We're ready to go to live stream. >> Yes. Ready when you are. >> Okay. So, we will start with the opening script. This meeting of AIS council is being held virtually. This meeting is also being livereamed and may be viewed online at ajax.ca/live. A friendly reminder to all participants to please activate your microphone only when recognized by the chair. And I'll now call this meeting to order. Going to start with the land acknowledgement. In this meeting by acknowledging that the land in which we gather is situated within the traditional and treaty territory of the Missagas. More specifically, the Missagas of Skugog Island First Nation, signitories of the Gunshot Treaties of 1788 and the Williams Treaties of 1923. This land is and will continue to be home to the indigenous peoples. Let us acknowledge the mistakes and traumas of the past through authenticity and support truth and reconciliation. Let us engage and celebrate indigenous communities by being leaders of action in acknowledging United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations towards truth and reconciliation. Let us keep these principles close as we continue towards truth and reconciliation and as we move forward with kindness and respect as a community. Uh I'll start this movie this movie I'll start this meeting by um saying happy birthday to Council Sterling Lee. Happy 45th. Yes, I knew how much you like the FSP, so this was just an honor for you calling this today. Uh, moving on to the agenda, we have does any member of council have any disclosure of pecunary interests? If you do, please hit your hand button to the left of the speaking button. Okay, seeing none, please note the clerks. Moving on to departmental reports, item 3.1, the PSA 2026-12 update to the municipal alcohol policy. I have the resolutions here and I'll just do the resolution first and then um actually sorry, is there a presentation on this from staff or just questions on the report? Miss Burma Brown >> through the through the mayor or to the mayor? Uh no, there are there's no presentation. It's just questions. >> Okay. So to council, um I need a mover and a second or please for the departmental report. Uh moved by councelor Lee, second by councelor Tyler Morren that the council approved the revised municipal alcohol policy and two that staff be directed to implement the updated policy and associated documentation for events and facilities use involving alcohol. Questions or comments? Council Tyler Moore, let me just go to the screen. There you go. Councelor Tyler Morton, you have the floor. >> Your worship. Um, can staff briefly explain what would make an event low risk uh versus high risk under this new policy? >> Okay, Mrs. Brown. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, through the chair to counselor Tyler Morren. So, an example of a low-risk event would be a Sunday afternoon baby shower, a bridal shower, a small um social gathering, book club, that kind of thing. Um, a higher risk event would be several thousands of people um and a variety of other high-risk um elements to it. Uh that would involve late nights um and just the general type event. So it it does split the uh risk level. Uh a lot of it is based on what's included in the policy, but that's that's the type of thinking that staff are have used as developing this. >> Okay, that that explains it. Okay. And uh if I may, um does the policy apply broadly to all events or does each individual event still need to apply and receive approval >> just for? >> So uh through the mayor to council tele. Yes. So each event would still need to go through a process um by which it would get their uh special occasion permit from the AGCO, meet those uh requirements as well as meet the requirements that the town has. So that's required for all events um whether they are low risk or or high risk. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Those are my questions for now. >> Okay. Um Councelor Crawford, do you have a question or are you wanting to raise a point of order? Oh, you've gone back to the green. Okay, just a reminder for folks, if you want to get my attention for a point of order or something, use the hand the yellow. Otherwise, just press the regular uh button if you want to speak. So, councelor Bower, you're next. >> Thank you, Mayor Collier. Good afternoon, everyone. Um, so thank you for this report and Miss Brownidge, I just wanted to clarify, thank you to councelor Tyler Morren for asking those questions. So currently I attended or recently I attended some shower events, one at Greenwood and one at Krether's March and neither one uh permitted alcohol to be served. So is this updated policy um does that now permit that if these uh if these parties wanted to have alcohol those facilities would not qualify? >> So um a couple of things through the chair to to councelor Bower. So um in the previous version of the policy there was a prescriptive list of locations and facilities where events with alcohol were permitted to be held. Um this policy now um applies so all uh all facilities may be considered to host events. Um but again that would be up to the sort of assessment of the type of event, the location, the timing, what's happening around it, all of those things that staff would assess going into that. Um, but my understanding and and uh, director Vita can chime in if if I'm mistaken, but I do believe that at um, any baby shower, bridal shower is per has been permitted to um, have alcohol if their facility that they were having the event in was in the old policy. Um, they would just need to ensure that they went through the special occasion permit process and the town's process um, in order to secure that. And from our sort of understanding and review of the policy, um that process that was in place may have been um you know may have led to cases where folks decided to not uh go through the steps required to get the approvals to have alcohol because it was so complex and the risk mitigation was all events were kind of viewed under the same risk lens. So what staff are proposing is to kind of uh sort of striate that risk and uh give staff the ability to review the reality of the type of event that's requesting to serve alcohol. And if that's you know a baby shower where somebody might have a couple of glasses of wine versus a large scale wedding or a concert or um anything like that. >> Okay. So thank you for that. So, so maybe I'll ask further because if I remember correctly, for both of those facilities, um, it was just not permitted. It wasn't that the process was too complex. It was not allowed at all. So, does this updated policy now change that? And, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe correct me again if I'm wrong. >> Yeah. Through the if I can through the chair to councelor Bower. Um, as Cassandra was uh very well articulated, um, we're using the updated map to take a look at all of our processes related to booking our satellite facilities that you're mentioning, Kthers and Greenwood. Uh, earlier in 2026, uh, we expanded the locations where SOP uh, SOP functions were permitted to include some additional satellite functions. And with this updated map here today, uh it's our intention to continue to uh look at what the supports are needed and what's needed to put a particular location in terms of the staff supervision that's required for recreation and culture to to support those events. Uh with the intention, yes, of allowing SOPs at both uh Kthers Marsh and Greenwood. >> All right. Thank you very much uh both of you for answering my question. That was it. Mayor Collier. Thank you. Uh, councelor Crawford, you are next. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Do other municipalities have this >> uh through the chair to region. Council Crawford. Yes. All uh municipalities that permit alcohol uh at events at their facilities are required or do have a municipal alcohol policy. >> And it says here no financial implication. Um somebody has to ma operate this do they not? Somebody has to ensure that this is being followed. Somebody has to ensure follow-up. So, are we sure that there's no financial implication? >> So, again, I would defer to director Vita, uh, if there's more detail that can be shared here, but at this time, staff already administer the municipal alcohol policy as it relates to facility bookings, um, at a number of our facilities with a varying degree of complexity. Um so what what the what I meant by that in the report what I've meant by that in the report is that there there is not expected to be um a significant more workload as a result of this uh new the changes to this policy the new policy um and if anything um I would say that there is more likelihood of of streamlined uh process because we're removing um certain requirements and elements uh based on that risk assessment that uh the new policy outlines. So maybe if director Vita has something else he'd like to add. >> Yeah. And just to through the chair to regional counselor Crawford just uh just to reconfirm uh what Miss Brownidge stated there. Uh no increased operational costs directly as a result of the the updates to the map today. We we already hold these events. Uh we process and administer them. uh we support them from a facility perspective before and after they're coming as well. So we don't uh we don't foresee any changes there. >> So what is the difference? >> Sorry. Um just to clarify through the mayor to council Crawford and maybe director be if you want to speak to um the co uh the sort of fees and uh costs that are passed along to um those that are permit holders that are seeking to uh to book the certain spaces for alcohol. um it might help clarify some of the questions. >> Yeah, sure. In terms of any of these specific costs, um you see some increases to insurance costs that a permit holder uh will incur as a result of the increased uh risk as a result of serving alcohol. Um that's not a town of Ajax cost. It's a cost that's directly paid uh by the permit holder. Uh so we wouldn't necessarily see our operating uh cost increase there. uh in terms of staff supervision where we have increased staffing required let's say at a satellite facility such as uh Kther's Marsh or Greenwood and where we were incurring additional staff charges specifically as a result to support an SOP those would be costs that we would again uh download onto our customers so we wouldn't be seeing any direct increase in cost as a result of say uh holding a few additional events at Greenwood or Kathers each year. Does that does that better address your question on cops here? >> It does. Thank you very much. >> No problem. >> Okay, seeing no uh nobody else in the speakers list, I will ask for the vote to be open. I'm just going to comment and say I'm I'm happy to see this come forward. Um this is I think um very timely. We need to be uh proactive as this is becoming allowed in more and more places and parks by uh the province and city of Toronto and and others. So um we need to be keeping up with those changes and um yeah, I don't see any problems coming out of this and glad to see it come forward. Thank you to staff for all your work on this. Please open the vote to the clerk. And that carries unanimously. Thank you folks. Next item on the agenda is the uh 3.2 FIN 202615 the 2026 financial sustainability plan update amendment review especially for the birthday boy counselor Lee. Um I Miss Metham I think you had asked to make some opening comments and then I'll get the report on the floor. Please go ahead when you're ready. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um so today we are bringing back an update to the financial sustainability plan pursuant to the council motion that was uh approved back in May of uh this year. Uh staff were asked to investigate the proposal to consider decreasing a spending cap to 70% or 23.5 million whichever is less. Um as a reminder spending caps are the portion of the new revenue being contributed uh to the town through the tax levy. So it's a portion of all the incoming revenue um that we are speaking of that will be allocated to fund capital projects. So three scenarios were prepared uh to compare and contrast those impacts and uh we looked at the impacts on uh uh reserve balances, debenture requirements, the asset condition and the um impacts on the mid to long-term general tax levy. Uh the averages, the numbers that were presented in one of the tables, I want to remind everybody that they are averages over a five and 9-year uh perspective. So they are not necessarily uh the year after year uh tax uh increases that could be built but they are an average overall and um and as a reminder they do all the analysis includes the um amendments that were approved by council back in May. So you will see that scenario one is the original scenario that was presented through our RS our FSP uh with the council amendments. Um staff have also looked at uh scenarios two and three and that was uh to implement the 70% spending cap. One looked at deferring projects and one looked at the impacts of um debenture financing some of those capital projects. So while there's no staff uh recommendation on how council should proceed, we are looking for council's preferred approach uh as a result of uh this discussion today as we need uh some direction uh that will help us guide uh the preparation of the 2027 budget. Um just for the record, I'd like to also note that there was a a slight administrative error made uh with noting where the allocation of the 75% assessment growth uh was allocated in the policies. Um it's currently shown as being allocated to the capital asset growth reserve, but in fact it was directed to asset management reserves. So, I would like to um just note that for council that staff will make the uh necessary changes to the policies and that impacts page uh 71,73 and page 90 of the agenda. So, um at this point, I'd like to open it up to um to council for questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Councelor Lee, you are first. >> Please go ahead. >> Um thank you, Chair. Can you hear me? Okay, >> we can hear you. Where's your cake and candles? >> Uh, you know what? It's a very good question and uh I'll put that on the floor afterwards. Um, to director me um where was the 70% number taken from? Like why why why not 80 85? So is it just kind of a guideline of 70 or was 70 deliberately chosen? >> That that was me. >> That that was me. >> And for uh so to the mayor then same question. Um why specifically 70? Why not 80 85? Uh our our original was somewhere in the middle like around 50 or 60 >> and then we went to 90 and I just figured you know somewhere in the middle would be a hybrid. >> Is that me? I'm muted. >> Yeah, it's not me. That's you. Councelor Lee, here I'll let you back in. Turn off one of your devices, please. >> Okay, we're going to try this again and just >> um so yeah, um I guess like um I understand the long-term forecast and generally the FSP is that revisited every four years, eight years typically. When do we revisit the FSB? So through the chair um we as staff have committed to bring back an update every five years. Um it there is no um steadfast rule on when it comes back. It could be a term of council but typically every 5 years we take a look at it and uh provide an update to council. And if we were to take scenario one, which you know seems to have the most um positive outlook, um next term's council, are they within their ability to change that midterm factoring in any sort of emergencies or financial instabilities? Like were able to kind of pivot on the fly or is that not recommended? >> Uh through the chair, council does have discretion to make amendments to policies. Um generally though I would say when we set a financial sustainability sustainability plan uh typically it's looking at that medium to long-term version. Um so you know I think the core concepts we would want to entrench into our processes and our procedures to you know to provide some consistency in how we approach our budgeting and our disposal of surplus should there be any at year end. Um but but slight slight changes are you know it's up to uh council's discretion. They are your policies. >> And does this factor in the um potential um money we're getting through the province and feds through the um the deferring development charges? Does that I mean that must factor in to our short and long-term spending. No >> through the chair. Right now, we factored in the uh the um what's in our DC background study, but we have not taken into consideration any other uh grant funding. Nothing uh has been announced as far as I know to to this point. Um it will definitely be uh an implication that will be reviewed during our 2027 budget process depending on the outcomes of our grant application. So, we will provide an update to council, but it nothing has been included in this version at this time. >> Um, but you would agree with my assessment that if we ultimately um are successful in our application for that funding, that would absolutely affect our five-year average tax levy, wouldn't that our cash flow >> through the chair? We would have to take a look at that. right now um the bulk of those uh DC projects that we did apply for are DC funded. Um that typically does not impact the tax rate because the the funding is collected and used you know from external sources. Um the only implication would be the town portion that the town needs to fund on those capital projects. Um at this point there is no indication that we will get any type of grant funding to replace that. So that portion is included in this FSP. So the town impacts would be relatively uh similar from from a tax perspective. And then one last question to actually Mayor Collier. And the reason you had ultimately suggested the 70% spending cap was so that we kind of have room for investments to our um you know uh to for investment growth as well to put money towards you know our savings account so to speak to build that up due to especially our loss of uh OLG and Alexon. Is that correct? >> Partly and and I was going to make these comments when I asked questions when I spoke as to the the logic behind and just to follow up in your 70% question. Yeah, it was just a target and we had asked staff to look into it and tell us what does that mean, what does that look like and what the implications would be, which they have done. Um, I'm not concerned about the minor 0.1% increase that scenario three would cause over scenario one because and I'm going to ask this in my questions. I feel that the growth on those reserves staying in our reserves through the investment fund and look through the investment policy and moving from short-term to long-term assets at a higher rate are going to far outweigh any um debt servicing we're going to pay. We're still going to pay deb debt servicing but the growth in the reserves is going to be significantly more. I think we'll find when I ask my questions. So so the 70 again was a sort of a target. I'm not uncomfortable with it. Again, I won't be here next next term. So, it's up to the future council what they want to do. And like you've you've already said, they it can change if they want to if they find it's not changing or it's not working. But, um >> so I have 5 seconds left. Uh for your investment um strategy, which I don't necessarily disagree with, it makes a lot of sense. Is there a percentage of growth we have to see in that investment in order to make worthwhile? Like, have you done that kind of on a napkin kind of math yet or no? I would say it has to be more than the rate charged on the debenture debt. >> Got it. Right. Right. Obviously, and right now our debenture debt um rate is what to the director of finance. >> It fluctuates uh based on the timing of debt, but um it could be anywhere between four to 5% typically for a 15year to 20 year uh debenture. >> Great. >> At this time, it could change. >> Okay. I appreciate the answers. Thank you, Chair. >> You're welcome. And just one thing I thought of, council Lee, to close the loop on it. Um, one of the other things I'm going to be suggesting is that that 0.1% of an increase to go from scenario one to scenario 3. Um, there's other ways that could be paid from some of the new reserves that we've that we've established through our first changes we made to the FSP. So, I'll bring that up after as well. Council Tyler Morren, you are next. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um can staff uh director metham uh briefly speak to what the risk would be if we delayed some of these capital needs rather than dealing with the backlog now. >> Well, some of the risks through the chair uh to councelor Taline. Um some of the risks do include additional operating costs as our assets continue to age. Um they could break down there. There could be additional maintenance costs down the road. Um the other piece to that is um you know just just the cap staff capacity as well to complete capital projects. The more you defer capital projects the more they build up over time. Uh at some point um you know there is a huge backlog that needs to be addressed and you know with existing staff resources they may not be able to accommodate all of that. And then there's the inflation piece as well. So every year we defer a capital project as we know um inflation is a huge impact on capital programs. Uh you know cost of ashvault cost of um you know mobilization bringing um crews on on site to to do some works. Um again we we do try to manage that as best we can through uh capital budgets but you know they are risks and and and and legislative changes. We don't know if we start deferring uh several capital projects and legislation changes and requires a lot of other um requirements on our capital projects then we have to adhere to those regulations and and laws at the time that we do the capital project. So again we don't know it's uh it's there are some risks to defer them. >> Um okay followup. Um so with scenario one and I I don't want to get too far ahead of my council colleagues. I know everybody else has things to say. Um but if it allows us to address our capital needs now like you just saying and keeping our reserves healthy. Okay. And how would we balance those capital needs with other budget pressures like salaries, utilities, inflation in budgets moving forward like in 2027? >> Pardon me. Did you ask how do we balance both of those? >> Yeah, maybe I don't know if that's like an inappropriate question or if it's a little too big of a question. Um but uh >> well I think those are operating council Tyler Morren versus capital. This is strictly capital. >> Got it. Okay. We'll leave that at this point. Thank you so much. >> Is that correct, Miss Mattham? I didn't want to over >> That is correct. >> Okay, >> that is correct, Missing. Just was looking at an overall picture, but we'll focus on the capital for now. Thank you. >> Okay, councelor Crawford, you are next. Oops, there we go. I need a mouse, not this glide pad. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, how important is it for us to approve this in this council >> through the chair to councelor Crawford? This will set the budget direction for 2027. Um right now uh we've presented an FSP receive partial approval for certain components of it. Um if we do not approve uh this today, I I guess we would have to re it back to our old FSP which is a 90% spending cap um until such time that um council makes a a decision. Now my understanding is that some pieces were approved. So I think we would need to revert back to the original FSP. Um, and I'm not sure from a motion perspective what that may look like. Um, but um that that would be um what would happen though is that with with even a 90% uh spending cap, we have been deferring some of our capital projects uh over the last number of years and we are not addressing all of our asset management needs. So again, I think it would uh just put us in a similar situation as we have been. Um but again, there are options to debt fund the difference or um continue deferring as we have been. >> So I thought I read somewhere in this um in this report that you actually recommend you said staff recommended scenario one or would be fine with scenario one. Is that correct? >> Yes. through the chair to councelor Crawford, uh through some consultation with Hamson, who helped us um get to the the the final uh report that we did present to council back in May, we looked at the lowest cost option for the town and for taxpayers. Um also looking at our our debt limits. Uh we we did increase those debt limits from a 7 and a half% to 15% already. um and trying to be mindful of of the carrying cost of debt as well. Um yes, there is an understanding that higher reserve balances do um have the potential to attract more investment revenue. At the same time, there is those cost of of uh debentures that we do need to balance. Um we felt option one was was you know the the most um prudent. Uh but again and that's why we would that's why we presented that back in May. >> So how did we go from the infrastructure levy that we initially had put in place was to be uh it was supposed to be 3 years uh 2% and then drop in 2027 to 1%. It dropped last year to 1% and then now we're proposing that it goes for seven years. So through the chair we did not um speak of an end date. Um going back to what was recommended back in 2019 2020 uh at that time we knew our reserves uh were in were were declining quite rapidly. So we brought forward a recommendation for the 2% uh infrastructure levy at that time. In that um same report I believe we also spoke to the fact that there would be a further update pending the completion of the asset management plan which we actually did uh in uh 2425 um and and that further updates would come after the completion of that of of that plan in back in 2019. we did not know what service levels um you know that the council wanted to approve. Um so we couldn't make an assumption of an infrastructure levy beyond uh 2% or at that time even dropping to 1%. We knew we needed to fund our asset management plan over time. We knew we weren't, you know, we were feeling the pressures um without having the data to back it up. Now that we do have the data to back up our needs not only over the next 10 years but over the next 50 years, we know that we need to grow our our reserve balances and we know we need to address our asset management needs um that are before us right now. So that's why we came forward with uh a 2% infrastructure levy. Um we also are looking at um providing an update to council every 5 years because as you know our investment revenue has been very positive on our reserves. We built a 5% uh the use of 5% of our investment revenue in our FSP to recognize the fact that we don't want to just um increase the the tax um the infrastructure levy even more than the 2% and and we would come back to council um to provide an update on the reserve balances at that time and and take a look at how we can move forward in about five years. if you if you could just um give me a couple of minutes here. So the the 3.7% is on the capital, correct? >> Uh in scenario one 3.7 is the the needs for capital >> through the chair. It's it's the operating and capital budget needs uh combined. So includes the cost of growth as well on our operating budget. So 3.7 is both operating and capital. >> Yes, it is without the inflation. So I do have to put that big caveat. So it's the cost of it's a 2% infrastructure levy plus the cost of growth um of of of new growth coming on board of uh the cost of carrying the debt that is identified. That is the incremental cost on average over the next uh five years. I believe that's the one for five years. Yeah. >> So, okay. So, you're saying the 2% levy, the infra the the operating and the capital is included in the 3.7% in scenario one. >> Is that the chair? Yes, it is. >> Yes. >> Nothing more. >> Okay. Thank you. No. No. Go. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Without inflation. >> Without inflation, of course. But but that is that is what you're suggesting. The tax would be increased as including the 2% levy. >> Again, this is a this is a an average over five years. And again, these are based on assumptions that are made in a model. Every year budget will be different based on the actual projects that get uh proposed, the timing of projects, the growth that occurs. We've made a lot of assumptions in here to to uh to to spread that that growth over a number of years based on our anticipated building permits and our anticipated uh planning data that we have. But again, every year we'll need to take a look on a on a year-by-year basis and determine what that tax increase could look like. It could fluctuate up and down um on any given year. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, councelor. Oh, councelor Bower, did you mean to drop off? >> Nope. There you are. Okay, councelor Bower. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor Collier. Um, yes, I think I will I do have some questions, but I think I'd like to wait and hear hear yours as well before to see if I uh would like to continue asking. But basically, maybe I will just ask this one or two. Um, so I do like what uh regional counselor Crawford just said about, you know, the urgency of making a decision today versus the next term of council. Just as a comment, but also um I think what we're being asked to decide here is what is the safer risk? the lower amount of reserves uh with higher investment income potential and no debt or higher reserves and investment and lower invest or higher investment income but higher debt. Is that basically what we're trying to decide between scenario one and three today? And I'm sorry if that sounds so simple but I'm I I would like to understand this for my own clarity. Almost just one thing just one sec Julie one thing you said council bar in the first po one you said higher higher um reserves it's actually lower reserves >> right I meant to say lower >> yeah but yeah that is that is a pretty simplified way of saying it >> okay and so I find it funny that for the you know at least as long as I've been on council and I'm sure proceeding councils we've always been very cautious about how we handle funds, how we have money, how we set caps, but then this is a kind of a new scenario where we're now considering removing all caps and just taking on a lot of debt. So that's a huge change and I think that um you know it does require all of this discussion and thought that's just a comment. And then my other question which also may not really be relevant but we talk a lot in the report about the $260 million asset management plan total and over 10 years is 26 million a year as part of building that allocation but our cap is 70% or 23.5. So would we want to consider is it worthwhile considering whatever that percentage would be so that the dollar value would be 26 million because then do they not offset each other? >> I think that would be that would be the 90 right >> through the chair. I mean if if if you are considering changing the spending cap um so that they're equal, why not just go with with option one? And the reason I'm saying that is option one, yes, we'll dip into reserves. And as as you can see in the graph that was presented, we do we do go into reserves in the early years, but we still grow our reserve balances uh out out uh in the end and we are dealing with all the asset management needs that need to be addressed and you know as as uh council has approved uh back when they approved the c the asset management plan. Um to your other question on um sorry there was another one you had uh stated on reserve balances. Um sorry I'm I'm drawing a blank here. Um, >> I talked about which was what is the safer risk like between the scenarios and then I talked about >> we don't have a crystal ball so we can't >> No, I know historical numbers. We can't >> Yeah, we're now we're now trying to decide what's the safer risk, right? We're betting on one or the other. That's I'm just mostly speaking out loud here. But the 26 million versus 23.5 as a cap the equivalent percentage what does that does that make a difference? Sorry to to partially answer that question. Um the difference between the 26 million and uh adopting a 70% spending cap uh would mean that for the funding of capital projects in the first four to five years, we're looking at like reduced funding of about 5 to six million uh on average per year. So if you're looking at comparing the the difference between scenario one and then two and three um that that is a reduced amount of funding that we can apply to to capital projects um and uh causing either increased debt or um you know deferring of of those projects. So, and in scenario one, director mapping, when you talk about um the reserve balance remains above two years of average capital spending forecasted in the town's AM, so approximately 52 million. That means that the reserve balance would never dip below 52 >> through the chair. Yes, that is the goal of the plan is that the we would ensure that the the reserves are the target balance for those reserves would not go between twice um what the needs are on an average year. Yes, >> that is how the policy is built. >> Miss Mam, to be honest, we don't know what costs are going to be when costs come in higher than they have been, which is historically what's happened. Absolutely. We can go below that 50 million. through the it's it's >> without a cap. Absolutely you can. But with having a cap requires staff to come back to council for that approval. Without the cap, it can just be done. That's a more wholesome answer to the question. I think >> to the mayor, I I I think the way they were written was a was a a guideline or you're right. I don't think it's a cap. It's a it's a guideline and we would have to to fill them if we needed to or come back to council. >> Um, okay. So, uh, thank you for, uh, those are some questions for now and I'd love to hear, uh, the other comments. Thank you very much. >> It's funny, Councelor Bower, you open with I want to hear everything else first, but you used your full-time plus. Just teasing you. Um, I want to go back because and respectfully, Miss Mattham, through the staff report and through your answers, you've very thoroughly pushed scenario one as the recommended staff supported option. However, um, I don't think that the scenario three, scenario two is off the table. As far as I'm concerned, it's not an option. Nobody, nothing's getting cheaper as I've said and and we don't want to let assets fail or get any closer to failing as you said correctly to councelor Tyler Moore in answer to his question. So I'm not even thinking about option two, but um I think option three is missing some important pieces that I want to vet a little more thoroughly. And one of them is option three, sorry if I said two, I meant option three. Option three is very dependent on the growth of the reserves to make it worthwhile. You need to maintain that delta between what we earn on the investments on the reserves by keeping them in the reserves versus what we're going to pay for debenture debt because money is very cheap right now. You know, in five years, in 10 years, if we sign significant interest rates, this this won't work anymore and we'll have to pivot and amend the FSB again. Um that'll be the council of the day's job, but for now um this is kind of to answer councelor Crawford's questions. We've had significant changes and lots of revenues pointed out like Alexon and and our slots revenues decreasing as well as increased costs. That's why it's timely. We need to be making these decisions now. Time is money. sitting on the sidelines for another six months to a year and losing 10% growth on a couple hundred million dollar portfolio is significant money. You don't leave that on the table. So factoring in the growth on the reserves by by not spending them by keeping the cap at 70% and borrowing in in exchange which we've already done for our depreciating assets being vehicles. How does that factor in? Because yes, we're going to have $30 million of carrying charges over the next 9 years, but you know, if we have an extra 150 million in reserves, that kind of offsets that. Would you agree? And do you have those numbers? >> Yes. To the mayor. So, uh, we took a look at the ending reserve balances. So, I'll just compare scenario one and three then, um, to answer your questions. Um the by by debenturing some of these projects, we do end up with $246 million in reserve compared to the 175 under scenario one. So that's an additional $71 million in in the ending balances of those reserves. Um however, you did mention carrying costs. So those carrying costs um the 30 million that's actually out beyond um tw beyond the 10 years. So that's all the way over to 201 for all of our assets that we >> What would it be for the 10 years then to compare apples to apples? If it's not 30 million 15, >> it would be lower. I I don't have that number with me at this time, but it would be it would be lower. So So there is an additional $71 million in reserve. There would be additional carrying costs, say anywhere between 15 10 to 15 million over the the next 10 years, say. Um, but the the one thing to keep in mind is our council approved uh debt limits. >> I'm I'm getting to that. I'm getting to that. So, let let's just get this one out of the way first. So, what is not in the chart and was not in the report is the extra 55ish million that there will be in the in the reserves using scenario three versus scenario one. I don't think we're arguing about that, right? That's just math. No, and you're right. It's not in the report, but it is factored into the calculations. >> Okay. So, and that's is that assuming because right now the money in the reserves that's scheduled for um more recent in the next 5year capital projects that would be in high interest savings accounts making four four and a half%. That would now move to equity if we're going to debenture those projects instead. Is your numbers looking at the 261 million or whatever it was you said in the reserves using the current investment vehicle or is that factoring in if those monies were moved to the equities >> through the chair or to the chair? Um it it factors in that they are in equities but earning an average about 5%. Again, we we we did apply a conservative approach because we again can't guarantee that we will achieve the same levels of income uh that that we have experienced over the past uh couple years. Uh so we did but they are invested in equities and and it's not the full 240 it would be a portion of that pro roughly half I would say. >> Okay. So that's that's important as well and I I hadn't thought of that. So, if you're using a very um conservative 5%, the beauty of this is, you know, the delta, there has to be a delta between the boring cost and the and the rate that you're getting on your on your investment. You know, that's what makes this work. If if you're boring at 5% and and earning 5%, you're still ahead, but not not enough to me to make any difference. I would say choose scenario one if that's the case, right? That that's that's simple. But we've averaged in our investment policy what 16 to 19%. Over the last 3 years. >> Yes, we have. >> Okay. So, so even if you you split the baby and you use 12, that that would be well in excess of the $240 million at the end. So, it's not a $55 million difference scenario three to scenario one. It's probably, I'm guessing conservatively, more of a hundred million difference once you factor everything in with what the reserve is going to grow to versus the carrying costs. And I'm not talking about the um the 1% tax increase at this point to make up the difference. Okay? I'm just talking about the growth just to make sure everybody fully understands. Is that accurate statement? I don't want to quote numbers but there would be additional growth if if we reach those levels. Uh again it's not guaranteed. >> Absolutely correct. Absolutely correct but two of the other recommendations or two of the other directions this council gave in May was to establish two new res well one new reserve. So anything over 75 of assessment growth is going to go into the reserve you mentioned earlier. Okay, I see us on the cusp of some pretty significant assessment growth in the next three years hopefully with the work we've already done in approving different projects once markets change a little bit. Um but the growth our investment portfolio growth establishing that separate reserve is there anything stopping future councils from using that money to pay the carrying costs. I know it's I know it's um you don't want to touch reserves unless unless it's if it's ongoing but in this case it would be ongoing. through the chair. I would caution against that just because carrying costs have to be built into your budgets on an annual basis. Um so if we if we draw from reserves, we almost have to rep replenish that amount uh each year, which basically defeats the purpose of um of that of of that use of reserve. and we may as well include it as part of our operating budget base and um and have it funded on an annual basis and just leave that reserve for those times where we do experience reductions in in investment revenue >> which I understand but my question was is there anything stopping us from doing that if that's something the council wanted to do so if we understand right now um the the financial environment everybody's struggling it's difficult so If for the next couple of years while this program gets gets started, we didn't want to have that 1% difference between scenario one and scenario 3, that could be funded separately. That doesn't have to necessarily be a tax base hit. There's nothing stopping future councils from doing that. You're just saying it's not the best practice, but there's nothing stopping council from doing that if we have a few good years and there's lots of money in that account. >> To the chair, I think on a very short-term temporary basis, one year, two maybe, but again, the more you delay the the replenishment of that, it does it does have an impact on the tax rate. So that there has to be an understanding that if that does occur where we're taking from reserves to pay for ongoing costs, it will catch up to us at some point. >> Okay. So, where I'm going with this is, and I might as well cut to the chase, the 2% asset levy that we initiated four years ago was necessary. absolutely necessary and is still necessary moving forward. However, if we can get these investments and get this growth and get those reserves built up, even if it's a very sort of minor half or 1% to the taxpayer to make it happen, that 2% might be able to stop in a few years once we get the reserves back up into a healthy position where they need to be is kind of where I'm going with this. So, we could make a short-term decision today in my mind and yeah, keep the keep the the half percent or 1% carrying cost off the table and still get everything done, but 4 foot future growth, which could be significant over 100 million. I think that's conservative or and never have a chance to stop the 2% asset levy or get our reserves growing for us. Stop lpping off massive tens of million dollar chunks that are going to make zero for us going forward. Get that money working for us and hopefully the light at the end of the tunnel I think will be more benefit to taxpayers. That's sort of where I'm seeing this going down the road. As a taxpayer, there's a question in there somewhere. Does that sound like a like a doable scenario? >> If I may comment, uh, it is it is a ser a doable scenario there. It does come with risk. Um, I will say that, you know, >> investing in equities as we've we've established is unpredictable. We are hoping for the best, but you know, we don't know. We we we've been we've been fortunate. Um, when we lock into a 20-year debenture, we are locked into a 20 year debenture at the rate at which we lock in. So, it, you know, as you know, respectfully, when you speak to um making sure that your returns offset your your cost of carrying debt. That may be true up front. We don't know if that will be if that will last the length of the debenture. Um that is a risk that uh we have to be aware of should we go down that road is that you know we we make we there is no certainty that we will meet that at that point. >> I agree everything has risk VIC's have risk you know liquidity and inflation rate risk. Not earning enough money on your rate of return to keep up with inflation is a risk that we do every day and we've been doing it for decades. And it hasn't been until this council pushed for our investment policy. If we didn't do that, you know, respectfully, we would still be not keeping up with inflation with the rate of return using high interest savings accounts. So everything has risk. I absolutely acknowledge that. It's it's trying to I always said as as a financial adviser, you know, which one is the bigger pile of money because that that's the importance, right? It's everything has its pluses and minuses. Guaranteed though, scenario one, we're paying that 2% infrastructure levy forever pretty much. And and it's it might be a little safer and and you know, status quo, but I don't see it getting as where we need to be as a as a municipality versus scenario three. I think gives more options a better rate of return. Even though that's why I insisted on the reserve to make sure we have that money for the rainy days when the reserves aren't as good as they have been so we don't have to go back to the taxpayer. I want to make sure that that that safety valve is in there. But over the long term, I mean, if we can make $100 million worth of difference, that's that's a gamble I'm willing to take. personally. So, I guess I don't have any more questions. That's just my closing, I guess, when when we come to recommendations for the uh for the resolution. Councelor Crawford, you want back in? Just one sec. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Thanks for letting me back in. So, I'm still uh I'm still lock Sorry, I'm still locked on the two the 3.7%. Um you said that didn't include uh inflation. So in the operating budget inflation is what is affected the most. Correct? >> Through the chair uh to uh regional counselor Crawford. Um it inflation is a a significant impact in the operating budget but and and also um this does not include any other service level changes or anything that um you know has council may wish to bring about um over and above what was included in the 2026 budget. >> So it like even conservatively if if inflation was like 1.65 65 or 1.5% then you're you go from 3.7 to five almost right away. Correct? >> Just and again. Okay. All right. I just wanted to I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh thank you, Miss Mamm. I don't see any other Oh, councelor Henry, please go ahead. Council Henry, I don't think your camera is on. Councelor Henry, can you hear me? I guess to the clerk, did you confirm councelor Henry's mic is working? >> Three, Mr. Chair. No, Councelor Henry did not join prior to the meeting today. >> Okay. Um, we'll give it a minute. >> Oh. All right. Let me let her back in. Councelor Henry, try again. Are you there? >> Can you hear me? >> We can hear you now. >> Okay. I apologize. There's a problem with my mic and with my camera today and I don't know why. I do apologize, but you can hear me. >> We can hear you. Go ahead. >> All right. Thank you. So with regards to um director um you are recommending um choice one correct that's what we got out of all this >> yes through the chair yes that is correct >> okay and um how does this affect what was passed back in December at the budget meeting with the infrastructure levy going from 2% down to 1% % >> it doesn't. >> So through the chair to councelor Henry um the council's decision to reduce the infrastructure levy from 2 to 1% back in December um was was their decision. Uh going forward there is still a 2% infrastructure levy annually that is being recommended uh to deal with asset management needs over the long term. So that was a breather for for for a year period and it's going back in what year? 27 was it? 28 >> the chair 27. It's being recommended um every year um for the foreseeable future. So, if we were to pause on some major projects, would that help with what we're looking at today with um with the uh what is it FSP? Would that help? And what major projects could be affected >> through the chair? We would have to take a look at all the projects that are being recommended in 2027 and determine at that point um what what the impacts would be. I mean, it a one-year pause won't erase the need to to to raise that funding from the tax levy or raise that revenue. Um, it is an ongoing need. We when we presented our FS our asset management plan back in uh May of 2025 um we identified that the the the long-term needs for asset map management was way beyond um you know the the even $26 million I think it was up over the $50 million of annual contribution. Now, that's a that's a very long-term um outlook, but we do need to start working towards making sure that all of our assets are taken care of. So, the ones we we have and owned today need to be managed and maintained. So, we do need to make sure we do um grow our reserves um invest uh you know continue the investment into uh asset management. And the the budget for 27 is due when by February. The strong mayor budget's due by February 1st. Is it >> through the chair? Yes. Through legislation. Um it is uh due by in February and we we will communicate deadlines and and dates after the election. So, if if this financial plan was not passed today, no decision was made today, it was deferred to the new council, you'd have to have a decision made prior to the budget of February 1st for a strong mayor budget. What happens after February 1st if the budget's not passed? >> Uh through the chair, I could defer that to the clerk um to answer that. >> Thanks, director. uh to you, Councelor Henry. Uh if a budget is not presented by uh the mayor prior to February 1st of 2027, then it reverts back to prior to strongware powers where staff can prepare and present a budget to council following the February date. >> So it it by all accounts becomes a non-strong mayor budget. Is that correct, Madame Clerk? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Correct. It would be presented by staff at that point. Okay. Well, that answers a lot of questions then. So, there is there is a chance to defer this. Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Henry. I just will point out this came to council in May. Um, it would have passed then had it not been for the direction from this council to analyze the 70% potential cap and report back at this meeting. So, the majority of the FSP was already approved back in May. This is just this one piece. That's all we're dealing with today. I gave some latitude on talking about the budget process and whatever, but that's all we're dealing with today. But I will say for everybody's benefit, the last three strong mayor's budgets, I've gone through and hacked a lot of capital projects out either absolutely off or bump them out, which we know two things. Nothing gets cheaper and that affects the percentage of the quality. And one thing that we're looking at today is making sure that we maintain that 70 7 sorry 13% in the poor or what what is it called director metham the the >> poor or very poor >> too poor or very poor we don't want to and scenario two let that go to 17%. We want to maintain the 13%. Absolutely. It gets much more expensive if you let that 13% go higher, which is the risk of deferring. So, just want to point that out. You want to come back in, councelor Henry? >> Yes. Yes. Thank you. Um, I I understand what you're saying. Um but I also understand uh that residents have made it very clear that uh the taxes they feel they're too high and they're looking for uh reprieve and I'm I'm not seeing a solution here that's showing that. And when we're talking about the levy going back up to 2% no matter what and we're looking at the future budget coming up, what you know is there is there no capital projects to complete? I'm not saying stop, but put on hold. What does that look like? >> That's up to the next mayor and council, >> which is my point. Shouldn't the next mayor and council be looking at this? That's exactly my point. >> What I said was all we're really looking at today is do we have a 70% cap or not. That's that's all we're talking about today. And that doesn't make any difference to what the next mayor and council does in February. >> Well, >> go ahead. >> Yeah. through the chair if I may. Um staff uh have have worked you know a long time on bringing this uh FSP forward to council. Um we would really appreciate um you know your consideration in a direction or or the other. the no spending cap scenario um you know provides this the safer option and and for all the reasons um the mayor uh spoke the scenario three is is you know does contain some risk um but is also another option. What staff would recommend is um we would move forward with preparing the budget under one of these two scenarios and it will be up to the new council at that time of uh the budget review to make the the the recommended uh changes should any be needed um or to proceed under one of these two scenarios. Um, so if if that that helps any, um, you know, I'm I'm hoping that answers some of your your questions um, with respect to how to move forward from here. >> I I understand what you're saying with with the basically two's off the table. You want one, the mayor wants three. I I I'm getting all that. Um, and you want an answer today because you want to be able to go with the strong major mayor budget before February. I'm getting all that. I'm just not sure that's what the residents want right now and that's that's who I have to report to. >> So through the chair, if I may, >> um council's >> decision does not a strong mayor budget can still be presented um under any policy that is adopted. So that will not change um the requirement for a mayor to present a budget before uh February 1st. Um it really just um identifies what process staff will utilize to bring this budget to the mayor. But if something's not passed today and it's deferred and it takes time to do before February 1st, it could interfere with a strong mayor budget. Correct. >> No, I believe that the cap would still be whatever it was, right? 90. It just stays >> go back and revert back to what it was at the 90. >> It hasn't changed yet, Councelor Henry. it still is what it is. So, this is this was the new FSP, the revised FSP because it hasn't been updated in about 10 years substantially, right? >> Um I don't remember it brought in what 2007 it started >> 2013 through the chair >> 2013. Okay. So, it hasn't been hasn't been really substantially overhauled in over a decade. So, this was what we were doing this year. This was the process that we we set out to do this year, Councelor Henry. And like I said in May, I brought forward three amendments. Council supported them and one of them was to look into what a 70% cap looks like, which is what we have here today. The motion is printed in the agenda, I believe, received for information, but as director MEP said, staff is looking for direction from council on whether we do status quo, whether we do the 70 or something else. So if we do nothing today, if we say we don't want either one today, it reverts back to the previous policy. >> It doesn't revert back. It just stays. >> Just stays as is by passing today is uh received for information or there has to be an amendment on this. >> I will be bringing an amendment. >> Got it. I haven't spoken to this yet really outside of well I have briefly with my questions but yeah there will be at least one amendment or one recommendation and it's up to council whether they want to support it or not or bring something else. >> Okay, those are my questions. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you Director M. I think we've had everybody. Let me go back to the agenda here. Okay. So, we have the resolution. Oh, that's the wrong one. Sorry, that's the alcohol policy there. And I'll read it first. So, 3.2 to FIN 202615 2026 financial sustainability plan update amendment review that staff be directed to proceed with the recommended approach in the financial sustainability plan as it relates to the emission of spending caps requiring no further changes to financial sustainability plan policies. That is what I have on the resolution. That is not the recommendation I'm going to bring forward. I'm going to bring forward I'm going to move and I'll be asking for a seconder that staff be directed to proceed with the scenario three which is the 70% spending cap and if I get a seconder to get it on the floor I will councelor Lee are you seconding that oh sorry wrong screen >> sir >> were you seconding that >> second y >> thank you okay I'm just going to speak to it briefly because I've made a lot of my comments. Um and and director MEP when you just spoke you said scenario one is this and scenario two has some risks but and I didn't jump in then but I will say now so does scenario one. Um every option has risks and and that is all part of of the financial planning and and forecasting process. You have to pick calculated risks and you have to look at all the options which I think we've done and you know I think director Mep and I have maybe a different point of view on on how we look at these things. I will absolutely agree and anybody that knows me I'm not not aggressive when it comes to to financial things and and it's worked out not every time but but we have to what you say in the financial industry is is historical reserves historical returns aren't a guarantee of future performance and that works always and I I said before you know if interest rates go back up to 78% % this isn't going to work anymore either way. Scenario one or scenario three, we're going to have to well, not me, but the future council is going to have to come back to the table and and redo this again. You know, the the dividends could turn back on for a lexicon 5 years from now. I doubt it. I think it's going to be longer than that, but they could. Um things could change. We could get a lot of grant money as councelor Lee talked to and maybe we'll talk to again um which which isn't factored into this right now I don't believe um inflation we don't know what inflation is which isn't factored into this that's a significant risk right but it's only really a significant risk when your money is making 3% and inflation is higher than what your money is making because your money is losing buying power and that's what I'm trying to avoid. as a taxpayer. I won't be the mayor next year, but you know, this is important. And and some some members of the public think I'm not a taxpayer. Trust me, I pay my fair share. Plus, I want to make sure that I leave things in a state where it is secure and and gives some stability going forward. And that's what I believe scenario 3 does. Um I talked about and this is the biggest piece of my argument is growing the reserves. And you all know that that's exactly what I've been trying to do for the last three years is grow the reserves. And it's worked. You know, we had to pivot and adjust a loss of a lexicon, a loss of a lot of our slots revenues. Our slots revenues could end. the province could make a decision or the operator could make a decision tomorrow to close Ajax Downs and those that could end. It could happen, right? It's declining. Um, we need to be thinking about these things and we've already done a good job and I thank council for their support in the debenturing policy where we're taking, you know, taking a million half dollars and I always go back to the firetruck because it's an easy one and it's a big ticket item. taking a million and a half dollars out of capital reserves to buy a depreciating asset at the end of a 15-year lifespan that's worth very little and losing the growth on that money for 15 years is a is a real novice mistake. That's the kind of mistake people make that don't use a financial advisor that that try and follow market trends and don't plan properly. you you always are going to end up with less money and and that's what I'm trying to avoid just to simplify it down as much as I can to taking less money out of the reserves. That's what scenario 3 does. It takes less money out of reserves and it leaves that money in there to grow. The director has spoken about a very conservative 5% rate of return and that is extremely conservative. We we have GIC's that can pay you that right now. But look at where mortgages are going. You know that that's not going to be like that the whole time. But right now, if we can borrow money cheaply and have our investment policy continue, it's a $100 million difference we're making today between scenario one and scenario three. And I'll gladly invite everybody to call me out on that if I'm wrong because I'm pretty confident in this. And you know, I'm I'm wrong sometimes, but I'm pretty sure I'm not on this. Even with a couple of down years in the markets, that's why we're putting that reserve in place to sort of park some of the growth that we have today. I think it's everything over whatever it is 5% into that reserve. So, if we have a couple of lean years, we don't have to go back, well, not me. Future council doesn't have to go back to the taxpayer. But the pot of gold at the end, which is our reserves, is going to be significantly higher. You can look at the chart, but the chart isn't showing entirely what what the amount is. It is quite a bit more than that when you factor in everything. So, that is the recommendation or that is the resolution before you. Uh, thank you, Council Lee, for seconding. Um, I'm not going to push really hard on this because I'm not here next year and this is next council's sort of decision that they're going to have to live with. I think probably four of you are going to have to live by your decision today and and the consequences. I'm trying to leave a much bigger pile of gold at the end than is there today. Um, believe it or not, but that that is the whole intent of this. There's nothing else but that. And I'm very very confident that any risk that there is is pretty minor and minimum and probably about equal to the other scenario one in different ways. I'll close with just the 2% asset levy. I look at this also as scenario one that 2% asset levy continues indefinitely. You have no choice. that money needs to come from somewhere. It's not coming from other sources. You have no choice but to do that 2% levy versus the other. There's a very real opportunity that in 5 years or maybe sooner depending on markets that levy will not be needed anymore because you will have grown the reserves back up to where they need to be. So I will leave it there and turn the floor over to councelor Lee and ask for your support. Councelor Lee. Um, thank you, chair. I don't want to belabor the point. Um, I agree with a lot of what you're saying in terms of this is very much a long-term plan. I think, you know, nobody expected, um, casino Ajax revenues to drop off that significantly. No one expected our ELCON dividends to drop off completely. Um, that we need a plan C, if you will. And I think this is actually a really prudent plan C that utilizes what the town has at its disposal, which is its reserves. um to invest. So um you know I especially support it because it's not we're not locked into this. This isn't necessarily you know um carved in stone where we have we can't you know future councils can't pivot as needed based on uh unforeseen circumstances but I think right now it's to um it's smart to continue this course of action. So um yeah happy to second and fully support. Thank you chair. >> Thank you. I'm not seeing anyone else in the speakers box. So, yeah, don't see any. Could we call the vote, please? >> And that carries. Okay. >> Three, Mr. Chair. Uh Rob Tyler. >> Oh, I think he's trying to >> councelor Rob Tyler did not vote, which would count in the negative, which resulted in a tie, which would also create the motion as a failed. >> Oh, okay. Um, do we want to vote again? Did he have a an issue? Hold on. Let me pull this up. Councelor Tyler Warren, why did you not vote? >> Thank you for Okay, so I'm here ready at the vote. So, it wasn't explained the voting meaning if we vote yes, we're voting for one. If we vote no, we're voting for three. Was that >> No, the motion that I put on the floor was for council to approve scenario three. >> Got it. Okay. It wasn't on the overall motion. Okay. That's where >> Well, that that is the overall motion. >> Okay. >> I I can look back at the recommendation. One second. Uh to the clerk, can you assist me here or what am I missing? >> Yes. So through you, Mr. Chair, uh to councelor Tyler Mour, uh the only motion that has been placed on the floor for this item is the one that the mayor put forward for the support of scenario three. >> Go. >> So there's no overall motion as you're referring to. >> Okay. So yeah, I'm fine with with the way the vote is sitting. But now are we voting on >> So I'll do I'll do the vote again just to just so everybody has the opportunity to vote and rather than just a no vote. >> Is that okay? Hopefully I'm not confusing things. I just was okay. Okay, I understand where we're at now. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. Allow me to uh share the vote on the screen for you and then one moment here. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any other questions in the meantime? No. Okay. Okay, is that clearly with everyone? Okay, please open the vote. Okay. So, that fails in a tie. Does anyone else have any motions they wish to bring forward? Councelor Lee, >> I mean, the guy who said he didn't want to labor, like, couldn't we in theory do a motion for 71% 7? He's like, I I could keep going. know like isn't there I'm looking to cl the clerk's not >> you could Mr. lady. Yes. [laughter] >> Okay. Um I'm going to just try one more at I don't know 75%. Looking for a second here. >> I'll No, I'm not going to say >> it's okay. Well, you know, it's my birthday, you know. Let's let's let's just forget it. Um so, um let me reset then. I'll just move the recommendation to receive information. >> Okay. Is there a second? That's going to lose for lack of a seconder. Councelor Bower, are you seconding? >> Sorry. >> Councelor Bower, are you seconding? >> Yes, I can second. Mayor Cer, we have to do something today. >> Yeah, we have a received information. Uh, councelor Crawford on the motion on the floor. >> But isn't staff looking for direction? >> This is direction. >> Well, can't I make a motion then to go with scenario one? Well, that is that's status quo. So >> So that's stat that's actually sorry to be clear status quo is 90% and >> that's not what I want. >> Right. Okay. So the motion on the floor which is duly moved and seconded is to receive information. So we need to vote that down first before um then your motion would be in order. >> Yeah. Okay. So on the motion to receive those in favor. Okay. That fails. And now, councelor Crawford, you want to bring a motion for essentially scenario one, which is remove all spending caps. And that's it. >> Yes. >> Okay. Councelor Tyler Moore, are you seconding? >> Yes. >> Okay. If somebody wants a second, hit the hand so it's I'll see yellow. I know it's a second. Then I don't have to go to each person. So, okay. Anybody wish to speak to uh scenario one, the motion on the floor? Councelor Lee. >> Um I'm just more just a clarification. If this somehow loses two, then um what happens is like uh what happens then? Uh because we've now >> Let's see. We'll we'll deal with that if we need to. I don't think it's going to. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm going to do a principal vote. I'll just speak to it quickly on this because I I I don't support it. I think it it there's a lot of options for council to come back and make changes if they need to in the future. Um, I feel very strongly having been here when the FSP was originally brought forward. Um, that it's been a great idea and a great tool and it's worked really well for the town and there's a lot of checks and balances and safeguards in there and the spending cap is one of them. I never really supported going to the 90%. Um, but that was mostly because I was really kind of in charge of the budget then. So, I could not go to the 90% if we didn't want to and and I don't think we did, but um yeah, I so I will be voting no on this, but um I don't believe it's really here nor there. It will pass. Please open the vote. Not seeing anybody else in the speakers list. Okay, that carries. Moving on to our next item. And our last item. Where is it? uh bylaw 85-2026 short-term rental maximum occupancy bylaw. This is brought I brought this forward as direction uh as the mayor's direction. So requires u one-third and I'm just going to I have some notes here that I just want to just read to council so they kind of understand where my head was at. Um, when I directed staff for this, those of you who are in um, let me find this. Those of you who are in Ward 3 are probably pretty familiar with this specific um, location that has been an ongoing, but I'll I'll I'll get to that in a minute. So, to colleagues, I've asked staff to prepare these bylaws today to respond to an issue in our community relating to short-term rentals. Um, while most operators of Airbnb, VBO, and other short-term rentals aim to be good neighbors, we've received complaints this summer regarding a small number of rentals that have been highly disruptive to surrounding neighborhoods. In some cases, individuals have rented these properties for large events, inviting hundreds of guests, and creating excessive noise, traffic congestion, parking challenges, and other nuisance related impacts or nearby residents. I will point out um one in particular, two of these events were 7-day events. So, it's not one night, it's a week that the residents have been putting up with this. The bylaws before council consideration will provide our bylaw service staff with additional tools to enforce occupancy limits and ensure these rentals are being used for their intended purpose, provide a safe and quiet place to stay for a night or a few days while working in or visiting Ajax. And specifically, the short-term rental maximum occupancy bylaw establishes a maximum occupancy of two guests per bedroom plus two additional guests to an overall maximum of 12 guests per property. The proposed amendments to the administrative monetary penalty system, the AMP system bylaw, and the fees and charge bylaw established the penalties for non-compliance and allowed the town to recover costs associated with enforcement and inspection activities. These are immediate measures intended to address concerns being raised by residents today. Um, I've also asked staff to consider these updates as part of any future review of short-term rental regulations and compliance measures in Ajax. Um, I have heard loud and clear from members of our community they're tired of these disruptions in their neighborhoods. I'm sure many of you have as well. Residents deserve to enjoy their homes in peace, and these measures are intended to help restore that balance while continue to support responsible short-term rental operators, and I hope I can count on your support. I just want to point out to council under the current um policies or lack of policies because we don't currently have one. And I only found this out when I was getting, you know, police and fire and bylaw involved in this. I think two might have been three weekends in a row for the same property. Um, we need this. We need to give staff the tools. What it has, as it was explained to me, and um I think it's um Deputy Kimble is here if I'm wrong. In absence of a policy, when fire goes to a residential address, even if it's a short-term rental with 200 people, it might have been 300 people in the tent and another 100 people on the front lawn getting food out of a out of a truck. Um, they have to treat it as a normal residential property, which doesn't have any occupancy limits. When there's a massive tent erected in the entire backyard and it's a fire and safety hazard, there's no tools that they can use for this in a residential property because it's treated as a family home as a residential property. And every time that our staff has to attend um because there is nothing in our in our um fees bylaw for this, they can't charge any type of penalty through our AMP system for in this particular case, the one I'm referring to, constant chronic breaking of the laws for noise and occupancy and everything else. All he can get is a warning. There's not anything. They did lay a charge on them in one of them, but with this it allows the penalties as well by modifying that as well. So, um this is specific to one that pushed me to direct staff to prepare these today, but I think it applies to every ward in the town for sure and anything going forward. It just gives the tools that staff need that were identified to this Back to the speakers list. Councelor Lee, you are the next person. Please go ahead. >> Um, thank you, Chair. Um, so as someone who has brought this up since 2020 uh one, I believe is regional counselor D and I had brought up just regulating short-term rentals. Um I just think um you know as someone who lives in war I think it's important that we have these kind of uh precautions in place. My only question to the manager of bylaw services is if this somehow doesn't do what's intended is there another step we can now add on. Is there is there other bylaw um amendments we can make that other municipalities are using to regulate or to um soft regulate um short-term rentals? >> Mr. Campbell, please go ahead >> through the chair to council Lee. Um there are other tools that we can explore down the road if uh if this does not achieve the goals that we're looking to accomplish through this. Um we feel that this is an approach that really targets the root issue here um without adding additional regulations that are unnecessary or u unwarranted at this stage. >> Uh legal action uh related to these companies for recouping our costs. Um however, should this continue to be um you know an issue that perpetuates and uh as uh Mr. Campbell mentioned not able to address the the nuisance challenges we have. Um it's certainly something that staff would uh would explore at at that time that it was uh deemed necessary. >> So without actually creating like a motion for action, I just hope this is something Mr. Campbell, we can start kind of measuring in terms of just keeping track of the amount of hours uh required uh to uh deal with short-term rental nuisances because um I'm sure these costs are starting to add up and this is no fault of our own. Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of good Airbnb hosts that follow the rules and ensure that they are good neighbors, so to speak. And then there's other ones that aren't. And I just want to make sure that somebody is held accountable um and it's not just falling to the taxpayer. Thank you uh chair for the uh comments and question. >> You're welcome. Councelor Bowerer, you're next. >> Thank you, Mayor Collier, and thank you. I do know the property that you're talking about very well and I'm glad to see this come forward and I hope that this will do what it's intended to to do because I do think that's kind of crazy that there was nothing really enforcable for police or fire or bylaw etc other than to give warnings and ask them to quiet down. So I do have a question about the uh maximum occupancy. So maximum of 12 based on bedroom numbers plus two. So, let's This is not meant for me and my family decide to get an Airbnb and there's six of us all together, but then we decide to have some of our friends over and at one point there's, you know, 14 people of a eating. We're having a barbecue in the backyard. So, we're over the max. But but this really is only an enforcement tool or or can be the enforcement tool that if we were to get out of hand and someone complained, right? This is not spot-checking um who >> No, I I think you're you're absolutely hitting on what the spirit of this is. Like we >> it's funny when councelor Henry asked about are we going to review this? We still to my knowledge have a bylaw that that prohibits clothes lines. I don't know if that's ever been abolished, but that was a bylaw that we had for a long Please open the vote. I don't think I asked for a second, but I don't think I needed one because this is just a bylaw. Is that correct to the clerk? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. We do not need a secondary. Is there strong mayor? um bylaws. Correct. >> All right. Thank you. Um no, counselor dies isn't absent and that carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. So, let me go back to my agenda here. It's hard having a dozen screens open. Okay. Okay. bylaws. Okay. Let me go back to my here. Okay. I need to do the confirming bylaw. So, can I get a mover and a seconder for the confirming bylaw, please? Moved by councelor Bower, second by councelor Lee. The bylaw number 86-2026 being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the council of the corporation of the town of Ajax at a special meeting held on August 11, 2026 be approved. Please open the votes. and that carries. And finally, moved by councelor Lee, second by councelor Tyler Morren, that the August 11th meeting of the council of the town of Ajax be adjourned. Those in favor?