Transcript: DC Indexing Debate Deferred - Audit, Finance and Administration Committee - April 16, 2026 | Summary 324

DC Indexing Debate Deferred - Audit, Finance and Administration Committee - April 16, 2026

Sound check. 1 2 3 Finance and Administration Committee for Thursday, April 16th. Thank you for joining us in these cozy corners. like to think that maybe um if council chambers is our main house, then we're here at the summer cottage uh in 264 to enjoy each other's company. Uh as we have quorum present, I'd like to call the meeting to order at 9:31. uh in uh the the cottage with us uh councelor Mark Tatterson, councelor Marine Wilson, councelor Tommy Wang, Brad Clark, Cameron Crutch, uh Rob Cooper, Vice Chair Spataphora, and myself. Uh okay. So, we have no ceremonial activities. So, we are moving to approval of the agenda. So, I'm going to read this verbatim because there's some some nuance in the agenda approval this morning. So members of committee, we will defer consideration of 8.1 which is AUD210004D and that is the cyber security follow-up audit phase 2 incident response and insurance review citywide until after closed session in order to hear the confidential presentation which will be during the close session portion at item 11.2 and that's associated with 8.1 just for clarification. So 8.1 will be moved to after the close session portion. We also have an opportunity uh if members have questions on item uh 11.3 which is the uh confidential appendix to report FCS26037 and that is on the public agenda at 8.2. So if members are looking to see uh the confidential appendix A to the report at 8.2, we would need to defer consideration during the agenda portion until after the closed session and then we would be viewing that. So, I'm looking to members to see if we have a desire to uh look at the confidential appendix A to report FCS 26037 uh in the close session or or not. So, is there a decision point that we'd like to defer 8.2 as well? I'm seeing some nods. Okay. So, then we will thusly modify the agenda. So, if I could have a mover and second to approve the agenda as amended. Seeing councelor Cooper and Councelor Hang. Thank you. Uh, any other questions about the amended agenda? Seeing none. Uh, please indicate your vote by a show of all in favor. Hand vote. Thank you. That is unanimously carried. We're now moving on to declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest? Okay, seeing none, we're moving to 5.1, which is the approval of the minutes from March 26, 2026. If I could have a mover and seconder to adopt these minutes from March 26, seeing councelor Esther Paul's, councelor Tammy Huang. Thank you. Any questions about the minutes? And seeing seeing none, if I could have show of hand vote. All in favor? That is unanimous. Thank you, colleagues. Moving on quickly now to 6.1 which is delegations respecting the 2026 development charges index. That is item 7.1. And we have a virtual a virtual delegation. Oh, there you are. Viv, how are you? Good to see you. Viv Saunders, if you could turn on your camera. You've already done that. Viv, uh, thank you for joining us today. So, you've got a fiveinut uh, delegation. uh in in the big house, we'd have the ding at 4 minutes. I don't know that that works here at the cottage. Probably doesn't. So, um by 5 minutes, if you're still carrying on, I will uh kind of interject and let you know that we're at the at the end of your speaking time. Uh and then we will proceed to questions from delegations from members of the committee. Viv, you ready? Oh, I'm ready. Can you hear me? Okay, we can hear you. You got five minutes starting now. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, chair, members of committee. For those that don't know me, my name is Viv Saunders. I'm a resident of W 10 and at times can be known to be a bit of a critical thinker. I'm here today to speak to the report on the 2026 development charges indexing. Within the report, there are two options being presented. After spending quite some time talking to experts and delving into the world of DCs, I've realized that every time we amend our DCs, we are adding pressure to the tax levy. Some of which is not quite so obvious it, but it is significant. Tens of millions in 2023, for example. If we look at option two on page five of eight of the report, deferring the indexing to June 1st, 2027, there is an estimated $2.7 million hit for the deferral. Staff are recommending the foregone DC revenue be funded as a discretionary exemption. Under our tax policy, council has chosen to recoup those exemptions from the taxpayers. So, a deferral will will result in a hit of $2.7 million to the tax base. If we look at option one though, which is the option to allow the indexing to occur on June 1st, that comes with an even larger burden on the tax base. My estimate is $4 million in the next 12 months, plus another $3 million annually for every year after that. Again, this is due to policies council has chosen to adopt in our city. As a taxpayer, I'm not in favor of either option. As a committee, if you are forced to choose between the two, obviously deferring the indexing at this time is best. If you'd like me to provide details on any of this information or share with you another alternative to recoup any foregone DC revenue which doesn't result in a tax supported levy, I would welcome your questions at the conclusion of my presentation. Thank you for your attention. That concludes my presentation. Thank you Viv. So I'm looking to members of committee to see and I see first up uh councelor Moren Wilson please. Thank you, chair. Um, at the at the outset, let me just say how um appreciative I am of Miss Sanders continuous engagement. Um, I I think it's wonderful that she invests her time and talent for things she's not getting paid to, but as a a resident. So, hat hats off. Um, speak to me like I'm a dummy, which is not too far off the mark. and break down if you could your assessment of option one um and the uh conclusion that you argue it presents a larger burden 4 million in the next 12 plus 3 million thereafter. Thank you. Okay. Thank you through the chair. Um what part of the 2.7 million um that staff is assuming uh 50% of that if it's deferred roughly would be about 1.35 1.35 million. So that will happen if the indexing goes through because of the transition policy put in place. So, anything that's uh bypasses site plan and a building permit is applied for and approved within the next six months. Plus, because when I and I could only go back and look at 2023, for example, in 2023, um we gave $78 million of exemptions. So, if we're going So, if we're going to proceed with an indexing, that's 78 million. now becomes 81 million assuming all the same types of developments happen which I thought was a fair sort of baseline to work from. So the 78 turns into 81 which is an additional $3 million per year and then projecting that forward that we're building the same housing with the exemptions it just escalates. Okay. Thank you. um you noted in your delegation um that you had an alternative and was wondering if you could tell us about that through the chair. Beth, go ahead. Yes, thank you for that question. Through the chair, um I noticed that we have $30 million sitting in our building permit reserves. Um there's restrictions and sometimes it goes down for operating and building but generally speaking it has been increasing every single year. Um there's restrictions on y how that money can be spent. Y so if the city is seeking to roughly in the report it's assuming $4,000 per unit for example with the indexing. Alternatively, council could consider a building permit fee reduction up to $4,000 per unit and fund it with the building permit reserves. Councelor, thank you. My final question to the chair. Um, now that we have you here, um, Miss Sanders, is there anything you would like to maybe suggest that in any of this calculation that could we could use, uh, the DC's and the whole indexing plan or otherwise that we could affect the type of building that's um, that may go on in the in the market? That is my question. And thank you again, Viv. Any way we can use DC exemption? Sorry, through the chair. Any way we uh use DC exemptions to affect the type of buildings? Um, nothing really comes to mind. Um to be fair it's outside the scope of this but I just thought while we had you it's it's it DC exemptions themselves and the policies that we have in place um and and and statutory DC exemptions primarily because at last reporting that represented 50% like residential infill which is what we want which is a small staff um represented 50% of the DC exemption that we're recovering from taxpayers for that particular year. So when I when I look at that, I'm starting to feel that DC exemptions themselves being funded by the taxpayers for all of all of the DC exemptions per year, um the tax base can't handle that going forward. that possibly it might end up being less expensive for the taxpayers to actually fund the capital projects versus the exemptions. Thank you very much for your delegation. Thank you, councelor. Uh who else do I have on the list here? I see councelor Paul's next, please. Thank you. Oh, I thought it Thank you. Thank you. Uh through the chair, I was just wondering with the new legislative from the province and federal about DC charges, what's your thought on it and what uh on the exemption of DC charges to get more houses on the market and get new builds? Viv uh My thoughts on those ex exemptions are wonderful. Um I think they're needed. My thoughts on the city choosing to fund them on the tax base I don't agree with. Of course, sorry. It's okay. Good answer. Thank you. We don't want the the taxpayers to pay for it. I agree with you 100%. Again, thank you for coming and uh as we learn more about the DC charges, what the federal and province are suggesting, then uh we will uh will help all the residents of course. So, thank you for coming. Thank you. Councelor Paul's um checking to see if there's any other questions of members. I'm going to throw it over to Vice Chair Spot for a second so that I can ask a question of the delegate. Um, Viv, I know that in some cases other municipalities treat um, the DC exemption file a little bit differently, and I think I've done a little bit of research and had some conversations. Um, London seems to come to mind as perhaps uh, a a uh, a comparator that has a different treatment of DCs. Do you have any uh, any thoughts on how they do it? Do you have any background on how they deal with DC exemptions and any suggestions and how uh the city of Hamilton is a relatively similar size and scope post-industrial city might be able to examine those options uh through the chair? Yes. Um, I I looked at the London situation. What happened in London um for their 2026 budget because it was a $10 million hit on the on the um tax base. Um Hamilton in 2026 I think was 32 million um to the tax base. So the London mayor um and finance staff in London for years um wrote to the minister and finally got confirmation that municipalities there is nothing in the act that states municipalities have to recoup the DC exemptions um from tax base or any other source. What it says is that municipalities cannot recoup it from development charges. Um so in 2026 the London mayor removed um in his strong mayor's budget removed the $10 million hit in London um and saved the taxpayers. I can't remember what the impact levy was. and and from the and decided from there that as the capital as the growth capital projects may come up because revenue has to come from somewhere um it would come in year based on the capital budget and then it would be a slow hit rather than a larger hit to the tax base. Councelor Bey, thank you vice chair and through you. So, um, how did they I'm just trying to understand the the strong mayor issued a directive that, um, set aside the $10 million or where did where did the $10 million go to? How was it calculated on the balance sheet? Uh, through the chair, what the what the mayor did was remove the that recover like we're calling a DC recovery funding. He removed that from the tax base. What happened after that? I don't know councelor bey. Okay. And then I think the followup to that then is that the expectation was that uh potentially certain growth related projects then instead of being funded through uh some recoupment of DC's those capital projects would be then funded thusly through the regular levy budget. Is that what I have correct at a later date through the chair? Yes, that's correct. Okay. some interesting thinking there. Uh, thank you very much, Viv. I have no further questions. I'll take the chair back and I don't see any further questions from committee. So, I think um we see you again in a few minutes. So, I guess you're you're hanging hanging on until 6.2, but for now, we're going to move to our next uh delegate, which is Mike Collins Williams from the West End Homebuilders Association. Mike, come on up to the podium. And I did forget to remind members of committee earlier on that questions of the delegates are for information purposes only and not for debate, which is not to say anybody planned to debate anybody, but uh I do uh want to make sure that I'm filing all notices appropriately. And so Mike, whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes at your leisure. Thank you. Good morning, chair, uh, members of the audit, finance, and administration committee. My name is Mike Collins Williams, CEO of the West End Homebuilders Association, and I'm here today to discuss a proposal before you to increase development charges. It's difficult to believe that we're even having this conversation. Um, at a time when housing affordability is out of reach, when residents are struggling to find attainable homes, when thousands of jobs are being lost in the residential construction sector, and when municipalities across Ontario are stepping up to remove barriers to building, Hamilton's considering increasing development charges. Considering this, Hamilton shows a startling disconnect with the economic reality unfolding around us. We are not in a normal market. We're in a historic downturn in residential construction, arguably the worst in decades. Projects across the city are being delayed or abandoned altogether because they no longer are financially viable. The economics simply do not work. And what might seem like a modest 4% increase can be the difference between a project moving forward or being cancelled. That's the reality. So the question before us is not whether we can index development charges. It's whether we can justify doing so when it will worsen housing affordability, stall new construction, and push investment out of Hamilton. Projects are already having enormous difficulty coming to fruition because it's more expensive to build than the market is willing to pay. Let me be crystal clear. The cost to build a home exceeds what the end consumer is willing or able to pay. The cost of a resale unit is less than the cost of a newly constructed unit. And that's not because developers are asking too much or being greedy. It's because the cost of things like materials, labor, fees, and taxes are putting too much pressure on project viability. Make no mistake, every bit of cost reduction a developer receives is going directly back to the consumer. For decades, Hamilton struggled to attract investment in our downtown in particular. Staff took a serious look at what was happening and they worked exceptionally hard delivering programs to turn that around. And for a while, it was working. But we're now at a critical moment and risk losing that momentum we work so hard to obtain because the city's more concerned with the short-term game of collecting upfront development charges rather than the long-term economic benefits development provides. If projects aren't viable, the city collects nothing. No development charges, no assessment growth, no new housing. We don't move closer to our housing targets, and we continue to lose the momentum Hamilton has worked so hard for. City staff have already presented a clear, practable, practical and responsible alternative to amend the bylaw to allow for a deferral or waiver of indexing. This is not radical. It's not reckless. It is prudent. And most importantly, it signals that Hamilton understands the stakes and is ready to act as a partner to getting homes built. The federal and provincial governments are putting real money on the table to address this crisis. PM Mark Carney has made it clear by working with Ontario, the federal government is prepared to help cut development charges by up to 50%, lower taxes on new housing and invest in infrastructure to support municipalities that take action. Let me repeat that last part. To support municipalities that take action, Hamilton needs to take action or they'll be left out of the equation. Premier Doug Ford has been more direct. If municip he stated that if municipalities don't reduce development charges, they should not expect funding. If they do, the province will be there to support them. This is a clear time-sensitive opportunity. Through programs like the Build Community Strong Fund, backed by 8.8 billion in provincial and federal investment, municipalities that move first and demonstrate meaningful reductions will be prioritized. So, what message are we sending if we proceed with a 4% increase? We don't want the funding. We don't want partnership. And we don't want to be competitive. And perhaps most concerning, we're comfortable with fewer homes being built in Hamilton and more jobs being lost. Even considering this path risk signaling that we're out of step, not only with the market, but with both senior levels of government and the broader economic reality. This is not just about housing supply. It's about jobs. It's about economic activity and the entire ecosystem that depends on a functional residential construction sector. You have before you an alternative that aligns with market conditions, aligns with provincial and federal priorities, and actually improves our chances of housing getting built. Hamilton must meet the moment. We must show that we're ready to partner, ready to build, and ready to leave. So, I urge you not to proceed with indexing development charges, adopt the alternative outlined in the report, amend the bylaw, defer the increase. Please take the steps necessary to reduce development charges and position the city to unlock funding the growth and the housing that our community so urgently needs. Thank you. Thank you, Mike, for the presentation. I have uh started a speaker list beginning with councelor Mike Spataphora. If any other members wish to speak, you please just uh indicate by your hand gesture and I will add you to the list. Beginning with Vice Chair Spataphora. Thanks, Chair Mike. Thanks for coming. Um, I think I only got one question. You, uh, I'm sure have spent time with both federal and provincial government around housing and DC's and all that fun stuff. In your opinion, if the indexing goes forward, um do you think that would spell the end of us having any access to the money that the province and feds have put on the table uh in regards to helping municipalities that are um looking to build in their city? Through you, Chair Mike? Uh through the chair. I I don't know if it would spell the end, but it's certainly not a good starting point. Um, we've just in the last two three weeks had uh the HST reduction. That is the most significant tax cut in a generation. Now, it's time limited. Uh the following week uh the prime minister and um the premier made the announcement on the development charges. There's still a program to be built. Uh but the premier has been, you know, typically blunt in his language that uh if you're not, you know, part of the uh solution, you're part of the problem. Um I whether it's Hamilton or any other municipality, I think, um signals are very important and um increasing development charges even by this modest 4% is a pretty strong signal to the provincial and federal governments that the city has no intention of being part of the solution and is rather part of the problem. That's good for you. Councelor, I wonder if you could take the chair for a second. I just want to ask the delegate. Go ahead. Um I didn't see anybody else, but I apologize if I've jumped the queue. We'll come back to members. Um Mike, you you heard from a delegate just a moment ago, Miss Saunders, who mentioned the experience in some other uh communities. Um and London was mentioned. I brought it up and she was able to to speak to um some of the research that she had concluded. But I'm wondering if um you have any uh connection with the homebuilders out in the London area uh through your professional association if you've noticed or heard from them any uh changes as a result of the marold directive there that was issued in terms of how they uh changed the way that they dealt with exemptions for for DCs. Any any thoughts or comments from your comparator group out in the London area? Uh so through the chair I I also conveniently have a a letter here from the deputy uh minister of municipal affairs and housing to the mayor of London clarifying how that the um the exemptions work. So I'm going to quote from that and then share from a couple other municipalities that um uh from the letter this was providing clarity uh that the tax base is not responsible for picking up any of the exemptions. Uh so quoting from the deputy minister of municipal affairs and housing, please note that while municipalities are responsible for ensuring that they have adequate resources to enable infrastructure necessary to support their growth, section 563 of the development charges act does not require municipalities to fund statutory and non-stutory exemptions and discounts contained in the development charges act or municipal charges bylaws through non-development charges funding sources. In situations where municipalities are legislatively required to provide full or partial exemptions, municipalities could consider other revenue sources than development charges, such as through property tax revenue based on what council considers most appropriate. Generally, whether a top up to the reserve fund under these circumstances is a local decision. So any uh exemptions, reductions, etc. do not need to automatically be funded uh through the property tax levy. Um so we we've had some progress in London. There are other municipalities like uh Missaga and Bon that have significantly reduced development charges and are receiving uh funding support from the provincial and federal governments. Uh a quote from Steven Deluca, mayor of Vaughn, "Development charges have become an unfair tax burden on home buyers. To many of our residents, in particular young families in our community, we have seen their dream of buying a home so close to where they grew up disappear completely as housing prices have spiraled out of control. We have a housing affordability crisis and it's time for us to get real about the solutions needed to solve it. Today's decision by bond council to dramatically reduce our development charges for the foreseeable future is a strong step in the right direction. I urge other municipalities to follow our lead and do the right thing. Thank you for that. Uh going back to the question, how would how what's the experience of the homebuilders in London uh Middle Sex uh for uh have you heard anything from them as to an outcome or change in market conditions as a result of some of the changes made through the mayoral directive? So through the chair, uh yes, I've heard from my colleagues at the London Homebuilders Association and a few of the other municipalities that that have made adjustments. Um it it's pretty tough out there in the current market. So, uh, the London changes were positive, uh, but they were sort of tinkering around the edges rather than a significant reduction. So, they're still in the midst of a pretty tough, um, a pretty tough market environments. Um, we've seen some more pickup in Vaughn and Missaga because the reductions were more dramatic. Um I I will say rather than being all doom and gloom that since the HST announcement was made a couple of weeks ago, we've had a couple of members report that um they've seen significantly increased traffic in sales offices and um you know the HST's reduction is working. There is some more sales activity. Okay. Thank you. Through the vice chair then u just specifically the London experience uh still a work in progress. I think I could categorize it as that, but you're seeing that the Vaughn experience with the deeper discounts has led to more dramatic changes in the market out there. Through the chair, it's been positive in London, but again, it was sort of tinkering around the edges. So, it's not a massive change that would result in massive changes in the market. Okay, understood. Thank you. I'll take the chair back and I have councelor Brad Clark up next, please. Um the letter from the deputy minister intrigues me. So the deputy minister is referencing the provincial statute in that any exemptions there's no requirement to offset it with with what Mike through the chair I'm happy to leave a copy behind and uh send a copy of the letter to all members of the committee. Um the city was seeking clarity that if they provided discounts or exemptions if they automatically had to top up the reserve fund through the property tax levy and this was clarity that that was not the case but the municipality. So, let's just back up for a second so I I'm clear on on what I understand. We do a background study that is fully consulted with developers in the development community. Many of them sit around the table on the committee every 5 years. We generally do that development background study and it shows through accounting exactly what the cost would be to put the infrastructure in place to sustain these new bills and how much would be on the local community and how much would be on the new development. While the act does not say that we have to offset that exemption, the municipality is required to comply with PAP rules on accounting which says if you're going to give an exemption of $300 million worth of development charges, for example, then it's not magic money. You have to find an offset somewhere. And generally with the municipalities it's either reserves if they have reserves of that magnitude or taxpayers. So that's my understanding. Your comments on that please Mike. again through the chair I'd be happy to share the letter and I could probably bind the initial letter from the city of London so there's context of sort of the back and forth in terms of what the questioning was uh in terms of funding the infrastructure yes the infrastructure does have to be built that's in the background study um we know that there are significant funds available in the um city of Hamilton's uh DC reserve fund um those have been increasing every year although to be blunt we don't know the last couple of years because my understanding is due to the cyber attack. There has not been um a release in what the development charges DC reserves are since the end of 2023. At the time, I believe it was around 580 million which was an $80 million increase from the previous year. So, we've been paying into the reserve funds for years and the reserve funds seem to keep going up up and up. Um so, I think there's a question too of the amount of money flowing in and the amount of money flowing out. What some municipalities have done, in particular Burlington, in terms of being able to reduce or push off DC increases, is they did look at their capital plan in their 10-year um reserve fund study and, you know, recognize that there were a couple projects in year 8, 9, and 10 that were realistically unable to actually start construction or be built. Um so they took a very realistic look at what was in those background studies and pushed some things out to reduce the pressure on development charges. Um and there are also other sources of funding grants etc from senior levels of government and I think the announcements in the last couple of weeks indicate that in the future there will be a much more significant role for senior levels of government in helping support uh funding of infrastructure. Councelor, thank you. One last question. Uh, I've been around the table a while and I've watched development charge exemptions be applied for different projects within the municipality. And to my knowledge, in all of those projects, there was not a reduction in the cost of the units or in the rent or the condo fees or anything. it it was market value. So while we gave the exemption, there was not a quid proquo with a reduction in housing costs. How is it how is the municipality to ensure that if we receive money from the federal government for infrastructure such as our water capacity increase and that construction work um that the actual housing prices in the community is going to go down because what have I what I've experienced is the housing prices is not a discretionary item. It's based always on the marketplace. They try to maximize as much dollars as they can. So if the human cry is to lower the cost of housing, how does the government ensure that that happens? Mike, through the chair, I've certainly had the opposite experience recently. Nothing is moving in this market. Uh there are major be fair chair we're talking about a a normal marketplace not the current economy. My question is I I mean absolutely the exemptions that we gave out in the last two years the market has crashed. Housing prices have gone down. None of that is as a result of the exemptions. It's the market. The HST that's just come off. You can look at any price list anywhere in the province and the price list have the before and after. Our members are cutting their prices to try to move units. The cost to build and the taxation on housing has absolutely skyrocketed has absolutely skyrocketed. The cost to build and the cost of housing in Ontario is higher than basically any jurisdiction in Canada except for Vancouver, which also has very high development charges and is far higher than anywhere in the United States. You can buy a brand new home in many states, Texas, for less than the taxes here. There have been clear impacts over the last decade in terms of the runup in taxation and the runup in housing prices. They are directly connected. They are directly coordinated um correlated. Um bill 98, which was just tabled two weeks ago by the provincial government, does include uh changes to how development charges are to be um disclosed. So all agreements of purchase and sale going forward will have municipal development charges clearly broken out. Um most developers do that anyway but it'll now be a requirement so that there's clear disclosure as to the taxation embedded into the cost of housing. Um there are ways uh legal means I believe Missaga or Peele I can't remember which um you'll have to excuse me um I don't have that in my notes ahead of me in front of me but uh their development charges reductions and exemptions are again clearly broken out in the agreement of purchase and sale and there's legal agreements by which those are 100% passed on at closing. Okay. Thank you Mike. Uh councelor you can go on for a second time if you have follow-up questions. I've got a healthy list now. Uh, starting with councelor Hang, please. Thank you. Um, Mike, you made mention of vaugh and they have that 100% exemption currently. They they only started that in February of this year, right? Um, and then it's uh could you just give us a sense from vaugh how their housing starts are given what they've already implemented? Mike through the chair. The more significant exemption occurred just this year. Um about a year prior to that, they brought their DCs back down to uh 2018 rates. Um I don't have the housing starts in front of me. Um but they've definitely seen a small tick up. It's not been huge because there are other factors. Um but they've definitely seen some pickup. Um again, I think the the mayor's quote around that was he'd rather get half of something than all of nothing. Um but they've certainly upped the ante in terms of more significant reductions. Um housing starts are a lagging indicator. Um especially on the high-rise side. So you know Hamilton last year our housing starts actually weren't that bad because on the high-rise side you've got sales that would have occurred in 2022, 2023, 2024 that result in a start in 2025. I do have sales numbers for Hamilton and they're about 90% off of what they were a few years ago. So, the sales are the future indicator of activity. Um, on the high-rise side, you need to probably get about 70% pre-sales to get in the ground. On the low-rise side, you can move more quickly. But, you know, in 2022, Hamilton had 1,681 sales. In 2025, 240. Um, you know, that's across the entire city. That could be what is in one building uh years before. So my concern is that the sales, even if we turn things around this year, um we're hardly going to have any housing starts the next couple of years, which then leads to hardly any completions in 2829, which inevitably leads to housing price increases. Counselor. Okay. Thank you. um through you chair just a question around um looking at very similar to councelor clerk's sort of question is that the market and the economic situation today is affecting everyone not just in Hamilton however from my understanding vaugh and Burlington were significantly down this is why they had to pull several very large triggers like these 100% exemptions Hamilton has already been looking at a 20% um decrease. We've already been looking at several of these uh levers. So, so uh when you see your other counterparts and they're speaking about this, um what is their sort of thought process on the slow and steady versus some of these these are drastic changes in in that and it it must be hard for the homebuilders to account for any of these big changes. So, so how to how I think I'm still trying to figure out my question here, chair. I think the question I'm trying to see is that um for us to in institute these really large changes, I feel like we've been on a very fairly steady state. So, I'm trying to I may have to come on a second time. I'm still trying to formulize what I'm trying to get at here. I appreciate that. Take an extra moment. We'll come back to you on the second time list. We're moving on now to councelor Moren Wilson, please. Thank you. Thank you for your delegation. Um, I think one of the things I'm uh just would appreciate your insight into because I am struggling with it myself. um is in my reading of the housing system. Um it's been stated um numerous times by these different authorities that the price of new private housing stock is set by existing homes of that type in a specific market, not new ones. Could you respond to that, Mike? So, the average resale price in most markets uh is typically lower than the average new price because you've got sort of depreciation, older assets and whatnot. Um they would not be built to the same standards as new homes. So, that's that's typical that new homes are are a bit higher. I think one of our challenge right now is the price of a resale, the market price is so much lower than the cost to actually build and deliver new housing. um which is essentially why the market has come to a standstill. So our basic in you know you think of a factory creating widgets that the new widget coming off the assembly line at the end the cost to construct that exceeds what any existing widget out in the marketplace would be. And um you know as I said to a previous answer to a previous question before there has been a massive runup in development charges over the last decade. Uh I think an average over 300%. I mean, we've got numbers, you know, Toronto over the last 25 years, they're up 5,000%. Like, these are not, this is massively contributed to the unaffordability problem, and the existing resale uh did not have those kinds of charges on them before. And it's not just development charges. That's the number one thing, but HST is not charged on resale, so that's a significant component. Um, you do have the land transfer tax on both. Um, so we're in a situation now where we do have the federal and provincial governments taking serious action to reduce the tax burden and try to bring the new more in line with resale and um hopefully save some jobs and get shovels in the ground. Counselor, no, thank you. I I appreciate it. It is just something that I um I struggle with. And just to simplify my struggle, if you have two two different commodities um and you're shopping in the private market um if 90% n Let me just get this right because I I don't want to malign it on anybody's part. Just one moment. Um, and if you're having to choose between those two products, you're going to choose the one that's more price competitive normally. And the more price competitive one, um, just because of the number of supply, housing prices are determined by the 98% of all housing that is already there. So we're looking at that as a commodity and then we're looking then for therefore at housing affordability. It is that the majority of people entering the market can't afford that 98%. And I think that's the thing I'm I'm struggling with and um that's why I was wanting your your feedback on it. appreciating that maybe some of those original housing as you said didn't um succumb to the same layering of cost as the new but they are still the ones that are setting the cost in a private market the 98% of the asset is that a fair statement Mike through the chair for the most part I I do think that there is a component of the market that's not willing to pay significantly more but a home built to the 2026 building code versus, you know, we didn't even have energy in the building code prior to the 1960s. There was no building code before the 1945. Um, so the products being produced today are generally of superior quality and there is a premium. Folks are generally willing to pay for that, but it's become so out of whack or out of line in terms of comparable products. Um, I I'll take the a high-rise example. Um, the cost to build and actually deliver a unit. Um, be it land, materials, labor, taxes in Hamilton for a high-rise is around $1,000. Maybe you can squeeze it down to $900 a square foot. On the resale, you can get units for between 6 and 700. It's just so um the cost comparison is so out of whack now that nothing pencils. uh on the high-rise side, it's even worse in Toronto and Vancouver and you know a significant component of that is development charges HST and whatnot but also there are other factors that government doesn't control materials and labor etc. So that gap that delta between resale and new is a problem and in the long run you know we talk about population growth which is slowed now but eventually will tick back up. We still do have a housing supply shortage. So, you know, in the previous decade, part of the pressure on resale was there was simply not enough homes available in the marketplace uh to satisfy population growth and that put a lot of pressure on the resale uh in terms of the previous runup and now we're in a very different situation. Thank you, Mike. And councelor, if you want to go on for a second time, I'm happy to oblige. Okay. U moving on now to councelor Cooper, please. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Mike. Really appreciate being here today. I'm just got a couple questions for you. One is uh are you aware of any mis other municipality in Ontario right now that's indexing their uh DC fees? Mike through the chair they're generally all happening around the same time. So this debate is occurring in other municipalities at the exact same time as here in Hamilton. I know that um Ottawa just bumped theirs up. I believe Toronto is looking at freezing them. Uh it's sort of a mixed bag across the province. Um but generally this statistics Canada um indexing typically occurs in the spring. So the same conversation is being had having being held elsewhere. Okay. Councelor, thank you. Thank you. So it'll be fairly typical 4% kind of thing they're talking and it's just up to the individual municipalities in terms of what direction they're going. Is that the general feel to it all? Mike through the chair. The Statistics Canada Building Construction Price Index is sort of what we're talking about today. And the decision um I know we've had some conversations more broadly today about development charges, but the decision before you today is really to move forward with 4% or not move forward with 4%, but that is that's not through the background study. It's not something specific to Hamilton. That's the number that's being discussed uh in any municipality. Councilor, and I don't want to put you on the spot. Just ask this question. If you know, fine. If you don't know, that's fine. When you contrast what's happening in our I say building sector in Hamilton, uh you know I you hear stories of uh you know projects being stalled, mothballled, uh people losing their jobs. Uh I'm not sure if that's right across Ontario. I've heard stories that it might be. Uh if you contrast our situation against other municipalities going through the same conversation, do you have any sense of what that looks like or is it just too early to tell? Mike, uh, working with the Ontario Homebuilders Association on our neighbors at Build, we did run a number of models in terms of the potential job losses and across um, southern Ontario. So, this would include sort of GTA, broader golden horseshoe, including uh, Hamilton, we were looking at 100,000 job losses over the next 5 years. Um, that's really, I think, the number that, um, incentivized the federal and provincial governments to make bold moves. Uh and in addition to the job losses, we were looking at uh $6 billion a year uh in lower revenues for all three levels of government. It was roughly two billion each level of government. So, you know, ironically, as we're talking about whether to increase or not increase the development charges, your DC revenues and the DC revenues in Ottawa, Toronto, London, and elsewhere are falling off a cliff, which is going to put extreme pressure on your long-term capital plans. Um the province and the federal governments were also concerned about their revenue land losses be it um GST HST, income taxes, corporate taxes, etc. Um this is sort of a slowmoving train in terms of um the job losses and the job losses are not just what you think of sort of residential construction. It's sort of a contagion that's spreading. Um our membership is is broad. It's the whole supply chain. Um lumber yards, massive layoffs. um you know appliances, furniture companies um the job losses are spreading beyond the sites. Um in terms of your direct question of comparables from municipality to municipality, it it really is across the broader region. Um I think in Hamilton there are some acute issues in our downtown um that perhaps the high-rise or the condo intensification sector will probably take longer to recover. Um, broadly speaking, when it does start to recover, it'll likely start recovering in Toronto first and spread out from there. Um, the only market in Ontario that's been somewhat insulated from this is Ottawa. Ottawa has a very different markets. Um, they tend not to have the highs and they tend not to have the lows. It's a little more steady as she goes. Um, given that the employment base there is much more government. Um, the other acute issue in Hamilton is we do have a lot of manufacturing. were exposed to the steel sector. So, um, some of the broader economic concerns and job losses that started in Hamilton first, consumer confidence is likely lower in this city than perhaps it is in some other neighboring cities. My counselor. Okay, just seeing if there's any other first-time speakers. I'll start with councelor Esther Pauls, please. There we go. Thank you. And through the chair. Uh first of all I want uh I want to know if you know are these um DC charge a limited infrastructure obligation permanent? Did they give us a time limit the province or the federal through the chair? The HST announcement is time limited. It's one year. Um the development charges it it's a long-term program. Um at this point it's just been an announcement. There are not details uh in terms of sort of intake outtake application process uh but through the build Canada strong fund the provincial and territorial stream it is $ 8.8 billion over 10 years. So um you know the question before you today is just the indexing the 4% but I think the broader philosophical direction is whether the city wants to engage in the opportunity of this program but it is a long-term program. Thank you and that's good to hear that it's long term. It's not just a couple of years where you know we have to adjust. Uh but in your opinion um the evidence of DC reduction of Hamilton uh would that reduce housing uh prices in your opinion or does the you know the builder absorbs it all or does it pass on to uh buyers? through the chair. Uh if we don't reduce pricing, we're not building anything. Um there is a very significant project downtown that's worth um about $300 million if it's uh got some numbers in front of me. They're stuck. They've only had two units sold the last 6 months. Um, the development charges revenue upfront would have been $9 million, which the city probably won't get. Um, but the property tax revenue is currently $15,000 a year. It would be $3.2 million a year each and every year in perpetuity going forward. And in all likelihood, this project's going to be cancelled. The only way that they're going to be able to move forward is to be able to reduce their unit prices. And this is what's happening in numerous projects across the city. the HST is going to help absolutely. Um so we have had uh the province and the federal government step in with um short-term stimulus. I think the industry not just in Hamilton but more broadly speaking is looking for the municipal sector to step up. uh the prime minister and the premier have had made some pretty strong statements about development charges specifically uh and the need for municipalities to step up and there's tons of research out there um be it from Mike Moffett all sorts of other uh resources in terms of just how completely out of step development charges have become as a revenue tool and how they have contributed to the crisis that we're in today. Thank you Mike. And my last question, can you remind us again if a a builder is building a condo, which they're not right now, but uh or a house, what would the development charges be for that uh developer of that builder? Through the chair, depending on the product type. Um I I've got the the June 1st to May 31st numbers in front of me. Uh a single detached is $14,240. town home $78,000. Apartments stacked town home uh two-bedroom plus 65 and a one-bedroom 41. Um those are significant numbers. If you even go back to 2020, just before the current council came in, a single was 51,000. That's half of what it is now. Um a town home or a multi 37. Apartments twobedroom 27. Apartments onebedroom 19. You go back 10 or so years to 2013, a single was 28,000. I I'm going to steal a line from Mike Moffett. Um he looked at the Toronto development charges 20 years ago versus today. Um if the same rate of inflation applied to a cup of coffee, it would be $66 to get a cup of coffee from Tim Hortons. If the same rate of inflation applied to your average uh sedan car, it would cost $1.3 million to buy a car. um development charges as a revenue tool and and this isn't just Hamilton. Other municipalities have done the same and the province bears responsibility for with the structure of the development charges act. Um but they are a major major contributing factor to why Ontario specifically is in the housing crisis it is and why nothing is moving in Ontario. Uh last year Alberta had an all-time record in housing starts as did Calgary and Edmonton. The development charges on a single family home in Calgary are $22,000. About 1/5if in H is the rate in Hamilton. I can see why the federal and the province are putting this forward and uh and I hope these savings will pass on to the buyers. So, thank you for that, Mike. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for uh Mike explaining the how Starbucks arrives at their pricing. So, um little humor, folks. Uh, no further firsttime speakers. So, we're going to go to the second time list, which I have in order Councelor Clark Wang and Moren Wilson. Beginning with Councelor Clark, please. Thank you. Um, development charges seems to be in the news a lot. Um, even your statements of the 104,000 for a single family home. Um just a short couple years ago, those single family homes were in excess of $1 million. So 90% of the house had nothing to do with the development charge. Um, and I'm concerned that the narrative seems to be uh I'm providing context, chair, that it's the development charges that is causing the downturn in the housing market. And yet, in my communications with several experts, it's not just the housing prices that are deterring buyers. It's the changes to the financing rules with the banks. It's the changes to the interest rates. It's mortgage defaults. It's job forecasts. It's tariffs. It's consumer confidence in the economy. it it's a fullblown hurricane of economic bad news that's spinning around us and we seem to be only blaming development charges and I guess what frustrates me is everyone around this table agrees that the infrastructure needs to be built to enable these developments. The development charges is a representation as to what those legitimate authentic costs are. The development charges when we receive them from developers, they go into a reserve and then we spend that on those developments as the infrastructure comes online. Um, do you do you think after hearing what I'm saying, I'd like to hear your comment as to where the DCs is really the boogeyman in the room for the economy and for the housing market because it seems to be there is several things happening that is affecting the downturn in the housing market. Much of which is well beyond this council's control and your control. quite frankly. Thank you, Councelor Mike. Through the chair, respectfully, I'm here today on a report about the city of Hamilton increasing the development charges. If I was at Queens Park debuting on the planning act or at Parliament Hill um debuting on um offse or banking regulations, I would be speaking to the issues around the banking regulations or the issues around the planning act. What you have before you today is a report to yet again increase development charges in Hamilton and that's the focus of my deputation. I would absolutely acknowledge that there are other challenges and problems within the housing system. Um although I do think that development charges and a lot of economists and housing policy experts are pointing to development charges specifically in Ontario and the lower man mainland of BC is being completely out of step in terms of the structure and design um versus other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States. And that is part of the reason why this region is far less affordable than any other region. Um you've made a number through the chair of comments around the markets. Um I I'm a little flabbergasted by the notion that taxation does not affect pricing. Um the average income is higher in Calgary and Edmonton. Um so theoretically than builders or developers uh if if they could just charge whatever they wanted, housing should be more expensive there. Housing is far less expensive in Alberta because the tax burden is far less expensive. the planning system is easier to get through and the land supply is much different. So our pricing does not just reflect um a so-called market of what people are willing or not willing to pay. Our pricing is very much reflective of the broader taxation and regulatory system um by which housing is produced. Um again I would go back that in Calgary and Edmonton the average incomes for their residents are higher than the city of Toronto yet sorry higher than the city of Hamilton. um also higher than the city of Toronto. Um yet our housing is much much more expensive and our taxation on housing is much much much higher. Okay. Councelor follow up. Um so and I take everything that you're saying and and as always I really appreciate your cander and we have some excellent discussions. So you're you're correct. you're you're deputating on a an annualized increase to DC's that is in a bylaw that is simply being reported to us and that increase is based on the increases that are occurring in terms of materials. Likewise, developers and builders are having to pay an increase in material costs, wood, steel, etc. Um, do they just say, "No, we're not going to pay that extra increase. I mean I'm I struggle ho how does the municipality then we just deny that there's actual an increase in the material cost the steel the wood all of the things that we need to actually do the work that we're we need to do so we're just not going to increase it 4%. Mike through the chair. I I would not be here uh on an annual increase most other years. This is a different year. There's a reason I'm here today. Uh and this is hot on the heels of the province and the federal government making some pretty significant announcements and pleading with municipalities to actually be partners. Um we're asking that you consider the alternative put forward by staff to not make the 4% increase. uh with respect to material and costs that my members are experiencing, there's some upward pressure, but there's other areas actually where there's downward pressure and it's actually not the greatest news, but the downward pressure is labor costs are going down. Why are labor costs going down? Because people are losing work and they're desperate. So, um there are some material costs which um you know uh steel's gone up, concrete's gone up, wood is sort of modified. Um so these are North American markets in terms of those prices but the labor market is very much local. So we are seeing as I said some costs going up but we are seeing some costs go down. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the latitude chair. It's been a very interesting discussion. Uh as always I I appreciate um Michael's inputs on this. It really does help talk it out. Thank you. Thank you councelor. Uh, councelor Hang is asked to be removed from the second time speakers list. Councelor Wilson is also asked to either chop off her own head or be removed from the That's a little humor, folks. Little hum. We're at the cottage. We're No, everything's fine. Everything's fine. Uh, so there are no further second time speakers. Uh, thank you very much, Mike, for your delegation today. And we are uh now going to look for um sorry what I should say is that our next delegate who was our first delegate I think due to time constraints has withdrawn. So we won't be hearing a second time from Viv which means that we are now at the portion where we need to accept our delegations. So if I could have a mover and councelor Tatison councelor Cooper is the seconder and we are all in favor to receive the delegations. Seeing that, that appears to be unanimous. A couple of more hands in the air wouldn't hurt, gentlemen. Thank you. And that carries. Thank you. Which means that we're not that casual. Okay. We're moving on now to item seven, uh, beginning with 7.1, which is FCS26032, the 2026 development charges indexing report. Um, I would imagine that there could be some questions for staff on this. Uh, I see well, first off, would we would would committee uh collectively like a any kind of an overview? No, I'm seeing no. Okay. Uh we have uh then a first time speaker in councelor crutch please and I'll populate the list from there. Thanks. I didn't have any questions for Mike because I've already asked Mike all the questions about this subject at every other delegation he's been here and I don't want to debate with him because that's not the role we have here when delegations come forward. I don't disagree that development charges are part of the puzzle. Obviously, they're part of the financial picture for development. That's mathematically just true. Also, lots of other things going on here. I think that when I look at what's happening downtown, look at what's happening in terms of economic pressures, I'm always reminded that the average household income for people who live downtown according to the 2021 census is $67,900 household income. So, there's a lot of affordability challenges here for people. And I also recognize completely and respect that Mike's here to represent his members. I do have a bit of trouble when we start broadening the conversation out to the impacts to people who live here downtown, people who live here in the city and residents as if they're somehow in the same boat as Mike's members. That's not the case. If that were the case, we would have got delegations from the homebuilders association when suddenly out of nowhere the free market exploded and massive profits were made over about a decade in this city. Maybe not a whole decade, maybe seven or eight years. Massive, massive profits. And the people who had a terrible time finding a place to live were those who couldn't afford anywhere to go. I didn't hear anyone asking to regulate the market then or to worry about the high costs around affordability for people who were living in Hamilton. People stayed silent. Meanwhile, not only did uh rents go up for people, but it became almost unaffordable for people to get mortgages. And most young people I know are not going to buy the house in their lifetime or it's going to take them till they're in their 40s to be able to save the money for it. So there's a lot going on in this situation. I want to be really clear about that. Affordability is an issue until this country and this province gets this act together with understanding that we can't continue to have a free market system that has ups and downs and keep arguing with one another about this at the high and the low and that we have to have some stabilization in a system that allows people to be able to afford to live. We're going to keep having these conversations. So, if you're happy to get the money when it's coming in by the truckload, there's going to be times when it's not. Okay. Second on the speaker's list, Councelor Rob Cooper, please. Thank you, chair. Um, just some questions. Uh, so we, you know, there's a conversation going on right now with federal and provincial governments to give us a little bit of a overview of what might happen. We're still kind of guessing. Is there any sense of how or what's going to come out in terms of I mean the way Mike talked this is an annual event. Everybody knows this is coming up this time of year. There's discussions. Any conversation with the federal and provincial governments in terms of how they're rolling out the uh DC charge relief and and whether that impacts this conversation we're having today. I'm going to turn that over to Gian Ziggger if you would kindly introduce yourself. Thank you through the chair. Uh Mike Ziger, general manager of finance corporate services. to the question information is very limited and staff are relying on media release. Um what the media release highlights is that the expectation with respect to development charge relief uh is a three-year expectation for those municipalities who choose to participate as relates to the development charge relief. the expectation for municipalities uh or sorry the consideration for municipalities as it relates to the development charge uh exemptions and relief. I would reference it in municipalities are going to have to pay to play. And in order for municipalities to be eligible for potential funding from senior levels of government, municipalities will have to firstly discount development charge exemptions without any shity as to whether that level of relief will be um matched or supported through provincial and federal funding. Um for clarity, the federal government has no jurisdiction over development charges. This is just a provincial responsibility. And so irrespective and and I respectfully say irrespective of the messaging coming from the federal government, they have no jurisdiction over development charges. It will be determined, I expect, through a bilateral agreement between the federal and provincial government. We haven't seen that bilateral agreement, but I would expect that bilateral agreement between the provincial and federal government will stipulate what the provincial obligations are as it relates to the federal funding and that may help inform municipalities what is expected from municipalities. Um and and so uh again very limited information. uh it does make reference to um housing enabling or residential enabling. So I would assume we're not discussing commercial and industrial and institutional DCs. This would just be limited to residential development charges. And uh with respect to how those municipalities the the media release makes reference municipalities will be prioritized by federal provincial governments and will be considered in that prioritization exercise based on what measures municipalities have taken to date. It is not clear how senior levels of government are going to go through that prioritization exercise. There's some reference to affordability and housing prices, but again, not clear in terms of how municipalities will be prioritized, considered. I think that's a there's a number of significant questions, but in order for a municipality to consider participating not knowing if they're going to be on a priority list, that represents a significant risk to municipalities. So, so in summary, very little little details, no legislation, no regulations. We are just interpreting from immediate release. Counselor, thank you, chair. Um thank you general manager uh you know Mike when he delegated he mentioned the idea and we hear it often about the uh amount of development charges we have um uh I'll say what do you what do you call it reserves in the bank whatever terminology you want to use for that and um 600 million roughly he mentioned 580 so you know 580 600 and so you know one one of the options not offered here is the fact that hey we have this $600 million maybe we can pass on the year because as Mike mentioned, it's a it's critical year in the industry, a lot of jobs in play, affordability, shut the industry down, going to be a bit to start it up. Um, you know, why was that option not presented in the sense that, you know, we have $600 million? Do we really need to raise it to 4% this year because we have all these development charges people are looking at that we haven't spent? Maybe it's earmarked. I don't know. But just interested in the thoughts around that as well. Is that a viable option to to look at that and say well maybe we can take a year off from doing the um inflationary increase general manager. Yeah. So through the chair the municipal or municipalities have the option not to index uh to to continue to index and offset it through development charge reserves is not an option. Uh I will say and I've said in the past development charges is such a legislated and regulated exercise it very much prescribes to municipalities how development charges and the exemptions and discounts are paid. The legislation is clear. Development charge discounts and exemptions can't be borne by the development community and therefore to apply DC reserve funds which were paid by the development community to offset the cost of indexing or to pay for development charge exemptions and and discounts is not eligible under the legislation and regulation. It has to be borne by taxpayers and rateayers. Uh and so that is the alternative municipalities have. Okay. Uh councelor, you're at the end of your five minutes. You welcome to go in for a second time. I'm going to go next to uh councelor Mikeaphora, please. Thanks, Chair. Um, Mike, do you and I, you might not have this information, so apologies if you don't, but uh, you project a DC revenue, I think, every year based on um, what we're thinking might come in. Like, do we have a something in our budget for 2026 that you're expecting the city to receive from DC's through you, chair? Okay. GM through the chair. Uh, we do. I apologize. I don't have it before me, but I believe it's somewhere in that $48 million uh mark in total. Uh and we would have adjusted it based on our experience around the pace of growth in 25 and forecasting in 2026. Um, if I can, I'd like to in terms of of positioning that 48 million relative to how the municipality already supports development as a whole and the residential development sector. In 2025, our development charge exemptions, and these are still unodudited, uh, exemptions are forecasted at approximately $75 million. Almost 80% of that 60 million is for the residential sector. That is for residential intensification, for not forprofit, uh for uh housing affordability, for long-term care. So, this municipality provides in in the ballpark of $60 million based on 2025 performance on charge exemptions. So relative to what we've collected, you can see that that is significant and I'll highlight it's significant in part because the provincial government forces us to provide this level of statutory exemption. Thank thanks for that. Um so the index uh that is proposed is 4%. Um the announcement from the feds in the province, I thought I heard you say that it seems like from whatever minimal information we have that it's going to be strictly on the residential side. Um so I I think over the last couple years, the m I would say the majority of our DC income um came off of commercial and industrial, especially like this year and last year. I don't know how many residential units we've been pushing, but so the 4% indexing is going to go across the board on all DCs or is it specific to certain ones? Could we chop it up differently? How does the the indexing work? GM Zar. Yeah. Through the chair, it would apply to all of the development charges. Uh, I would have to take it away in terms of statutory whether or not a municipality could choose specific classes or sectors to pass it on or and provide a discount or relief to others as it relates to indexing. We do that with respect to development charge exemptions and discounts but with respect to the indexing and then as well in terms of uh if that were to be a consideration how we would operationalize that in the context of the bylaw. Last question for me, chair, and I you might say this is not in order because I believe we're talking strictly about indexing, but I wanted to hear from you about when we um build out our plans for growth and obviously we use DCS to um build out infrastructure that's needed for growth. um when we don't meet those targets of growth, when we don't grow as we believe we are going to grow and we've collected um that revenue, what do we how do you push it out or no? You know, if I got $100 million based on growth that we're going to have in these years and that growth doesn't happen, do you push that money out? Do you wait for the next DC study? Like, how do you recalibrate the plan? Obviously, you want to balance it out. We need the infrastructure money. Absolutely. But if we've talked about growth and we think we're going to hit these growth targets and we don't, I would assume the infrastructure is not needed in the same timeline that we would expect. So, do you move those projects out or does everything just stay in line? I think that that's uh relevant to the conversation, counselor. So, go ahead to the general manager for a response. So through the chair um two pieces to the answer with respect to the development charge background study. There is a component of that study where we have to identify the the benefits of the infrastructure to uh to sort of post period uh property owners and so that forms part of the exercise. So for our last DC background study 300 $3.8 8 billion in growth enabling infrastructure I believe 390 million is post period the with respect to uh budgeting what we do do is we look at the pace of growth in collaboration with our colleagues in planning and economic development and across the various program areas we adjust our capital plans to to best align there's no no perfect crystal ball but to best align line with the investment or infrastructure investment strategy. And so, uh, if a municipality were to assume that everything is rosy, we're going to continue. It would represent a risk to municipalities. And so, municipalities do from time to time adjust their capital P plans to best align with the timing. And so, with this downturn, we did that in 2026 through our budget process. We've deferred in time for 2027. And I expect we're going to have the same exercise. Uh what infrastructure is necessary to support growth and what we do in terms of finance is we don't necessarily uh commit ourselves to the provincial projections. We best reflect our own experience. Thanks. Okay. Thank you for that. We're moving on now to uh councelor Maren Wilson, please. Uh thank you, councelor Spataphor asked my question. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. Now moving on to councelor Tammy Hang, please. Thank you. Um, can you help me understand timing? Because along with all of what we're talking about today, the there's been several big federal announcements, several big Ontario announcements. Just in my quick little thought process off the top of my head, we've been talking about the Build Canada Strong um, fund, the Canada Ontario Partnership Build, and the Building Faster Fund. So, the Build Canada Strong, as you know, is federal. uh Canada Ontario partnership is federal and Ontario and then building faster fund is Ontario. So all of this speaks to DC exemptions um and we've already discounted by 20%. From my understanding the Canada Ontario partnership build is a 30 to 50% reduction. So if we've reduced by 20%, does that mean that if should we want to participate in all of these programs, does that mean that we reduce further by 30 or by 30% to make it a 50%. I just don't understand how how do we potentially make ourselves whole? Should we move the alternative? And is is there a strategy here? Jim Ziggard. So through the chair, I think uh I would start with my response to councelor Cooper's question around what is known and uh there are far more unknowns than there are knowns. Uh what I am interpreting on the media release is that uh municipalities again will have to pay to play in terms of the funding program. I am anticipating that the federal funding will flow through to province who will then cascade it down to those municipalities that based on media release both levels of government will identify as priority municipalities for consideration of funding. What is uh suggested through the media release is the funding will flow through a project application base. Here lies a challenge for municipalities including ourselves. If we are expected to pay to play and discount our development charge exemptions and then submit and to carry those exemptions or discounts for three years given that the HST is just a one-year commitment and municipalities are expected to participate in a three-year program. Just highlighting a bit of that disparity. uh is that we as staff will be challenged to bring recommendations forward in terms of how to address those development charge exemptions and discounts. It's clear taxpayers and rateayers have to pay for development charge discounts, exemptions. Development charges are paid by property owners of some sort, either new property owners, residential or non-residential, or through existing. They're paid by some property owner. There's not a magic solution out there. These are real costs and there are revenues that have to support those costs. Coming back to the challenges, if we discount choose to participate and discount our development charge exemptions and then are expected to go through an application basis with an unknown as to whether our application is successful and based on my past experience, those application processes could take 18 months, two years and the unknown as to what we will realize in terms of funding relative to what we have provided in terms terms of relief, it's a risk. I don't know how to assess that risk given the unknowns. But again, what we would expect is to get some clarity once the legislation and regulation is brought forward in terms of what the basis will be for municipalities to be considered for shared funding and what the timelines are. There's some reference to 10-year periods. So if municipalities are frontending the DC exemptions for the first three years and we're going to realize the matching funding or some level of relief over 10 years that again creates a cash flow challenge for municipalities as well. Councelor chair my concern with this is that the feds in the province have put out some significant funding buckets. Clearly we don't have any of the details on those. However, we are being up against a timeline today to make a decision. My concern is also that um should we move forward on say an alternative um we're intentionally shooting ourselves in the foot for three almost three years because we don't really know where we're um how the application processes work. Frankly, we also don't even know if they if uh any of these programs talk to each other. And we also don't know if the um if we're able to stack any of them because at this point we are seeing a significant double-digit millions deficit that has to be borne on the backs of property taxpayers. So I guess my question back to my uh GM Zagaric is on our teams, have we given some thought as to a strategy on how we might leverage this? Because when I think about the build Canada homes, I think GM Mater with the housing secretariat has probably got a list of potential projects, but those are not the same as private sector residential. Uh I again I'm I'm I'm struggling with this because there are these really big funding buckets that keep being dangled in front of us and the province has told us multiple times they are supposed to make us whole but yet they keep changing the goalpost. So I'm not really sure how best to move this forward given that we're up against a deadline today. So again GM Zagar could you tell us have you thought about a strategy on how we might do this? Okay. And not to interrupt the flow, but that is the conclusion of your your time as a first- time speaker. Happy to put you on as a second time. And when we conclude, we'll be moving on to councelor Mark Tatison. GM. Yeah. So, uh, through the chair, uh, staff have given some thought to the alternative and the alternative in the context of how senior levels of government are behaving uh, now and and more specifically these senior levels of government. these senior levels of government um are prioritizing municipalities who have some level of alignment with their priorities. And it's clear from the media release that in order for a municipality to be prioritized as it relates to some level of funding from the provincial and federal governments, those municipalities that have provided will provide well charge relief of some sort will be prioritized. So while the reference to the media release is through the 30 to 50% I would hope that the municipality of of the city of Hamilton would be um recognized for the temporary development charge uh relief that we brought in in 2025. So in the context of senior levels of government are prioritizing municipalities as it relates to those that are providing relief. I think that is a consideration as it relates to the alternative. Whether or not that will garner any favorable uh level of support, I can't say. It's it's it's I'm again I'm just interpreting from the media release and the messaging in the media release. Okay. Thank you, general manager. I had the order wrong. I apologize. Uh it is councelor Brad Clark who's up next and then councelor Mark Tatterson. Apologies. Um, Deputy Mayor GMZ Gareric seems to be emphasizing this mindset of a paytoplay in order to receive the funds from senior levels of government. While he was saying it, my mind flashed back to the old Oregon grinders with their monkeys on the street corners. And the Oregon Grinder is saying, "Dance, monkey, dance." And municipalities are the monkeys. The money's there. You got You just got to reach it. Come on. Um and and and it it's incredibly frust frustrating. Just a couple of quick questions. First, have you seen the letter that Mr. gave us from the deputy minister, James? Through to through the chair. I have. And uh I think councelor Clark, you you summarized it quite well. The letter made it clear that uh municipalities aren't required to fund development charges from existing taxpayers and rateayers. Municipalities can turn to discretionary reserves again nondc reserves. So for the city it would be our tax stabilization unallocated capital or future fund. But the letter went on to be clear that municipalities are responsible for funding growth enabling projects. And so I don't know specifically what the city of London has done, but I'll just remind committee members uh we are continuing to uh have to address a development charge exemption legacy. So post amalgamation we exempted DC's and we didn't fund development charges. And here we are decades later still funding. And so my caution to committee and council would be to defer development charges to future taxpayers or rateayers or to future generations would just replicate the challenge we're currently in where we are having to offset and fund past decisions. And uh just clearly it's an obligation that we have and that existing rateayers and taxpayers have. Development charges are charges tied to growth enabling infrastructure. This is not a general revenue that municipalities increase to fund other initiatives. These are funds that are collected to pay for growth enabling infrastructure. And so uh to the the deputy minister's correspondence to the city manager of city of London, it was clear that the provincial government expects municipalities in the case of city of London to fund their future growth enabling infrastructure and it's an obligation under PA. It's it is and in fact it's an obligation under the development charges act. It says the development charge acts stipulates we not cannot fund discounts and exemp exemptions from the development community. We must fund discounts and exemptions from taxpayers and rateayers and again all taxpayers rateayers. We're not funding it just from residential. We're funding it from residential, commercial and industrial. Counselor. Thank you. um $100 million worth of development charges. Does that represent roughly 8% increase in the levy if that was an exemption? Ballpark. Yes. Yeah. And I I only say that because it's helpful when we're discussing these numbers. So think of a hundred thousand $100 million in DC exemptions. That would be roughly an increase of 8% on property taxpayers or an 8% in reduction in operating money. You can cut and then take that money accordingly. Um, but I think it's frustrating because far too often some of the politicians and even even some of the developers are leaving the impression um that we can cut DCs and there's no obligation to put it on the backs of the property taxpayers. The obligation is we have to pay for the DC exemption somewhere. That's the obligation. Correct the chair. That's correct. Uh just to go back to the delegation and to the correspondence, it doesn't stipulate uh how we collect it from taxpayers, rateayers. So we have to collect it from taxpayers, rateayers. The point I'm trying to make is we could define finance those obligations. However, in the context of municipalities being asked to pay for infrastructure that's not necessarily a municipality's mandate, whether it's healthcare, transportation related, um we can't look at this in isolation of just one issue. We have to look at all of those competing expectations in terms of our debt obligations. And so, um, I don't know what the city of London did, but each municipality is a little different in their circumstances where we're looking at, uh, demands for municipal participation in initiatives outside of necessarily our mandate, which would have a impact in terms of our debt and our debt levels as well. Thank you, GM. One of the suggestions, Deputy Mayor, was funding the DC exemptions from the DC reserve because we have such a big DC reserve. Um, my understanding is that that DC reserve is segregated funds specific to future capital infrastructure. So, as we receive those funds coming in from the developers, we are in fact building the infrastructure. So if we were to take an exemption out of the reserve, then we would have to cut some infrastructure out of the reserve budget. Is that an accurate statement? Yeah. Through the chair, I I'll respond in that I think it's a little simpler in that the legislation says municipalities cannot fund exemptions or discounts from development. Those development charge reserves relate to development charge collections funded by development. And so it's my opinion, my understanding that we would not have the authority to draw on those reserves because we would contradict that requirement that developers not pay for development charge discounts and exemptions. Thank you, gentle manager. We're at the conclusion of your first round there. Councelor, if you'd like to go on for a second. I have one last question. So if you can come back to me, I can well if you have one final question and let's get to it now and then we can proceed with the next. So, the financial impact, if we were to defer the 4% increase in the DCS, it looks to me based on what I'm reading to be a $2.7 million uh reduction, which would be a.1% increase on the levy or a4% increase on the water rate. So even eliminating the indexing still gets funded from the property taxpayer GM through the chair from uh property owners both taxpayer and rateayer. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much councelor Clark. Moving on next to first time speaker councelor Mark Tatison please. Hey, Mike. Um, so I'm so I'm seeing in my summaries here that the increase that we're proposing here for the DC rates with the Statistics Canada building construction price index to account for rising construction costs. So So when we're when building costs more, we automatically charge more. Is that what is that what that says? We automatically charge more as building charges more. become higher. Yeah. So through through the chair the intent of indexing DCs is to preserve our purchasing power and so as the cost of a project increases because of inflation and and staff at the time of a background study and bylaw we have no idea what inflation will be going forward. But if you don't index the DCs, you're foregoing the purchasing power of those development charge collections in the reserves. And you'll see in the report, we had some extraordinary inflationary uh pressures post pandemic, not just the city, just the overall uh construction industry. So that's the intent for uh for indexing is to preserve sort of the the purchasing power of what we collected towards those future obligations. So could a f so could a future obligation be something like you know watching in the budget my recreation center that's proposed going from $28 million 3 years ago to $60 million this year. Is that what we're protecting here? Jim through the through the chair in part as it relates to inflation. If if the scope of that project changes, that's beyond inflation. But what we're trying to protect is the erosion of what we've collected as it relates to inflation. Okay. Another question then. Basically, what I'm seeing here is that the DCs, they don't just service new development, they service redevelopment within Hamilton. Is that correct as well, GM? Through through the chair, that's correct. And so our last DC background study $4.85 billion in growth enabling and that was discounted $1.2 billion for existing uh taxpayers and rateayers. So tax existing taxpayers and rateayers are expected to pay 1.2 billion in growth enabling infrastructure. Okay. So I guess you just stole the thunder from my next question which was who is going to pay for this? Is is the new homeowners going to pay for it or the existing homeowners are they paying for development into like the infrastructure into a new development? Through through the chair to be clear uh new development has never paid the full cost of uh growth enabling infrastructure. It's always been a combination of new development, residential, commercial, industrial, existing taxpayers, rateayers as either as it relates to benefit to existing or as it relates to discounts and exemptions. And then the last uh opportunities are grants. And so funding directly from senior levels of governments can provide immediate relief to all uh in that those grants have to be cost shared with the development community counselor. Okay. So just another question around numbers. I I was speaking with some developers who are currently stalled in building because they can't afford to build, but their prices just recently with the the the HST cuts um went from the 730s now down to the 640s, which means to me that so many more families can qualify for a mortgage at 640 than could for one at 7:30. How much of a difference, say, on a house like that would our change here make or is that not related? If you're able to answer the question, GM, I'm not certain, but uh you're welcome to try if you wish. I guess maybe some clarification is the the the developers are seeing rebates right now of of 90,000 for a house a price of a house that's like 740. It's dropping down to the 640, 650s. Again, does this help the new homeowner purchase? Does this help the developer sell? What's the big what's the big effect here? Is it like three $3,000 on a charge for a new resident? I'm trying to understand as opposed to the collective of us all. Fair enough. Leave it to the general manager if he understands the question to do his best answer. So, so through the chair based on a single family it would be about $4,000 a little less than $4,000. As to who that benefit crew to, I don't know that we would be in a position to say will it be passed on to the purchaser? Will it be uh will it assist the developer builder in terms of their their ability to um to proceed with the sale of that property and that it'll uh help their margins in order to moving that stock forward. So short answer is uh I don't know that staff would be in a position to be able to identify who would benefit or recruit from that and I think that is the question who does benefit and so um thanks for that I will listen to the further discussions and make my decision accordingly. Okay thank you for that counselor we're going to the second time speaker's list my apologies. Oh, my apologies, Councelor Alex Wilson. I did not adequately respond to you being on the speakers list. Apologies. You have the floor. That's all good. Just a quick comment from me. Um, I think $2.7 million is a very expensive message and I don't think it's been one that we've been asked to send. If we want to participate in new programs that are being launched, I encourage anyone to move a motion, a GIC or a future council meeting to say to the federal or the provincial government, hey, we're happy to participate in a program. We'd like some specifics. Please don't think that we are not interested. We are incredibly interested. We just want to have some details because we respect our taxpayers and so we don't want to walk into anything with no information. If that's someone's prerogative, I think that's a really appropriate uh motion to move. But I don't think um kind of going in favor of a discount here with the hope that it sends that message is a responsible uh use of that kind of 2.7 million if it's to spur housing or other things. But I think one of the justifications that's been put forward is that it sends a message to higher levels of government that we're participating um or we're game to participate. And I think there's uh much cleaner, clearer, and cost-effective ways to send that message. Um thank you. Okay, thank you. And again, apologies for not recognizing you properly, Councelor Wilson. Now, we're moving to the second time speakers list, beginning with Councelor Cooper, please. Thank you, Chair. Question for the general manager. Um, I was captivated by the conversation you and councelor Spaphora had around maybe an opportunity to use more of a nuanced approach when it comes to uh the different kinds of um I'll say DC charges for different sectors. Okay. And and maybe it's not 4% across the board, but there's more of a looking at where different sectors are and building up to whatever that number is. Um I know you mentioned the idea that might need some time to look at it. I'm wondering if there may be an opportunity where there's an option three here which is this nuanced approach around allocating out the indexing and instead of across the board approach maybe something something different. Um would that be something given some more time that you could bring back as a third option? GM Zarak through the chair. Uh firstly, I don't know that I've ever captivated any audience on the subject of development charges. Uh we we could take that away. Uh I don't know the answer. So I would need to take that away both with finance staff as well as with legal staff. Okay. Councelor Cooper, first of all, glad to know it was a unique experience for both of us. Um I I I also I guess the other question would be is when when is this uh index need to take place? Uh what what would be the start date for the exactation? So through the chair, it's going to be tied to the bylaw and uh I don't know if the bylaw stipulates and maybe uh a member of staff can just clarify for me if the bylaw stipulates a June 1st 20 a June 1st date 2026 date. We'll just seek uh verification from staff. Which staff were you referring to, general manager? the chair. I see director McMullen. Uh very good. Thank you so much, Brian. Uh good to see you. Please introduce yourself and then perhaps you can offer uh some clarification of the enactment uh date for the bylaw. Yeah. Yeah. So through the chair, uh Brian McMullen, director of finance, administration, investments and special projects. Um yeah, this this change is reflected in the in the DC bylaw 24072 and it would take effect on June 1st, 2026. Okay, so there's your answer. June 1st, 2026. So we would have time um therefore we would have time to for a general manager take it away and bring it back maybe to a subsequent meeting but we would require I guess a what deferral for something like that. So I think are you asking two questions? Number one were you asking if there was enough time to have this sent forward and brought back and still meet the deadline for the bylaw enactment? So that is a question that I would have to look to either the director or general manager to answer first and then we can seek clarity on the procedural uh question that you've asked as a follow-up GM. Y through the chair I know our general intent is to message out to the development community what our intention is earlier than the June 1st. So we can take that away in terms of whether a May date uh is effective and if there's any other uh operational requirements but uh again happy to take that away uh if that is the direction from committee. Thank you. Okay. And then the second one was procedurally uh whether or not it would be considered a referral or deferral of this item and I would look to my legislative coordinator to offer assistance on the proper language for that. uh through the chair if you could just uh confirm once again the intention. Are you sending this to staff? It would be going to staff. Okay. So then it would be a referral for report back on May 7th um AFNA. Is that the intention? So through the chair before council I can take that date back to staff and see whether or not that's achievable. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, you have your answer there. So that would revol involve a referral that was a referral to staff in advance in advance of council and uh clarity over whether or not you are able to make that referral. We spoke already. Yes. I believe they there the remove the the rule that um uh members who have spoken to an item can cannot refer or defer has been removed from the uh procedural bylaw I believe. But just let me just uh confirm that. Okay. Because if if that's the case then I'm happy to refer it. Okay. So uh I think we'll we'll put a pin in that for a moment while we seek clarity uh on that procedurally. And that gives me the opportunity to go to uh councelor Hang who's on the second time speakers list. And I do have uh councelor Morin Wilson on the second time speaker list following. And I do know that uh councelor Clark has indicated a wish to offer comments upon the conclusion of uh questions. So we'll begin with councelor Tammy Wine. Please I think I'm done. Cut me off. Okay. We will move to councelor Morin Wilson for a second round of questions. I am just procedurally asking a question first on the scope of the deferral. What what is exactly being asked for staff to analyze? I need some clarity. Thank you. I don't know that we have uh fully formulated what that looks like. Uh first we're seeking clarity on whether it's not on the floor as of yet. uh we are seeking clarity first as to if the referral can be made due to upgrades and changes in the procedural bylaw by the person has already spoken to it. So we're double checking on that and at that time then there will be an option for what to do in terms of if a deferral referral will be made. So at this time we're just uh asking second round questions in the second time speakers list. If you have some, you're free to ask. Thank you. I'm obviously and always I will abide by your ruling. I don't know if it is in scope, but there's been some conversation about the cost of um not indexing and the cost to be borne by either future andor existing rate payers. But I'm it may be a little academic. So I'm asking through the chair to GM Zagger the cost of more of the same. I think what the development community would argue um is that if we if we continue this lag, which is a a very gentle way of saying where we are right now in construction of residential, we are also not generating um taxation within the system. Builders are not um when they're not building uh they're not a supplier is not selling. Um and that means the sale of that item uh whatever tax we get on it is not being captured and captivated in the system. And I I guess if I could ask just the GM Ziggger to comment on that like we're looking at it through the purview of our financials and our calculations and our budget as we should but I think the argument is being made that it's pretty dire and on a macro level it means that there is not as much public money being circulated in the system. If you could comment on that through the chair. Okay, general manager. So through the chair, I'll go back to an earlier question regarding uh I believe it was councelor spat asking are we continuing to proceed with our capital plan irrespective of where growth is trending. We aren't. We're adjusting and that in part helps to mitigate any risks for the city in terms of stranded assets or having to go to existing taxpayers and rateayers to offset the costs that we're not realizing and in terms of development charge revenues offsetting that. So in part we are trying to uh address it through um our our phasing or staging of our growth projects. The unknown is if we pull any of these levers what the outcome is going to be in terms of development activity and that really represents a unknown for municipalities. what we can only do is reflect backwards in terms of what we are experienced in 25 uh and what we see year to date for 2026. Uh but it's unclear how any of these measures may assist with um addressing existing stock that hasn't sold and and isn't occupied versus future growth. Um, so that represents an unknown and unrisk and a risk to municipalities. Yep. Thank you. I I appreciate that. I guess my um my thinking is when we develop and obviously my preference and that's a different argument of where we develop but when we develop we are circulating we are injecting money into a system and that money in the system uh benefits our rateayers. It benefits our small business. it benefits our um skilled labor and that I guess I'm trying to figure out that is not and can't be calibrated in your assessment because we're having to look at it from a a municipal ledger sheet and I think that is the concern um that I'm hearing is if we're not building we're not able to inject into our market system that money which uh is a consequence of development which helps our rateayers as well. So just a comment. Yeah. So through the chair that the last comment is is accurate. If we see growth whether residential, non-residential, there is a benefit in terms of uh taxation revenue as well as those broader benefits in terms of a more vibrant municipality both economically and otherwise. The the challenge that staff have is we don't know if we pull on a lever what the response will be. So, if we were to discount development charges by 50%. Will that trigger 2,000 residential building permits to be issued uh commercial and industrial development of 1 and a half million square ft 2 million back to some of our pre preandemic uh experiences. If we knew that information, it would be um a little clearer in terms of what the out outcome or output would be from these various levers and how hard to pull on the lever. The other complicating factor is we're talking about housing in general. When we do something for new development, there's going to be a consequence to the existing resale market. And so we're also mindful that if we do something for new development that could dampen the resale market as well. And so we're just mindful of that in terms of how hard do you pull on that lever so that there aren't consequences to other um property owners and more specifically the resale. So if you discount new development to the point now resale market has to lower their pricing and now you have erosion in equity for existing property owners and there could be a reaction or response to that as well. Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Clark you're up next please. Um thank you. I think this has been the longest debate we've ever had on the indexing of development charges that I can recall. Um, we've touched on several areas and it's not as cut and dry as some developers are asking us to consider. It's not only the development charges that has caused an increase in housing prices. As a matter of fact, the increase in housing prices came about because of a hyperinflated economy with much lower inflation or much lower interest rates from the banks. And soon as you were paying 1% for your mortgage um and they're basically giving money away, people were buying 1.2 1.3 1.4 million houses. Housing prices all went up across the board. my housing price went up from 600,000 to over a million dollars and I did absolutely nothing and had nothing to do with development charges. It's the market value. Um, we have provided a 20% exemption in development charges. To date, there has been no tangible change in building starts that could be attributed to the 20% reduction. None. Um when we develop uh through our background study what the DCs are going to be, we need to remember that approximately 20 to 30% of the DC's uh will be paid through property taxpayers because it's a community benefit. They're building a new community center for this new development. Well, not only do this new development get to benefit, the community itself that exists gets to benefit and as a result, they're paying more property taxes. The challenge becomes we're trying to balance that against um assessment growth and the impact on property taxpayers. So if we lower development charges, no guarantee there's going to be more development, but there's no doubt that there is a reduction in housing market right now that I would argue is a direct result of many other government decisions that had nothing to do with the municipality. And so if we're not seeing any building, then our assessment growth goes down. But even if we're seeing building, then our property taxpayers are still paying 20% of those DCS roughly. Um, and the real challenge with and and and this has been now it's becoming more and more common in the debates through the radio networks across Canada. If the federal government is saying you you municipalities, provinces, you have to reduce your your development charges by $100,000 on a unit. First, arguably it's a discussion between the feds and the province, and then the province can ask municipalities to do that. But a reduction of $100,000 on development charges automatically reduces the market value by $100,000. So, if you're reducing the housing prices for new housing, you're lowering the market value, which creates another challenge for a whole bunch of people who are trying to get their mortgages renewed and they're already sitting in a situation where they bought a house at a higher value than the house is now being assessed at when they're trying to renew their mortgage. And so, they're already behind the eightball. So, this is very complex. What I come back to chair and I I I I grab some solless is it's a 4% increase and it represents 2.7% on the development charges. That that 2.7 is not going to break the housing market. But if we eliminate that increase, we have to make up that difference through the property taxpayers. And the property taxpayers are saying to me right now, my taxes have gone up 22, 23, 24% in the last four years and no more. You got to find ways to control the increases in taxes. And so we have to be very careful with all of our decisions. And I like what councelor Alex Wilson said, proceed with the 4% increase. It's already done unless we have to take action to stop it. The bylaw says it's going to happen. We have to take action to stop it. And then write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and remind them that we have dropped our development charges by 20%. We're very interested in the discussions about the development charges. Please keep us in mind as you roll out your program. I think that's a fair thing to do. Thank you. Okay. Um we're following the bouncing ball on the speakers list. So we're back to second time speaker councelor Moren Wilson, please before we proceed. Thank you. I don't pretend to understand uh fully all the financial minutia of this but I do think two things can be true uh at the same time um some latitude because I think it's pertinent um because I have heard this comment from my some of my colleagues and I think it's valid um just uh referencing a report out of the um financial cial Accountability Office of Ontario which offers independent financial and economic analysis to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It it is um a little hard to swallow and it has been for a little time now. Um where the government of Ontario um has been you know maligning and maybe good reason sometimes municipalities uh for red tape etc. But the the crux of the problem is and part of this crisis is we do not have enough lower income housing stock. So um there's over a million households that need subsidized housing this year. 16.8% of all households in Ontario. And since the pandemic, 150,000 more households have fallen into need. Looking ahead, this independent um office says that 1.13 million households will need subsidized housing and only 8,000 of them will receive support. Housing costs are expected to continue to rise faster than income incomes and our own association of municipalities of Ontario is warning that homelessness will double in the next 10 years. Today, the government of Ontario is spending less than 0.1% of its budget on subsidized housing programs. Also, we know that cost of a home, my less my last look at it, 30 34% of it is taxation. And while I respect um the comment on what it's what the housing is doing and if we change the the landscape for existing uh we have a crisis of young home owners. We have individuals who are stuck in private tenant markets. What doesn't suit their needs and there there's no way they can afford to move into uh into a landscape of home ownership. Not unless they inherit money and or um they live they cohabitate with people outside of their quote unquote family unit. Um so I I am and I understand the concern um raised by some of my colleagues but I also know we are in a crisis right now. Developers are not developing and that means that there is less money being injected into the public system which is used to build and service things that our residents need and support. So I uh if there is a deferral coming that will look at a more scoped uh index formula happy to happy to hear it. Uh but right now I I think we have to be sending a a message to uh senior orders of government that we uh we want to be at the table and we need to send a message to our local developers. we need to send a message to plumbers, to painters, uh to electricians, uh that we understand that there's a crisis and we need to um come to the table. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. I believe that there uh are no further second time speakers, but I do believe that councelor Paul's uh is in an opportunity to make a referral uh and that the nature of the referral pertains to sending this back to staff seeking clarification on um the ability to break this down by sector in terms of residential, commercial, etc. um with different options there and also seeking uh clarification or seeking additional clarification from higher levels of government uh as to the funding announcements which are still ambiguous at this point and that there may be an opportunity to bring more information back to this body as it pertains to that uh by the May 7th AFNA. Is that what I have written down with your referral? Councelor Bey, thank you for saying it all. That's what I was going to say. We want to know all the unknowns and I heard uh GMC say that there's a lot of unknowns. Okay. And in May 7th I guess it was so we will know the next day. Yep. Another alternative. So I'll pass that. That has been uh put on the agenda with uh councelor Cooper as the seconder. So uh we would be speaking to the instructions only at this stage. And I'm looking to see if there are questions to the instructions. Councelor Clark, please. So, I'd like to hear from staff in terms of what they understand the scope of the request is. Okay. Uh GM Zerk. So, through the chair, I'm a little embarrassed. I was reading a uh email as the chair was reciting the directions. So, if the chair can recite the direction. Okay. So, we're busy city. We're doing many things at once. So, that's okay. It's okay. Multitasking is good. Uh the the two asks in the referral were the feasibility of a breakdown by sector residential IC etc in terms of the index application and then the second would be to give uh an opportunity for clarification uh about the funding announcement made in cooperation with the federal provincial governments. if there was additional information that may be available that could be brought back to this committee uh by May 7th. So through the chair with respect to the first part we can review whether or not uh municipalities have the authority to adjust the indexing to a particular sector like residential versus non-residential. uh we would have to review that in the context of council strategic priorities as well. Recognizing non-residential was was one of council strategic priorities. With respect to the second uh item, uh I I don't know that by May 7th we'll have more information. I understand it's gone through second reading. It'll now go to committee for discussion review. I don't expect by May 7th we'll have clarity but uh again it would be subject to uh the legislative uh process at Queens Park. Thank you. I I appreciate that response and that was my expectation. So I'll just simply vote against it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions about the instructions? No. Seeing none. So, we have a referral motion on the floor. I believe that we'll be seeking is it a digital? No. Show of hands. Somebody wants electronic. I want to record. So, councelor Clark has requested an electronic vote. So, at the appropriate time, we're just going to warm up the machinery and in a few moments we'll have the opportunity to render an electronic vote. And the vote is up. Please indicate your vote now. Thank you. And that carries by a vote of 8 to two. So folks, we are now moving on to 7.2, which is Sorry, I have to receive the correspondence first. My apologies. If I could have a mover and seconder to receive the correspondence as it pertains to FCS26032. Seeing councelor Mark Tatterson and councelor Esther Pauls. Thank you. All in favor? Show of hands please folks. Thank you. That is carried. Moving on now to 7.2 HUR230007A which is the workplace mental health and well-being strategy progress update. If I could have uh executive director Laura Fontana from human resources uh to begin and then um we'll we'll turn it over to the appropriate staff members to continue. Edy Fontana, please. Uh thank you uh Chair Laura Fontana, executive director of human resources. Uh this is our annual uh mental health and well-being strategy update report. Uh and we'll speak to a number of areas um emphasizing the importance of of mental health of course and and the uh the um the necessity of providing the supports to our employees and their families. Um Eva Perini is our manager of health, safety and wellness. uh and under uh Yakov Kensoff's leadership, I apologize for pronunciation. Um we're always ensuring the advancement of the uh of the strategy and providing these vital supports to our employees and and the dependents and uh Eva is going to provide an overview of our work as well as some data uh that's included in the report um over the last year with the comparative analysis and then uh the implications to our employees and and uh their families. So I'll just turn it over to Eva. Okay. Thank you, Eva. over to you through the chair. Good morning, members of committee. Uh thank you for the opportunity to present an update on the progress that we've been making uh for our workplace health safety, workplace mental health and well-being strategy. As mentioned, my name is Eva Perini and I have the privilege of leading the workplace health, safety, wellness portfolio within human resources. I would like to take a moment to recognize uh online is Natasha Martin Weieber. She's our team's healthy workplace advisor and very much driving the work that I have the privilege of speaking about today. In this presentation, I'll review the broader context within which we are working, highlight our city of Hamilton experience, share some key accomplishments, and speak to our focus for the future. Next slide. Before turning to our own workplace strategy, I'd like to briefly situate this work within the broader Canadian context. Across Canada, we are seeing a sustained impact on employees and workplaces when it comes to mental health. According to Mental Health Research Canada, about half of Canadian employees report that their job performance has been affected by mental health in some way. This highlights that mental health continues to be a significant issue for employers. It can directly affect productivity, engagement, attendance, and overall organizational effectiveness. At the same time, national data shows a significant shift in how Canadians are experiencing their mental health. In 2024's state of mental health in Canada report, it found that Canadians are reporting poor or fair mental health at three times the rate seen before the pandemic. Next slide. This tells us that the challenges we're seeing today are not temporary. They represent longerterm pressures related to many factors, some of which include financial stress, caregiving responsibilities, social change, and so much more. These national trends are very much reflected in municipal work environments. Benchmarking data from our employee and family assistance provider shows that stress and anxiety are the top reasons employees are accessing counseling services. At the same time, municipalities across Ontario are experiencing declining public civility and increased complexity in service delivery. This combination places additional mental and emotional demands on municipal employees. The context that I'm speaking of reinforces why a proactive structured approach to workplace mental health and well-being remains an essential part of our organization. Next slide. Turning now to our own experience at the city of Hamilton. Non-occupational mental health claims continue to represent the highest percentage of long-term disability claims at 32%. While this is below industry standards, it remains an important area of focus. Counseling is the most utilized service through our employee and family assistance program. Psychological concerns, particularly anxiety and stress, are the primary reasons employees are accessing counseling. This reflects the same broader trends we are seeing nationally and at the municipal level. This table illustrates in more detail the reasons that employees have accessed our employee and family assistance program over the last three years. Psychological concerns consistently account for approximately half of all counseling usage. At the city, we are seeing an increase in mental health injuries in our workplace. Mental health remains one of the top five lost time injuries with a 12% increase from 2024 to 2025. Overall, when we add into that number first aid and health care reports, we continue to see an increase in reported mental health injuries. As you can see from the table, we are experiencing on average about a 35% increase year toyear. These numbers may reflect greater awareness and understanding of mental health and a reduction in stigma, therefore increased reporting. Further insight can be gleaned from the number of critical incidents that are impacting our workplace. We are seeing increased requests for critical incident peer support and crisis management services. To give us some insight into what is happening across the organization, we can now begin sharing data collected through our zone program. The RZONE policy launched across the city late in 2024. It's designed to promote appropriate behavior when members of the public are interacting with employees and reports are filed when there are incidents of inappropriate behavior of varying degrees. Since its launch, we've received over 330 internal our zone reports. Over half of those reports were nonviolent in nature. For example, there were unwelcome or disrespectful comments. Approximately 16 were reports that had the potential to become violent, for example, behaviors that were causing fear or hostility. And approximately 14 of those reports involved violence, for example, a physical assault. The balance were reports of illegal activities happening at city properties. As you can see from the data we are collecting, there is an everpresent and growing need to continue focusing on how we can support employee mental health and well-being. The city's first formal strategy dates back to 2016. The current strategy was approved by council in May of 2023 and aligns with Canada's national standard for psychological health and safety. The strategy focuses on four key areas. Embedding the culture. Embedding the strategy into our culture, leadership support, employee accountability, and facilitating access to resources. Our approach over the course of this strategy has focused on sustaining the foundational programs we have available while continuing to build and improve. In the next slides, I will share highle accomplishments and updates for each strategy area. One key area of progress is embedding the strategy into our organizational culture. Within this strategy area, we have reviewed and updated the mental health and well-being policy to ensure it's using plain, inclusive, and accessible language. as well with support from the senior leadership team, the psychological health and safety action committee was reestablished, building on the work of the previous mental health action committee. The committee brings together employees and leaders from across departments and it's focused on advancing psychological health and safety in a coordinated way across our organization. Leadership plays a critical role in workplace mental health and is a key area of the strategy where we are seeing progress. The city continues to deliver the working mind for managers, an evidence-based program from the mental health commission of Canada. The training focuses on reducing stigma, recognizing signs of declining mental health, and supporting resiliency. We have over years built an internal certified internal team of certified trainers. Recently we added eight new trainers in human resources. As of the end of 2025 over 470 leaders have completed the required training and we continue to receive positive feedback ratings. This learning is vital to helping leaders feel confident and capable supporting their teams experiencing mental health concerns and challenges. Employee accountability is another cornerstone of the strategy. As I mentioned earlier, in 2024, council approved the Rzzone respectful environments policy. A citywide campaign supported its roll out, which included communication, procedures, training, reporting tools, and signage. Over 8,500 employees and leaders have completed the required training. We've also expanded learning on deescalation through situational awareness training currently offered by our partners in corporate safety and security. We offer verbal inter intervention training and many practical resources. We continue to look for ways to support safer and more respectful workplaces. Access to information and resources is essential to supporting well-being and we have made significant strides over the last few years in what we offer and how we reach employees and leaders since transitioning to our new site on SharePoint. Uh our health, safety, and wellness site has been significantly expanded. Regular healthy workplace communications are shared across the organization and aligned with dates of recognition such as suicide prevention day or mental health week coming up soon. We have many new resources such as our mental health resources bulletin which provides an overview of internal and external resources available. We have a toolkit for people leaders on supporting working caregivers and tips for deescalation. how to talk about suicide. And our monthly psychological health and safety bulletins for people leaders are designed to increase their knowledge about psychosocial factors that contribute to a healthy workplace. Over 25 subcategory pages exist on our site and include a host of resources, policies, tools, all to support leaders and employees. Critical incident peer support provides peer-to-peer support following events that are outside the range of everyday experience. Peer supporters are employees who are trained in critical incident stress management. We currently have a team at the corporate level. There is one in Hamilton Fire and one in Hamilton paramedic services. And we're so pleased to share that we've worked very closely with our Hamilton Street Railway team and Ontario Works to help expand peer support to those divisions who recently launched their own teams. Looking ahead, we are now working on developing a new strategy that we will bring to council for approval early in 2027. The new strategy will be informed by key data outcomes and opportunities identified on our journey implementing the current strategy as well as new insights we gained through benchmarking and research. The psychological health and safety action committee will have an important role in the development of this new strategy which we anticipate will focus on finding ways to incorporate a broader employee well-being lens strengthening communication and awareness across the organization and a key priority prevention identifying psychosocial hazards and mitigating risks. And with that, I'd like to thank you for your time today and happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, manager. Always appreciate hearing about uh these matters before this committee. So, thank you for the work put into the presentation. Looking now to see from my colleagues if there are questions of the presentation. And I am not I think I'm seeing one in the back corner there. Uh councelor Mark Tatterson, please. Is it possible just to go back to slide five? And I just wanted to get an understanding of you know you had six different issues up there and uh mental health was by far the greater one but I'm just saying like you know if we have marital status or marital you know is mental health is mental health a part of that okay here it is so see where we have psychological there all those other issues contribute is that is that adding up those as well Or is that separate? Like did if someone has addiction, did we include them in psychological? If someone had a family crisis, did we include them in psychological or is that just separate? Uh manager, it's through the chair uh to the counselor. Uh that is a separate uh sort of line item that uh most frequently has to do with stress and anxiety. Okay, counselor. Okay. Okay. You know what? I'm good with that. Thanks. Thank you. And I'm looking to see if there's any further questions. Seeing none, thank you so much for being here and for your presentation, your hard work on this. We're going to move now to item 7.3, which is HUR260005, the annual employee absence report 2025. And I believe I'm looking to see if there's any questions of this report from committee members. And I don't see any. So then, thank you colleagues. What we're going to do now is we're going to ask for a mover and secret to receive both items 7.2 and 7.3 collectively. Seeing councelor Cretch and councelor Hang. Thank you. Any questions on that? Seeing none, please indicate your vote by a show of hands. That is unanimous. Thank you all. Okay. Uh item 8.2 has been moved to after the close session. So, we're moving on to motions, which is item nine, beginning with 9.1, which is financial accountability and the administration of grant funding, which is a revised motion. Councelor Crutch, please introduce your motion and your seconder, please. My seconder is councelor Hang, and I won't read it out since it's was a notice before and now a motion, so it's been on for an eternity. I just want to briefly summarize. This is pretty straightforward from my perspective and I think there's been some confusion about this. So hopefully my two or three sentences will clear it up right now when funding is administered from cell towers from ward area rating funding whatever it is it's administered and there's a grant component to it in some way there's no policy discussing how exactly and when exactly those payments are issued. I'll give you an example. So, let's just say that there's a group that says we'd like to use this to do a cons consultation report for the botchi league, right? Which is one of the ones I remember coming up from another counselor. We don't have a policy that says that that grant is then paid out to those individuals once we get the receipt from the consultant who did the the work. We can send a check to the person right away and then hope they give us a difference. And there's no policy stopping that from occurring right now based on the amounts that are approved in motions. What we do in our office is that we issue out funding once we have receipts and everything is based on receipts. So we have bonafide receipts that come in, those get vetted and checked. It's all done through a granting and financing policy and it makes sense and we have it all in writing. But the city doesn't have a policy in writing about how that works exactly. That's the purpose of this. Nothing bad has happened as far as I'm aware. There's still checks and balances in the system and finance staff still review all this stuff and make sure that we're doing it properly. We just don't have anything in writing that says when we do X this is the process. This is how it works. That is the entire purpose of this report. I think it was it was generated from councelor Hang talking about giving a grant out Dr. Councelor Tatison councelor people were doing it and then I recognized I think at the meeting there were just different practices all legitimate but no bonafide uniform policy. Does this have anything to do with the actual grant policies themselves? Just literally how we pay people for grants. I hope that explains. Thank you, counselor. Looking to see if there's any questions. Going to pass it. Oh, I'm going to first go to Vice Chair Spataphora who has a question. Councelor Spataphora. Thank you, Chair. And I don't know if this is best to be answered by councelor Crud, who's brought the motion forward or staff. I'm just I I I agree with with what we're trying to do here and it talks about how people are getting paid and how that process works. And I don't know if I can talk about the correspondence that's attached to this, but I'm just trying to get an understanding of some of the stuff that's in there. Is this going to cover who can get paid as well when we talk about grants or is this just how we pay the grants through you, chair? So, I'll look to the mover for his interpretation. It's got nothing to do with who and everything to do with how. Right. So, this is just about making it a little bit more transparent, clear to the public how that process works, but it's not determining who can be paid. That's a separate policy entirely. It already exists. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, now if I could turn it to the vice chair, I do have just a question and it came up in your speaking points as mover. Uh, councelor Crutch in terms of the template that you're using internally within your office right now. And I think that there may be a hope that it is the framework for which a broader policy is developed. You spoke to um reimbursement after receipts are provided. Is there ever an an accommodation given because sometimes you have nonprofit groups that don't have the initial ability to make that outlay and then receive the reimbursement. Is there any mechanism that it would be anticipated within this that would allow for a group with say a quote or a a purchase order or something of that nature uh that would suffice as proper proof and diligence in terms of uh the right checks and balances that would allow a prepayment to occur rather than a reimbursement to occur. because the nature of the grants we're giving out are small amounts. We haven't found someone yet who said I couldn't I couldn't do this thing without having the ability to to forego the money up front. Plus, we're very strict about it saying like that's just not a possibility. You have to provide the receipts and again talking about smaller grant amounts. I know when it's coming to larger projects like you're talking about and sometimes and some on the agenda today where they're larger and they have quotations and things like that. That could probably happen. I assume that staff will look at that during the policy. just at at my level in my office anyways and what we did with grants and finance staff. We have kind of a a policy where we don't do that as far as I know at all. We make sure that we have the documentation we need before we issue the payment. Um, but I think that's something that Jim Garrick need to respond to in terms of looking at that as part of the process because I I do agree with you there might be a situation that comes up where we have to do something like that and I know that um CF has a certain model it uses when it does its grant funding where some funding go does go out without there being receipts. So I know that that already is a way the policy is done and then if people don't do X or Y there's a recalibration at the end of the year and then monies are paid back and so on. So there's there are policies that exist already. I just don't know if um that's that's something that staff are looking at or not. council me. If I could ask the just the general manager if if there is any early thoughts that would um preclude the ability of an organization to come forward uh with a a quotation or something that that this may inhibit not just through the granting processes that have been developed locally by the individual board counselors but globally broadly. If we're heading in a direction where we would not be able to accept a quotation or a purchase order or something preemptive uh to um to an organization in advance of the final receipt of of those goods or services. Jim Ziger. Yeah. So through the chair um to councelor Crretch's suggestion of robbing and stealing from other programs, we would look in terms of our city enrichment fund whether or not there are practices and policies that uh we could look to whether or not it speaks to uh providing advanced payments uh prior to uh incurring those costs. We would look to see whether or not that's captured. There's also a uh outstanding business item. Staff have embarked on the auditor general's review of transfer payments and grants and implementation plan and so that work may lend to reporting back as it relates to this motion as well. So, uh I would reserve the right to to review existing programs and see whether or not uh there's past experience if there have been any risks uh with respect to providing advance payments or how they've tried to mitigate uh any of those risks. Okay. Uh a follow-up question if I may, vice chair. Uh just in terms of then is it your understanding, general manager, that the motion speaks specifically to what I would categorize as the microrant program administered by ward counselors uh or is there uh further reaching implications for other motions that sometimes lead to payments being made to third parties? So through the chair, it's clear what the the scope is intended as it relates to the council's non- tax revenue uh grant programs. I only make reference to those uh other programs to see if there's opportunities for alignment and improvements uh both as it relates to uh observations and recommendations, but as well as a consistent approach that organizations may be experiencing already with the city of Hamilton. Okay. Thank you for that, ad vice chair. Just in general, I mean, I I'll support having the information coming back. I think that probably the next term of council is probably going to have to have some conversation about how this has unfolded over the last term. Uh the correspondence that we've received and we've received a couple of pieces of correspondence from members of the public that are interpreting the framework differently than than is being interpreted around this table. I think a broader conversation is going to be in order, but I I doubt that it would be um up to this council and probably the next to have that conversation. So, with that, I'll take the chair back seeing if there's any uh other speakers on the motion at hand. And seeing none. Okay, then folks, if you would kindly indicate your vote through escribe. Just waiting for counselor B and C. Yeah, it's not showing up here. I'm thumbs up. I'm just trying to catch up. Oh, there we go. 9.1. Thank you. Thank you. And that passes 8 Z. Thank you. And congratulations, Councelor Crutch. I just need a motion now to receive the correspondence from Gabriel Nicholson respecting the above uh motion. If I could have a mover and seconder to receive. I see councelor Tammy Huang, councelor Mark Tatison. Thank you. All in favor by show of hands. And that is unanimous. Thank you folks. We're moving on now to 9.2 which is the Golden Horseshoe Live streamers education pavilion motion. Councelor Hang, please indicate your motion and seconder, please. Thank you. This is moved by myself. I am seeking a seconder for this. Uh this is for the Golden Horseshoes live steamers, not the streamers, the steamers. um education educational pavilion. Um for those who have ever attended the Seaman Technology Museum, there is a wonderful nonprofit volunteer group mostly made up of retired uh model train operators. They actually build and maintain these steam engine trains that go around a track. It is so lovely. Um they do this on mostly a donationbased uh system. They are mapped very closely with the steam and technology museum because of well I think steam trains and steam technology. I think that those make a lot of sense. They've been around for a um for a significant amount of time, but through their donation process, they have managed to pull together a little bit of money to help with the storage and the facilities on the property. Uh but they did ask for a little bit of extra help to uh facilitate a roof structure that might go over top of two shipping containers. Their intention is to create an educational pavilion so that we can have further educational programming. So this motion is seeking $15,000 from the Ward 4 capital discretionary account uh not to exceed $15,000 and uh my hope is that committee will uh support this opportunity. Again, I am seeking a seconder to um support this motion. Councelor Crutch has agreed. Councelor Crutch has agreed. Okay. Thank you so much for that. I have uh first time speakers now going to councelor Brad Clark please. Uh thank you chair. So does the education pavilion exist already? Counselor? No it does not. So what's the breakdown then? If the 15,000 is paying for the roof, what's coming from the group paying for the polls to support the roof, counselor? So, they have submitted in the correspondence uh pictures. You'll see that there are two um shipping containers currently. 15,000 is just for the roof, but that also covers um they're they're raising the other 15,000 to support the entirety of the project. They suspect it's going to they have a quote now for $30,000. Thank you. And is it on city property? Yes, it is right beside the track which is on the park for the steam and technology museum. So I'm assuming then that the building department will be a part of it to make sure that what they're building is suitable. Correct. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further speakers and I would make note that uh my son was a big Thomas the Tank Engine fan and I spent a lot of time down with the steamers, not streamers. Um, and uh, it it really is it's a cool thing. If you've got some kids that are interested in in trains at all or or old technology like that, it's really really well done and I would uh uh invite invite the public to participate in that. So there are no further speakers. Therefore, we will be moving to electronic vote. Please indicate your vote now. And that carries 8-0. Congratulations, Councelor Huang. I now need a motion to receive the correspondence from the Golden Horseshoe Live Steamers. If I could have a mover and second, seeing councelor Huang and Councelor Tatterson. Thank you. This is a hand vote. Please indicate your vote now. All in favor receiving the correspondence. Thank you folks. We're moving on now to 9.3, which is the play structure replacement at Inis Much House in W 2. Councelor Crutch, please indicate uh your seconder and introduce your motion, please. Second is councelor Moren Wilson, and this is the first of a series of motions that I'm basically doing for the entire year. So, I'm trying to get ahead of the campaign period and not be doing approvals then. So, there's a massive number of things. We did our granting programs and capital programs all before May. Uh this one's separate separated though because and they're not here. They couldn't make it but they wanted to come and delegate. So we separated this out so they could do that. Um this is replacing the play structure there. For those who don't know about in as much house it's a place where people who have experienced violence will go as a shelter. It's a secure location and I've toured the location a couple of times. We gave a minor investment to help with the children's area inside because women and their children will go there to flee from domestic abuse. And the play structure there is in very bad shape and want to be able to have something for the kids who are in a pretty bad situation to be able to play on and there's no chance that in much house has the funding to be able to do this. This is part of the same program we used to support the YWCA the YMCA when we had the fire above the the residences there and then there was money through the budget process of about $300,000. This is all sort of that part of that same program that I'm I'm doing this through just so people know. The rest of the information is in the motion, but hoping for your support. Thanks. Okay. Looking to see if there's any questions. Councelor Clark has the first question, please. Thank you very much. So, um, this property is owned by Mission Services of Hamilton. And what role is the city going to play in the procuring of the play structure and the installation or is it all on mission services to do? It's on mission services to do. Thank you very much. Okay. If I could turn to the vice chair for a quick second. Um, go ahead. I'm just seeking clarification. Normally we we there's an address listed here and it does say word two but there is no address listed purposely because it's a confidential location because women who are fleeing from domestic abuse don't want their address to be identified. Thank you. That seemed like an anomaly but that explanation is important. So thank you for that. Take the chair back. No further questions from members. So we're now going to move to the electronic vote. Please indicate your vote now. And that carries 80. Congratulations, Councelor Crutch. Moving on now to 9.4 W 2 Community Grants 2026. Councelor Crutch, again, if you could indicate your seconder and introduce your motion, please. I'm a seconder. Councelor Tatterson. I think this is probably the longest motion I've ever seen. It's nine pages. I think I'll take the time now to read out every whereas clause just so we're sure of where every dollar is going. If my colleagues at your discretion, counselor, at your discretion. That was a serious joke. I would never do such a thing to anybody. Um, this is us doing our quarterly grants program through one lump program this year. So, the $100,000 of discretionary funding we had and we got about $300,000 worth of requests. So it was a competitive process in terms of people asking for things and uh some things were able to be done elsewhere. But uh this is basically us taking all four quarters and putting them into into one because we want to make sure that we can get the grant program administered without doing stuff during the election period. So that's why it's being done in one lump sum. I'm not going to read them out. They're all there lots of worthy causes and I'll leave it at that. Okay. Any questions? Seeing first councelor Clark, please. Um, thank you. And to prevent me from having to sever and vote on each item separately, I do have several concerns. Some of this funding is for uh it seems like an independent corporation. Uh, some are for not forprofits. Um it it is really crossing all over the place and I get that over time, Deputy Mayor that um I just promoted you um that the program seems to have morphed from its original intent of capital to what is classified as social infrastructure. Um, but I I think it's gone too far now and and I can't support it. So, I just oppose the entire thing. Thank you. Okay. Um, looking to see if there's any other first- time speakers. I'm going to see uh Councelor Mike Spataphora, please. Thanks, Chair. And I um similar to what Councelor Clark said, I know this isn't the first motion that's come like we've had a bunch. So I just wanted and again the the uh correspondence in the earlier motion triggered me to ask some of these questions. So I'd want to ask GM Zagaric when motions like this come forward does staff look at them and say well this is any of the stuff in the motion outside the policy or we even if it's outside the policy it's okay because it's coming excuse me from a counselor. So, the counselor and these bodies have the authority to go outside um the pause. I'm just trying to get some clarification if there's groups in here or motions in here or items in the motion that um we should be concerned about if that makes any sense. Okay. Uh general managers understand the question through the chair. I'll speak to general terms. I I'm not intimately familiar with respect to the motion. uh before committee is in general terms. Elected officials often share the information with respect to motions with staff including finance staff to review as relates to available funding and uh adherence to the policy and there are some um related uh information that can be submitted to to confirm uh alignment with the policy. Staff then review and make recommendations. For instance, if it does not adhere to the policy uh from time to time, there's been consideration by council to wave the policy and we would propose language to be added in to the motion identifying where there is not alignment to the policy and requiring committee and council to wave the policy. Counselor, thanks for that. So, in any of these community grant, again, I'm not I'm speaking in general. I'm not speaking. This motion is just helping me ask the question. So, it's not just a question in regards to word two. If if there are items in the motion that are outside the policy and staff hasn't seen um where that money is going or who it's going to, how do we know that we don't need to have stipulations that what I'm trying to say is if this motion has areas that are outside the policies and it doesn't say anything in the motion and I I didn't read the whole nine pages, so maybe it does say it that there's were waving um parts of the policy. Who who's supposed to flag that if you haven't flagged it, general manager? So firstly, we would hope that the elected officials would uh know if the beneficiaries would cause the requirement to wave the policy. If it's not clear to staff, uh, in particular, finance staff, whether or not that's been considered or reviewed, we would flag it, inquire, and ask and if necessary, suggest wording to be included in the motion. Okay. And again, I just this came up just because of like I said, there was the correspondence I was saying there's certain people out that could be getting money that are not supposed to according to our policies and I just wanted to so the finance staff through you or the mover have vetted every person on this motion and and finance staff is okay with that. So through the chair, I don't know with respect to this motion that's before whether finance staff have vetted uh every organization. I don't I don't believe finance staff it's our practice to vet and review every organization. Confirm they're a not for profofit. Confirm again it is, you know, based on what is presented to staff. We review to see if there's alignment, if there's any red flags in terms of needing to wave policy or questions with respect to adherence. We would uh provide that feedback to the elected official and then we would work with I should also point out clerks. We would work with clerks in terms of the motion that is ultimately presented to committee and council. Thank you. I'd like to give if the mover wants the ability to just, you know, Thanks. respond. Okay, Julianota, councelor Crash, please. Yeah, just to be really clear, this program has not changed or morphed at all since the very first day that we started doing this. This is exactly the same uh types of things that we've been applying since day one um that I started doing this program. And every single applicant, so this was program was developed in cooperation with finance staff and all the grant staff. And one of the things that as part of that program and the application that comes in is not for-p profofit status, right? You have to declare all that information when you do it. you have to declare the fact that there's um some financial need. We have a scoring rubric that we use to determine all different kinds of things. And then every single one of these is put by finance staff before it ever gets here. So, every single one of these items is put here. We make sure that finance staff look at it, make sure they're okay with it, it makes sense. If they have questions, we answer it. This motion itself probably took my staff two months to write because of the amount of due diligence that goes on. It's an excruciating process of detail we take very seriously. We also pass it by grant staff. We don't have to do that, but we pass it by staff who do the city enrichment fund here in the grants division to also look at this to make sure because they know whether or not some of these groups would be a red flag for them if they haven't seen them having a grant before. Those kinds of things. And from time to time, they have said to us, hey, what about this group? What about this group? What about this group? We've gone back, we looked at it to make sure everything was okay. Uh some of these people are return folks, so I noticed on a glance that they're not for-profit organizations, but everyone here is a not for-profit organization or group. And as we discussed in the very first time this came forward when we had the very first debate about this and there were like I think seven debates about this. This conforms exactly with the city's policies on grants and it's coming out of out of that policy and staff have not flagged these things as being against any policies this motion or the next or the next one for that matter. So I don't disagree with councelor bey who's saying hey maybe we need to look at this policy and change it. Um, but this was approved in 2018 and I've been using it since 2023, I think. Thanks, counselor. Okay, so substantial resources taken to vet this already is what I'm hearing. Double layer, substantial staff resources within the ward office, substantial city resources taken. Um, a lot of work put into this, a lot of time spent. Uh, further questions? No, no further questions. So, we're moving then to the electronic vote. Please indicate your vote now. And that passes 7 to one. We're moving on now to 7.5. Uh, very similar motion. Sorry, I'm going back in time. 7.5 is actually 9.5 which means we're looking at the war 2 capital expenses area rating reserve 2026. Councelor Crutch if you would indicate your motion and seconder please. Secondary for this one is councelor Alex Wilson and this is similar to the last three mo two motions. The only difference here is we put them all together instead of separating them out. The one is much house was a significant amount. These are smaller amounts. Um these are all capital things for not for profofits and they follow the same policy of social infrastructure. There's no difference between these and many of the others we had. An example would be we had a discussion last year I think was the sky dragon. The sky dragon um at least three of these are practically identical to that. So they're capital improvements for not for-p profofit housing. So that's what those are. Okay. I see councelor Clark first on the speaker's list. Please please proceed. Thank you. I'll be supporting this motion. They are capital. That's was the original intent of the program back in 2018. I was there. It has morphed dramatically from what it used to be. Um and I can no longer justify those expenditures when so many people are complaining about municipal infrastructure needs. Um so this one here is actually helping um the city and um not for profofits with actual capital repairs. um either it would come from this ago or it would come with a grant coming to the city at some point in time. So I congratulate the counselor on this one. I'll support it. Okay. Seeing any further questions which I don't see. So we're moving on now to the vote. Folks, please indicate your vote electronically. No. And that passes unanimously. 8 Z. Congratulations, Councelor Cretch. Uh we have notices of motions now. Uh empowering tutoring program for Sudin newcomer youth. This is 10.1. Councelor Hang, I understand that you'd like to put forward a motion to suspend the rules. If you'd like to do that now and indicate your seconder and reasoning behind the suspension of the rules. Yes. I also do not have a seconder, so I will be Oh, councelor Crutch has agreed to second. The reason for um the notice of motion. I was tardy in putting this document in front of LC Bates. I had always init um intended to put them together with the Golden Horseshoe steamers. Uh but I was literally like hours behind um Elsie Bates with um the posting. So I ask for committee's indulgence to let me put this motion forward. Thank you. Okay. So the first vote will be on whether or not to suspend the rules which will be in electronic votes. Please. And that motion passes 8. Congratulations. Please introduce your motion and seconder. Thank you. Moved by myself and ideally councelor Crutch will second. Yes. Uh this is a this is to support the Sudin Canadian League of Hamilton. They've been around since 1994 and uh they have made their home in Ward 4. recently um and it's not even recent, it's been a while, but the um Sudin newcomers and Sudin population has suffered significant trauma as it relates to their homeland. In Sudan, there is a significant war uh raging and what the Sudin Canadian League of Hamilton has really identified is a lot of their youth has been really struggling. They have uh significant trauma. They are also thinking about their own um family members back home and uh they and as a result they have had a significant challenge in integrating into Canadian society into the Hamilton education system. And so this is uh indeed social infrastructure to help the Sudin uh youth with this pilot program uh pilot tutoring program. The intention is to work with trauma-informed potential tutors to help the youth get to a point where they can be um back on track and really uh thriving in the Canadian school system. So this is that therefore be it resolved is that there is a grant for the Sudin Canadian League of Hamilton for empowering tutoring program pilot to be funded out of the W4 capital discretionary account to an upset limit of $15,000. I hope committee will uh support this uh very innovative program. Thank you. Okay, looking to see if there's any speakers. Seeing councelor Clark first, please. Uh why section B? Section D. Section B as in Bob that any funds allocated to be exempted from one-time basis and not be counted towards any restricted funding from the city enrichment fund. This was also part of the boilerplate template that we've been using across uh multiple uh motions and it was also vetted by finance to be included in this motion. Well, vetted by finance doesn't mean that they approved it. Vetted by finances that they looked at it, they provide you some commentary on it and then you bring the motion forward to to council. I understand that. Mhm. Um, so I I'm I'm really struggling with these motions, deputy mayor or chair. Um, when we do this, we're saying that this group is special and so they're going to get funding from the local ward budget, but then they can still qualify for an oversubscribed city enrichment fund. That's a problem. And I know that they've been routinely approved by by uh committee and council and and I'm sure there are votes that I've decided right along with you. But the more I look at this program um the more concerns I have about the procedural fairness of the program. Uh so without any slight to the Sudanese Canadian League, I'm simply going to vote against this. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Clark. Up next is councelor Crretch, please. Yeah, councelor clerk, you got me there because I was going to say I think you've already voted on several motions that have this clause in it. Oh, I'm honest. Um, but I wanted to say that was this clause was developed by the grant staff from CF because what they were suggesting was that a lot of the programs that are being offered through these these things are iterative. They're emergency. They're one-time situations. And if we are supporting one of those programs and then punishing people later when they have come forward a general application for a totally different program that disadvantages that group. So they were saying listen counselors are able to help these groups and they're able to bring forward funding support for individual programs. Those have no relationship to the CF program that's being funded. So they should be exempt from that. That's my understanding and that's why we developed that in concert. One of the clauses on the CF application though, as a former juror for the CF does say, "What's a list of all the funding you received?" They still have to declare that they've received that funding. It's just not counted against them because it's not related to the same program. So, just letting you know because I was the one who developed that with grant staff specifically and the boiler plate that councelor Quang is using came from the original boiler plate that we developed with staff. Okay. Thank you. I'm looking to see if there's any other first time speakers. Seeing none, we're going to second time speakers. Councelor Clark, please. And just to clarify, there are seven wards in this city that does not have area rated funding. So the community groups in their wards, they have to go to the community enrichment program to seek funding. There's no other alternative. And so eight wards that have special funding can in essence give them double funding possibly. And it's not procedurally fair. It's it it there's no way you can argue that it is. If we're going to be fair across the city, then that means area rated funds go to groups in my mind for capital. But it should never ever have a clause in there saying, "Oh, you can double dip with the city enrichment fund regardless of what the city enrichment fund people are saying because there are seven wards that don't have access to the area rating funds. We don't have them. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Clark. Going back to the first time speaker list with councelor Moren Wilson, please. Thank you. Uh through the chair to GM Ziggger. I was of the impression um that the area rating landscape, if you will, across the city of Hamilton, that is something in which the participating wards opted into. So meaning it's uh it's a it's a choice that uh those wards provide or not. If through through the chair if I understand the question um it's the area rating um reserves and discretionary projects are tied to our tax policy report and the tax policy report is annual report that uh provides the opportunity to reconfirm uh the establishment of the area rating reserves or if it was uh the decision of council It could be to amend or cancel the practice of the area rating reserves. Cancelelling the practice would have a a favorable tax impact to those wards that previously benefited from the reserves. Thank you for clarifying that. Meaning um it comes before this council. This council has voted to to continue that practice. Some uh my understanding some wards have access to other funds uh that perhaps may not be available um to say ward one and it would be within those parameters and the discretion of that ward counselor to expend those funds whether it be a terror landfill site um a cell phone tower or anything to that extent and it is to meet my understanding was the needs and circumstances that may or may not particular to that ward and that ward counselor within the parameters of the policy makes that decision in concert with community. Is that a fair summation or not? I don't want to put words in your mouth through the chair. The um the availability of non- tax revenues does vary across a municipality uh word by ward. Uh with respect to the policy, the policy uh was originally approved I believe 2012 updated 2018. There might have been a subsequent update or report uh and that policy has been amended. Originally, it was intended for infrastructure to address the infrastructure uh deficit, but recognizing uh council over the years had an interest uh to support uh social infrastructure, that policy then was amended. Um I'm not sure if I've answered the question. No, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. So I do have a third time speaker, but I just want to remind members that the motion at hand speaks to the allocation of funds to the Sudin newcomer tutoring program and we have now delineated into some background information which I've allowed for uh context as we proceed to the decision point on this. Um and I do understand that councelor Clark may have a response to potentially something that was said earlier. So I'll allow that and then hopefully we're ready to move to the decision point. place. The genesis of this program started um when we were at a point where the area rating tax increases to seven wards was going to be so dramatic and there were going to be tax reductions to wards 1 through 8. So Russ Powers and councelor Shad Collins they met privately and they came up with a suggestion and the suggestion was instead of reducing the taxes towards one and eight they would leave them at the higher value and it would create this this uh slush fund uh for the use of of the counselors and originally it was based solely on infrastructure and capital. Um that's the genesis of of that particular program. The genesis of the landfill royalties was through an environmental assessment agreement that was drafted in 1996 and approved by the province. The funding is only spent for the betterment of the city of Stony Creek. And so the three councilors get together. The vast majority and you can count the millions and millions of dollars all went to capital. Okay. So thank you for the clarification on that. Um, obviously there's a considerable appetite for further conversation, but as I made note in my earlier speaking points, perhaps it'll be the prerogative of the next term of council to delve back into this to have some decision points on the future of uh granting programs individually, potentially an area rating conversation. But for today, in this moment, we are looking now for a vote on the Sudin's newcomer tutoring program. It has been duly moved and seconded and the speaker's list has been exhausted. Please indicate your vote affirmative or negative, please. And that carries 71. Congratulations, Councelor Huang. We're moving on now. Are you sure you want to bring this forward, Mark? Are you sure? Positive. I'm just kidding, buddy. Uh 10.2, which is the W 11 community grant program. Councelor Tatison, I understand first that you're bringing forward a motion to suspend the rules. Please indicate the reasoning and your seconder, please. Okay. So, my seconder is councelor Cretch. I did miss the deadline. Unlike councelor Cretch, this is my first time through this process. So, there was lots of learning back and forth with clerks, with finance, just to an order that um we were following the policy. We vetted, we revetted our our um people. we ensured the wording in the motion was correct even though we based it on former motions that have passed. Um everything's been corrected to that point. So those were some of the timelines. I am up against a bit of a timeline as well. Um some of the volunteer organizations are waiting to know if there's available funding. um from my point of view many coaches and managers and leaders of they supplement the needs of kids um with their own funds and I know they could collect receipts and so forth but um if they know that that pool of resources is larger they can make different decisions before the busy season starts so this is the reason why I'm asking for it now thank you okay so we're speaking to the suspension of the rules uh councelor Clark you'd indicated did you want to speak on the suspension of the rules on the motion itself Okay. So then if there's no speakers on the suspension of the rules, we'll do that vote first. Please indicate your vote electronically now, please. And that passes 62. So please indicate your second now. Uh councelor Tassin and introduce your motion. This is W 11 community grants. Basically, where's the W 11 community grants pilot project was established to support law no local nonprofit organization, community groups, and other eligible entities delivering one-time projects, initiatives, and programs that benefit 11 W 11. I'm going to flip down to the second to last one. Whereas all successful applicants are required to report on the use of the funds by year end and such reporting will be documented by the W 11 office on its website. Um whereas 20 applications were received by March 31st deadline which 18 were deemed eligible following staff review in accordance with one application per organization requirement. At that basically um there's 18 organizations here. There's difference amounts. We went through weighed it. We based it on a number of criteria as again following other um counselors that have done this and I'm willing to face the crowd now. Thank you. Okay, we have a speakers list that has started with councelor Brad Clark, please. Thank you. So, a question to staff. I'm a little bit confused about the sponsorship. I thought the sponsorship policies, at least what I've been advised, the $500 maximum for each sponsorship. Jim Ziggarak through the chair. I think it's 350. I'd have to confirm with staff 350 as it relates to the word budgets. Uh I don't know if that limitation extends beyond the word office budgets, but I believe it's 350 as it relates to the word office budgets. I haven't done any sponsorships. um to be clear, but I think that was the rule. And so it I guess I'm struggling because in the I'm sorry um the third whereas it it seems to have the ward waving the sponsorship rules. General manager. So, it it sounds as if 350 was the historic and it's been adjusted to $500. So, I apologize. Uh to the council's question, uh I would have to review whether the 500 applies exclusively to the word office budgets or if it applies to non- tax revenue. I'm just not that familiar whether that guideline with respect to sponsorship is beyond the word office budgets. Uh thank you very much. And so again, I'm struggling because we're really looking at item D, it's a sponsorship to a sports group. Item E, it's a sponsorship to a sports group. Um, item C, it's a sponsorship to a sports group. Um, I could go into the other ones that are sponsorships, but they're they're not sports groups. Um and again we're waving the decision here saying that well even though this ward counselor gave this amount of money to this group you can still go to the city enrichment fund which again is over um we don't we don't have enough money there's more demand than money and so we're in giving them an up on that program so these things still I mean I know in the past I've even voted for these things and councelor Cretch is absolutely correct. I I'm not stating that I have been looking at this policy, these processes, and I have real concerns um that it's creating a situation where counselors are giving money away to um social programs or groups in in in their ward um when others are doing it based on capital. when others don't have access to the extra money. Um and so it the whole program right now um there seems to be uh an obliviance that just whatever comes in we'll give them the money we'll make them happy. And I don't agree with that. I I I think we have a problem. Especially when I hear from counselors saying in all the words, oh, the number of sidewalks I have to have repaired, it's just nuts. I don't have we don't have enough money to repair the sidewalks. We don't have enough money to repair the roads. You've got money to help do that, but it's going to social programming and not to infrastructure, which the community is demanding. So, again, I'm simply voting against it. Thank you. Okay. Uh before we proceed to any other speakers, I'm going to remind members that we are as always up against a hard deadline of 1 p.m. at which time we must break. Uh which means that already we will be breaking at 1 p.m. and then coming back to proceed with the private session and then coming out of private session to formalize items 8.1 8.2 in public session. So we still have some considerable work ahead of us. Uh so with that, if we could please keep comments to the task at hand, which is the uh motion that is before us. I know some comments have been made, some uh concerns have been raised. So as long as they are related and relevant to that, then please continue. I see councelor Cretch with a question or comment, please. Very briefly, as usual, I will just say that yeah, I understand that concern about the balance between those things. I know and I've looked at the expenses from W 2 specifically or other kinds of places a lot of the money uh is spent on those infrastructure needs. One of the things that happens too in some of these situations is there's a capacity limit. So sidewalks in our ward if I wanted to for instance put a million dollars in the sidewalk staff would say to me you can't we don't have the capacity to do a million dollars worth of work this summer counselor we can do this much work. So I think those are just things I'm announcing because I don't want people to think um not that you're suggesting this at all councelor Clark that there's not that investment also happening. We've maxed out the sidewalk budget every year. Okay. Uh so back to the task at hand. I see a second time speaker. No, no doubt a response from councelor Bred Clark. It's ironic because I did find a million dollars and we put in a million dollars with the sidewalks. It goes through an RFP process. So as long as you get the timing right, it goes into an RFP process and is contracted out. Okay. So uh we've exhausted, I think, any questions pertaining to the motion. So at this time folks, I would ask for an electronic vote. Please indicate your vote now. Councelor Pauls, are you and that passes 81. Congratulations, Councelor Tatison. Okay, folks. So, uh, because we are now up against the mandated, uh, break at 1:00, I am going to recess this meeting and we will continue at 1:30 back here. See you then. Audit Finance and Administration Committee meeting April 16, 2026. Welcome back. We're going to jump right into private and confidential, which is 11 uh starting with 11.1, which is the closed minutes from AFA260004, the meeting held on March 26, 2026. If I could have a mover and a seconder to adopt the closed minutes of the March 26th meeting. Seeing Councelor Hang, Councelor Crutch. Thank you. Any discussion on the adoption of the closed minutes? And seeing none, please indicate your vote with a show of hands. All in favor? Thank you. Uh, okay. That is carried. Uh now if I could please have a mover and a second or two to permit Aaron Fer and Darren Jones of Valencia to attend the closed session respecting 11.2 confidential appendices A B and C to report AUD 2110 04D respecting cyber security follow-up audit phase 2 incident response and insurance review. If I could have that mover in secondary councelor Clark councelor Quang. Thank you. Discussion. No. Please indicate your vote electronically, please. So, just councelor Crutch and Councelor Wilson. Thank you. I'm in favor. Okay, you're in favor now. And that carries 70. Thank you, folks. Okay. Uh, if I could have a mover and a seconder to move into close session respecting items 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4 pursuant to section 9.3 subsections A, E, and K of the city's procedural bylaw 21-021 as amended and section 2392 subsections A, E, and K of the Ontario Municipal Act 2001 as amended as the subject pertains to the security of the property of the city or a local board. litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the city or local board. Uh, and a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on on behalf of the city or a local board. The mover is councelor Tison, councelor Huang with a second. Uh, show of hand vote. All in favor, please indicate your vote now. Seeing that that is unanimous. Thank you colleagues. So members of the public the meeting will continue following the closed session portion of the meeting. Uh when you will see members of the committee rejoin the meeting. Uh committee will wait up to 5 minutes upon reconvening open session before proceeding with the meeting to provide members of the public and the media time to return. Uh before we moved into close session, I would ask all members of the public to please exit the the cottage as I started off referring to uh 264 here at city hall. Um and if you are in WebEx, please exit now. Only those pertaining to the subject matter are allowed to stay. So if we've already done the stat staff switch over look, it looks like we have. Um, then we are going directly to 112. Whoops. As soon as S gives me The Okay, welcome back uh to open session here in a finance meeting. Uh if I can have everybody's uh attention so we can move on. Thank you. 11.2 AUD210004D cyber mover and seconder uh that the direction provided to staff and close be approved. Moved by councelor Tatison, second by councelor Wang. Uh, show of hands, please. That carries. Thank you. 11.4 AUD260004 autogeneral reporting of serious matters to councel. Uh, mover and seconder that the report be received and remain confidential. Councelor Tison, councelor Wang. Thank you. Show of hands. And that carries. We are 11.3. You don't need anything. Yep. Um, no. Items for consideration. 8.1 AUD210004D cyber security follow-up audit phase 2 instant response and insurance review. Move and second to approve the recommendations in the report and receive the confidential presentation. Moved by councelor Wang. Can I have a second or counselor Tison? Thank you. Councelor Clark, a question. Sorry, I didn't hear with directions. to approve the recommendations in the report and receive the confidential presentation but we gave directions through the chair. Yes, that was the first vote when we came out of closed was to for two to um approve the direction gi given in given to staff in closed. Thank you. Any other questions? I believe this has to be an electronic vote. Uh, thumbs up if your computers are not working. Council Meen Wilson. Thumbs up. Councelor, anybody else? If not, use your computers. I guess I should get into open. There we go. That is carried. 6 to zero. Uh 8.2 FCS 26 037 request to extend contract for secure transportation of fund services. Mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report. Councelor Wang, Councelor Clark. Uh we will need electronic vote if there are no questions. Councelor Morin Wilson is a thumbs up. That carries 6 to zero. And on that note, there is no further business of the audit, finance, and administration committee. And it is adjourned at 3:36 p.m. Thank you.

Full Transcript