Sound check. One, two, three. Check. Check. Sound check. 1 2 3 Check. One, two, one, two, three. Bonjour. Good morning everyone. We're going to start in one minute. We'll start in one minute. Thank you. Merci. Good morning everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order. As we begin our meeting today and on behalf of Ottawa City Council, I wish to acknowledge that Ottawa is built on unseated Anesnab Alangquin territory. The peoples of the Anesnab Alangquin nation have lived on this territory for millennia. I'll ask now for a roll call, please. Councelor Lulov, >> good morning. >> Councelor Dudash, >> good morning. Canceler Curry >> here. >> Canceler Kelly. Cancer Kavanagh. >> I heard excuse me. I heard Kelly present. >> Councelor Johnson >> here. >> Cancer Tierney. >> Councelor King >> here. >> Councelor Chster >> here. >> Councelor Brochington >> here. >> Councelor Menard >> here. Councelor Brown >> here. >> Councelor Low >> present. >> Vice Chair Gower >> here. >> Vice Chair Kits >> here. >> Chair Leaper. >> You see? >> Mayor Sackliffe >> here. >> You have a quorum. Mr. Mayor, >> thank you. Are there any declarations of interest? Confirmation of minutes from April 10th. Are those carried? Okay. So, uh, we're going to go into the housing acceleration plan progress update. I'm going to draw your attention to the fact that there are two, uh, items under information previously distributed on the agenda. We can, uh, discuss those at the same time as we're discussing the main item here. So, any questions about that, about those two IPDs would be in order, and we'll we'll deal with that all as one uh, discussion if everyone's comfortable with that. Um, so I'm going to uh, turn it over to staff now for their presentation. Good morning, Mr. Mayor and members of the joint committee. I'm pleased to be here today to provide you an update on the implementation of the housing acceleration uh plan. Um this is primarily a progress update to inform you on um how we have kept track in terms of the commitments that were made when this plan was approved. Um we also have Bloomberg Associates um the philanthropic um arm of Bloombergs who is here and on the call and will be presenting with us today. They will be sharing their model and their assessment of the financial feasibility of housing developments within the Ottawa market. They're also available for questions as well. Um I am joined by Will McDonald and also by Christina Thompson who is going to be who are going to be um leading us through this presentation. So, in addition to the update this morning and the Bloomberg analysis, we also have one item for um recommendation to council for approval which relates to the tree protection bylaw. And with that, I'll turn it over to Will for the presentation. Thank you. >> Next slide, please. So, mayor, chair, members of the joint committee, as uh Debbie mentioned, we're here to provide an update on the implementation of the housing acceleration plan. In approving the acceleration plan, council directed that staff report back in Q2 2026 with an update on market conditions. As you recall in the October 2025 report, it included an overview of the residential market in Ottawa at that time. And this report provides an update to reflect current conditions, an update on the implementation of the plan's 58 actions, the development of a measurement framework to evaluate the extent to which the acceleration plan is achieving results over time, and the results of the development feasibility model created by Bloomberg Associates. An overview of the methodology being used by Bloomberg was provided in a memo to council in December 2025. This report provides the results of that analysis. Next slide, please. Only six months have passed since the October 2025 report was approved and a review of current market conditions indicates that affordability and supply challenges continue to persist. The Ottawa market did see an increase in housing starts in 2025 driven primarily by multi-unit and purpose-built rental activity. This increase could be considered more of a rebalancing activity following a significant decrease between 2022 and 2024. Although encouraging, CMHC is forecasting a national slowdown in housing starts through 2026 and 2028 and home prices and rents remain substantially above preandemic levels. Overall vacancy rates are approaching the 3% threshold of a balanced market. However, units with low rents have a vacancy rate under 1%, indicating that these units are not turning over and newly built rental units have a vacancy rate of 6.7%. Suggesting that the cost to develop new units requires rents to be set at levels that people cannot afford. The overall conclusion is a sustained effort is needed to support housing supply growth and housing affordability. Next slide, please. I will now pass it over to Christina Thompson to provide an update on the implementation. >> Since council approval, significant progress has been made. 53 actions. Five actions were added in response to motions, bringing the total action count in the plan to 58. Currently, 53% of actions in the plan have been completed, and we are on track to reach 78% complete by the end of 2026. The majority of actions completed to date have been improvements and efficiencies to existing city processes. There were also several changes to municipal fees and charges adopted in October with plan approval. Most are temporary measures that defer payment of fees to later in the development approvals process. The more significant work of comprehensive reviews of several fees and charges are among the final 22% of actions that will be coming back to committee and council in 2027. Next slide, please. A measurement framework has been developed to evaluate the results of the acceleration plan over time. Acceleration. This framework identifies the outcomes we want the plan as a whole to have. That is the collective impact of all 58 actions. The three outcomes presented in the measurement framework are housing approval timelines are reduced, housing construction is increased with emphasis in urban and transit oriented areas and the availability of affordable housing is increased. The framework included as document two of this report defines the indicators and measures that will be used to assess each of these outcomes. 2025 will be used for baseline data and comparative results from 2026 will be presented to committee and council with the next housing acceleration plan progress update. Next slide, please. The housing innovation task force was established in 2025 and includes representatives of Ottawa's development industry, including representation from the affordable housing sector and the federal government. The recommendations of the task force were a key input into the housing acceleration plan and as part of the plan's approval, council directed the continued engagement of this task force. Since then, the task force has met four times and continues to provide feedback and industry perspective on action implementation and the development of the feasibility model. Staff will continue to engage the task force throughout implementation of the plan. plan. Next slide, please. This report seeks approval to update the tree conservation guidelines in the tree conservation bylaw. If approved, this bylaw update will complete action three of the plan. Work completed to date includes simplifying the guidelines, introducing a checklist, and updating process guidance. There have been no additional requirements added or substantive changes to the requirements for tree conservation reports. The results of this action aimed to improve efficiency of tree reviews for development applications while maintaining protection and consideration of trees throughout the development review process. Next slide, please. We will now pass things over to Namon Freeman and Simon Metler from Bloomberg Associates. Non and Simon are joining us virtually today to provide an overview of the results and findings of the Ottawa specific development feasibility model. Thank you. >> Good morning all. Uh thank you uh counselors um and mayor and really happy to uh be here with you all this morning. Um, Simon and I are representing Bloomberg Associates. I'm going to give a quick background on Bloomberg Associates for for everyone's um, kind of awareness and and then we'll we'll jump into it. Um, so again, as Christina said, my name is Nathan Freeman and I lead Bloomberg Associates housing practice. Um, Bloomberg Associates is Mike Bloomberg's uh, is Mike Bloomberg's pro bono consulting practice. we are part of the larger Bloomberg Philanthropies. And so when Mike uh was mayor, three-term mayor of New York City, he saw how hard it was for mayors around the globe to kind of implement and improve the the lives of their citizens. And he wanted to help that. And so what we do is we work with mayors uh all across the Americas and Europe and support them across about nine different practice areas from transportation to economic development uh and beyond. And um I lead that housing practice that is within uh Bloomberg Associates. Um over the past year, I think exactly a year now, we've been working with um with the with the team uh within the city, uh that's Debbie and uh Christina and Will and and others um to support the housing task force and put together a development feasibility model. Um that model is something that we have used in other cities and we've uh we've we've kind of turned that into something that is specific to the Ottawa market so that we can understand kind of the underlying market conditions, how those market conditions may change and how uh policy uh proposals uh and actions will potentially affect the market. So, uh, with that, uh, I will pass it over to Simon Metler, who is part of our team, uh, and he'll go go ahead and go into the data. >> Thank you, Neon. And good morning, everyone. If we can just go to the next page, please, Christina. And of course, please feel free to jump in with any any questions or comments as we as we go through this. But in essence, our approach, as Neon says, um is to try to develop a market-based assessment of what the the real estate market in Ottawa currently looks like that we can use to inform policy and understand the baseline of the market right now. So, what we do, we do a couple different things. We look at typologies, which are different ways in which buildings can be built in Ottawa. So in this case, we look at six different typologies ranging from single family at the least dense to high-rise at the most dense. We then look at how those perform from a financial standpoint across five different parts of the city. And the goal is to evaluate how different types of typical projects look from a market feasibility standpoint and allow us to test the impact of potential policy interventions in the real estate market. We'll just say off the bat that what this exercise allows us to do is to look at averages and typicals. By definition, not every project is going to be average and not every project is going to be typical. And so want to just say off the bat because we always get a lot of questions about this. Um a lot of what we say here refers to typical projects in typical areas. Um that does not mean that every single real estate project and every single development project is going to behave exactly the same way but rather it gives a directional indication of of where the market is and what things look like. We want to go to the next slide please. So this slide summarizes our overall findings on where the real estate market stands right now. It looks at two different um metrics. One for for sale um which is profit on cost or development margin. That's the the top table on this page. And then one for rental developments. That's yield on cost on the bottom of this page. Overall, the market as we assess it is quite challenging with very few scenarios meeting a feasibility threshold right now in a in a typical scenario and no scenarios meeting our thresholds for being most feasible. Um, only a couple meet the possibly feasible threshold, which is the the the yellow cells on the left hand side of both of those charts. Now again like we said before not every project is typical. So what this does this this does not mean is that no development is currently happening or that no development will ever happen in in Ottawa. Rather what it means is that the market is challenging and that um fewer projects than in a in a sort of boom year or a boom market will will proceed and that the overall economics of projects will slow down uh overall growth in in housing. Now again, good developers are still going to be able to identify projects that have better returns or or below average cost profiles, but in general, the overall market dynamic that we see is a challenging one. We can go to the next page, please. So the HAP looks at various potential interventions and groups those into five main objectives that are called out on the lefth hand side of this page. We've linked each of those objectives to the impact that they could have on broader development feasibility. So those objectives just to um recall for everyone are simplifying the regulatory environment and expediting approvals, evolving city culture to be development friendly, flexibility in fees and charges, strengthening the capacity for affordable housing and unlocking urban intensification and transit oriented development. So, our broader development feasibility approach allows us to test specific potential policy interventions that fall in each of those objectives. And the next couple pages will walk us through the impact um of a couple of interventions that fall within bucket 3 around flexibility in in fees and charges. We can go to the next page, please. This page looks at the combined impact of several interventions that were put in place at as part of the October app. Um those are the deferral of development charges to occupancy. Previously development charges were assessed at the pull in of a permit. Those have now been deferred to when a building is going for a certificate of occupancy, which will depend based on each building type on on how long construction takes, but is generally a deferral of of anywhere from from from 1 to 3 years. We also model the impact of the community benefits charge reductions and then recent changes to cash and move parkland fees as well. um we look at the combined impact that all of those have and the impact is meaningful. As a reminder, when we do our assessment, we look at multiple different types of metrics. We look at um profit on cost or development margin on the for sale side and then yield on cost. Those are metrics that don't take into account the time value of money and simply look at returns and costs. We also look at irr or internal rate of return which is a metric that does take into account the time value of money by looking at um the way cash flows are sequenced month by month throughout typical development projects and assessing metrics like that allows us to evaluate the impact of um of a me of a change like the deferral of development charges because even though that in and of itself does not reduce the absolute cost of a project. It improves the cost profile of a project because less financing has to happen of development charges throughout the life of a project. And so overall um returns for a typical project improve. And so looking at the combined impact of those those interventions, we see an improvement on for sale IRRs of up to 160 basis points, which is about 1.6 percentage points. and on the rental irra improvements of up to 50 basis points or about half a percentage point. Now, in and of itself, in and of themselves, none of these interventions shifted um any typical development scenarios from from not feasible to feasible. Um however, these types of numbers do represent meaningful impacts. And to the earlier point about not every project being typical and not every project behaving exactly like these numbers show, this is the type of intervention that does meaningfully impact projects and can make the difference between a certain real estate project proceeding or not. And almost certainly therefore it's the type of intervention that has pushed projects that were on the verge of proceeding or not into proceeding. Next page please. We also looked at the impact of recent HST changes. Now those of course were not called out in the October HAP and so um nonetheless are an important part of the housing market dynamics. HST is an important um charge obviously and and and and has a major impact on prices um throughout construction life cycles and then obviously on sales prices. And so what we did was look at the impact that the the recently announced changes from the province are likely to have. Um obviously a large effect a large part of the effect will depend on how much of the HST reduction gets passed through to buyers. That will in turn depend on on market dynamics and things that are outside of the scope of what we were able to to model as part of this exercise. However, we feel that effective prices are likely to decrease and the largest impact of this policy change is likely to be on the existing inventory of completed but unsold homes where this policy change will result in lower price points that accelerate their the sale of unsold units and therefore their absorption. In the medium or longer term, it's hard to evaluate the impact that a temporary policy like this will have. If it continues to be temporary, in and of itself, it's unlikely to spur new construction starts or unlock new financing. Um because underwriting generally happens to policies that have more long-term certainty. That said, for for projects that are currently in the pipeline and on the verge of whether they might continue or not, this is a type of policy that that can show some forward momentum and likely maintain several projects in the pipeline and allow them to continue to proceed. Finally, next steps and again happy to go through any of the the previous pages in more detail and answer any questions you may have. Um, additionally want to confirm any additional analyses that may be useful for Bloomberg to run in in the context of this and in the context of the HAP. Um, and confirm any other potential actions that the the city is considering that we can incorporate into our development feasibility testing approach as well. >> Thank you. Uh, next slide please. The report includes uh two recommendations that the Finance and Corporate Services Committee and Planning and Housing Committee recommend the council receive for information the progress update and measurement framework described in the report and amend the tree protection bylaw to replace the existing tree conservation report guidelines uh with the new tree tree conservation report guidelines attached to the report. Next slide, please. And subject to council's consideration of this report, staff will continue implementing the remaining actions and will return to council in Q2 2027 with the next progress update. That Q2 2027 update will include a refreshed overview of the Ottawa housing market to reflect conditions in place at that time, an update on the implementation of the remaining actions in the plan, the performance results from the measurement framework. As Christina noted, this report includes the baseline and the 2027 report will provide progress against that baseline and to ensure the measures in the acceleration plan continue to reflect evolving housing needs and market conditions. The 2027 report may propose adjustments or additional actions to further reduce barriers to housing. Next slide, please. Mayor, that concludes the presentation. We'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have. >> Okay. Okay, thank you. Um I think we're going to go to uh we have one delegation. So if um if everybody's okay, we'll we'll hear from our delegate first and then uh then we'll open it up to questions and comments from everybody. Um so um I will ask uh for Jason Bergraph from GOBA who is online. Go ahead. Good morning. >> Good morning. Thanks chairs, members of the joint committee for the opportunity to to speak this morning. Overall, GOBA is very encouraged by the progress that's already been made on the housing acceleration plan. We're also receiving member feedback that previously stalled applications are moving and that recent changes from the first round of task force recommendations are having meaning meaningful effect on timelines. As you'll have seen from the Bloomberg report, delays can have a huge impact on project timelines, which translate into additional costs and reduced affordability. Given this, we welcome the city's commitment to speeding up the processing and finalization of applications. The evidence shows that even in market, even if market conditions improve, the reforms within the housing acceleration plan are still necessary preconditions for future supply growth. We also support the measurement framework. We cannot measure what we don't track and we can't improve what we don't measure. To that end, we look forward to seeing the results in the future. As we all know, we're living in a time of increased uncertainty with many external economic forces that are beyond our control. Bloomberg specifically notes that the city does not control the larger e macroeconomic forces, which only underscores the importance of focusing on the levers that the city does control. When many projects are struggling to pencil, even in the rental space, it is ever more important for the work of the housing acceleration plan to continue. As Ottawa's housing market warms up, as it inevitably will, these reforms will make it easier and faster to scale up housing production. In addition, last week, GOBA, in conjunction with the missing middle initiative, released data on interprovincial migration patterns that show more growing families have been moving to our surrounding communities rather than Ottawa over the past decade. Ottawa needs those families and cannot continue to lose them to surrounding municipalities. It's bad for the tax base and only increases pressures on our roads and services without the benefits that younger families bring to the city. Finally, we provided comments on the new tree conservation report guidelines where our main concern is around the handling of boundary trees. However, I understand that from forestry staff that they have some information and clarifications that may address these concerns and we're going to connect with them shortly. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Thank you, uh, Chair Leaper. Thank you very much, uh, Mayor. Uh, Jason, thank you for being here. Good to see you. Uh, can you quantify at all, uh, roughly how many projects you consider have been accelerated by the, uh, package that we've passed? Um, it's it's one thing to say that, you know, you've heard that projects are moving ahead, that were stalled, but what I'm interested in is how many units does that represent and um, how many projects is it? I don't have that off the top of my head, but I'm willing to certainly willing to take it back and uh report on especially through the the portal, the housing, you know, portal. We can take a look at that and and quantify that for you for sure. >> Okay. It's I'd be very interested in that number. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mayor. >> Thank you, Con. >> Yes. Hi, Jason. Thanks for being here. I know we haven't had a chance to meet yet, uh, but I think we will be in the coming weeks. I have two questions for you. Um, one is, and I'm deeply concerned because I hear from families who want to live in the core. They want to be close to everything, but there is just simply no threebedrooms that can accommodate them or their families. Um, whether that be in condos or apartments? Um, and what would be your recommendation to get more two plus bedrooms built? Um, and second of all, uh, I'm just something I've sort of noticed since my term started is there doesn't seem to be a lot of city staff that live in the core. And I was just wondering why you think that is >> uh in terms of the two bedrooms uh or or more. Um in the projects uh that I have seen the issue of course is uh a per square footage of cost is the per square footage whatever the size of the building and obviously a big larger unit uh ends up being the co being being the most costliest unit uh within that project. Uh and typically and anecdotally at least um those largest units are the last ones to sell because of course they are the most expensive. Um, you know, the the costing around construction materials, around uh uh labor, all of those things are are pretty inflexible uh and really impact the ability to produce a unit that is on the surface going to be significantly cheaper for families. uh the I don't know that I have a solution right at the moment. Again, I'll I'm happy to kind of take that back though and ask uh some of our planners and uh some of the people who do uh work on the uh work on those core but still you know bigger uh projects uh as to what would be the inducements to get those bigger units uh on stream. >> Great. Uh and then and then in terms of the the uh speculation on the on city staff, I wouldn't presume to know people's motivations. I would assume uh again much like we mentioned in our data about interprovincial migration. Uh you know, some people are very dedicated to they want a ground oriented house even with a small piece of land. uh and they're willing to kind of drive till they qualify to to get that piece and if it's not available sort of within the core uh you know they'll go out to the suburbs or what have you to to do so um past that you know everyone's motivations uh and their particular work situations are are often very unique but in the aggregate it's that demand for groundoriented housing uh still especially in you know in the Ottawa area that drives uh housing demand. >> Thank you so much. Welcome, >> Merci Councelor Curry. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thanks, Jason. Thanks for the meetings and the meeting there a couple weeks ago. Always good to talk to you. So, the feds have done lots, the province has done lots, cities have done lots, planning committee here has endlessly seen what how else we can help get housing built. What are you hearing from the developers? What else do they want? >> It's not so much a matter of developers wanting anything. Uh and I think you're right like every party has been moving a pace as humanly possible. Uh but to the point of the Bloomberg feasibility the survey uh and modeling the market dynamics are just not there to produce uh you know housing at scale that we need it to be. Um you know interest rates have to be a certain spot. People have to start coming back into showrooms. Uh we are seeing that activity coming back into sales offices now. Uh and as people, you know, sign on the dotted line, they put their deposits down, that starts building out, uh, you know, th those projects that have been kind of sitting waiting for that demand to kind of come back. Uh, I don't know, again, it's it's not so matter so much a matter of, um, you know, more that people can do. I think you know again I would agree the city's done uh a fair amount uh right now and is always it's always good to improve the processes applica uh timing all of those things uh and we applaud the city for the work it's done and would obviously encourage it to continue um but it's sometimes just a matter of the unique economic storm that we find ourselves in right now. Uh it's certainly not an Ottawa only situation, right? It's across the province. It's across the country in most markets. Uh that we're just in a very extended low period of market activity overall and we kind of need to see our way through it. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Uh I think the only thing I hear from developers is they'll say that you're right, everybody's done everything they can do. It's all about the financing right now. And so in that, are you not hearing anything a little bit more creative for the financing? the we we're working on say you like the stress like the thresholds for stress testing and a few other things at other levels like at the federal level of government which uh run the mortgage insurance uh rules and and also what uh qualifies for financing. Um but that's a kind of a separate piece from typically what my what my mandate is to cover on the city side. Uh but that's yeah it's it's a larger instrument then uh of what the feds are willing to do what their risk profile is or what CHC's risk profile is uh in terms of insurance you know what the down payments are all of those things and those have trade-offs uh as well right if you reduce the amount of down payment people are allowed to put on what have you um there are there are considerations around that as well um and those discussions are ongoing but as always everyone sort of has to manage their fiscal situation and and much, you know, the city, the province, the feds all have a their own financial constraints uh around this as well. >> Okay. Thanks a lot, Mr. Mayor. I'll have questions for Bloomberg when we get to that. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Jason. >> Thank you. >> I'll open it up now to uh questions uh for Bloomberg and for staff. and um on the two items under information previously distributed as well. Councelor Curry, >> thank you. I might as well just get this out of the way right away. To to Bloomberg, are you not hearing anything more creative for financing? >> Councelor Curry, that that is a great question. Um I I don't think we are hearing anything specific to financing within the Ottawa market. I think as was stated earlier I think this is a dynamic that is being experienced across North America and literally even across across oceans. I what we are seeing in other markets is that uh governments and non-governmental organizations uh like private corporations um nonprofits uh philanthropy are looking to fill the gap right and so uh there is a lot of bridge financing that is helping to do that and that bridge financing is coming in at what we call mezznine debt levels or is coming in at kind of impact as impact capital. So it is it is replacing the lack of equity uh that is able to kind of get these projects jump started at the early stage. Uh but that is not coming from uh kind of local government. It's not coming from state government. It's often coming from uh philanthropic or other entities. >> Okay, great. Thanks for that. Okay. So, one of the things that I hear a lot from developers is they'll say, you know, we can sell uh a pension fund, a project, like we can we can sell them a project. They're they're smart. They know how to invest, but not in Ottawa. So, Toronto, no problem. The big pension funds will, you know, take on projects all the time. Uh or the other big lenders, but not Ottawa. So, you have any comment on that? Why not? I I think that is probably more a a result of the microeconomics within Ottawa versus the microeconomics in in Toronto. Um I think it's an effect of of the demand for housing. Uh the projected population growth, the historic population growth, and how quickly they think uh those units can be absorbed. And so um if capital believes that those the units that they produce can be absorbed more quickly, they are going to be um produced or they're going to be uh there's going to be more investment in that market. >> Okay. Thanks. Now I want to give you the exact opposite question and Mr. Mayor, this is my last question. So imagine we're not in the situation we're in and you know this may not be that helpful but I just I had this conversation with Jason there a couple weeks ago. If if this if the situation was that people are wanting to build given all the incentives, imagine there's a lot of housing that starts to be built, right? But look at our reality where we have Canada's population is dropping, right? We have huge economic challenges. We have uh the potential for if there were a glut of housing uh put on the market. I think some people would be cheering, yay, housing prices would go down. Rental uh prices would go down. Well, so would property values, right? And seniors own a lot of the homes across Canada and Ontario, right? Their homes are their asset that they rely on for retirement. So, you have that asset dropping if you have too much housing. And then you have h seniors that potentially aren't leaving their houses or no longer have the retirement plan that they intended to have to be able to fund a long-term care facility, which then means our governments have to pay more of the long-term care prices. I just, you know, you see apartment building owners with their with their assets dropping in value and having to lower uh rent prices. And again, I know some people would be cheering at all this, but there's a whole group of other people that would not be. Um, has has anybody modeled all of this out? >> I want to make sure I I'm I I fully understand the question. And so are you saying what happens if there is an situation where there's an overbuild and could you know the individual's individual property values be detrimentally affected because of that overbuilding? >> Yeah. And this the whole modeling of all of that how that actually would impact Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. I I think that's a that's a a huge model if you're going to look at and you'd have to incorporate not just kind of local dynamics but national dynamics and global dynamics and I I don't think we have the potential to model that and in what we're doing. However, I I will say that I I don't think that you're you're likely to see an overbuild uh that is substantial enough to to kind of cause that kind of precipitous drop in property values for especially for individual homeowners. I think the kind of capital markets are very dynamic and they react pretty quickly and you know once you see a level of production to a certain kind of extent uh you you and and absorption rates start to to kind of drop the market will react and stop investing in that market. Um because the same people that are investing are the same people that own assets and they don't want their values to drop. >> Great. Excellent answer. Thank you very much. Thank you, councelor Councelor Bernard. >> Thank you very much, Mayor. Thanks to staff for for the reports and the IPDS. Um I'm very appreciative to see the the public developer um uh model piece that's come out and the information. It's a great it's a great step uh from from from where we were and um the I know the work will will continue on that. I want to uh speak about the overall HAF report and then move into the public developer model piece a little bit more. There is a lot in this report that I guess is is a bit concerning. We're we're really stalled. Uh that we've described it as a frozen market. Um I think the thing that stands out most to me is the report is suggesting that many of the efforts to make affordable housing supply a reality through say cutting fees um is very difficult. It's not the economics of it is outside of our control for the most part that we can tinker on the margins. we may get a project over the line or two. Uh but but it's not we don't have concrete numbers to show how um these these types of public subsidies whether it be GST rebates or DC reductions or you know CBC reductions really have this this massive effect on the market. Clearly they don't. There's there's a lot of other market fundamentals there. The new rentals piece sitting at 6% 6.7% vacancy kind of was was surprising to me compared to existing rentals at at 1%. Can you maybe expand on what you're seeing there >> through the chair? Thank you for the question. Um, so that is a Canada mortgage and housing corporation stat when they did the anal mark uh sorry the rental market analysis for um nationally and looked at the Ottawa submarket. Um and so what they found in Ottawa is that the newly constructed um rental dwellings purpose-built rental homes uh so built within the past 3 years were not moving as quickly. So you had a higher vacancy rate so or some um kind of standing inventory there. Um and that was sitting at about 7% and higher than what we typically see it. So what that suggests is that um with the cost to build having increased quite significantly since the pandemic and still at high levels although stabilizing and some uncertainty there um that it's too much it's too expensive to build rental housing um relative to the incomes that people can uh afford to pay for rental um or you're just not seeing that um match. there's a bit of a mismatch there and so you have more stock that is um that is vacant and then to the points that council curry had made uh earlier is that as more supply comes online um you will have less competition for that um also with decreased uh immigration etc. Um and that over time would result on greater affordability within the market. >> Thank you. That that's helpful. Um the document three of the Bloomberg feasibility study states that almost no typical development scenarios are penciling out with no scenarios in our most feasible category and our one for sale or two build to rent scenarios in our potentially feasible category that there's virtually no typical development scenarios currently penciling out in in Ottawa. Um so it's a it's described as a as a frozen market. Um I I guess given it's a frozen market, we governments of all stripes are taking action and again um reducing fees, cutting red tape. Uh but still we have a frozen market and the prediction is 2026 to 2028 it's going to get worse. Um but I assume that prediction from Bloomberg includes all of the the GST CODs etc etc. It that would that would be part of that prediction. Is that is that accurate? So the modeling from Bloomberg has not incorporated the HSD although they have it was announced subsequent to that they have looked at it and um done a cursory kind of assessment of the impact of that measure. Um the HST measure um does provide a little bit more buying power for consumers to the extent that that's passed on to consumers. Sometimes the HST is embedded in the listing price and so we don't know exactly what happens there. Um but to the extent it's passed on to buyers, it may um create some more buying power and have some of that standing inventory I would say um you know be be purchased given that it's time bound. That's really where we would expect to see the impact. >> Yeah. I guess and it's hard to hard to know how much is actually getting passed along as as Bloomberg says. It's not it's not clear what how much new home buyers are are are benefiting from it versus say it being just part of the uh the development bottom line. So um I guess that the report is also saying that the municipality has no control over macroeconomic factors and the HAP um really I think what it's pointing to when I see it is that because of these market constraints and even the subsidy from governments we are starkly highlighting the need for a potential public developer approach in Ottawa. I know this is not solving all problems but it there is a portion of uh development that is missed or not coordinated that is not produced at the margins where we really need to fill gaps. Uh and that public developer model to me uh speaks to that. Um I'll I'll just I want to ask some questions about it. uh the public developer model. We want to ensure that when we're having this discussion, the analysis considers things like the revolving housing fund approach, which is something that was mentioned in the in the HAP report as well and and through Bloomberg to mitigate the financial pressure outlined in in five of the IPD. The report also identifies important financial tools like revolving loans and mixed income models uh point 6, but it doesn't articulate how these tools would be integrated into say a long-term self-reinforcing housing delivery system. And to me, this is exactly the type of thing we were talking about when we're talking about a public public model uh to be part of this mix. it do you do you see that similarly that those types of tools could be delivered through a public developer model in Ottawa >> through the chair? Yes, they could be um delivered through a public build a developer model in Ottawa. Um there's a number of factors to consider. um whether these specific tools like a revolving um loan fund for example would be useful. Um typically requires quite a significant amount of initial investment to um support that. Um usually you see those being successful when you have larger demand, but there's potential to scope this to certain aspects of the development process for affordable housing for an example. >> Well, that's good to hear. I mean, and obviously we we take on debt for all kinds of things at the city. Um, one of the most important things is is how we get homes built affordably for people, public land, utilizing a public developer can really help that. The report points out that the establishment of that developer function can reflect a clear shift in approach. Policy alone does not build homes. The delivery requires a dedicated entity with endto-end responsibility, oversight of of of many sites. A public developer can focus on speed, scale, and accountability. This is all in the report. and it can leverage public land for housing, create mixed income communities, and guarantee long-term affordability while managing projects from concept through to construction. So, I guess given all that good stuff that's in the report, how do we move from what is a paper exercise at this point to making this more of a reality uh next term at council? >> Thank you for the question through the chair. Um so the staff intent really is to I would say I would I would qualify what was provided in the information document really as a primer on public developer models um providing some examples of what we have seen um in Canada and internationally um as next steps um you know staff would recommend that there be um engagements that we look at what is the best type of model um in a Ottawa if a model is even going to bring benefits um and then bring forward recommendations per the timelines that were uh in the report which I believe is Q2 2027. Okay. >> Okay. That's a helpful that's a helpful timeline. I think we can't really move fast enough on this in my view given the the frozen market that that we're in. This can help unlock some pieces of that. I'll just say, mayor, I' I've always been a bit skeptical about waving municipal fees and and um you know, CBC's, DC's because those go to infrastructure that that we need. Um that's only one part of the the HAF that that I I've had concerns about. The a lot of other stuff is is is good in there. Uh the public developer model is is a big one. I think what I'm seeing today from this report from Bloomberg, from what staff are saying is that there is very little um the municipality can do to unlock this massive supply build that we want to see for to get affordability. There are so many more uh market fundamentals that factor into this. And as governments kind of continue to to fund these pieces that go to private developers, uh I don't think we're going to see the results from that that that we want to see. And I I continue to be concerned about public money going to private developers instead of into say a public developer model or public housing or not for profofit co-op housing this sort of thing. So uh I'll just say I think we can um I think the shift has to happen of those funds into housing and governments need to build housing uh right now instead of relying on private developers who are who are not quite frankly not doing it even with these subsidies because the market fundamentals aren't there. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you councelor manard vice chair Gower. >> Thanks chair. Um, yeah. I, so I'm trying to make sense of the the modeling and it looks like for rentals to pencil out, we would need to see an increase of 200 to 300 basis points for it to be viable and for ownership it would be like a,000 to 2,000. So far, our measures have increased basis points by 160. some of the external factors like interest rates and construction cost reductions would have a significant impact. Those are out of our control. Um the idea of DC reductions if we were able to have the province uh reimburse us or provide an alternate funding source for DCS, what is what is the anticipated scale of that impact? Would a a reduction of 30 to 50% get us above that two or 300 basis point level we would need to see more viability in the rentals? Would it get us close to what we would need for more viability in the ownership? >> Simon, you want to take that? >> It would it would certainly move the needle and and to be clear about what the what the scenario that we presented models. The scenario that we presented modeled the deferral of the DCs but did not look at any reduction in DCS. >> Um if you were to look at a reduction in DC's 30% 50% more or less um any any reduction in DCS would have a meaningful impact on on returns. Goes without saying that the higher the reduction the higher the the the impact. Um we have looked at a world where there's a 50% reduction in DC's and obviously the exact impact is going to vary on each typology and it's going to vary on um each different part of the city but but the impact would would would meaningfully improve returns >> like to the point where projects are are viable rather than not viable. >> Certain projects would be viable. Um, again, it it it's going to depend on the specific project dynamics. Um, and and your typicals. Look at averages. As you point out, averages are not looking great right now because of macroeconomic conditions outside of the city's control. Interest rates, high construction costs, um, you know, rental rates and sales prices are what they are. And so those are always going to depend, but but the impact would be meaningful. and and and several typical typology submarket combinations would would likely shift either from that not feasible to like potentially feasible category or from the potentially feasible to most feasible category. >> Okay. And then that would help us council and staff do the calculus as to how far are we willing to go when that decision comes in front of us um and how much of an impact that would actually have. Um, I guess the other outstanding actions, are there any that would significantly move the needle and and get us closer to viability besides a development charge change? >> Are there any particular actions that you that you're asking about or >> Well, just looking at the whole suite of what's left, we've done over half. Are there any others that would seem to have a a quick impact or a significant impact? >> I I think I I I'm hesitant to answer that without actually testing those. I I will say that, you know, donation of public land is really the the one uh action that I think can have very significant impact. >> Okay. And maybe to staff of the remaining actions, what are the barriers towards implementing them quicker? Mr. Mayor, it's not that there was a barrier into uh in implementation when the plan was established. Uh timelines were um itemized and and those timelines have not come to bear yet. So there was more what was uh implemented to date or had the earlier timelines were those that were u the quickest to implement the more substantive reviews or undertakings. That's what's continuing to on be undertaken. And the intent is that we're returning early in the new term of council with the results of those and and uh the recommendations that may result from them. >> Okay. Okay. Um I think my last question is I was I've read the public developer model report. It seems to describe exactly what OC is doing. Um what would a public developer do that be different than what OC is doing now? Because they they develop, they own, they maintain. What's different? Thank you for the question. So, uh, Ottawa Community Housing is a type of public developer. They are a municipallyowned notfor-profit, uh, housing corporation. So, they develop, own, and operate a portfolio of housing. There are other um, nonprofit housing um, developers and providers within the city. And Ottawa Community Housing is not um, is not kind of officially in service of those uh, developments. And so one of the gaps that we heard through the consultation from the not for-profit um sector really was we have um desire and opportunity to expand our portfolios. However um requiring us to become experts in development creates uh inefficiencies both in terms of time mistake also cost because there isn't the opportunity for economies of scale. Um and so a public developer model can also look at um how can we look at accelerating the development of affordable housing for example within the city of Ottawa um by looking at it more holistically and not requiring other developers to or sorry other providers uh affordable housing providers to become expert in the development process rather that can be provided to them as a um service and there's also opportunities to look at uh economies of scale when you're looking at that more holistically um and um taking a little bit more of a I'm going to say factory kind of approach as as an example in terms of um being able to produce housing. So those are the types of things that we're looking at that extends beyond OC. >> Okay. Well, I hope it would not mean a new entity. I hope that could be an expanded role for OC because they are already developing a lot of partnerships with other not uh not for-profit sector partners. So um anyways to be continued. I'm sure the chair will have some questions as well. Thanks, Chair. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Gower, Chair Leaper. >> Thank you very much, Mayor. Uh, and thank you very much for the presentations uh today. The I only came in with, uh, with one question, but I think I'll pose a couple more. the uh I'm looking at Kitasippi Ward where there are very generous zoning permissions that have been provided to developers for properties that have been in the same ownership hands for uh many many years uh even as long perhaps as um as I've been city councelor. I'm wondering how useful the typical scenarios are to understand the impact of our um incentives across the city when I think so many parcels probably take advantage of the um lower historical land costs that are mentioned on and you got at it in slide 12. Is it worth giving us analysis of the age that these properties have been in the hands of owners who have very permissive zoning permissions but have not built? So we can I I'll take this from a from just a modeling standpoint. So obviously to your point, typicals, averages are are by necessity somewhat flawed metrics because they don't represent things that are below average or above average. And and in this case, this is a dynamic we've we've heard about and see. There are several plots throughout the city that are that were purchased at at prices significantly below um today's market rate, right? and and and from a development feasibility model, um you know, the types of projects we look at run by larger developers, they tend to have to account for that land value on the books somehow. Um and so we model it at current market prices. But but of course that that that is one of the reasons that that that certain projects are proceeding right now that from a pure number standpoint, if you look at current market prices, might not be feasible. But if you discount the value of land by by 50% or 75% or 90% or whatever it was acquired at, then all of a sudden the dynamics for that development look much better and certain projects are are much more feasible than they otherwise would be. And I I I won't be looking for a precise answer today, but it does leave me wondering um just how much insight we can actually glean um particularly in a ward like Kitipi that is, you know, approximate to I five different LRT stations. I I wonder uh how useful some of this analysis is, but we could slice and dice the numbers six ways from Sunday for the next two years and still not arrive at a precise understanding of the market dynamics. So, um I understand the challenge of that. Uh my second question was with respect to housing starts um and and bear with me for just a moment. According to the CMHC in um Ottawa, so Ottawa proper, not the the larger Ottawa area, uh in 2020 there were 9,200 starts. In 2021, there were 9,459. In 2022, uh 10,77,000 starts. The bottom fell out in 2023, 8,632. In 2024, it just plunged to 6,800. But it since went up. So in 2025, pre-introduction or pre-effective the introduction of many of the incentives that uh have been put on the table by council, it it grew up to 9,500 a little over 9,500 units. Um I wonder since it is premature by December 2025 to assume that the incentives that we have passed would have had an effect on pulling building permits. what accounts for that um that high rate of growth between 2024 and 2025 because it's something that leaves me wondering do we need to provide these incentives at all when we saw such a huge leap >> uh through the chair. So I'll uh provide an answer and then I'll invite um our colleagues from Bloomberg to add if they like a lot of that um relates to timing. So as we came out of the or we're in the pandemic and then coming out of the pandemic there was a lot of economic um impacts uh we saw very little um movement in terms of putting forward um applications to build like everything really stalled and the time what what I'm when I'm referring to timing I'm talking about the time it takes to go from I'm initiating a project to actually getting to construction and so what you're seeing there is the impact of that timing lag and those projects coming to uh fruition at that point. >> Okay. I um and I wonder if we've seen the end of that shakeout. Uh it'll be interesting to see what housing starts do in 2026. I know the CHC has got predictions of a slowing market. Um but you know we saw without foregoing revenue a very strong recovery in 2025. So, uh, we'll continue to follow that. Um, one question, I'm not sure the conversation between, um, uh, councelor Gower and yourselves on the public developer. You spoke about the need to find some efficiencies, um, across the not for-profit industry. Um, is that the potential role that a CODCO or a nesting ground could play moving forward? uh because things seem to be encouraging on that front. Uh a lot of things are coalescing >> through the chair. Thank you for the question. Um yeah, there's there are entities that could play that role including potentially CADCO and nesting ground, Ottawa Community Housing. There's also Build Ottawa, which is a another entity that could play that role. Um the point really is to examine all those options and to engage with the sector who this is presumably intended to support as well as residents um in order to um look at whether a mo a model would generate the types of uh advantages that we hope it would and then to make recommendations for consideration by council. >> Marcia >> um thank you through the chair. I would just also going back to your point about um starts uh I think that um Ottawa's market has been stronger than the provincial market which is true and I think that part of that is the willingness of this council to take action on on the housing um process and some of the the barriers that this report is is uh reporting on our actions for. But I would just say that we have failed to make the number of housing starts required to meet both our provincial and our federal targets. So, um I'm not exactly sure where the numbers you had were quoted from, but we are looking at um our target was to get to just under 12,000 dwellings in the period of the housing fund. And we're not going to make it. We're going to get to about 80% based on the end of 25 data. So, um, this committee and council will see the, uh, the full, uh, data dashboard that will be publicly presented very shortly as it relates to the the complete year of 2025 in our housing development dashboard. But looking at the data right now, um, I can tell you we are not making the starts that we need in order to meet the targets that were set by upper levels of government identifying where the need was. >> Yeah. as to whether those were um sorry realistic targets or not that's obviously a different question. The uh I'll just conclude by saying I I agree and thank Councilman for his uh comments with respect to the role of of public u public builders uh throughout this very challenging period. I want to congratulate Ottawa Community Housing on being a very significant part of um the number of starts and completions that we've had um using housing accelerator fund leveraging their portfolio of real estate. Uh the public builder here in Ottawa has uh has been a very important part of the mix. So I applaud them for the work that they've done and uh I would uh hope that the private sector uh will take a look at their energy as a model for uh for moving forward. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chair Leaper. Uh, Councelor Kavanaaugh. >> Thank you, Chair, or thank you, Mayor. Um, uh, this is a great conversation, and I think we're at a at a a very important point, um, where we're recognizing what's going on out there in terms of the stagnation of, uh, of housing in general, um, but particularly for affordable housing. And um just as a as a counselor with my counselor hat on, I'm seeing the concern about affordable housing in the in the private sector where we have older buildings where um the above uh guideline increases are squeezing people out. So it's another factor that's not really part of this, but um is is huge. um it it's uh there's stagnation where people aren't moving because they're hanging on to whatever they can afford and now now they can't even afford what they're hanging on to and um that that's another factor. I don't know how that was looked at. Um I asked about that earlier um and um and how we're um taking that into consideration because um we can't even count on what people consider affordable in the u in the private sector. I don't know if you have any comments about that. >> Thank you um through the chair. So a couple comments on that one. Um so the city of Ottawa was recently um I guess recognized for being the first municipality to sign a significant agreement with Bill Cand Homes and so that will see significant production of affordable housing. I think that that is something that is um a big achievement um and it sees uh a lot of housing uh affordable housing being built in the short term. with regards to um the comments you're making with uh you know regards to things like rent eviction and the fact that there could be a supply that is uh affordable or naturally occurring affordable and turned over into uh higher rent um units. Um that is something that is um it's identified in the plan under the action which is to review the action Ottawa program. The action Ottawa program is really about how we or city of Ottawa and council directs um the use of um capital to support affordable housing and that looks at everything from acquisition which is currently permitted but could be um you know brought to the forefront perhaps. Um it also looks at opportunities um to support densification or intensification of existing sites. that is also a um initiative that is mentioned the housing acceleration plan. So while the bulk of the measures are really about um how can city and council um support the um accelerated development of housing supply overall. Um there are references to a number of actions that would support on the retention of existing affordable housing supply as well. I I think it um it's really important that we continue to build nonprofit housing on a massive massive scale and we're very fortunate that uh we are the we as a city are the sole shareholders of Ottawa Community Housing and it's a great it it's great leverage for building on scale. Um it's not to take away from other nonprofits whatsoever. Um but we need that scale and um we're we're doing it. um and not only just the scale of building but also retaining affordable housing which is also happening and has to be taken into consideration. We're fortunate that the federal government is now showing its intent to to build more nonprofit housing and this hasn't happened since the 70s um to have it on scale um which is part of the problem. They they thought they they tried to slough it off uh for a long long time. tried to get out of the business, but it's hurting our economy now. It's hurting affordability, and we have to gain a lot of uh uh housing, you know, uh to to get back to where we should be. It's it's got to be the base of affordability. um for you know I'm somebody who uh couldn't afford rent here and I lived in nonprofit uh federal co-op housing. All these things are very important but the scale is is needed and that's why we need Ottawa Community Housing to do that and I'm concerned that we you know we have to make it as easy as possible for them to get ahead. um because I'm I I I think that we're we're just not recognizing the power they have and um and working as best we can and it needs multiple partners because there's all different scales of of building out there. Um but um I want to know that we're we're uh working with our the with the partner that uh we wholly own um and um are working as fast as we can to uh build at scale particularly um in areas like uh for example uh having housing um in the central area for families which is almost unheard of by um other developers. I don't know if you have any comments about that. >> Thank you. No, just to say that uh we do work closely with auto community housing and see them as a very important player in the ecosystem. Um we have engaged in conversations with them preliminary conversations related to the public builder model and we'll be engaging with them uh in the work going forward as well. >> Thank you. I am concerned about some of the newer nonprofits that are saying that they're building affordable housing, but I'm looking carefully at the numbers and that it's it's not the same. Um, and I think that we have to look very carefully at uh what's happening out there and um remember that it's not just the short term, it's the long term and we need to have those affordable units uh forever um across the across the city. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Kavanagh. Councelor Troster. >> Thank you very much. So, I've been listening to this conversation of public about a public developer. Can you explain to me in really simple terms what the difference between a public developer and Ottawa community housing is? And I'm just it's just clear as mud to me because it seems we already have a public developer that we could scale up. what what would a public developer do that's different than what Ottawa Community Housing is doing? >> So, there's lots of different models related to like public developer models that are in place um across the country. Um Ottawa Community Housing is a traditional nonprofit housing corporation owned by the municipality and so that stock is owned by the municipality. Um within the city of Ottawa, there are many other not for-profit housing corporations, CCO, um multiffaith, etc., etc. Uh we heard in the engagement for the housing acceleration plan that um some of them were interested in um having support through the development process to really facilitate that and to ensure that there were fewer um inefficiencies, let's say, because there's if you're not accustomed to developing, there's more chance for error. Um in this model, it's possible that Ottawa Community Housing just builds on behalf of many not forprofits. Um what we're proposing here is that there needs to be engagement because it is a shift for the um for the sector and for the city's programs that requires uh engagement and then to bring forward uh options for council to consider. >> Okay, I think I understand and I do think a public model makes total sense and is absolutely something we should be pursuing. I thought I think the report on it was a little bit cautious. I think we need to dig deeper into the possibilities, but we already have an excellent public developer that we can scale up. So, that's great. I just wanted to poke on the acquisition piece again because, you know, it says on page 12 that new rental developments have a vacancy rate of 6.7 and lower rent units have a vacancy of under 1%. It's very clear that people are staying in their lower rent apartments as long as possible unless they're evicted, which we're trying to tackle with another bylaw that's coming to committee soon. Um, I know there was one attempt this term to bring forward the idea of an acqua acquisition fund and staff were not supportive. It ultimately didn't pass. But what how do you see acquisition fitting into the housing acceleration plan? Because it seems to me that we can be encouraged as much encouraging as much building as possible, but if people can't afford to live there and those units are sitting empty, what is our money going for? Meanwhile, we have the problem in Centertown of real estate investment trusts buying older towers, kicking people out, raising the rent, and as you you know that statistic of 31 affordable apartments lost for everyone we build. So, how might we um incorporate acquisition into this into this um plan? Thank you for the question. Um so, I like most people view housing as a system. So whether you're talking about subsidized housing, affordable housing, or all the way to market housing, you need to think of it as a system. Um the housing acceleration plan is primarily about how do we ensure that there's homes available for Ottawans. Um and so, you know, considering um Ottawa is fortunate, I would say, in the sense that we're still predicted to have population growth and those types of things. So we need to be building supplies so that there's enough enough homes available. If you're not thinking about the supply side of things, you can have downstream impacts because you'll have more people who will be competing for limited supply and driving up prices and that's what we have seen happen recently. Um and so we need to be having uh actions on all sides. Um, so supply absolutely that's going to be your biggest opportunity to create general affordability and to avoid uh pent-up demand that's really going to and and competition that's going to drive up prices on the affordable side of things. Um there's this council's been uh really focused on on um supporting affordable housing and had a lot of success. And then with Bill Candanda Homes, we have uh quite a number of additional units. Um it is correct that market forces do lead to things like renovations and to um the loss of what we call naturally occurring affordable housing in the private market. And there are um opportunities to acquire some of that stock where it makes sense. um you need to be looking at you know obviously the condition of those homes and uh what kind of investment needs to go into it but is absolutely part of ensuring a system. When staff made a recommendation earlier in the term of council about not focusing on acquisition, it was it for that point in time because um there was significant capital dollars from both the provincial do uh government and the federal government that were at risk if we were not meeting targets on supply. Um you know those factors are changing because those programs are coming to an end. um and we need to look at all levers just like like we always need to look at all levers and consider the context that we were in. So I would say that that particular recommendation was um contextbound and that's what staff would have um stated at that time as well. >> So you're suggesting now under these conditions it might be something to reconsider. >> It is something that staff will be looking at in the review of action Ottawa. Um so specifically around opportunities to support acquisition where it makes sense and also to support site intensification because that land is already owned by the provider. So those are examples of other levers that could help with um increasing the availability of more affordable homes. >> That's great. And then my last question, I might be scooping councelor Plant who I know always wants to talk about familysiz apartments, but so do I. Um what incentives uh are you considering thinking about incentives for larger apartments within the green belts or for larger homes? Because again, we consistently there's not a single private developer that's voluntarily building three or fourbedroom units. And as councelor Plant said, lots of people want to stay in the core. They want the benefit of of intensified, highly dense communities, and they just can't find what they're looking for. And then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy prophecy because developers say, "Well, people don't want them." But it's very common in many other big cities for people to raise their families in highrises and take advantage of all of the public good um in the core. So, I'm just wondering um if you foresee any possibility of incenting that kind of development or or figuring out a way to make it happen because um there are a lot of families that want to stay in our communities downtown. So, mayor, we continue to look at opportunities to incentivize familysized units. Uh, as you recall, this was an objective under our downtown revitalization strategy. It was also a criteria in the uh Build Canada Homes Partnership agreement that they would incentivize the development of family-owned units uh above the minimum requirements of the zoning bylaw. And in addition, this was an element that was outlined in the housing acceleration plan. So where we find opportunities to include those, we're we're trying to grab each and every one of them. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Councelor Tierney. Great. Uh thank you very much. And uh I really enjoy this report a lot. Uh thank you to Blurberg and Associates. Um couple of quick things. I I think uh first one is related to um some of the feedback I'm hearing. I guess the a lot of challenges that we have in Ottawa, we're such a large city when we amalgamated even trying to have we we keep referring to Ottawa community housing all the time, which is a great model. They have security, they got uh inventory pro I was on the board in the past and I don't even represent an area that has Ottawa community housing. I think that's part of the problem we have is we have so many charters uh in the city, there's not one single entity. As a matter of fact, I think the other challenge I'm seeing right now too is people like Gloucester Community Housing that have done great work in the PE and Canada, they're having challenges now, too. They're actually disposing of their inventory. So, as much as we'd love to say we do have a a more centrallyun one, I'll give you a prime example. Fine Crescent in my area formerly Gloucester Community Housing and it's been taken over by another group and now a lot of the residents are very upset. they're not getting the same level of attention. Are you recognizing that as a challenge for a lot of the charters and the you know the Nepans that can are now their units are being acquired because it's just it's a very expensive operation to run. >> Uh thank you for the question. And I may invite my colleagues to who work with the um nonprofit housing sector on a daily basis to come up and add some commentary to that. Um Glouester Community Housing did merge with multiffaith housing. Correct. And that is part of what we are seeing kind of systemwide is a move towards consolidation and that's because of the opportunity for >> um efficiency. costs have gone up in terms of operations as well and there is absolutely a need for the sector to be looking at how they manage their operations in a a different way. Those would be the discussions that we'd want to have through the engagement process to really um understand the challenges and the opportunities facing the sector overall and to make recommendations to council on the best possible model. >> Exactly. So, you know, I think that's that's one major loss that happened in the past during amalgamation. there was a a great opportunity to make one great model that had the same rules. You weren't paying executive directors in every single one. They pulled their resources. It's a common way of, you know, helping the people that are in those situations. Uh really unfortunate. So, I guess we have what's in front of us today. Um market conditions obviously are really rough right now in general. I don't think it's going to get better. That's no secret. We hear about um models of downtown larger uh family units. Do we know of any other municipalities that have it? Because I've heard this from others, too. They they want to create family style living downtown, but the markets just don't drive it. So, I don't I don't know if there's any comment on that. It's it's kind of tough, right? Like either the city builds familysiz homes downtown or apartments or it's left to the market. It's it's kind of binary, right? There's no there's no real option. >> Yeah. I mean, the costs of land and the cost to build are very high. So, those units become unaffordable for families. And often what um you hear kind of anecdotally anyways is that the units are acquired by wealthy individuals who are not necessarily families. So, that is something that is a fact. Um there are um some incentives that do help to encourage familysized units and uh my colleague Will McDonald did mention um some of them um and you know we are looking at those to see if there's opportunity to integrate it and absolutely within the affordable housing um efforts a focus on familysiz units is uh is is really paramount and uh something that we've been focused on for a number of years. Um maybe I'll invite our colleagues from Bloomberg whether they have anyations from other cities. >> I I think the issue of of bringing more families into the the downtown core is an issue that a number of cities are experiencing. I would say that ultimately comes down to the fact that the purchasing power of families is not able to be to compete uh with the cost that it to build them. And so, and then also units of two units or lower absorb so much faster. They're less risky to build. So, they're less costly and less risky. And the margins for a larger size unit just aren't there. I I am traditionally or I'm I'm generally um not very or skeptical of of supply side incentives for familysiz units um just because what you end up getting is kind of um developers that try to kind of skirt around the actual goal of getting larger units and they'll add a bedroom that's smaller. uh and and they'll do things that achieve kind of the line the the legal justification of the rule but don't necessarily get to the intent, right? And so I I would say that if you are trying to uh get more families into the downtown core and increase the viability of larger familyized units, this is where a demand side subsidy makes more sense. uh giving those families more purchasing power uh increasing the re potential revenue that developers will yield from familyized units and allowing them to compete uh is is probably a better strategy than a supply side instead. >> I I I completely agree with what you're saying. It it sounds great. It would be lovely to do that, but I'm sure market drives a lot of what happens and families want to grow up in communities obviously where there may be, you know, amenities and different things. So, it's a bit of a challenge. Well, I got you on the the line. Uh I I really enjoy your report. Um I I don't know if you're independent enough to be able to speak freely uh but uh what do you think of the challenges of issuing building permits or speed of municipalities delivering permitting plays a role in obviously flooding the market and making sure that we have enough units being built? Do you see any challenges from the city of Ottawa or how do we compare to other municipalities? I I would say that every municipality is looking to speed up their planning and permitting process. I I wouldn't say that Ottawa is a outlier in terms of the length of that process. We've seen a number of cities, whether it's due to environmental uh restrictions or other types of uh specific conditions within their their environment that have a much more prolonged process. But speeding up that process of course does uh increase the the profitability, the viability of projects because time is money. Uh Simon, you could want to add anything to that. But >> yeah, I would would 100% agree with that. And I'd say it's not just the the speed. The thing we hear over and over again in in municipalities throughout the continent is it's the certainty um around processes. And no, if if you know that something will always take 9 months, then you can build that into your timeline and your proforma and you have predictability and you derisk it. If it takes 6 months sometimes, but 3 years another time, then that creates a much wider risk band that you have to plan around and makes it much harder to find cost savings or to finance certain projects than than if you have that certainty. So both the absolute time and then the certainty around time are are the two biggest things we hear and would agree with non. This is not a problem that is unique to Ottawa um many municipalities um that that that we deal with um are are are having this issue. But nonetheless, you know, it not being unique doesn't mean it's not worth addressing, right? It is it is one of the bigger levers in in whether some whether development projects are feasible or not is is that element of time. So >> great. Well, thank you very much gentlemen. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, councelor Tierney, Vice Chair Kits. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Uh I do have a motion that I'm going to read in um and then I'm happy to get back on um the board to um sort of explain it a little bit more. But um what is miss this has been a really great conversation about housing acceleration. Um but what I find is missing from the conversation is if we are accelerating building homes what happens to our transportation infrastructure that is already behind. Um it will come as a surprise to no one that I'm concerned about this. Um and you know just as a quick comment on the on the conversation about reducing development development charges in my opinion that is a recipe for disaster because we have communities that are already behind um in terms of our infrastructure um and when we have this conversation about accelerating housing that has always been my anxiety is you know what happens to the infrastructure. So I will read this in. Whereas good planning is vital for ensuring that as communities grow and new neighborhoods are established, transportation and infrastructure needs are fully accounted for. And whereas as the housing acceleration plan rolls out, core infrastructure needs may continue to evolve. And whereas ensuring that housing enabling infrastructure is ready to meet increased demand is vital for delivering on Ottawa's ambition to become the most housing friendly city in Canada. And whereas the experience of the housing innovation task force demonstrates that targeted efforts at reforming processes can meaningfully improve policy outcomes. Therefore, be it resolved that infrastructure and water and planning and development staff be directly directed to jointly undertake a comprehensive review of the city's transportation infrastructure planning, design, and procurement framework with the objective of aligning infrastructure delivery timelines with accelerated housing approvals and evolving demand patterns. And be it further resolved that this review specifically explore a wide range of ideas, including but not limited to find opportunities to improve policy flexibility, including with respect to master plans and official plan policies such that local changes in growth patterns can be responded to more rapidly. Reduce internal process delays, simplify processes, and explore earlier, more effective internal and external coordination, and clear accountability to achieve higher value and faster turnaround times for the planning of infrastructure. Using actual application data, evaluate master plan infrastructure timelines to identify pressure points and take an area specific approach to planning and financing transportation, infrastructure, engineering, design, and property acquisition in parallel with decision makingaking processes for new development approvals. Examine opportunities to run independent project activities in parallel and speed up approvals through clear submissions. Examine opportunities to remove duplicative or premature study requirements across environmental assessments, functional designs, and preliminary engineering phases with the goal of reducing the overall project timeline. Increase the use of thirdparty reviewers to expand the capacity of internal technical expertise with the goal of expediting projects in high growth areas. Expand the use of consultant and construction pre-qualifications in standing offers to shorten procurement and delivery timelines. Review and update the contract administration policy and the incentive disincentive specification to better encourage biders to expedite construction timelines for infrastructure projects in high growth areas. Look to other jurisdictions for time-saving practices to pilot innovation such as the use of progressive design build and alliance contracting for growth infrastructure. Draw from their experience and determine what the city requires to achieve that capability. Consider planning policy changes to improve flexibility for municipal front ending of transportation infrastructure to encourage developer financed infrastructure required to enable development. Consider process changes to best support cross- department conflict resolution to resolve conflicts on priority projects quickly, escalate decision-making, and prioritize infrastructure projects in high growth areas. We had further resolved that strategic initiative staff immediately explore options provided under the province's special economic zone framework to cut regulatory barriers and costs citywide on infrastructure projects particularly where such projects would enable housing, reduce infrastructure restraints or improve traffic outcomes and report back to council should a provincial opportunity be identified. Be it further resolved that finance staff report back with recommended amendments to the procurement bylaw number 2050 to best facilitate the faster implementation of projects in high growth areas where transportation infrastructure is required and any other policy and procedure changes during Q1 2027. And be it further resolved that any resulting policy recommendations from the above direction be incorporated into the next updates of the official plan, transportation master plan and master servicing plan to ensure long-term alignment between growth planning and infrastructure delivery. Um so again I will come back on um but uh I know it's very detailed. I think I've passed a lot of sort of high level motions um aimed in and around this um goal of improving infrastructure delivery. Um so there's a bit more specificity in this and I wanted to thank um staff for for working with me on it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Kits, Councelor Johnson. >> Thank you, Chair. So, I just have a few questions on the motion. So, um, because there's such a high level of specificity, uh, it's a lot of places to ask a lot of questions. Um, I was wondering what what is the interpretation of the line saying flexibility in the official plan or flexibility in the transportation master plan, please? >> I is that a question to staff? Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> So, through the chair. Uh so the way I understand that is that um we have master planning documents that speak to the city as a whole. Sometimes it's broken down in transexs very broadly. You know uh what's happening in the suburbs versus rural versus you know downtown. Um the plans identify priorities in a very long-term way uh and set the the the framework. what they don't uh easily do is look at um the area specific realities on the ground. Where are we seeing the growth in the very short term? Where is the pressures? Because we we'll be planning for growth, let's say, for 40 years. We'll be looking at our transportation needs for 40 years, but it's not all going to happen um exactly the same way in all parts of Ottawa because there's market forces that we don't control. So I think that the in conversations with the counselor bringing the motion forward, it was about recognizing that the those long-term policies need to also h have enough flexibility to um provide us direction in how we implement things on um area or sites level where um so we can respond better to what's happening on the ground. >> Okay. So just to use the transportation master plan as an example, obviously we approved a a list of of several specific projects within two time frames sort of the you know the first 10 years and the second 10 years of that plan. So does this uh motion suggest that additional projects can come online into the transportation master plan if it is responding to a high growth area or is it within the projects that were already identified and improved and approved by committee and council that those can shift around based on growth pressures versus you know your other economic criteria or feasibility criteria that you would use to to to cast those out >> through the chair. So, I would say that this motion isn't uh directing specifically which way we would go in in that analysis, but I would say that we'd want to rely on the the engineering and science that went into developing the master plans and the list of priorities. I think it is about um the sequence of projects and uh and and where um what might move forward. Those of course would be budget decisions. So we use the master plan to to provide us some um direction on what the projects are and then we use the budget process to decide when we are going to be spending money on what. So I see this motion having us look at things from a area specific lens looking at where the highest growth areas are and making sure that our infrastructure investments are timed where the where the work is need. So I think this applies in lots of Ottawa. We have other areas um not in more suburban locations but let's say older Ottawa um portions of the city where we have water and wastewater infrastructure that is uh under pressure and if we see intensification and and increased density show up in a in a particular part of the city all at once, it might be out of sequence with a master servicing plan that had us um fixing those assets in at the end of their life cycle. it might mean that they need to move faster because suddenly we have uh an unexpected or unpredicted um interest in that particular part of town. So it's sometimes it's about new infrastructure, sometimes it's about replacement infrastructure, uh expansion of infrastructure to meet density, but looking at this at um at a at a more granular level, not just the citywide level. So would this motion allow for new projects to be put into the transportation master plan or would it be within the projects that were already identified in the plan? I think primarily we're talking about the projects in those plans, but the last motion speaks to also looking at those plans again when the next iterations come out. So, um, and if there is a need for a new project, um, that would have to come through council to to have it, um, added through budget and through the planning. But typically the, uh, whether you're talking about water and sewer or you're talking about transportation, we know what we're going to need in the next 40 years. We just don't always predict accurately when we're going to need it. >> Okay, fair enough. So this would whatever whatever identified needs would still come up through the regular process that would come to committee and council. >> Yes. I don't see the circumventing that. >> Okay. Very good. Um and just because the the So does this motion include all infrastructure, not just transportation because I'm seeing sort of a reference to both. So would it also include water and wastewater? >> Uh Mr. Mayor, when it comes to planning for water and wastewater, we we have to have those pipes in the ground before there's any kind of development. So, this is where there's there's a tiny difference between water and wastewater underground and road infrastructure. And the motion does speak to how can we look at different ways for maybe some frontending agreements where if the developer is ready to go, but the city was not due to its timeline. So, there's other tools for that. So for us our planning is very different. So we we have trunk system level planning that that we have sort of in our pressure zones. So through the official plan we have the information that we need to plan for that new growth and where we're working very closely with our planning partners is to look at where the intensification is happening. So that one is less predictable and is is driven by many criteria. And so we are working with them to look at the data to see where is that intensification taking place so we can do the micro analysis of water and wastewater existing capacity in those neighborhoods. >> Okay. Because certainly, you know, I'm thinking of around the Queens View uh LRT station. There's a lot of land in there, you know, through the secondary plan that can have growth uh permitted very high density. Would you not be looking when those kinds of secondary plans around um transit are are conceived? Would you would you not already be trying to sort of look at the capacity for water and wastewater uh as part of that or at least to understand that there's a horizon there that you would have to be planning for? >> So maybe I'll try that one. Um so yes we would the secondary plan process is how we um we plan for that infrastructure uh where the city is changing or where we're looking at expansion uh lands that have been brought into the urban boundary and we need to um do that sort of large scale planning secondary plans will not look the way they do today because that is one of the items that the provincial government is talking about some very significant changes and one of the um I think more significant items in the housing acceleration plan that is uh not implemented as um as of yet largely because we are waiting to see where that legislation might go. But uh setting that aside, I think this motion is is talking about um not just our our typical work of doing that big picture look like we do through a secondary plan process or whatever we end up replacing that with, but also kind of recognizing that uh where we where we need to look at the alignment of infrastructure has to look at not just what the plan enables uh to exist. So, not just the density near a transit station that could go much higher because we passed a zoning bylaw, but where it actually is happening in terms of where do we have building permits already issued and construction underway. Um, we have something like 15,000 units of uh of construction underway right now. and so in or they've pulled their building permit and haven't started construction but could at any moment um market conditions um being what they are. So there's a lot that could happen. Then there's latest stage planning like you have all of your big planning decisions. You're very close to being ready to pull a building permit. That kind of inventory gives us kind a a three fouryear window which is a much different lens to look at where we need to go. And given a a major road or a major water wastewater infrastructure project might take three, four, five, six more years to build and plan for. We need to be thinking about it at that point. So, this is about trying to be not just thinking about the the growth that is enabled in our planning structures, but being very proactive about where we're seeing the growth coming and making sure we're ready for it so that by the time those houses get built, we are or those apartments or whatever they're going to be, we are ready with the infrastructure needed to enable it. >> Okay. So, um I think it's it's an interesting motion and it's an interesting conversation. So I think there's a a great deal of what's in this motion that is probably how the public thinks that we should be planning for certain things you know it's and and we've been seeing these conversations at various committees the sequencing you know in real time responding to the real market etc. So, so what are the challenges of planning our city like this versus how we've how how we do it in more traditional fashions? What are some of the tensions that you can identify? I think uh I think that would be helpful to understand. >> Sure. I think that the housing acceleration plan and the work of the task force really uh forced the city to look from end to end from uh policy and master planning all the way to the last permit, the last permission you need, the last inspection to get something built. If you separate planning from implementation, if you separate the big policy from the operational side, you you sometimes don't see where the disconnects are. And and so I think that mindset of of um looking at it and from end to end that also forces us to look across departments because not everything is in one department. So it forces that team Ottawa like looking across the departments and making sure that we are aligned. That's a a a big shift and I think that it is um been certainly the intention of the city, but it it always can use work and this is um this housing acceleration plan has been a really good focus point to get us uh to re-examine our processes and make sure that is um we are achieving the outcome that as you say the public would probably expect that's what it should work for. I would also say that it's very difficult um to do the master planning um and all of the legislative changes we've been faced with. Uh it's a lot of big picture policy work while also keeping your eye on them on the ground level changes and seeing what's happening. And in a in a market that is starting to pick up or that that there might see some signs of hope in the market, we need to be um we need to be nimble and and be looking at what can we be doing um to make sure that the infrastructure aligns with the uh with the planning. I would say it's as my colleague pointed out it's easier in the water wastewater world because if you can't hook it up then you don't get to build like it's it's a requirement that we can we don't just build a unit and not be able to tie it into the municipal system. There's ways to physically prevent that. There is no you can have a dirt road and still be allowed to build a house. There's no rules on the transportation side. In fact, the province specifically prohibits us from slowing down development if the transportation isn't there. So, it requires a different approach in terms of how how we plan for the city and then how we actually implement our capital budget decisions to align with. So, I I I really think it's it's harder to do the the bigger your city is and the more complex it is, but um it absolutely is the conversation that is happening every day now. Uh uh I think even in a heightened way given the focus on housing and housing affordability here at the city. >> Okay. So, final question, chair. Um, and just to be clear, I've been talking much less than those guys. So, I I still have lots of time on the clock, but the answers have been very comprehensive, and I appreciate that. Um, I just want to understand in terms of your capacity then, this comprehensive review, uh, we've seen several motions asking y'all to review and do comprehensively. So, where where are you right now given that the pressures, will this upset any other apple carts um that you have or does this fall within your uh, as you say, the the direction that the city is going anyway? So we have worked with the um with councelor kits on the wording of the motion. It does reflect several initiatives that are already underway. So we do believe uh this is doable particularly if we focus on the areas where we have the greatest the high growth areas where we have the biggest disconnect from an infrastructure perspective. So um not trying to do everything all at once but really focus on the the areas of greatest need. And then the last part of the motion taking that bigger picture look and and seeing how our plans align. So I I think that we can do this and I'm also confident that we are now in a place to have the the kind of data we need which we didn't have before at the at the right scale in order to um make those assessments. >> Okay. Interesting. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Councelor Johnson. Uh, I'll go next to Councelor Brockington as a member of the committee. Councelor Brockington. >> Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, staff, for the update. It's appreciated and, um, comprehensive. I think what worries me is, as we've heard others speak, uh, Canadian population for the first time went down. Our immigration numbers are down significantly. Number of post-secary students are down. We try and retain them and encourage them to stay in Ottawa. Federal public servants jobs down. When there are significant cuts by your major employer, you take a breath. You reduce discretionary spending. You don't buy the big ticket items. You want to make sure your job is safe. That slows the economy down. Um, so there are a lot of factors. We're doing everything right to try and spur the industry to encourage people to to incentivize. Uh but when you have these sort of macro level pressures, it's very difficult. So hopefully there'll be greater stability and we'll see some uptake, but as we've heard, it could be a couple years. So that's a concern, significant concern. The um representatives from Bloomberg this morning cast doubt that the HST holiday would be passed on in full to potential buyers. And I just want to ask our staff, how real is that threat that potential buyers may not see a full discount of the HST waiver? And is there anything else we or municipalities can do to encourage the respecting of the spirit of what the federal government expects and that is that that be passed on in full to potential home buyers. >> Thank you for the question. Um so developers are required to collect and then remit the taxes to CRA. There are often including the HST in the listed price. So it's not something that we control. It's not something that we can see. Um so there there there are risks there. Um however, in this particular market where we do have homes that have been built um that haven't sold or moved um there's an incentive to pass that on so that that inventory can move. Um there's also a desire for um you know from the development community to keep people working and developments happening. So where there's projects that are really in the late stage and think that they may be able to benefit from that HSD holiday, you may see some um movement happen um there. Whether there's something that the municipality can do that I'm not aware of. I mean it really is um outside of municipal jurisdiction and um control. >> I just want to be crystal clear. I understand how the waiver will be processed. So, I'm a home builder. I sell a house to you. The house is whatever $800,000 plus HST. How does the waiver like how does this process work? If I'm the buyer, do I expect to see that my final invoice will be will not have HST mentioned or it's added but there's also an equivalent reduction in the same amount. >> Yes. So these may be questions for industry. What I'm aware of is that there's opportunity to include HSD within the listed price. So you don't like it's assumed within that. >> Okay. I just asked staff about what we can do because I believe that if there are cases where all or the partial amount of the HST is not being um deducted from the purchase price that is if the buyer is not receiving the benefit then I don't think that meets the spirit or the intention of what the federal government wants. The whole intent of an HST waiver is to help spur the industry benefiting multiple parties in this process, but for either first-time home buyers or home buyers who who are looking at a new home um that are on the fence, should I rent? Should I buy? The whole point of the HST incentive, which is costing federal taxpayers billions of dollars, is to spur the industry. And so if there's a role for municipalities to say, "Hey, industry, you should be respecting that uh intention of the federal government's waiver," then I just wanted us to to acknowledge this and see if there was anything else we can do. The other thing I'll just mention is I share councelor Kit's concerns about um sort of uh this flippant narrative that representatives from other levels of government continue to make about how quote unquote easy it is for municipalities just to wave development charges without knowing what the financial impact will be on municipalities or even the role and what we use DC's for. It's not that easy and it shouldn't be that easy. And only in in extreme cases that we vet and analyze and assess have we waved DCs in the past and should go through that same process in the future again to spur specific development that we want to see that's um under represented or being underbuilt. Again, that's a tool in our tool chest. But again, this macro narrative by some above us that municipalities should just wave the magic wand and not worry about what the financial impacts are is very dangerous from a financial perspective and puts communities like councelor kits and others at a significant disadvantage about getting needed infrastructure built to begin with. We've always heard in this forum that growth isn't paying for growth. Even in the good old days, we weren't even meeting what we needed, a one for one equivalency. This makes it even more challenging. So again, I just want to repeat my concerns about um the industry as a whole thinking that we can just wave DC's and everything will be fine when in fact that's not the case. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Councelor Brockington. Councelor Kink. >> Uh thank you so much your worship and I do appreciate those comments uh by councelor Brochington. I know that as we build new communities, people expect uh their parks, they expect expect their pipes, they expect all the infrastructure and uh I would agree that there hasn't been a serious discussion about that by senior levels of government. It's easy to say that uh we can cut uh those fees, but we need to also have a discussion about what will replace uh those dollars to ensure that those that infrastructure is uh properly implemented. I did have a question for staff. Uh the next housing acceleration plan uh progress update is scheduled uh for Q2 2027, a full year away given that uh the market conditions are changing rapidly and we see this with tariffs uh with interest rate with potential interest rate movements with federal employee shifts in uh the nation's capital as well as uh the uh built community strong fund decision. Will staff commit to providing at least one interim update to council specifically on the built uh community strong fund assessment and on DC reserve fund performance before Q2 2027 Seven. >> Through the chair. Thank you for the question. So when staff have information, staff are currently assessing the impact of um recent announcements and when staff have information to share on that, staff will bring that back. I appreciate that. I think that there's just many moving parts here and uh in order for us to really make uh substantive uh decisions, we need to have the substantive data and I appreciate the fact that it is moving fast but it seems that one year especially in this fastm moving environment um isn't sufficient in terms of the timeline. So I appreciate um you know any update that can be provided as decisions come in as uh we reflect on the changing macroeconomic environment will be very important in order for council to make decisions. >> Thank you chair. >> Thank you uh chair liber. >> Thank you very much uh mayor. Sorry just pulling up the motion again. So, one of the resolutions in uh Councelor Kits's motion speaks to exploring the options provided under the province's special economic zone framework. Um I'm just wondering I I understand that projects that are designated under special economic zone are um exempt from a certain number of studies. There's a reduction of red tape. I think environmental assessments can be waved. what would be the implications of putting projects under that um uh that regime through the chair. So that's a new a relatively new um opportunity in terms of the special economic zones. Um there are few instances of them in Ontario. So Billy Bishop airport being one. Um what the intention here for staff or the way that we've interpreted it anyways is that we would have conversations bilateral conversations with um provincial counterparts and federal as well um really to understand the extent to which um the uh there are opportunities to really benefit from additional um permissions uh to ensure that we're meeting the intent of the uh of the motion. So the the key piece would be to have some conversations with other orders of government to really understand the extent to which um certain areas of the city would qualify under that um economic zone. >> I'm not an expert in the special economic zones, but if I understand properly, they're uh ministerially approved. It's not a power that's been given to municipalities. It is something I just wonder whether >> given the incoherence with which the province is treating land use planning in Ontario right now, we want to invite the minister in any more than we need to poses a question difficult. I will I will leave that I will uh reframe that as as an opinion and rhetorical. Um the effect of the motion though would be to uh send staff away to have conversations and any uh any thought of working within that regime would be brought back to council for a decision. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Dash. >> You very much uh Mr. chair. I um agree with some of the comments that were provided that as a little ship um we're doing what we can at the lowest level of government in an ocean of macroeconomic uh forces that are really um at play and uh really challenging uh the purchasers and those who build our homes. Um, so to me today it really kind of exposed how despite what we're doing, we're really challenged by those macroeconomic challenges that the country faces, not just the city of Ottawa. Uh, question to staff. Um, I know there's a lot of focus on um prices and decision making by home purchasers uh on entry into the housing market, but I wonder if there's any data or any perspective on once you move into your home, you are paying a municipal tax bill, you are paying a water bill. Um, so it makes sense that we do our best to hold the line on taxes and hold the line on costs and find efficiencies as we have over the course of this last term. Particularly when we compare um our situation to the situation of the satellite communities that are around Ottawa, whether that be Gatnau or Kempville or Rockland, where more and more you can have a very high quality of life. you can um purchase a home and you can pay what four-fifths of the tax bill and you can move around because we have that inconvenient truth the 400 series highways that splice through the core of the city extend into the BBS and then go north south into uh places like Kempville. So, is there is there do you have any um views or any data on how we're potentially just not competitive to some of the satellite communities because of the taxation rates and and uh water bills that are higher because we're a larger municipality. >> Uh Mr. Mayor, so from a tax perspective, that's not something that we've analyzed like from our own tax perspective. What we do know is that our tax rates are, you know, one of the lowest in the province when we do benchmarking with the uh the BMA studies that we we talk about during the budget process. So we, you know, and as you also mentioned in your your comments there in terms of efficiencies and continuous improvements, we're always striving to ensure that we do bring forward an efficient uh budget and and ensuring that the the organization is efficient and bringing forward continuous improvements to make sure that those those savings are passed on through the residents through low tax rates. Okay. So, but as far as this entire analysis that we're doing to understand the situation that we're in, do we collect any feedback? Do we have any good data on why we are bleeding growth to satellite communities? Uh I have my own ane an anecdotal information that like I said more and more are becoming complete communities to councelor um kit's motion. they they they have the infrastructure, they have the services, they have the retail. Um, and people are willing to, for example, drive from Kempville to go to work in Canada. There's a a 400 series highway that moves uh very well. The prices are lower. The taxation is potentially lower. Do we have any ane do we have any data on why we're bleeding growth to these communities so that we can at least try and address it >> through the chair? Uh, no counselor. I'm not aware of that data. >> Okay. All right. Well, I I'll put it on our radar because uh you know, it's um I I hear it from from residents when they're either looking to retire or they uh their situation changes. There are are opportunities outside the boundaries of Ottawa. So, we have to be aware of that competition that we're facing. continue to uh have a as low tax bill as possible and continue to work on building complete communities so when people move in they have all that they they need and would expect to to lead a a very high standard of quality of life. Um just in closing just a comment on um using more a strategy of using more um um of our public housing arms to to build more homes. Uh I'm certainly open to it in some levels. I think we need to do the proper analysis. What I wouldn't want to see is a super bureaucracy that builds it. And we're lucky I think to have some other smaller scale um um housing providers, Nepian housing, um multiffaith housing that I think provide um a lot of bang for the buck because they have sort of a lower um administrative overhead. So, if we're going to be looking at expanding this area, let's do it with eyes wide open. Let's do it with full analysis. and let's be aware that um it we may have some control to build, but if we're building these large bureaucracies, I'm not sure we're any better off. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Deash. Councelor Johnson. >> Uh thanks me again. Sorry. So, just about the motion one more time. So, let's take a real example. Baseline BRT. Baseline BRT scores most highly on the transit list. And I'm not sure it's within a high growth area, but it it was evaluated against a set of criteria that demonstrates its benefit in terms of a network and in terms of, you know, the the the the actual improvements to to mode share targets that we're after for some of those neighborhoods as well. So I I still I guess I struggle still to understand and I'm not I'm not opposed to the idea because I understand it's just for consideration, but I am trying to understand how you then layer on something like high growth um within a set of criteria that's already been established within all of these plans. So can you can you use that example, but don't get too stringent on the example just as >> I understand. So I I guess I would say that we're we don't see this motion as replacing the master planning process. It is another lens to take to see where are there gaps or um challenges within our long-term master planning framework that are not meeting the the immediate pressure. So it would be another lens to take not a replacement to the master plan process. >> Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair Kits. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am going to give uh quite a wrap-up here because I do feel like this is one of the more um significant motions I've brought forward. I am trying to rethink how we approach infrastructure delivery as a city. Um and as Marcia mentioned, some of this work is already underway. Some of the pieces in here with respect to exploring front-ending agreements, for example, I have already brought forward and passed emotion on this, but I don't think we are moving fast enough to keep up with what is happening on the housing side. And over the last several years, you all know I have been laser focused on the core issue of making sure that growth in my community is actually supported by the infrastructure that people rely on every day. And you've all heard my frustration on this. Um, but I also want to be clear. This is not about pointing finger fingers. Our staff are working within the systems that we have built. So what I'm asking today is whether those systems are still fit for purpose in a city that is growing fast. And I'm asking whether there are better ways uh to do things. and that we recognize on a systemic level that delivering transportation infrastructure on time is just as important as planning it. Um and to make up for the fact that we don't have the same lever of holding provisions uh when it comes to transportation infrastructure like we do for water and sewer even when a road is operating over capacity or an intersection is failing or the mobility conditions are unsafe and um I appreciate that pretty well the entire leadership team uh had input and contributions in writing this motion. I do feel like we are we are rowing in the same direction. Um this motion is really with citywide intent but as a case study I want to share um it's also coming from a place of persistence because progress has been made in my corner of the city. I you know exposed through my inquiry that the east end was was getting less investment. I fought the battle at the transportation master plan time. We pushed uh projects got moved up. I secured commitments um with your help, Mr. Mayor, and with the support of all of this council. But what I've come to realize is that even when the funding is identified, even when the projects are prioritized, we still aren't delivering infrastructure at the speed that the city is growing. And that's the gap that this motion is trying to close. Over this term, this council has rightly put uh major focus on housing, and we have streamlined approvals. We've reduced red tape. We've told the system to move faster. That is what we were discussing today. But what I am hearing more and more from residents most importantly, but even from the industry is that transportation feels like an afterthought and it creates a real problem because communities are more than just a unit count. It is about whether people can get to work, whether kids can safely get to school, whether congestion gets worse. um and whether communities feel complete instead of like they are constantly catching up. Um so this motion is asking if we're if we're willing to rethink how we approve housing, why wouldn't be we be willing to rethink how we deliver the infrastructure infrastructure that makes housing livable? I feel like we should all be really proud that we have modernized one side of this equation. Um but the other side is still operating in a very traditional, very sequential, very risk adverse way and it's showing up in timelines. It's showing up in layers of review in processes that happen one after another instead of together. Um and all of that has a cost. Every year that a project doesn't move forward. It means more cost um more or more lost economic opportunities. So, um, at the end of the day, residents don't experience policy. They experience outcomes. They experience whether the road is built, whether the intersection is safe, whether the transit shows up. That's what matters to the people that we represent. And I haven't said Brian Coburn once today. So, welcome to the next phase of my work. Um, and I want to thank you, Mr. mayor and your staff for um working with me on this motion. I know that accelerating infrastructure timelines is a shared priority um and I've I've really valued our collaboration um on moving this forward to help growing communities like mine um but also to build a bigger a better city at large. Thank you. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Kits. Councelor Lulof, >> I want to lend my support uh to what councelor Kits is saying. There's absolutely no daylight between us on this issue. the challenges that are facing her community and many of yours uh are the same ones that we're facing in Orleans, East Cumberland. This growth is happening and it's happening quickly. Now, we're going to be pushing to have it happen even more quickly. That's a good thing. We need more homes, but um we have to ensure that that growth doesn't come at the expense of the infrastructure that people rely on every single day. This is something that councelor Kits has been talking about this entire term and the term before this. Um, at the same time, um, we're asking residents to accept this more housing with while the systems around them are already under strain. On top of what we're dealing with in the south of Orleans, Highway 174 is at capacity. It's affected by the same issues that councelor D. Ro just uh just raised, we're seeing people moving out of the east end, moving in to municipalities to our east, and then using our infrastructure for free. Uh, anyone who drives on it knows this is not a future problem. This is a daily reality. You know, I you want to talk about other kinds of transportation. I have a pedestrian bridge project in my ward that's effectively frozen. We have supports in place quite literally holding up the air because we've not been able to secure the funding needed to complete it. And that means that people are still trying to navigate a busy highway without a safe crossing uh that they were promised. That's not acceptable. If we're serious about accelerating home building, then we need to be just as serious about accelerating the infrastructure that supports it. Roads, transit, active transportation, water and wastewater capacity, community amenities. These are not optional add-ons. These are fundamental to building complete and live livable communities. We can't continue to approve growth in isolation and hope that the infrastructure catches up later. We've seen what that looks like and it looks like uh our areas uh in the city and some of yours as well. That approach is exactly what's led to the pressures that we're seeing today. This motion is about aligning our priorities and it's about making sure that when we say yes to housing, we're also saying yes to the infrastructure that make these communities work. Our residents deserve communities that are not only growing but functioning. Safe roads, reliable transit, and infrastructure that keeps pace with the people who call these neighborhoods home. I would encourage everyone to please support this motion. And I want to commend uh my council colleague, councelor Kits, for her steadfast work on this issue. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Lulaf. Councelor Manard. >> Thanks very much. Uh mayor, I just have some questions about the motions to to staff. I imagine in your review, um you're going to make sure that you're maintaining consistency with the existing official plan. um the long-term planning objectives, the sustainability and community integrity objectives that are in the official plan. That that wouldn't change as part of this motion. I I assume >> that's correct. The uh special economic zone piece uh is troubling to me. I'm going to vote against that portion of the motion. Um I I don't think that that's going to help uh this situation. Um I I can see some other utility, but that one is a is a piece that I'm I'm concerned about. I don't want mechanisms that reduce environmental protections, labor rights, democratic oversight. Those are concerns to me. So, I'm going to vote against that piece of the the uh the motion. I think a lot of the report we saw today on housing, we don't want to double down on the stuff that's not necessarily working or we're frozen on the deregulation portion without seeing that type of housing development or municipalities funding it. The front-end agreements in this motion, just can you explain to me what more what that would do? I mean, is this actually a way to save money for the municipality by by having front-end agreements with with developers up front, or would this be longer term, potentially a longer a larger cost? So, I I'll start. I I I guess I would say that I mean, we don't see this necessarily as saving money. It's about trying to um speed up approvals. I I guess I would say there's two issues we have with the disconnect between infrastructure and and housing growth. The one of it is the sheer cost of doing these projects. They're very expensive. So, where we put our money um in any given year and how we make those decisions um is important. And I think this motion tells us to look at uh where we're seeing the the high growth pressures as part of that analysis. The other part of it is that um we always want to be doing things most efficiently in terms of where we spend precious tax dollars. And so can we find ways? This this motion identifies several places for us to look to um either uh thin out processes uh reduce delays um identify ways that we could uh run things in in parallel where possible and and so it speaks to procurement and other kinds of things. But trying to get to I I don't see us saving money by this. I think it's more about trying to spread the money we do have more efficiently. >> Yeah. And I guess there's an argument to be made that the money that we do have for this type of infrastructure to catch up to the housing everywhere. It's not it's not just this this area is not adequate. Uh we we need to fund things to be able to support the housing that's there. Um and it's not going to come from from a magical private sector, you know, uh deal. It's it's going to come from municipal funding for these for these types this type of infrastructure everywhere in the city. So, I just the motion kind of lines up a it's it's it's maybe avoiding talking about budgets and taxes and talks a lot about kind of potential deals with the special economic zones and private sector that that could fix these things and that's not going to do it. Um, so I'm I'm uh like I said, I'm going to support um portions of this, not the spec special economic zone piece and uh I'll wait for more at council too. Thanks, Mayor. >> Okay. Thank you, councelor Kavanagh. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I don't have a a problem generally with the motion. Um, I think actually I'm I'm a good example because we're doing stage 2 LRT, but we're also doing infrastructure at the same time. I can tell you it's a huge headache with construction, but in the long term, it'll it'll be great because we're getting um a lot of uh water manes, etc. uh moved over, you know, changed over um in the same area as the uh stage 2 LRT. was a bundled project um with stage 2 L LRT and I I think it's uh in the long term it's going to work well but uh even if it's a headache right now with construction and detours um I I wanted to um ask a question totally separate um in terms of bureaucracy um for um for assigning u nonprofit housing um is there any difference between um doing something large scale deal with Ottawa Community Housing versus other nonprofits. Um because uh that comment I just wanted to clarify if there's any extra bureaucracy or um on in uh dealing with the with these uh different uh nonprofit uh builders >> through the chair. Thank you for the question. So no, not necessarily. Um and this is the intent of doing the public builder model would be to gain efficiencies including through administration and that type of thing. So the goal would be to ensure it's a a streamlined uh process as possible. >> And is it not more efficient when you're dealing with a very large number of units being built versus smaller projects? >> Yes. And there's many different ways to achieve that. So that would be the goal of uh engaging with the sector and then examining different models spring forward. >> Okay. Thank you. We need we need all kinds of uh uh nonprofit but I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Kavanaaugh. Um okay so uh just before we vote on the motion and then on the item I'll just clarify that we'll vote separately on the uh the clause uh regarding the special economic zone. So we'll do a separate vote on that. Um, I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments before we wrap up. First of all, u I want to say thank you to staff for um all of your hard work uh on the housing acceleration plan um which has I think been been very very significant and one of the things that we can be proudest of during this term of council. We've done a lot in this area. We've been very bold and aggressive. Our our goal is to be leading the way in Canada and I think in many respects we're doing that. So thank you for all of your hard work and for the presentation today and for uh the thoughtful way in which you answered all the questions today. Thank you colleagues for a great discussion. Um you know I just want to underscore the fact that you know a lot of points were raised, a lot of questions were asked but you know we are we are looking at at population projections that are saying we're going to grow by 500,000 people in the next 25 years. That is significant. I' I've often referred to the fact that, you know, when I was a teenager in the 1980s, that was the population of Ottawa was 500,000 people. Uh so we're going to grow by what was the entire city of Ottawa three or four decades ago in the next 25 years. It's huge. So if if that's going to happen and we're going to manage that effectively, we need uh some of the uh initiatives that councelor Kits has been talking about and I want to thank Councelor Kits for her leadership and collaboration on this. We share the priority uh not just in Orleans uh and and South Orleans uh but throughout the community of making sure that we can support the growth that we are going to see and we need to make sure we're ahead of the game on that. So thank you very much for your hard work on this. Um but I also want to underscore the fact that you know yes do we need new models. Yes do we need to invest in more um in more um public housing through partnership with OC and others. But we also need more market housing. We need more housing of all kinds. We need more of everything. We need more rental. We need more homes that are being purchased. We need a more affordable, more supportive, more subsidized. We need more of everything. So it's not a choice between different things here. It's it's yes and it's more of everything. Um and so I do uh support the work that has been done to make it easier for developers to build in Ottawa. We will see over time how you know which of those incentives have been most effective and how they will work. Uh but we need to do that so that we are doing our part. At the same time as we continue to invest in affordable housing and partner with OC and other partners which we are doing this term of council. We should be very proud. We invested $105 million in affordable housing. Last term of council it was $45 million. We've built more affordable homes, more supportive homes. We just passed a motion to double the rate at which we're going to build supportive housing in the next 5 years. So, we have done a lot on housing and we should be proud of that. And it's not an eitheror scenario. We need to partner and build more affordable housing. We need to make it easier to build market housing in our city. So, I'll leave it there, but thank you colleagues for good discussion today. Um so on councelor kit's motion with the exception of the um uh reference to the spe special economic zone is that carried >> buried. >> Okay. And then if we could v have a recorded vote on the clause about the special economic zone please. >> Canceler Lulaf. >> Yes. >> Cancer Dudas. >> Yes. >> Cancer Curry. >> Yes. Cancer Kelly, >> yes. >> Cancer Kavanagh, >> yes. >> Councelor Johnson, >> no. >> Councelor Tierney, >> yes. >> Councelor King, >> yes. >> Councelor Troster, >> I apologize. Is this the clause that we pulled out or is this >> This is the clause we pulled out on the special economic zone. >> Okay. Thank you. No. >> Councelor Brockington. Yes. >> Councelor Menard. >> Nope. >> Councelor Brown. >> Yes. >> Councelor Lowe. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Gower. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Kits. >> Yes. >> Chair Leaper. >> No. >> Mayor Satcliffe. >> Yes. >> 13 yays. Four nays. >> Okay, that's carried. Thank you. And then on the item as amended. Is that carried? carried. >> Okay. All right. We have already, I believe, dealt with the um information previously distributed. Uh so motion to adjourn. Is that carried? Thank you everyone.