that development charges are intended to recover the capital costs for cities that are associated with growth and new development. But moreover, it is indeed the province that determines how DCs are collected via the development charge act. And since 2016, the province has introduced 12 pieces of legislation around development charges. Many of these pieces of legislation are substantial. variety of exemptions and discounts, freezing rates, ability for developers to pay in installments, removal of eligible services, eliminating them for affordable housing, and my understanding they're possibly looking at eliminating them for attainable housing in the future. And the financial impact to the city on these changes is uh high. So, frankly, the continued, in my opinion, overemphasis on this DC discussion suggests that our friends in the developer community's lobbying efforts seem to be working. uh DCs have traditionally been in the 6 to 8% range of the price of a new home and they continue to be relatively in that range. So I am highly skeptical that this will have a very large impact on affordability. I believe that in particular when you look at supply constrained markets like ours where demand is high like ours lower DCs can help in the margins but they certainly do not override the market with respect to price. And all we need to do is look at our pure comparator cities to the south of us in Cambridge. Cambridge has DCs that are currently 20% higher than the city of Waterlue. And Cambridge is in the same cent uh uh census metropolitan area as water. So you would think it's a pretty good comparison, right? Cambridge has higher DCs substantially. So you would think that they're building less housing. You would think the housing is more expensive if we listen to our friends in the developer community. But in reality, the opposite is true. Cambridge has higher DCs than Waterlue, but in spite of our great efforts and the work that Mayor McCabe alluded to, they've actually been building a little bit more housing than us as of late and housing prices in Cambridge are actually a little bit cheaper than they are in Waterl. So, it seems to me that at least in this CMA, Waterlue being in a premium market, our location, the demand for housing in Waterlue is outweighing the difference in DC costs substantially. Earlier today, we received our asset management review. We have an infrastructure deficit in the sanitary asset class of $5.2 million. So, should the city approve this developer subsidy, we would be removing just over $1.6 million from reserves broadly. Uh, and those reserves are what help fund these infrastructure needs, putting pressure, further pressure on those asset classes. Uh I won't reiterate all of the incredible work that staff and council have done on affordability. All of the projects through the housing accelerator fund. Uh we've done dedicated a lot of time, money, and staff and staff resources to a variety of projects here. But this program, this is not a program for cities. It is a subsidy for developers. And so if the federal or provincial governments want to give money directly to developers as an incentive to build or if they want to make us fully 100% whole for development charge reductions, fill your boots. I'm all for it. uh but asking cities with substantial budget pressures already and substantial infrastructure needs to further subsidize developers any amount uh with limited uh certainty about it having any effect in this CMA seems highly inappropriate to me. So for those reasons I'm not going to be supported. Thank you. >> Other comments? Um I appreciate those comments. I'd like to say because um I I I would like to to be honest and say that I'm desperately struggling with the optics of this and I I agree that if the federal and provincial government want to play a role in this and they then they can fund developers directly as opposed to taking like from us like it feels like it's definitely in that notion of robbing Peter to pay Paul and we find ourselves and I I think what else I struggle with and and I'm just going to be forthright and say I'm going to support this motion because I feel like we need to to [clears throat] um demonstrate to the province that it development really matters to us and if they think that this program is the way to demonstrate how development matters to us then fine I'll I'll support this but what I'm what [clears throat] I'm really struggling with is the fact that we just went through our development review as you said development charge review and and we worked really hard to try to figure out how to sort out where we were going to allocate the limited development charges that we were now able to put into the bylaw because of so much being removed and and you know the things that make a community whole go beyond sanitary sewers and a lot of those things got pulled from our ability to fund them through DC's and so I [clears throat] think I think all of that makes this really just so incredibly difficult. And we've been asking for a new framework, a new fiscal framework by which to fund municipal business. And instead of giving us a new fiscal framework, they've put us in the hopper for more grants. And we're always in this in this situation where we're competing with our colleague municipalities for resources which are not they're not a guarantee. And I I just I really really really struggle with that. I know that that not only the Ontario big city city mayor's caucus, but more broadly the uh the Canadian big mayors have been trying to raise the these issues to every level of government across Canada and and falling back to the tax base as being the tool by which to fund things. It it seems as though it's not going anywhere in in the near future. Um, but you know, all of that and I and so I I struggle with this. The exit clause in 10 does help me a lot in terms of mitigating risk because that that demonstrates that, okay, fine, we'll we'll come to the table. Part of me wishes that our DCs had started out being 100% higher than they were because we're very competitive DCs in the province of Ontario and you know we took the heat just doing what we did. Um but um but I you know I I think that this is a way for us to at least try to demonstrate housing is I I mean I feel like we're demonstrating to the province that housing is important to us when we've already demonstrated that it's important to us. But I just feel like there's just it's just one more hurdle and that keeps there's always a new hurdle and this this is today's I guess. Um so um with that being said, sorry I recognize there was a bit of rambling in there but uh councelor Vasc I I saw that you wanted to add. >> Yeah, thanks for everybody's comments and questions. I mean, I I I entirely appreciate um uh and and value getting money that we might not otherwise not have. Most definitely. Um and I also really get why we have to um like I can't exactly remember how you said it, Councelor Hammer, but uh I I agree with you, right? Like what what are you supposed to do when you are um are like you you're told, "Well, here's what we have." and you're like, "Okay, well, we'll play the game like we have to, right? Like, what's our choice is what we feel like, right?" Um, and uh that's that's how I feel, too. And I I said it in my one-on-one meeting with the mayor earlier today, which was like we just keep um I on one hand, we we have to do that because that's that's the source we have. Those are our uh those are the big wigs and they tell us what to do and we do it. And so you don't want to um you don't want to bite your nose off despite your face, right? Basically. Um and at the same time, like this is this is bullying. I I don't know how else to say it. Our own DC um bylaw study uh said very clearly that we don't there's no really evidence for uh if this if DC's work. And now, you know, we're kind of trying to point to again really respect everything you're saying and staff have to put something forward. You have to because we have to do uh like what we're saying here, which is uh play the game, play nice. Um but now we're pointing to when we did this once in the uptown and it worked. But we don't really know. Um but we're trying to say, okay, yeah, we're playing nice. We see maybe it worked there, but there's no evidence. Um and so we're doing we're we're going to approve something that there's no evidence of. um our rate impact to uh some of our water um utilities are going to be worse off which is potentially going to have trickle effects on our tax base. So that's not clear. Uh but you know those things happen obviously those kind of um uh unanticipated and unexpected uh consequences. Um and so the real only benefits of this are well I mean we will get some money of course uh and that's a huge benefit. Um but we're in this we have to say that because we're in this position because of years and decades and of um underfunding and downloading of services uh and because we want to signal partnership to the development community like I said earlier and like all of you have confirmed that but we think we are good partners guys why do you keep saying we're not why do you hire Pierre firms to say we're not good partners we are um we keep trying to fight for this and so I mean I know it's really scary to like not play the game, how we're supposed to play the game. Uh, and it could really us over. Um, but like what if Sorry, I don't know. I'm not running again. Uh, someone take me to the buds, I guess. But like, uh, what if we were just like, we can't do it, guys, but we really want to figure out how to get more housing if that's the goal. And we heard last week at council either in camera or in public that you know try and I can't remember who who brought this presentation forward but I really would like to remember it was you know don't argue with people based on ideology um but but find or don't try and find common ground based on ideology but try and find common ground based on action. And the action we're trying to find common ground on here is housing more housing. Uh, and so like what if we were just like, "No, we can't do this, but we really want to work with you on that shared goal and like see what happens." And I I don't want to set us down the wrong course to be an example of the, you know, the council who they had to make an example of. But I don't know, maybe we start doing business differently, which is what everyone keeps saying that we should be doing because we just keep doing things by the status quo. So anyways, that's my compelling case. I'm gonna vote against it, but I definitely understand why everyone um may vote uh in favor of it. But if you want to try the plan B, I'm I'm all for it and totally have staff's back if we want to try it. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, we'll call the question all those in favor. that is uh carried to contraryminded or sorry against I should say against in case you wanted to uh um um just not vote. So there's two contrary minded councelor Bodley and councelor Vasic. Um, [clears throat] I just wanted to say thank you to uh staff again, but also to council for the the thoughtful conversations that we've had on this because I I think it's important and I think every opportunity we have to to have dialogue around the fact that we actually really care about housing here and we've demonstrated it on more than one occasion as a city and it seems as though um we just It's never enough. So, um, with that, we're moving on to item 6D. And, uh, this is the 2025 museum review of operations. And, um, [clears throat] there is a presentation by Karen. And I just wanted to start out by recognizing that here at the city, we are really lucky. We have amazing staff here. And we have a lot of staff who are routinely recognized with awards uh service awards and and um for for many of the things that we do around here that seem like regular business but it goes beyond their regular job. And just recently um Karen Vanderbrink was the winner of the Dr. Jean Steckley Award from the Waterlue Heritage Foundation which has recognized her career dedicated to preserving and sharing um our local history. And I just wanted to say because you're here, congratulations and uh and certainly we'll we'll strive to recognize staff that win awards when they come visit us as well. So with that, I'd like to uh welcome you and let you advance your presentation. >> Great. Thank you, Councelor Freeman. And um and thank you. I'm very honored and uh privileged to have received that award. Um especially seeing as how it comes from your peers and uh and colleagues that uh you've worked with. So uh I feel feel uh very honored uh to have that recognition and thank you for acknowledging it. So, with that, um, good afternoon, uh, Chair Freeman and members of council. Uh, I'm here before you, uh, and also our, uh, listeners and watchers online and our, uh, and staff in, uh, the audience. Um, I'm here to report on the 2025 operations, annual operations. Like I always come to council and give you a a review of the previous year's um, activities. I usually try to do this report in May, but we were a little busy this year doing an exhibit changeover because May is museum month. So that's why I usually try to target May uh with this report. So I am pleased to present the city's uh of Waterlue Museum's 2025 review of operations. This annual report provides an overview of the museum's activities, accomplishments, partnerships, collections work, and strategic priorities over the past year. It also demonstrates how the museum continues to advance the goals of the museum and collection strategy while strengthening community connections through programming, exhibits, research, preservation of Waterlue's heritage and oh perfect. Um so uh 2025 was a productive and a successful year for the museum. We continue to expand our community reach through innovative programming, meaningful partnerships, and in fact impactful exhibitions. Our work was recognized by the community through receiving a second Waterlue region uh records readers choice award in the entertainment category and that's a pretty big category for such a small little site. So, we're extremely pleased that we won again in this category. And then I wanted to emphasize that the museum maintained a strong focus on accessibility, reconciliation, community engagement, uh, collection stewardship, and historical research while continuing to deliver a broad range of services with our teams, our small team. So strategic pro progress. Um the museum's collections uh strategy adopted in 2015 is pretty much near completion. Through council support, the museum continues to operate within the provincial standards for community museums in Ontario, ensuring we remain eligible for future provincial funding opportunities should they become available. We're waiting for provincial opportunities. Um, the most significant remaining recommendation from the museum strategic plan is the relocation of the museum to an uptown location to improve visibility, accessibility, and community engagement. Council's direction to engage in costing and design for the Carnegie Library site represents an important step towards advancing that objective, and I look forward to bringing an update on this work. We also continue to work towards securing an appropriate consolidated collection support facility and we're beginning to consider the development of a new strategic framework to guide the museum's next chapter. Uh, one of the most notable trends in 2025 was the growing demand for adult and senior focused programming. Museum staff delivered historical presentations and community talks for seniors, residents, libraries, and community groups and city programs. The popularity of our talks has spread beyond Waterlue with requests coming in from libraries and seniors residents in the townships. More than 600 participants attended these presentations throughout the year. The log cabin continues to serve as an important heritage destination. Summer and winter programming welcomed over 1100 visitors and supported a broader community engagement uh initiatives connected to Waterl Park. And these programs demonstrate the increasing value that re the residents place on local history and lifelong learning opportunities. Um community collaboration it continues uh with our team and participating in community events like neighborhood gatherings, service center openhouse and lumen to name a few are some of the partnerships essential to the museum's success. During March break, we partnered with Konosoga Mall to present an indigenous creation story puppet performance uh that attracted more than 300 attendees. Our haunted history self-guided cemetery tour and uh generated over 90,000 social media impressions demonstrating strong public interest in creative heritage programming. We also collaborated with the Waterlue Public Library, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery, Waterlue Historical Society, and the Uptown uh Waterlue BIA to create an interactive amazing race style event that encouraged participants to explore local history and cultural assets. Our Remembrance Day uh initiative was particularly meaningful in 2025 with the launch of the Veterans Banner Project. Working with the Royal Canadian Allegian Branch 530, the Uptown Waterlue BIA, and corporate communications, the museum developed commemorative banners recognizing Waterlue's residents who served uh and sacrificed during the First World War. 24 banners were installed along the Spurline Trail, while additional community sponsored banners were displayed throughout the Uptown Waterlue. The project expanded our Remembrance Day programming and helped connect residents with the stories of local veterans and wartime contributions. Marketing and and public engagement. The museum continued to strengthen its public profile throughout 2025. A new partnership with Mike Farwell on 570 News introduced a monthly throwback Thursday segment featuring stories from Waterlue's history. Jennifer, who you've had come uh and speak before you before, um is our our main person with uh Mike Farwell working on this project. The pro the program proved very successful and will continue in 2026. So, you can listen on the first Thursday of every month. Our social media platforms gained more than 650 new followers, helping us reach new audiences and sharing local stories and engage in engaging ways. And at our Konos Stoa Mall exhibit space, more than 4,500 visitors attended exhibitions throughout the year. And in 2025, we presented uh three major exhibitions. The first two exhibitions developed in partnership with the Legacy of Hope Foundation explored the lasting impacts of residential schools in the 60s scoop through survivor stories and historical interpretation. These exhibitions supported reconciliation efforts and provided opportunities for learning, reflection, and dialogue within our community. In July, the museum opened its own uh in-house curated exhibition, the art and legacy of the Waterl Seagrum Distillery, which explored theund 130 year history of one of Waterloo's most significant industries and highlighted the intersection of science, manufacturing, and community history. We also install exhibits at city hall and are always trying to make connections to relevant topics. Last year with the closing of the Hudson's Bay department stores, we mounted an exhibit on their distilled spirits production and on licensing bylaws from the past which are always fun. We also uh our collection and preservation and protecting water's heritage is also one of our core responsibilities. A major accomplishment in 2025 was the transfer of significant former serum museum archival materials from the University of Wateroo's special collections and archives. This re this uh acquisition reunites the archival records with our existing serum artifact collection and strengthens the opportunities for research and exhibit development. Staff also continued on a comprehensive collection inventory project. Since late uh 2024, more than 5,000 artifacts have been reinventoried, verified, and updated within our collections ba database. And also we are very much uh looking at making our accessibility inclusion and research uh available to the public in in many ways. So significant work was undertaken to caption audiovisisual materials associated with the legacy of hope exhibitions and our serum exhibition to ensure compliance with AODDA standards. The museum collaborated with indigenous artists and community members including Dakota Brandt and contributors to be the track project helping to broaden perspective uh re represented broaden perspectives represented within the our exhibitions and we also worked uh with the Caribbean Canadian Association of Waterlue region to celebrate 50 years of their organization's work advancing black entrepreneurial businesses and staff also responded to over 35 research requests throughout the year. The museum also participates in our corporate sensory backpack program and updates our accessibility and assistive features pages on our website to include the experiences for each exhibit. Work also continued throughout 2025 on the sports parade a history project where we are uh now entering into the active de developments uh phase which will create an important new digital resource celebrating Waterlue region sports history which will live on the museum's website. And finally, in the last 15 seconds or so, um, in closing, I'd like to recognize the exceptional work of our museum staff, volunteers, community partners, and supporters. The museum continues to deliver a level of programming, exhibitions, collections, care, and community engagement that exceeds what would typically be expected of an institution of our size. with increasing requests for programming, outreach, accessibility initiatives, and community partnerships, all pushing our current resources to their limits. As we look forward to the future with continued investment in foundational staffing, collection stewardship, and strategic development will be essential to sustaining service levels and meeting the growing expectations of our community. And that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. uh questions. Council councelor Wright, >> not really a question, just mostly a comment. Um it is so uh inspiring to see a presentation like this that is so clearly linking our community's past to its present and then tying that to our future, where we are going and why does it, you know, what do these things mean from this local perspective. Um and so just kudos to you and your team and the cast of volunteers uh who are bringing this forward and making these investments in these exhibits because they're very powerful. You know, clearly the award shows that um your curatorial work is outstanding and um just really want to thank everybody for for those efforts and for your commitment to storytelling in our community. >> Thank you. I'll take that back to the staff and volunteers. >> Thank you, Council Wright. I I will add to say that I know the museum wants a new home, but I really wish it would stay at Konos Stoa Mall or that there'd be some component that stayed there because I do think that it is a place and a space where people can go in the winter um and where they are there for various and sunundry other reasons. and I think they wander in that into the museum to see what is there and and I think it brings great value to the city that you are there. So, I'll leave that with you. I know that you're looking for more space for for things, but I would hate to see us give up that space um as we seek other space, I guess. Um council, there are recommendations here for us to consider. Do I have a mover? Moved by councelor Bassik, seconded by councelor Roach. All those in favor? That is carried unanimously. Thank you. Item [clears throat] seven, consideration of notice of motion given at a previous meeting, there's none. There is a notice of motion here with regard to bill 60. It's here for your review, council, and consideration at our next meeting on the 22nd of June. Communications and correspondence. There's none. Unfinished business. There's none. Questions. Council. Councelor Hanmer. >> Uh thank you chair through through you. I think many of us have been receiving comments about the uh informal meeting that's coming up next week. And a lot of the and I don't want to preempt what we're going to be discussing next week, but one of the key things has been around communication and notice about uh the meeting even coming up. So my question is just is there anything more that we are able to do to at this stage we still have a week before the informal but just to get the word out about it and how people can participate >> u Mr. Armsson >> through you, Chair Freeman. Thanks for your question, Councelor Hamner. And yes, um our colleagues in um communications, Carrie, can maybe speak to some additional work that we're going to do to try to uh alleviate some of the missteps we had in the communication and trying to get uh a little bit more exposure to this. I think there's another option in terms of timing, too. We could we're in council's hands. We could actually push out the uh the informal a little bit if if that were council's desire to, but I'll let Carrie speak to some of the additional measures that we might be able to do with respect to communication. >> Thank you for the question. Um we've been chatting with planning staff about some additional things we can do. One of the concerns was that with so many potential properties involved, we haven't mounted our traditional largecale planning signs, but we do have the option of doing some smaller signs that will provide online links to the engage page where all of the project information and continuing details are provided and we've been in discussion about some additional promotion that we can do as well. So, so we will try and get the word out a little more. If I could a follow a follow on. Um I did see in some of our communication that we had used Canada Post to get messages out and I'm hearing from residents with I have one of the properties in my in my ward that they have not received letters at all. So I don't know if there's a follow-up that we do with Canada Post or what's happened there. >> Yeah. Thank you, Councelor Hamner through uh through the chair. Um this has been a problem for a long time with Canada Post. It's not a a fully reliable method. That's why we try to use multiple platforms for engagement including engage waterly region. Um but uh we understand council's concerns about this and I think there's an opportunity to place some additional signage uh and to be a little bit more um you know assertive with respect to the other communication options that we have. >> Thank you. >> Other questions council? Uh seeing none. under new business. Councilor Wright, >> I have two items today. Thank you. Um, one was yesterday was um the Grand Porch Party in the Uptown West neighborhood and despite the intense rain, most of the day, there were so many people out enjoying the music that was uh being hosted on front porches. And so just wanted to shout out to all of the community volunteers that make this long-standing neighborhood festival possible. Um they are an incredibly resilient crew. Uh the neighborhood appreciates them so much and the event draws people from all across uptown and so it's just really great to see that uh unfolding uh despite the weather. And then secondly, I just want to nod to Saturday where um for the first time ever, there will be an indigenous market in the Waterlue town square to coincide with indigenous history month. It is community initiative in initiated. Um so kudos to uh Bill Martin for for getting this off the ground. 20 uh more than 20 uh indigenous vendors um as well as live indigenous music will be featured at this event. So, I'll be there to see anybody who drops by. Thanks. >> That was on my list was the indigenous market because I'm looking forward to that. Um, other new business council. >> Yeah, >> thank you. Um, and thanks for Yeah, unfortunately I'm going to be out of the area with another conference on the like uh for the next few days and won't be able to uh participate in that um in that marketplace. But thank you to Bill for for spearheading that. I just wanted to make a note that on Saturday evening I attended the dinner for the KW um oh Phil I struggle saying the word the stamp collecting society. The filotellic filotellic society. Um they had had an exhibit starting I think Thursday night or Friday all day, Saturday all day and then part of the day on Sunday at the at the Memorial Rec Center in Uptown and then a dinner and national awards. Um there were people here from across Canada, uh people here from some people from the States and they just, you know, they they raved and raved um publicly and to me uh directly over dinner about how wonderful our staff were. um get because I I guess the exhibits are very very particular to get them set up in the arena and flip the arena from an arena to an exhibit center. Um but just that staff went uh were pleasant, we're professional, were friendly, were helpful and they couldn't say enough good things about them. So just wanted to share that and say thank you to all of them who uh who participated. >> Awesome. Other new business council. I just wanted to uh share that Saturday is a busy day for a lot of things. It's the end of end of school things wrapping up and everything. So, a lot of the uh Army cadetses are having their ceremonial reviews throughout uh the um the region and beyond. And so, one of the Waterlue Cadet Corps is having their ceremonial review at the memorial at the Albert McCormack on Saturday. So, I'll be there for part of the day. And the Eastbridge Neighborhood Association is hosting its annual food truck festival in uh East Bridge Park. So, um so lots of things going on and uh I hope that the weather's good for everyone. So, um with that, council, I think we are, unless I'm mistaken, I think we're on to adjournment, right? >> Oh, bylaws. Yes. Yes. Enactment of bylaws moved by councelor Bodley, seconded by councelor Hanmer. All those in favor that's carried unanimously and motion to adjurnn moved by councelor Vasik, seconded by Mayor McCabe. All those in favor and that's carried. Thank you.