Soundtrack one, two, three. Soundtrack one, two, three. Everybody afternoon actually time is flying by. Welcome to the transit area ratings uh review subcommittee meeting of June 2nd 2026. I'd like to call the meeting to order as we do have quorum. A reminder to everyone to just check your electronic devices and make sure they're set to a silent mode so we don't get interruptions. That would be appreciated. We are going to go to approval of the agenda. Is there any is there have a mover and seconded to approve the agenda? Council Wang, councelor Tatison, any discussion on the agenda? Seeing none, uh we'll vote by a show of hands. All those in favor of the agenda and that carries. Thank you. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest from any members? Not seeing any. We'll move along. So item five is adoption of the minutes from previous meetings. We have 5.1 11 April 11th, 2024 and March 2nd, 2026. No core minutes. Could I have a mover and second to adopt those minutes, please? Moved by councelor Tison, seconded by councelor Wang. Any discussion on either of those? Seeing none, a show of hands to adopt the minutes, please. And that carries. That brings us to item seven, items for information. We have one information report on the agenda today. It is 7.1 report FCS 26016, options for area transit rating of transit services. Uh this report does have a staff presentation. So, we're going to have that uh presentation. Then I'll get a mover and seconder to put the report and on the floor and receive the presentation and we can have any discussion. So I am going to go to uh GM Mike Zigeric finance and corporate services uh to introduce and possibly give the presentation. I'm not sure. >> Yes. >> All right manager. >> Sorry. >> Oh, sorry. >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh good afternoon through the chair. Mike Ziger, general manager of finance corporate services. I'm joined today by Kayla Fleming Petroski and Cyrus Patel. Um, and so just want to recognize all of their hard work and preparing the reports and the presentation for subcommittee this afternoon. Uh, if I could ask, are we projecting the presentation or should I just verbally go through it? We're just going to take a moment to get the presentation on the screen. So, please bear with us. >> Great. Thank you. So, uh the presentation before subcommittee is a much more consolidated summary of the information provided in the full report FCS 26016. Today's presentation will uh cover off a few main areas. If I could ask Carrie or S if they could move to slide number two. Thank you. Uh so today's presentation will cover three main areas. The current methodology and how transit costs are presently allocated. Uh there are some key considerations being shared with subcommittee including legislative requirements, historical context and financial implications. There are two options for committee's consideration as it relates to further direction to staff. The intent today is to provide members of committee with a clear understanding of the implications associated with each uh each of the approaches so that committee and council can determine the most appropriate path forward. Next slide please just >> it's going to be a >> okay thanks. Thank you. So, uh, just a bit of background, uh, we were directed to report back on alternative approaches to allocating the transit levy across the city of Hamilton. This work aligns with HSR next strategy, which was adopted in 2025 and supports a more integrated citywide transit system over the life of the strategy. It's important to note that changes to how transit service costs are recovered do not generate additional revenue for the city. Rather, any change would result in a redistribution of who pays for the service across the municipality. I'll just repeat that again because in the past there has been some confusion with respect to area rating. If there is a change in the methodology, that change in methodology may adjust who pays realign the funding of transit services for those properties or jurisdictions that would see a reduction. That reduction must benefit property owners. It cannot be clawed back and reinvested into transit or other initiatives. And in the past that has been a point of confusion. So just wanting to try to provide some clarity on that point. Next slide please. >> Great. Uh just just a few legislative uh considerations as it relates to area rating and in this case area rating transit services. Uh the municipal act establishes a framework for how municipalities can allocate and recover costs through property taxation. Under section 307 of municipal act, taxes for municipal services are generally applied across the entire tax base based on property assessment. However, section 326 provides municipalities with the ability to use area rating where a service is provided differently across the municipality. This has been the practice as it relates to city of Hamilton across a number of services including transit services. And this means council has a discretion to allocate certain service costs differently if there is a demonstrated difference in service levels, benefit or availability across the city. Next slide please. So a bit of history. Uh if we step back and revisit how we developed the current uh transit area rating model. Historically transit within the city has been funded using an area rated approach due to differences in service levels across the former municipalities following amalgamation. The discussion before committee today is ultimately about whether the current transit funding methodology continues to align with council's objectives and the evolution of transit service delivery across the city. Next slide, please. Our current methodology is based on urban rural distinction tied to the transit service area. as such rural and that is rural outside the transit service area. There is a specific transit boundary not to be confused with our urban boundary or other boundaries. There is a specific transit boundary as it relates to transit area rating. Thereby, rural properties outside the transit service area do not pay for transit. Urban within the transit service area pay a transit levy based on jurisdictional kilometers within the former municipalities. And the main consideration of what prompted the report back was to consider whether the current model aligns with present- day system operations as well as future delivery plans. Next slide, please. This is an illustration of the current model based on jurisdictional kilometers. on the left. This shows the average annual transit levy paid for an average current assessed value of $400,000. Appreciate average assessments across WS vary. For illustrative purposes, we've assumed $400,000 in 2026. And there you see the breakdown of the transit levy by former municipality. And again representing the jurisdictional kilometers uh provided in those former municipalities in 2026. on the uh right side. This shows what the average levy pay would would be in 2033 based on the HSR next strategy. And so if HSR next is uh adopted and proceeds in 2027 uh staff are illustrating what the uh impact in terms of the transit levy by former municipality would be. As you see, rural does not pay for transit and also former municipalities uh you'll see pay a lower rates. Uh in some cases relative to the city of Hamilton, you'll see all municipalities are increasing representing the increased forecast in terms of expenditures in order to support uh HSR. Next, next slide, please. Council requested or uh subcommittee requested analysis of two options that are detailed in the report before you. Both options treat the transit levy uh as a general levy. Option number one is apply the transit levy across all properties in the city of Hamilton. And this would be treated as other nonerrated services. This includes uh both uh transit areas served uh sorry this include would include both the rural and urban areas. Option number two is apply transit levy across all urban properties. Both options use property assessment to distribute costs and to reduce the impact on taxpayer of any change in methodology. The city may consider a phase in period what you'll see in the presentation and the report is for illustrative purposes a five-year phase in period. That's not a requirement nor a recommendation just being uh applied for illustrative purposes today. Next slide, please. Option one. As you can see, all former municipalities are levied equally, including rural property owners. And uh based on 2026 transit budget, that would represent uh approximately $427 for an average assessed property at $400,000. Next slide please. Option number two, you can see that rural at the bottom is excluded and this would be applying the transit levy across all properties and what is defined as the transit boundary urban boundary. Next slide please. This slide appreciate it's a little busy. The intent of this slide is to compare the current methodology to both of the options uh using 2026 figures. You'll see on the left side graphic in both options comparing to the current methodology the tax burn shifts away from the former city of Hamilton to the other five former municipalities. With respect to option two, you'll see is a higher burden uh as rural is not applied in terms of the methodology. So as rural is exempted the cost that rule would be absorbing in option one is redistributed to all of the urban properties. Next slide please. This is the same structure in terms of the presentation as the previous slide only based on 2033 forecasts. uh applying HSR next and uh as a result he can see a larger jurisdictional uh amount of kilometers being provided in the service and the increase in service levels during the period 2026 to 33 would represent a significant increase in operating costs causing the transit levy to increase. It would increase from uh approximately $427 uh with respect to option 400 yes $427 with respect to option one in 2026 to $78 in option one in 2033 and that is simply capturing for what is forecast as it relates relates to HSR next and the additional investment in the transit level and transit service. Next slide please. Uh equality is a fundamental consideration uh through there will be many perspectives on what constitutes an equitable approach as this varies based on location and level of service received. Next slide please. And to conclude, uh, considerations will need to be made to ultimately decide on whether the current approach and methodology is still available and appropriate, sorry, appropriate or whether one of the two options or alternatively a alternative option uh that subcommittee which is to recommend uh can be discussed as it relates to the report that's before you or if subsequent Additional information is necessary. Staff can provide additional information to the subcommittee. So, as previously touched upon, uh alignment with transit services are delivered today and there are plans for future investments in HS HSR next. Uh the city needs to adhere to legislative framework which we are currently uh and it is uh committee subcommittee's authority to make any adjustments to that uh methodology. And finally, as it relates to uh equity and equality, as HSR implements, there may be opportunities to amend that methodology to reflect the future investments as relates relates to HSR next. So through the chair, next slide. Thank you and happy to answer any questions as it relates to the presentation or the report that's before committee. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, GM Ziggger. Two quick things before we get to questions. I neglected to acknowledge the committee members that are here. We have councelor Rick Meakin, councelor Clark, councelor Wang, councelor Tatterson, and then online, councelor Alex Wilson. And item number two, I'll need a mover and seconder to receive the presentation and uh also to receive the report for information. Councelor Wang, Councelor Tison. Okay. Are there any questions for staff? Oh, councelor Clark, go ahead. >> So, my first question is why does this committee have to make the decision if under strong mayor powers the budget is the mayor's responsibility? through the chair. Uh the role of the subcommittee uh as I understand it uh and I apologize I don't have the terms of reference or scope but as I understand the role of the subcommittee is to make recommendations to council. Uh yes while the mayor has the authority to approve the overall budget council does have the authority with respect to our tax policies. You may recall tax policies including area rating come after the budget is approved. So council as a whole do does have some authority with respect to tax policies and how taxes are collected and how services area rated services are determined. So the the next question um right now there is differences between service levels in the suburban area as it relates to in the urban area. So we're only looking at two options here. rural and everybody pays. But what's going to change is the suburbs are going to pay much more in property taxes. The city's going to pay much less. No service changes are going to occur because that's not what this tax shift policy is about. And so we're going to continue having half hour, 30 minute to 20 minute service in the suburbs while everyone else is enjoying much better frequency. So how do I explain that to the residents? >> So through the chair, I I'll try to respond. The the counselor's touched upon many accurate uh points with respect to area rating and let me try to unpack and and I apologize if I missed the mark. So you'll just stop me and and uh maybe repeat the question. Uh with respect to the future forecast as it relates to the transit levy, uh what is being presented to you and reflecting HSR next is all jurisdictions, all former municipalities will see an increase in the transit levy as the level of investment increases uh over the next 10-year period. uh there'll be an increase in the transit levy across former municipalities. The council is correct in terms of uh currently and as relates to the area rating of of transit what is reflected in the kilometers. The kilometers represent um both uh the frequency and the duration of the service. And the original rationale for area rating of transit was in recognition that the frequency of the service and the duration of the service varied across former municipalities and in part this was post amalgamation reflecting a variety of issues that were occurring post amalgamation including reassessment. uh as you can see through the report uh in more detail is as HSR next uh moves towards higher frequency across the municipality uh and and durations is that gap may be narrowing and that narrowing of the gap again subject to HSR next proceeding in terms of investments going forward may warrant some consideration around changing the methodology of um area rating transit services. The counselor is correct. These are two options that staff were asked to report back on, but there would be a suite of options that that committee could direct staff to report back on and investigate alternative approaches in terms of area rating. We were asked to report back on these two options. We're not limited to these two opt sorry subcommittee and council are not limited to these two options and if there were some further scenarios that subcommittee wishes to direct staff to review and report back on we would be happy to do so. And I'm a little bit torn here because we're supposed to be looking at ostensibly a tax policy and not a service policy. Um but we seem to be colliding with possible future service policies. Um that is not guaranteed to occur nor guaranteed to impact the suburban areas. Um, but I know what is going to impact the suburban areas is a dramatic increase in costs when they don't share the same service levels as the rest of the city. So, how do we rationalize that for residents? We're just going to pay more so that Hamilton pays less through the chair. uh the council is correct in terms of uh the the challenge with respect to considering a tax policy exclusive of certainty as it relates to future investments in HSR next. Uh so so not disputing that that represents a bit of a challenge at this point in time with respect to if subcommittee were to move off of the area rating uh of transit to uh either applying it to a general levy or general levy urban uh or some other um I would expect it would reflect either a increased level of investment that reduces the gap app uh or the difference in services and service levels across the former municipality. Uh recognizing today there are differences as it relates to duration and frequency. However, noting that over the last 10 years there have been improvements in terms of reducing that gap, but nonetheless gaps still exist. Purser. >> Oh, director Perser, would you like to respond? >> Thank you through the chair. Just to um build out on uh Mike's comment and to further explain for um the counselor, um the transit network is not standalone in each of the suburban areas. it is connected into the main system and most people will travel from the suburban area into um the Hamilton area for into the downtown to the various schools um and um the other hubs that are there. So the system is widely used. is connected. Um, so again, not standalone and it allows those in the suburbs to utilize um the network that is um technically paid by the city of Hamilton. >> Councelor, any followup? >> Technically, it's paid for by the entire city. We're just paying se different rates for taxes respectfully. It's not just paid for by Hamilton. We are also paying taxes for transit. Correct. >> Through the through the chair. Uh you the suburban areas are paying for the kilometers within um uh the suburban area um and accessing uh kilometers that are being provided in Hamilton just because the systems are totally connected. >> We can't have one without the other. >> Yes. And it's the opposite also. Hamilton's paying for their kilometers, but they also have access to the rides into the suburbs. So, it's exactly the same system depending on how you're looking at it. >> So, again, can I ask and I don't know where my time is right now. Sorry. >> Question. >> Um, so what what what's the area rating model that is currently being utilized by the city? through the chair. It is um kilometers within former municipalities or what's described as jurisdictions? >> And so the two options and the two options that is in the document um how do they vary from the model that exists currently? So, so through the chair I should also clarify kilometers of of service not just road kilome or someone to interpret that. Uh so the options are how they vary is uh with respect to general levy. Uh currently rural properties are not levied for transit. the one option we were directed to report back on if it was treated as uh to be funded from the general levy meaning all properties paying. So all of those properties outside the transit boundary would be levied for transit. All of those options within the urban boundary would no longer be levied by uh former municip juris kilometers of jurisdiction by former municipality. It would be a uniform tax rate across all properties within the urban uh transit boundary. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Council Clark. Next, Councelor Tatterson, then we'll go to councelor McMe after that. >> So, just a question um in terms of our powers. I understand today we're just receiving this, so we're just having discussions. So, it's within the committee's power to adapt the current methodology going forward. Is that one of the options here? Um GM >> through the chair. It is the as I understand it the role of the committee to make a recommendation to council. It is ultimately council's authority to approve the tax policy and within the tax policy uh is the area rating of services. >> Okay. So let's just dummy that down for me a little bit. the one method that we're currently using right now that could be a recommendation from this subcommittee to go to council. >> Yeah. Through the chair, it would be status quo and so that would represent no change. If there was just no change, we would continue to levy going forward. Uh sorry, we would continue to fund uh transit as an area rated service going forward. >> Okay. Thank you. And then just one point of clarification that that helps me out greatly understand that um when we say the former municipalities those are basically the former old borders of the municipalities. So like councelor Clark and I share ward 11 and with like with his ward but part of Glamrook has now become part of councelor Clark's ward. So is that is that a ward base or is it still just the municipality of say Glenn Brook? Yeah, through the chair pre-amalgamation former municipality boundaries not work boundaries. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah, thanks. And just further clarity, there's some options today are to a just receive the report, b to direct staff to bring more information. Uh could be to direct staff or to recommend to council one of the options presented. Also could recommend a different option. So there's all these things that are available to committee today. So just keep that in mind. With that, we'll go to councelor McMaken. Okay. Thanks, Chair. Um, let me be blunt. I'm open-minded, but I'm not so open-minded my brains are falling out. Um, the U option one would represent a 3.4% 4% tax increase to my residents that I'm privileged to represent without any discernable, appreciable, or even necessar necessarily uh service service upgrades. The uh uh disconnect between u uh taxes and payment u uh and service is significant. the the original theory behind property tax as one who is a bit of a history buff is you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get and um the people of Hamilton who I'm talking about metro downtown Hamilton get extraordinary HSR service and they pay uh I think it' be fair to say extraordinary fees to get it and uh and appropriately so because they're getting service at uh that uh at a level that can't be uh be matched. Um even according to the uh uh the HSR next projections, it's not likely to be matched. So, Council Clark's point about uh uh an increase in in tax and tax policy versus service policy uh is critical in in my opinion. Um there are two options. I think there need to be a couple more options. one being the status quo, which I'm I'm not particularly interested in freezing something. if uh um changes appropriate uh chair, I would recommend what I said in the last election would be an appropriate uh uh hybrid uh when u we have fixed services in a community that can justify fixed services at a level that's comparable with the level of service elsewhere. Um, if we can get to half that point, then we look at a half half measure increase. If we get to the full point, uh, Mr. Ziggar, we look at our foulsome uh wholesome approach. That would be a fair fair issue to, um, to use a um, a um, oh, let me put it another way. Um, everyone around I have respect for everybody around the council horseshoe. We all want to make a difference. The key questions to see more full transportation in in my area. Uh connectedness, fixed routes into environmental areas. Uh uh there's not even a direct bus. U there was some reference to standalone system and connectedness. You'd have a hard time making that case out where where we're at. Um the buses I see uh big buses by the way. A lot of people say, "Why are we driving these big buses around with, if you're lucky, maybe one person in them going from uh wherever down to the alder Aldershot GO station?" I think the study that was done HSR next had very little input from Watertown residents, but those that did said where they wanted to go was Burlington, not to Hamilton. So you think about connectedness that's something that uh uh I know intermunicipal issues are are tougher to handle but you know those are footnotes that I would make. So I don't support either option. Uh I I'll support receiving the report today but um I'd like to see this committee give uh direction to I think in I think I think I councelor Crick will correct me if I'm wrong. I think if we can make the link between actual service and cost and do that with uh clean hands and straight eyes that would have integrity and people would buy into that uh even though it might cost them a little bit more. But uh the proposal to have everybody pay the same rate whether they get the service or not is bizarre and uh and uh would add um um to quote Martin Luther King a deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars and I don't want to see that happen to to my people. So those are my comments chair. >> Okay. >> Thanks councelor McMin. Councelor Alex Wilson go ahead. Uh thank you chair. I'm gonna pick up something from councelor McMakin. I do think uh happy to receive this today but I do think it'd be helpful for this conversation going forward if we could just collectively take option one off the table if there's no interest or that happens here at council. I do think it would go a long way to talking um to our rural communities and to rural Hamiltonians about how what area rating is meaningfully and it is as I think um councelor Clark said it's a conversation about how do we deal with the fact that transits increased in the suburbs. Maybe it hasn't increased or won't increase by 2033 to be in par in all areas with the urban downtown city of Hamilton, but if we fund HSR next and continue to do what we're planning to do in many of the areas outside of Waterown and Dundas, um we will be reaching that service level par within within the lifetime of that plant. So I think it is a important conversation to have, but it's a conversation that at least in the short term has nothing to do with rural Hamilton. Um, and I I do think that that would help maybe focus on the difficult conversation or narrow the conversation if we could look at things um from some rural urban perspective. Maybe it's more nuanced than that. Maybe we're going further. Maybe we're going slowly. But I that's maybe my initial point is I do think taking option one off the table actually does help move us forward even if we're not happy with option two as it stands today. Um, the other piece I wanted to ask was about kind of variations of option two or seeing what else could be possible from a service level perspective. I'm not sure if this is a question for GMC Carrick through chair or for uh director Kerser, but in the HSR next uh document, we have different service uh route levels, if you will. We have citywide routes, we have those rapid routes, we have collector routes, and then we have local routes and ondemand transit. Um given that we have these kind of unique typologies of routes, do we know what the math looks like if we for example have a general levy for rapid transit or those citywide the spines? So the blast e network if we said hey these are going to be um citywide general levy but we area rate the more local services and I think there was 18 local routes and then three on demand service areas. that would be, you know, 21 local routes that we'd have to look at in some way, shape, or form. I don't I'm wondering if any of that math has kind of been done at a back of the napkin level and just what does that do to the estimates? Does that get somewhere kind of in the middle of the of the options or is it more complicated than that? Just I'm just wondering in terms of what other options could look like? Is basing it based on root typology a potential option for looking at that? >> Thanks, Councelor Wilson. Jim Zerick is going to answer. >> Yeah, through the chair. Uh I'll start and then if director perser has anything to to add I'll invite director perser to add on please. Uh with respect to the ask have staff uh done a back of the envelope analysis of whether to general levy certain um transit routes and and I'll interpret such as the B line or A line or other. We have not. That could be an option if if it's the will of subcommittee to re to direct staff to review alternative approaches to um to aligning the cost of the service or service levels uh as it relates to amending the area rating methodology. I'll take this opportunity maybe to to uh highlight a point I should have made during the presentation. area rating or any financing of a service does not determine the level of service. The level of service is determined through a service level plan that uh ultimately is approved by council and then adopted through the budget process. Area ratings are financing tool that tries to align the the fairness of the cost across properties. But just wanting to reiterate that point. Uh area rating is not intended to determine what the level of investment in any services and in this case transit. Uh but to to circle back to councelor Wilson's question, no staff have not done that work and if it's the will of committee to provide such direction, we can take that away. >> Thank you. for the chair maybe just seeking confirmation though that if we continued on in the existing model let's say it's transit on demand so that my ride service um that would be funded currently if we if we continue with our service level plan of HSR next and bring my ride to water down Ancaster and Dundas uh that would currently be paid for by the former municipalities of water flamro Dundas and Ancaster those would be area rated today is Is that correct? >> Staffford just consulting and then we'll get you an answer. >> So through the chair uh to best of our knowledge, taxi script or my ride are not area rated services. Uh but happy to take that away and confirm that. >> Thank you. And there might be a distinction between the existing initiative versus the planned like roll out of them in the HSR next. I'm not sure. I would be happy to understand that further. My question is just again if we get more information about this I would assume that if folks are saying hey that's a $400 or a $200 tax hike for the same level of service. My just my base assumption here is a partial area rating of some routes or having local roots area rated while having city-wide routes remain as or become rather a typical levy would not be the $400 hike. It would be less than a $400 hike because you're not putting everything on a general levy. You're putting a portion of the services on the general levy. But happy I don't if that can't be confirmed or if it is case by case dependent based on the cost to operate a service in an area. Um if we want more information on that, happy to get it back. just maybe just trying to see if there's a general direction we know the number would be smaller than the $400 number or if more work would be needed to be done >> through the chair. I think it's safe to assume it would be smaller in that it would be a hybrid of of the current state to that future. Uh but more work would have to be done in collaboration with transit as to defining what those routes are. Uh that would be applied uh equally across the urban area and what would continue to be area rated by jurisdiction if that was the direction of the committee in terms of an alternative >> through you chair. I think that might be a way to find a bit of a political compromise. But if folks are wanting to wait for counsel or get more information or any happy to let committee speak. My last question though is just about what are options with respect to phasing in. Does a decision have to be made unilaterally in one year. Um and we go just using that 400 number. You have to do that jump in one year. Um what are the options? Because this is tax policy with respect to a phase in of any change >> through the chair. The tax policy comes before council each year. So it would be at the discretion of council each and every year. So for instance, if council were to adopt a five-year phase in uh in in year 1, let's assume 2027 is year 1 and then in 2028 decides to accelerate that to a three-year phase in. That's the the authority council has is to amend that tax policy and make changes to the phase in period. Thank you, chair. Those are all my questions. And just quick recap is I think if we could take option one off the table, we've done something here important today. Um I have some thoughts on maybe how we could move forward if we want to continue that, but I think taking option one is a good start off the table is a good start. Thank you. >> Okay. Just a question for clerks, I guess. Um if to what councelor Alex Wilson is saying if if there is no decision made today other than receive but we wanted to layer on taking option one out how is that procedurally done? I'm not sure of that. >> Procedurally be done at your GIC meeting or at your council meeting when you accept the minutes or you could recommend to do that today other than receive the minutes. >> Okay. >> Or receive the uh report. Okay. Hopefully that answer helps. Committee, >> we could do both. We could receive the report and do that. >> Yeah, we could. Yes, you could. Okay. Uh, going to councelor Clark for a second time. I don't see any first time speakers. >> Um, thank you, Chair. So when I was first elected almost 20 years ago um on council ward 9 had stone church that was our only service and we didn't have weekend service and so we started moving towards improving weekend service and now we have weekend service on the stone church. We have the Parkdale. We have the upper Kennorth and we have um Rhyme. I was told at the time that every time we added service to Ward Nine that the area rating would increase to pay for that and that occurred correct >> through the chair. Uh that's correct. Across all jurisdictions there would have been changes reflecting the level of service. >> Correct. And so as we wanted to change that service and and and there's madness to my my questioning. um as we wanted to change those services and for example begin to increase the frequency under the area rating model that we have currently the area rated increase would apply to the residents in ward 9. So if we wanted to see faster, more frequent service on Stone Church, then the residents would end up paying more taxes. That's accurate. So as I reflect back in time, as councelor Clark has is uh we are at now the tail end of the 10-year transit strategy and there have been investments in all jurisdictions. As those investments occurred, there was a recalibration of the area rating to reflect those changes in kilometers of service by former juris former municipalities jurisdictions. So over the last decade uh that has been captured through recalibrating the area rating of transit services. >> Thank you. Now stay with me on that train of thought. Um, as we have done this, the discrepancy or variance between what Hamilton is was paying versus what the Stony Creek residents have been paying has slowly narrowed over time because we have increased our services. Is that correct? through the chair. I I'll start and then I'll invite director Perser u because as I reflect back I don't want to misrepresent uh councelor Clark's uh comment is correct. However, the transit strategy also addressed some service level I'll I'll describe them as delinquencies or sorry deficiencies. uh in terms of pass there were previous passbys where there wasn't capacity principally in the former municipality of Hamilton and so that form part of the the transit uh strategy as well but across uh the whole transit network there were improvements as it relates to levels of service across the whole network and then I'll invite director Perser to correct me if I made any misrepresentations and to to add on please. >> All right. Through the chair. Um, thank you. And, um, uh, uh, Jim Zager is correct. Um, we've made a number of, um, investments through council. Uh, but the increases. So, uh, your example of Stone Church or, uh, Rhimo, um, adding that service and adding late night weekend service has also been applied to, um, the original city of Hamilton because both routes uh, run uh, basically from Ancaster through to Stony Creek. So, um, the entire network has um, increased its service in many many cases. The only one that would um specifically impact an area again is uh water down uh the added service in water down uh along with my ride. And so I'm trying to understand how we explain to the residents in Ward 9 and Stony Creek and any of the suburbs for that matter how eliminating area rating is a good thing for that community other than their taxes go up. If the service levels aren't going to change, your taxes are going up. But then in the future, your service levels are going to change, your taxes will go up again. through the chair. Uh I think the opportunity is as investments are made in the level of service and those those uh differences in gap or frequency or duration uh are reduced is um the opportunity to review whether the current methodology is fair and in capturing what that change represents. And if there's um not suggesting that there will be parody in terms of the level of service across all of the city of Hamilton, but if that difference uh is less over time, um the opportunity is to review whether this methodology properly captures that change in terms of the distribution of costs and and recognizing important also to recognize that this is a program that's funded in part through user user fees. through the fair box as well as the levy. >> Yeah, I guess I'm still struggling with the rationale of explaining it to property taxpayers who have been gouged for the last four years in the suburban areas, especially with area rating. Uh, added on to their normal taxes and we still are exactly where we were four years ago in terms of services. Nothing's changed. And in order for the services to change, we have to agree to increasing your taxes to eliminate area rating and then there will be additional increases in taxes to change the v the actual service frequency. Do I have that right >> through the chair? You do. I I'll just differentiate slightly between the two is is one is as the service level increases the user fee and and property taxes will increase to reflect that increase in the service level. If there was a shift off of the methodology resulting in a shift in terms of tax burn is uh some properties will pay more and some properties will pay less. just differentiating. It's not the the the level of service or the investment directly. Uh that's that's just the shift in terms of who is paying. Um but councelor's not correct in terms of the the two points. Just trying to differentiate >> to clarify. None of the property taxpayers in Ward 9 would see a lowering of their taxes as a result of elimination of area rating >> through the chair. Uh just reviewing the charts, I don't know of a situation where a property in W 9 would see a benefit of a shift um based on the transit urban boundary today. >> Yeah, there isn't one. Thanks. >> Okay, councelor Tison and councelor McMin. So just following up with what councelor clerk said as if we continue with the current methodology as service increases to a suburban area the gap or I should say the pay or the tax for the buses the levy would increase currently correct like as as that service increased over time it it it increases on there it's reflected in their tax bill through the chair. That's correct. As any increase in service level across any of the former jurisdictions or municipalities increase, their transit levy will increase. >> Okay, I appreciate that. So that handles, you know, as things improve. Now the gap might not decrease though because the service levels inside the city might increase which means so that might be another area like the gap might still continue but because the services have improved in the city we've gone to 15minute runs and so forth like that so their taxes inside the city would have increased as well correct >> through the sher I think that's one of the points director perser was was making is because of the connectivity across the whole network is uh the city of Hamilton will likely likewise uh realize an increase or a change in service as outlying areas because of the connectivity the fact that the service is all connected as a network >> and and and I can understand that um however the bus comes every 30 minutes to one area and it's only one single line whereas someone else is standing in front of their house and five buses come by that needs to be reflected as well. Correct >> through the chair. That's correct. I think that's what I apologize to the counselors as I I refer to their previous comments, but I think that's what councelor Wilson was referring to in terms of local services. If a local service is is somewhat isolated from other former municipalities, uh that uh tax impact would be represented by that immediate area, that potentially former municipality or jurisdiction. And then one final question. If if an area is serviced through transcripts or is that um are they considered rural? >> So through the chair, if I understand, if someone in the rural area subscribes to transc I'll use uh apologize. I'll use an area I'm I'm a little more familiar. So, so, uh, Ward 10. So, you're outside and you take it to Jones Road to the bus network at the former Stony Creek City Hall Municipal Service Center. I don't know if staff know whether the the Transcap cost is area rated or if it's funded through the general levy. >> General levy. >> Okay. So I was just going to say transc if if an area is serviced by transcend outside of the I guess the transit boundary >> through the chair. I'm going to stop stepping into the shoes of director PER. So so maybe I'll ask director perser if she can answer how transc uh connects to the transit network. Uh so so director >> yeah thank you. So through the chair, I can't speak to the tax policies and what that what um how it gets charged. I do know that our uh transcin transit urban boundary is where um is the is the limits. We don't go into the rural area um when providing transc. So basically, because I understand that my citizens in Bimbrook pay a different rate than my citizens in Mount Hope, even though they're both rural, one has access to transc. So they pay into the they pay a transit levy basically. I guess >> through the chair, I think it would reflect their vicinity to the transit boundary. So wherever that boundary uh is defined, it will be to depend on the property relative to that boundary. >> Right. So I guess basically what I'm saying is that anyone who's served by Transcab is inside the the boundary for the the transit boundary I guess. Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> yeah thank you. Just before we go to councelor Makin uh just to what you were talking about or asking councelor Tatison around is the level of service gap changing over time. I think slides 11 and 12 and the charts on the left side of that sort of illustrate that. If you just put aside the numbers, you can see the relative height of the bars of the four municipalities in the current state and then in 2023, you can see the heights are getting more equal. Still differences, but to your point is the tax level and the service gap closing. The the high level answer is yes. Does that help? >> It does. I just see a I just see an area like a jurisdictional kilometer is different in a former municipality than it is inside the city boundaries understanding the distances that we're covering. >> Okay, we'll go to councelor McMen. >> Thanks. Thanks, chair. We've covered a lot of territory actually in the last little while. Um there there are several hybrid ideas that have been expressed. Um and I'm appreciative of that. Uh the one I was alluding to chair around paying for what you get and getting what you pay for seems to be implicit in the existing system that we have and is modified as service enhancements take place. I think that's the understanding that you've communicated Mike >> my experience >> yeah through >> through the chair that's uh in in part uh not suggesting it's a perfect uh methodology but in part that is what the methodology is intended to capture and uh as well as we look forward in terms of HSR next as as councelor Casar as the chair identified there is movement within that gap But recognizing the connectivity of the service across the network is former city of Hamilton will always bear a higher cost because of that connectivity the fact that routes often run through the former uh municipality of Hamilton. >> So I chair I don't disagree with any of that. I think that makes sense. Um the the question that percolates in my mind is why would we change that? uh as things uh evolve and uh uh my community by 2033 is going to look considerably with water down in particular the rural is going to remain largely uh static but uh uh you know where the fastest growing population right now at some point in time when u when the additional 10,000 homes that are scheduled to be built there by 2040 are there uh the demand for transit services will invariably in increase. Um and um it would make sense to continue to apply the uh uh the historic model that we have uh in place uh to um evolve the cost of the service as it is enhanced. That it just seems so fundamentally uh logical to me. The if I go off on another tangent too, I I've been around for a long time. You know, I I can remember going to the wall fighting amalgamation and uh and uh coming to increasingly appreciate some of the benefits of amalgamation as well, some of the uh changes that are taking place that would not have taken place if the town of Flamborough had continued to operate the way it had. um which was great by the way but but notwithstanding that um you know changes are happening I recall that when at amalgamation there was um uh some um I'm I've never understood the complexity of it but some adjustments around uh inner city inner city wards and suburban wards and access to capital dollars and and such Um, can can you comment on that be because out out where out where we're at, you know, I'm often asked um and and I I kind of hope the question goes away, frankly, but I ask, well, you know, how come, you know, all this this extra money is available to old the original Hamilton wards and and uh we're we're fighting to kind of recover the OG funds that were supposed to fund community projects out in out in Flamborough. Can you comment on that? Just guess cuts both ways there benefits. >> Yeah. So through the chair if I if I understand the question is uh area rating of uh in the city of Hamilton has evolved since amalgamation and uh council at the time uh over over a series of of years frankly over decades now have looked at area rating in the context of other factors that might have been occurring at the time and that amalgamation reassessment was a significant factor. So looking at all financial tools in terms of of fairness and equity and how to distribute the the financial burden. Um councelor to your question around uh so as part of that evolution of area rating when some uh services were no longer area rated and transferred to the general levy there were these tax shifts that were occurring and those tax shifts represented a benefit to the former municipality of the city of Hamilton and council at the time made the decision to uh to not reduce property taxes in the former municipality, but to retain that that uh financial benefit in the form of special area rating reserves to the tune of about $13.6 million annually. So that was not a direct result of area rating. a bit of a a it's a result of area rating in terms of the change in area rating, but that was a a solution to a challenge at the time in terms of uh how those benefits should be captured and uh applied in future years. Not to say that's a requirement. And so going forward, if there were to be a change going forward on area rating, that model is not a requirement. um benefits in terms of tax shifts could uh acrue to property owners. In some cases they would benefit in other cases they would bear a higher burden. >> So there were so there were some uh there was some hybrid fiscal arrangements made to the benefit of of the old old city of Hamilton. I'm okay with that. Um my recollection was there was to be a seven-year sunset on that. Is that is that accurate? >> Depends on who you're talking >> through the chair. I don't recall in terms of reports that uh it were to be sun it was to be sunsetted. It's always at the discretion and just it's an annual tax policy. It could always amend or change but uh we have no direction to phase it out. Uh and I don't recall a report uh directing staff to phase it out over seven years. >> Yeah, I want to be clear. I'm not being critical. I I actually understand the challenges of inner city Hamilton in many specific areas far outweigh the challenges of some of the wealthier communities. Um I get it. Um and I try to take care of my ward without being partisan or parochial, but you still have to take care of your own ward. So I I don't begrudge that. I want to be be clear that's that's something I understand needs to happen. But I just point to it because you know um decisions have consequences and u if we were to go with option one and I if if if councelor Wilson wants to make a motion to eliminate that option, I suspect he'll have broad-based support around this table. um that consequence would uh not uh add a a higher percentage of trust to the city than the the current uh struggles we have on on on that uh on that account. I think that would be a fair thing to say. And uh you know, it's all about trust. It's all about hope. It's all about vision. It's all about struggling to build together a stronger core, a stronger suburban community. When something benefits one, it should benefit all. I I believe passionately in that, but I don't want to poison the well either. Anyhow, that's being done. >> Okay. Good. >> Okay. I don't see any further speakers. Uh a reminder that staff had just reported back on the direction they were given by council and those are the options we had in front of us. We have a mover and seconder to receive the presentation and the report and we also have a suggestion of potentially an amendment to remove option one from consideration. So I'll just pause to see if that is going to happen today and then beyond that any further options potentially could be brought to council if if required after further discussion with staff. So is there any amendment to be put forward? Council Wilson. >> Uh thanks chair. I'm happy to do it at GAC when we're all there. It's a city-wide conversation and I think having a chance to connect with staff about potentially further direction to investigate would be helpful. Um, if folks want to jump at the queue, like I'm not opposed to anyone else moving something today. I just haven't had a chance to workshop anything um with respect to those questions. Um, and given that we're just receiving it, happy to have that happen at GIC when we're all there. >> Okay. So, councelor McMaken for a third time. >> So, I'm I'm in favor of uh of receiving the report. But I'm also in favor of moving an option here to uh moving a motion to eliminate option one. >> Okay. And I will move that. >> I'll second that. >> And councelor Tatison is going to second that. So that amendment would we just need some wording on that is to remove option one from cons future consideration or looking to staff for some wording in that spirit. >> Citywide lo. >> I I Yeah. and uh happy to work with clerks. I understand the intent is to receive the presentation and the report and to reflect that the subcommittee was not supportive of option one, which was to um to eliminate area rating and have it levied across all properties in the in the city of Hamilton, >> which includes rural, just to be all very exact. Yep. Just so everyone watching understands that this would essentially remove rural properties from consideration of future options. That's the intention. >> Okay. So we have a mover and second for the amendment. We would need a vote I believe on that amendment. Elsie Macintosh. Is that correct? Electronic vote. >> Just >> just a show of hands. Okay. Just a show of hands. All those in favor of that amendment as you've heard. Uh that carries unanimously. Thank you very much. and then to receive the presentation and >> let's note please that it was carried unanimously. >> Yeah, it was carried unanimously. Yep. Thank you for reiterating. And then the motion on the floor to receive the report as remended as well as a presentation that's also a show of hands. All those in favor and again that carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you everybody. Uh there is no further or is there any notices of motion? I'll just go through that. I don't think I was expecting any. Okay. Because there is no further business, the meeting is now adjourned at 2:38 p.m. Thank you everybody. Thank you staff. Thank you clerks.