The Finance and Administration Committee held a lengthy meeting dominated by debate over whether to proceed with a routine 4% development charge (DC) indexing increase. Delegations and staff framed the decision around housing affordability, municipal finances, and the risk that any DC relief would shift costs onto property taxpayers and ratepayers. The committee voted 8–2 to refer the matter back to staff for sector-specific options and more clarity on senior-government funding programs, with a report back by May 7. The meeting also received the city’s workplace mental health reporting, debated the structure and fairness of community grant programs, and moved cybersecurity and confidential financial items into closed session.

Topics Discussed

Development Charges Indexing, Housing Costs, and Who Pays

The committee’s central debate was whether to implement a 4% DC indexing increase. Delegate Viv Saunders argued that “every time we amend our DCs, we are adding pressure to the tax levy,” and contrasted approaches in other cities, saying “Hamilton in 2026 I think was 32 million to the tax base,” while London’s impact was “$10 million.”

Mike Collins Williams, CEO of the West End Homebuilders Association, told the committee that “the cost to build a home exceeds what the end consumer is willing or able to pay,” attributing the gap to “materials, labor, fees, and taxes.”

Staff outlined the immediate budget impact of not indexing. The committee heard that eliminating the 4% increase would reduce revenues by $2.7 million, which staff said would require either a 0.1% property tax increase or a 4% water rate increase to replace.

The discussion also focused on senior-government pressure and uncertainty. One speaker described the situation as “municipalities are going to have to pay to play,” and General Manager Jim Zagaric warned that participating in programs tied to DC relief could be risky because “those application processes could take 18 months, two years and the unknown as to what we will realize… it’s a risk. I don’t know how to assess that risk given the unknowns.”

Development Charge Policy Limits and Reserve Fund Questions

Staff emphasized that DC policy is constrained by provincial rules. Zagaric told the committee that exemptions are “real costs and there are revenues that have to support those costs,” and that the city faces uncertainty about whether DC reductions would actually increase construction enough to offset lost revenue. As one example of the unknowns, staff raised the question of whether a major discount would “trigger 2,000 residential building permits to be issued.”

The committee also discussed the scale of exemptions. Zagaric said that in 2025, DC exemptions were forecast at “approximately $75 million,” with “almost 80% of that, $60 million, is for the residential sector,” including “residential intensification… not-for-profit housing affordability… [and] long-term care.”

Municipal Workforce Mental Health and RZONE Reporting

The committee received the city’s workplace mental health reporting and heard that mental health concerns are a growing share of disability and absence pressures. The meeting also reviewed the RZONE policy, launched in late 2024 to address inappropriate behaviour toward staff. The committee heard that Canadians reporting “poor or fair mental health” are at “three times the rate seen before the pandemic,” and that internal reporting includes incidents involving illegal activity and violence at city properties.

Staff said the city is developing a new psychological health and safety strategy to return to council “early in 2027.”

Community Grant Program: Purpose and Equity Between Wards

Councillor Crutch brought forward a consolidated community grant program motion intended to complete ward granting ahead of the election period. Debate focused on whether the program has drifted from capital needs and whether access is equitable across wards.

Councillor Brad Clark said he “can no longer justify those expenditures when so many people are complaining about municipal infrastructure needs.” He also argued the funding structure is uneven, noting that “seven wards in this city do not have area rated funding,” meaning groups in those wards must rely on the City Enrichment Fund, while wards with area-rating reserves can access both.

Clark described the origin of the area-rating approach as coming from “a private meeting” between councillors and said it created what he called a “slush fund.” Despite the debate, multiple grant motions passed, including funding tied to specific community projects.

Cybersecurity and Confidential Financial Items

The committee dealt with a cybersecurity follow-up audit (phase 2) focused on incident response and insurance review, but moved details to closed session due to security sensitivity. The committee also approved a contract extension for secure transportation of funds and considered a confidential financial matter in closed session, with the committee voting to keep details private.

Motions

Passed: - Referral motion (8–2): DC indexing referred to staff for sector-specific options and clarity on senior-government funding programs; report back by May 7 - Motion 9.1: Financial accountability and administration of grant funding (8–0, one abstention) - Motion 9.2: $15,000 from Ward 4 capital discretionary account for Golden Horseshoe Live Steamers educational pavilion (8–0) - Motion 9.3: Play structure replacement at Innismuch House (8–0) - Motion 9.4: Ward 2 Community Grants 2026 (7–1) - Motion 9.5: Ward 2 Capital Expenses Area Rating Reserve 2026 (8–0) - Motion 10.1: $15,000 for Sudanese Canadian League tutoring program (7–1) - Motion 10.2: W11 Community Grant Program (passed after suspension of rules 6–2) - Cybersecurity audit directions and recommendations approved (6–0) - Contract extension for secure transportation of fund services approved (6–0)

Received: - Items 7.2 and 7.3: Psychological Health & Safety Strategy and Annual Employee Absence Report 2025 (unanimous) - Correspondence from Gabriel Nicholson (unanimous)

Attendees

• Vice Chair Spatafora (presiding)
• Councillor Brad Clark
• Councillor Crutch
• Councillor Cooper
• Councillor Paul
• Councillor Morin Wilson
• Councillor Hang
• Councillor Tatison
• Councillor Wang