Uh thanks. Please be seated. All right. Uh I just want to thank everybody for uh making the time today on short notice for a special meeting of council. This is our 10th meeting, but a special meeting, which means we'll only deal with the matters for which the meeting's been called, which is the communications in uh 6.1. However, it is a formal meeting of council. So, I will go uh through uh all of our uh regular procedures. And I'll start with the land acknowledgement. We are uh we acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek, Hodnoson, Len Pwok, and Adwandran peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. Two row wamp and bell treaty of the hodachon confederacy silver covenant chain. The beaver hunting grounds of the hodnoson nanfan treaty of 1701. The McKe treaty of 1790. London township treaty of 1796. The Hiron track treaty of 1827 with the Anesnabek and the dish with one spoon covenant wampam of the Anesnabek and Honosoni. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chipua of the Tames First Nation, Onida Nation of the Tempames, and the Muny Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The city of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda atlondon.ca CA or 519-661-2489 extension2425. I just because there's only a limited number of members in uh chambers, I'm just going to list the members who've joined us online so you're aware of how many are here. Uh councelor Hopkins, councelor Ramen, councelor McAllister, councelor Vamir Bergen, councelor Frank, uh councelor Hillier, councelor Layman, uh and councelor Ferrer are all joining us online. Um, councelor Pelosa, councelor Cuddy, councelor Stevenson, councelor uh, Troau and myself are here in person. Uh, and I'll move to Oh, we have a playing of O Canada. So, we don't have a a singer today, but feel free to sing along if you like. Uh, so I'll have everybody rise and we'll we'll listen to a rendition of O Canada. Oh Canada, our home and native land. True patri love in all of us command. With glowing hearts we see the rise. the true north. Strong and free from far and wide. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Thank you. Please be seated. Okay. Uh I'm going to turn to disclosures of pecunary interest. Are there any? Okay, seeing none, we have no recognitions. It's a special meeting. Uh we have nothing to review from in closed session. We have uh no confirmation of previous minutes. Uh so we'll move to communications and petitions. Uh there is a report from our staff as well as uh three communications from uh members of the public and different industry representatives. Um how we're going to do this is uh I know councelor layman's willing to put the staff recommendation on the floor. I'm willing to second it. So we could put that on the floor uh so that that's moved and seconded. Uh but our uh treasurer and her team are going to present on the item. I'm going to provide some additional context at the end of the pres presentation on an Ontario big city mayor's meeting with the ministry uh that was occurred last Friday. Uh and then we can move into debate and discussion on the matter um questions and answers uh get all of the information you need. So uh with it moved and seconded uh I will turn it over to uh our deputy city manager to present and there's a slideshow so you can switch your screen to the uh the other screen if you like. Will we be getting a copy of it as well? >> Yeah, absolutely. For sure. Yeah. Thank you. Through your worship. So, um I think certainly we're grateful to have the opportunity to walk the council through all of this information that is uh very very current. Um before I begin, I need to recognize my staff and the tremendous amount of work that they have done. Um in particular, Mr. Denise's team and Mr. Murray's team have been working um extremely um hard over the last two weeks to pull all of the information together. And um this has been a little bit of the ground moving within beneath our feet as we've been doing the calculations to try to determine how best the city could proceed and take advantage of this program. So um why we're here today, the program was announced on June the 1st. So, um, with two weeks to, um, start to look at this information, we received a great deal of new information on this past Saturday morning. And with that uh additional clarity that the ministry provided on the program requirements, it provided us with a great deal of information that was able to um clarify how the city could proceed with this program in a manner that would be favorable for the city of London without utilizing taxpayer funding that is in addition to what is already in the current budget. So, um, noting that the ministry timelines are extremely tight, we have to submit an application to be considered for this program by no later than 10:00 a.m. this Friday morning, June 19th. So, in the event that the city of London is successful and is able to proceed with the program, we anticipate that a TPA, a transfer payment agreement will be provided and that will be brought forward for council's approval in August. So they are moving very very quickly with this program. So moving forward today only authorizes the ability for civic administration to submit an application and um subject to the ministry's review. We shall see if we are successful and are able to move forward and it will be subject to the council's approval and determination at that time with um greater details known to be able to move forward. So certainly the DC rate reduction will take place and will be um retroactive back to March 30th date that the ministry has provided. So just to walk you through a bit of the program summary. So the program is a competitive applicationbased funding opportunity. So with this program there has been a sum of money provided um over a 10-year period of time in combined federal and provincial funding. So the the intent of the program is to reduce residential DC rates, specifically the residential component for by a minimum of 30 to 50% for a three-year period of time. So the the intended outcome is really to reduce the pressures on the housing costs as well as advancing development more quickly to be able to provide housing enabling infrastructure and to accelerate some of the potential growth related works that are currently within the DC background study and within the approved city of London capital plan. So just to walk you through a bit of the key dates and how quickly this is moving. So although the program was announced in June, um here we are today to provide uh direction to staff to submit an application. It is retroactive to March 30th and it is based on the DC rates that are in effect at that time related to residential building permits. So, what this does is this would commit the city of London um should we be successful to a three-year reduction um over which the projects which would be submitted through the application would be looked at and would provide funding based on eligible program costs. So there is a very specific period of time over which the works are to be begun and to be completed no later than October 31st, 2035. So there are many components within this timeline that we need to look at. But most notably the DC rate reduction would be in place until March 31st, 2029. So, um, as you look at this, there are certainly some other elements that pose some other questions and things that we don't have answers yet to with respect to our current DC background study. But, um, certainly what this would do if the city were to be successful is that there would be certainty with the rates and that reduction up till March 31st, 2029. So there are three assessment criteria that the province will be looking at with respect to the competitive application process. These are the things that they will be judging all of the municipalities on with respect to their application to determine who and uh what municipalities are successful. So the first item is the level in which the DC rate reduction is uh recommended. So certainly they've identified that greater DC reductions um would be subject to potential higher recovery of grant funding. The second component is to have a municipal contribution that is a minimum of 10%. They have indicated that contributions above that 10% will again be received more favorably. This is um one of the very key points that um we received the clarification on. Originally the thought was that the municipal contribution was to be in addition to the tax funding and the rate supported funding that was already within the municipal budgets. This would have created a rep a rate pressure um in the future or would have used um reserve funds that are already um identified for specific sources. So this is probably there were a number of municipalities that had gone very very quickly to their councils um late last week and earlier this week. Um without that clarification, a lot of the information that would have been provided at that time would have actually changed um subject to Saturday morning's clarifications received. So um that's one of the things that we've been working diligently on is to get additional clarifications as we work through the many many pages of the guidelines and the requirements for which to submit an application. So the the third housing impact piece is the eligibility that they will be looking at in terms of the extent to which the units that will benefit from the DC rate reduction are anticipated. So, this would be related to the number of permits that we expect will be issued over the next three-year period and that will basically be able to take advantage of that rate reduction that will be in place over that time. The other component of that is the number of units that will be enabled through the infrastructure projects for which the city will um include within their applications. So certainly in terms of looking at all of these, I mean those are three um look like very simple on paper but there are a great deal of calculations and analysis that is within here and the team has been working very closely with Mr. Mather's team and Miss Sher's team to try to look at all of the things that are currently within our approved capital plans and DC background study to look at what things would potentially support the lost revenue that we are potentially estimating over that period of time to maximize the potential competitiveness of an application. With any program, there are always some financial risks and um certainly we've been trying to look at the cost benefit of these um and until a signed TPA is provided to us um it will be difficult to quantify at this point in time. However, one of the key factors that I would just bring to your attention is that um there is a potential revenue gap that could occur in the event that the DC relief um ends up being significantly higher than the lost funding and that the funding that would be anticipated and provided through this TPA um should the city of London be um successful in its application. So certainly something that our calculations we are reviewing and trying to put forward our best calculations to ensure that any potential revenue loss would um be mitigated by the potential grant um application that could be put forward and revenue from the province and the feds. In addition, um the application clearly states that the city is responsible for any cost escalations or project overruns that might be associated with any of the eligible costs. These are not unusual for any of uh infrastructure funding programs. However, it's certainly something that um we need to take into account as we put forward an application. And um also common with uh other infrastructure programs is that uh because it is milestone based, the city needs to provide the interimm financing of the capital costs as the projects are uh completed over that 10-year time frame. So certainly should the city be successful, we would bring forward to you a full assessment of what financial risks are at the time that council is contemplating um the completion and the execution of the TPA, which we anticipate will be in August. So based on the work that the team has been able to do uh thus far and that we have diligently been trying to pull together since Monday morning, we are recommending that the city proceed with an application for a proposed 50% DC reduction. So based on um what we now know to be uh clarified as part of the ministry um guidelines that have been provided to us that would offset um a significant portion of the current DC rates in effect at March 31st and would maximize the most competitive application to enable the most number of housing units and as well as eligible funding under the program. So, one of the key pieces that we now need to do and complete in preparation to have a final application submitted for 10:00 a.m. on Friday morning is to determine what that revenue loss will be in conjunction with the eligible costs for projects as well as the housing units that will be enabled for any potential infrastructure um projects that we would put forward. So certainly the intent would be to submit the projects that will enable the greatest residential unit benefit but also ensure that the minimum um recovery will offset the anticipated DC revenue to ensure that the city is at a neutral position. It ultimately um in our opinion is a good program given the clarification that has been provided to proceed with and um although there may be some risks. So we believe at this point in time that with the benefit through the 90% um that would be offset through the DC revenue and with by eligible funding that this will be um a win-win for everyone to be able to proceed. So, we are seeking um council's endorsement to proceed with an application and um the team will continue pulling together all of the relevant information so that we can find the projects that are the most advantageous to maximize the funding in equal to the amount that the DC revenue lost as well as enabling the most number of housing units so that we might increase our odds of being successful in this program. I will turn it back over to your worship. >> Yes. And I'm going to turn the chair over to councelor Ploza. I'll continue with some more details on the presentation before we get into debate. >> Thank you. Have the chair recognizing Mayor Morgan. >> Yes. So I just want to um add some additional context uh based on what the deputy city manager said. Um so as of Thursday of last week, one of the biggest barriers to the application was the um the the way that municipal contribution was going to work. uh as was described um as of Thursday night with engagements with ministry staff uh the expectation was irrespective of how much money you have in a project that is non DC related because if you recall a number of our projects have growth related components and non-growth related components you were not going to be allowed to count your non-growth related components towards the municipal contribution in other words within the DC envelope we were going to have to find an additional 10% of dollars on projects that could be hundreds of millions of dollars. Uh find that from either the municipal tax base or some other source which is basically going to be municipal taxes or rates uh to be able to participate in the program which was a significant barrier. Um Friday uh we convened a meeting of the Ontario big city mayors uh in uh Waterlue uh where almost all uh mayors participated and and the main thing we discussed we engaged directly with ministry staff uh at both the the political and ministerial level. Um there were a number of uh concerns and questions raised. Uh one of the main concerns I raised was this municipal contribution piece. Uh I emphasize that should the province allow municipalities to count their nonDC already budgeted or rate collected uh portions of a project towards the municipal contribution. We would be able to participate at a much deeper level. We would be able to make applications that would uh be targeted towards more units of housing. Uh and there were a number of other questions that were raised from different municipalities. There were a number of mayors who were very concerned because they had gone to their councils, got permissions, realized that now they're on the hook for tens of millions of dollars of potential tax increases and came to that meeting seeking that clarification as well. To the ministry's credit, and I want to thank Minister Flax's office for the representation that they had at that meeting, as well as the ministry staff, they listened to our concerns and and this is an instant where the province had a meeting. They listened to the concerns of mayors. By the next day, they were provided the necessary clarification on a number of factors that allows for a participation of cities like the city of London without any net new impacts on the tax rates from the application. Uh, and what our staff now have the job to do is to craft together the application that can make it the most competitive, which means, you know, targeting the 50% rate is going to make it more competitive. scouring the number of projects that we have within the existing DC approved background study and we can only use projects within the existing DC approved background study to maximize minimize the risks and maximize the housing benefit will be the job that they have next and then they will submit those projects and we'll have a chance at the transfer payment agreement um uh component to have an assessment of here's what the ministry has agreed that they're willing to fund uh here's the risks here's the projects you know here's the depth of DC reduction that we actually landed on. They're targeting 50%. It could land around that depending on the projects picked because the province will fund projects not uh not just a a direct loss of DC revenue and they will pull all together and council will have a decision at that point on whether or not to participate in the TPA. So just to be clear, we will still have another vote to decide whether or not to participate with all of the full details on what it actually looks like for the city of London. Uh we'll be clear, this will look different in every single city because the province is funding projects and it's competitive. Uh I spoke with Minister Flack last night. Um he would love to see the program oversubscribed. Um they don't know how many applications will come in, but they expect it to be competitive. One of the questions I asked him um uh and he's very open to it'll be something determined later is if this works as the province intends and remember the goal of this program and participating in it is to get many of those municipal permissions to actually move and turn into actual units on the ground. If that works and development moves and we get lots of activity and it aligns with our estimates, you know, we'll be in a good spot. If for some reason it goes even better than expected, which is not a bad problem to have, we would uh forego more DC revenue than we have projects. And so my ask was if there's still money left in the envelope or or if the province is willing to put in more money, would you consider municipalities being able to add more projects to be funded to actually maximize and offset the pressure on the DC funds with additional projects? And his answer to that was totally not opposed to that. um and very interested in trying to build housing um and I think they're willing to put even additional dollars on the table, but it will depend on how long the program is subscribed. So, I wanted to provide that context for council as well beyond what the treasurer said because there was a there was a political element and engagement to this as of last Friday. Uh I want to also thank our staff. I know that we've had many conversations and I appreciate all the prep leading into the Friday meeting of mayors. Um I this has consumed like all of their time. The amount of calculations to even figure out what's possible, what's not that they will need to do in the coming days um uh to submit to the application by Friday morning is tremendous. I know they're they're laying the groundwork for that now and have been. Uh so I I thank them for their dedicated uh work. Uh, and I think that there is a real path to participating in this program in a way that has no impact on taxes and uh and offsets uh the necessary dollars and and hopefully achieves the the the province's goal of getting all of those permissions that we've made uh moving and turned into housing. So that I add that additional context uh and uh I'll uh I'll sit down now. Chair, >> thank you. Returning the chair to Mayor Morgan. >> Okay. So we've got all that. I'm sure there's going to be uh a number of questions. I just we'll just note for counselor strategically it's council. So if you want to ask questions and do debate, it's kind of a good idea to kind of pack all that all those pieces together. Um and so uh just remember we get to speak once. So I anticipate you want to to be thoughtful about your time and get the questions in but also your thoughts for your colleagues to hear about participation in the program. >> Point of order. >> Uh point of order. Yes. I think under the circumstances, especially since I think most of us are just looking at this for the first time, it would be useful to suspend the rules and uh allow allow a little bit more back and forth and a little bit a little bit uh question and then come back and ask another um question and and not be subject to the strict uh procedural rules. So, I'd like to ask if you could um if you could relax that without having to make a motion. >> Yep. Let me get you an answer for that council. Okay. So, let me give you a a path forward, counselor, cuz I I agree with your assessment. So, what we could do by 2/3 majority is suspend the you only get to speak once rule. We always had we've always had the ability to extend time if we need to if someone gets to the end of it, but we could suspend the speak only once. I could track time. You could ask some questions. You could way back in the debate later if you save some time. Um, we could go we go that route with it. I would need twothirds of council to support to support that to enforce it. >> In which case, I'd like to move that notwithstanding. >> Could you just We're at council, so I'll just have you stand. >> Oh, that's right. Um, it's the morning. So, um, notwithstanding the normal council procedure rules, they be suspended to allow counselors to speak more than once. >> Okay, we're just going to word that up. I got a seconder for that. We're just going to pull up the actual reference to the bylaw and the motion just to make it very clear. Okay, I'll read out the motion. Pursuant to section 2.3 of the council procedure bylaw, the speaking only once provision provided in section 9.7 be suspended for the June 17th council meeting. Um, good with that language. Good. Okay. that requires twothirds of all members of council, whether they're present or not, to pass. So, it requires a 10 vote threshold. >> No. Suspension of the rules is not not amendable, not debatable. So, that's the motion before us. We're going to open it for voting. Chair, my escribe isn't working. Council Ramen votes yes. >> My escribe is not working as well. Councelor Hopkins votes yes. >> Councelor Trusso votes yes. >> Uh councelor Layman votes no. Closing the vote. Motion fails. 9 to four. >> Okay, that required 10. We got nine. So, I will proceed with the regular uh procedure bylaw and I would ask uh colleagues to just uh think thoughtfully about your time because you'll be able to ask questions and debate at the same time. >> That's right. A point of order. >> Point of order. Go ahead. >> Um thank you, Mr. Wear. Um there is audit committee at noon. I know we're a little ways out from that. Just looking to see how procedurally you're going to handle it. Uh if we'll have to just if people are speaking for extended period of time, what are we going to do about audit at noon? So if we run into that, we'll pause. You'll convene audit. Lucky you. Then you will suspend it so that the meeting starts as long as you start within half an hour of the start of audit. Then we will continue with this. And then when we're done, we'll switch back to audit if pe But if people keep it tight, but that'll be great. But if they don't, there's lots of questions. It's a big decision, so got to let it go the way it goes. >> Okay, I appreciate that. Just we have a member of the public who also serves on audit. So, thank you. >> Yeah, if you're waiting for the audit committee, um we're going to get to it. Don't worry. Uh okay, so I'll start a speakers list now on this item. I'll look for speakers. All right. Anybody? >> Okay. Go ahead, Council Stevenson. >> So, I just want to say that I support applying for this. What I am struggling with is the um the lack of information provided to council and the lack of a role that council is going to play in the decisions that are going to be made which are big and important and I appreciate the work of staff. This isn't derogatory to them. I'm sure they've been working very very hard but none of that work is visible. The the this application is due in less than 48 hours. And the thought that projects haven't been scoured, that percentages haven't been calculated is difficult. Difficult. The city of Windsor has a meeting right now at 11:00 and their council has details information. They're being asked to support in principle a 70% DC reduction and a 59% municipal contribution. They have numbers and information around that municipal contribution about the risks associated with choosing projects where costs were estimated a while ago and maybe updated costs aren't known or increased known increased costs are not eligible. So I'm not an expert in this but I would like to be informed on the on the uh on the behalf of taxpayers. We received an email last week saying there was going to be no special committee, no no special council meeting and that uh we would be informed after the fact what the application looked like. And yes, we will have a final say, but it will be a take it or leave it at that point. And we won't have provided information, nor will we have nor will we know what our options were. There might have been several diff different options. We won't even understand how competitive our application will be. So now and now with a vote of council doesn't even want us to discuss it as members of councils as representatives of our wards. This has been indicative this entire term of council something that I've experienced that I've spoken about something that I struggle with. I have sent email communication and we got this meeting. This was just a general thing that we knew before. We talk about the the um issues with lastm minute stuff. We'll deal with the government. It's always like that. As a tax accountant, it was ridiculous. They would announce programs and people would be we'd filing tax returns and we wouldn't know the details yet. That is the reality in which we work, all of us. And it is appreciated. It is appreciated what staff is doing. But as I've said through emails to the mayor and to the city manager and to the deputy city manager of finance, under what authority and direction is this application going to be filed without council's involvement? Somebody is going to make the decisions between now and Friday morning. And you have to have a draft. You have to have been looking at this. I understand it's not finalized, but you have to be have been working on this for the last couple of weeks. All that work, as I said, is not visible to the public. It's not accountable. It's not transparent. And we are being asked to vote today blindly. Blindly when other cities get information and data. And this is something that I've been talking about this entire term. I will be abstaining, which I understand counts as a no vote, which is unfortunate. And I understand I'm not allowed to abstain, but I'm going to abstain anyway because I don't have the information with which to make a decision. And that's most unfortunate on something as critical as this, a program that all of us are excited about and the development industry is counting on. Now, maybe there's a way that this the leadership here can make this right. Can we get information in an email? Can we have another council meeting tomorrow? Like, how can we do this the way other cities are able to do it? I'm going to say again that I want to support this, but what am I supporting? >> Right. It could be a hund they could put forward an application that's 100% DC's. It could be hundreds of millions of dollars. Uh, as the mayor is saying, we were fortunate enough to get financing for the BRT and it's cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. We understand the risks. Hopefully that council back then was more informed than we are right now. But I have an obligation on behalf of taxpayers to ask for more information. >> It is here. Somebody has it. Somebody's guiding this ship. And I thought it was going to be council. I move. >> I don't think I need more time because I don't have anything to talk about >> that I haven't read in the newspaper two weeks ago. I'm looking at other cities agendas trying to get information that isn't being provided to me as an elected official. I don't know whose responsibility that is, but I would like to speak with them and I would like to find out how we can do this better and different. other speakers. Can you show me online? >> I'll go to councelor Ramen. >> Uh thank you and through you. So I appreciate the work of staff uh and the mayor on this item. Um, and I understand the uh timeline issues that we have. Um, I do find it rich that we're being asked to provide this information in such such a tight timeline when information was only fully provided uh on Saturday and clarified uh to our staff. So, and to the mayor and uh I thank the mayor and um other mayors across Ontario and and elsewhere who are asking the right questions because I think that's really important. But I am rather concerned about the lack of information to make this decision at this point. Um unfortunately again I I feel like I want to support this but I don't have enough information to do so at this time. Um, is there any other I guess my question to staff is, is there any other information that will be provided to council following uh this meeting? >> I'll go to deputy city manager. >> Uh, thank you through the chair. So, one of the things that we try to do is to put forward as much information as we have with certainty. Um certainly all of the other municipalities that have brought forward um reports receive delegated authority to complete the TPA and not come back. So with their submission of the application, they're not actually going to be reporting back until after they've committed the municipality. We did not choose that approach. we chose to put the empowerment in council so that when if if the city of London is actually um accepted to proceed with this program that at that time all of the risks and all of the information is known since there are many variables that could vary between what we submit versus what is actually accepted um through a potential um successful application and TPA that may be presented for council design. So um certainly that was something we took with uh great um thoughtfulness to ensure that we weren't going forward to rush to bring you information that was going to change. So um we have estimates and many many estimates that we are trying to refine. I did not feel it was prudent to put forward estimates that were going to change possibly before we submit. But I am happy to provide that information as soon as we're able to finalize it and submit an application. And unfortunately, this amount of work is something that we would typically do over two months of time. So to collect all of the detail that is within this application that is incredibly nuanced and detailed. Um the staff have been prioritizing this above all of the work we have to even get to this point today to have estimates to give you certainty that we are looking to submit at 50%. So, um absolutely if council would like a note prior to um receiving any successful outcome of this uh application, we're happy to provide a note to council to let you know what we're submitting, but there is no guarantees based on what we submit will be anything remotely close to what is accepted and what ultimately would be required to be signed into TPA. So, if that's certainly something the council would love to know um Friday once we submit the application, we'd be happy to create a note and provide what we've submitted to the council at that time. >> Uh go ahead, Council Ramen. >> Thank you. Um so, yes, I would appreciate receiving a memo uh to council or to um I personally would appreciate that um uh that aligns a up with our submission. I think that would be helpful to have. Um I I want to get a sense also um the mayor alluded to the fact that this would help us to meet the permissions that have already been made, but this is a 10-year agreement. How does that work with future permissions or future numbers? Um, do you think we will feel added pressures to meet housing demands because of the fact that we are signing on to this agreement? I can go to the deputy city manager on that if you want or I think if I can help the pro sorry I don't know if could you hear what councelor Ramen's question was I see some confused faces essenti essentially the council is asking um if uh if it's a 10-year program which is funded over 10 years um do we have the housing pressure for the 10 years so if you could just comment on the it's the projects being funded with the housing estimates um once the projects are funded and the agreement is reached the amount of housing that happens is going to be the amount of housing that happens from it. So there's not an additional pressure. It's basically the unlocking the pieces in the DC fund. I think that's pieces around those context I think is what the council is going for. >> Perhaps I'll start and if Miss Mr. Mayers has anything else to add, he can proceed. So the there's many components to this project. So the the decision points with respect to um the applications and things that come for forward will be council decisions and will be um separate and apart and part of the normal process. However, um as part of this program when they look at we're we are trying to estimate potentially what the number of permits would be pulled over the next 3 years to try to balance out the number of the projects for which we are bringing forward to ask for funding as part of this program. So the program works is specific to 90% of the eligible projects for which the province would approve through this process. Those are projects that are already within our DC study and that we would look to recover those costs over time. So, one of the I mean, one of the key risks are if we continue to do all of this and the housing doesn't actually materialize, we've received funding that would allow us to create the infrastructure, but for which perhaps the province did not see the outcome of the number of permits for which we anticipated. that could be a potential risk that may be addressed through the TPA that could result in clawback of funding. Those are all unknowns at this point and things that you know when we identified that we don't have all the risks, they're challenging to quantify because they'll be subject to whatever is in that TPA that the city of London will have to fund. So, so the infrastructure funding um through this program will be independent and separate and apart from ultimately what the building permits are and what the approvals the council will grant. Those will still come through the normal process and would be subject to the normal planning review and site plan applications and whatever housing is created through that period of time. So, that's where if if you know from that process, it'll be separate and subject to the reports that Mr. Mather's team will bring forward. So, um there'll still be independent decisions that council would be making um as those uh planning applications come forward. >> Go ahead, Mr. Mayers. >> Uh through your worship. Also, I'll just add in that on that annual basis, we'll be able to to course correct through our GMIS process. So, that growth management implementation strategy, you'll have the next report. I'll actually be at the next uh planning committee that's uh that's just in the next week. and uh any other projects that if there's is a slowdown or if there's increased activity, we'll be able to adjust the timing through that process as well. So uh whatever we submit as through this application will be fairly fixed projects, but there is some other flexibility within our program that you'll be able to review on an annual basis. >> Councilor Ramen, >> thank you. Um so from a project perspective um knowing some of the projects that we have uh that we were planning to move forward with how um how do we know when and if and how they will be housing enabled infrastructure? So I'm just thinking about for instance just to give you an example the Sunningale Road continuation Richmond to Adelaide which uh we we were able to get housing enabled funding for the portion from Wonderland to Richmond. So I assume that next trunch is is potentially eligible. But how do we how do we know that that went into the application? I guess is it are there just certain projects that we're looking to advance that um maybe we we can have some kind of indication on right now um because I want to make sure that that's a priority and continues to be one. >> I'll go uh to the deputy city manager to start. You can throw it off to or Mr. Matherthers. Yeah, >> go ahead. >> Uh thank you for the chair. So, as we look at all the projects that are within our um development charge background study, um all of the projects have associated impacts to the number of um growth and housing enabling units that it could um link to. So, uh I'll just use a specific recent example with some of the water and wastewater projects. As we look at certain projects, a water wastewater project would have so many homes that it would enable as a result of making the pipes bigger. For example, a road will allow so many new homes to be created within a subdivision. Those are the calculations that we are now. So we've created some sort of a matrix to help us assess all of the projects that are within our DC background study to try to work with all of the service areas. So this is where we've been working very closely with Miss Sher's team to look at all of the projects and start to look at all of those units that could be enabled through the various forms of infrastructure. So for example, a road has allocations to certain traffic zones that would estimate how many homes and residential units could be built. So those are the kinds of things which is why there's so much analysis that is going on behind the scenes to try to estimate what those are and refine what those are. So um that's the work that's taking place and those are the calculations that we're doing. So, as we look at all of those matrices to look at the costs as well as the associated housing enabling um parts that come with it, we're able to refine and look at the values as well as um the housing units that could be created to see what the best applications and variations of applications could be created to fund a project that we would put forward. Hopefully, that's helpful. >> Councilor Ramen, >> thank you. It is. Um just one final question I guess or series of questions and my question is is the ultimate goal to reduce uh the cost of housing for uh potential buyers. >> I'm happy to take a shot at that. Yes. Um the province is trying to uh reduce costs uh for buyers uh also uh get housing moving uh support the construction industry. Um they feel like this program combines with the uh the HST uh GST cut uh in a way that could uh could really bring down the cost of new housing and get uh get a lot of those uh housing units moving. So I think it is both uh a cost reduction that actually would trigger um sales in the market uh which would trigger building which would trigger housing units that they want. So that's my understanding of it's also my understanding of the speed of why they're moving with what with what with the amount of speed that they are. Um this is a government program like we've never had this short amount of a time to pull together and apply for. They're trying to get their programs up and running while it's within the window of the uh HST GST cut uh at the federal and provincial levels on new housing so that they align and create a catalyst effect. I don't know if Mr. Mayers or anybody else has anything to add to that. That's my understanding of the government's motivation. I mean could always ask the government but from everything I know it's all of those pieces together >> uh through your worship. Yeah, that's absolutely uh what we've understood from our conversations with that from different levels of government on this issue. Absolutely. Thanks, >> Council Ramen. >> Thank you. And I'm just wondering about the checks and balances on that if uh they shared anything with you at that meeting. And lastly, what's the impact to uh current homes, not new homes in in the market, and how has that analysis been done and what's factored in on that side? >> Yeah. So, the only details that they would have shared on that is just the stuff that I I've shared with you as well as the communications that they've um made in their announcements as well as their commentary uh in the media on the um uh confirmation of their motivation for bringing forward the program. Um, I'm not an expert on existing sales. Uh, I can imagine incentives for new sales probably push the market in that direction and away from from resales for a period of time, but that's I mean that's more of a real estate question than a question that I can answer. I'm not sure if our staff have any commentary on that. No, they wouldn't be able to answer that either. >> Thank you. Just my final comment on this. So, I see this as something I'm going to support because it's a report back at the next step and more details, but ultimately, I mean, I think we all need the federal government to tighten up. This is loose. It's speculative and it to me it's not well planned at this point, but I'll wait to see what the what that comes back. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, councelor Hopkins, you're next. >> Yeah. Thank you, your worship. Uh maybe I'll just start off with uh thanking staff uh for getting us some information. I know the timelines have been really tight. It reminds me of other legislation that has come to us in the past number of years like bill 23 where we had uh little information as a council. Um we had a a big learning curve. So I I am a little bit frustrated with that and I would encourage staff to share as and give council as much information and update us as possible. I uh want to thank the mayor too. I appreciate uh what uh he has um relayed to us uh from OBCM. I'm glad to hear uh that some changes were were made from that meeting. I'm also uh very appreciative to understand that our taxes aren't going to go up yet. So, um thank you for that. I am going to be at an AMO board meeting in the next two days. Uh DC's are always a big concern uh with most municipalities. So, I'm quite interested in hearing uh back from what other municipalities are experiencing and what they're doing and happy to relay that information onto council as well. I um want to just maybe stick with the risk here and the revenue gap, the uh cash flow, the costs. They are something that I have heard loud and clear and that we are going to be responsible for, but I really don't know how that's going to look like. I'm just sharing that concern there. The uh assessment uh that's going to come back to us. I do have a question about that. The mayor mentioned it's called the transfer payment agreement. Uh, I'm glad we're not really making any decision right now, but if I could go through you your worship to staff and have a better understanding what that is going to look like. >> Sure, happy to. Um, just any context you can give on the transfer payment agreement process and and the decision being made at that time. >> Uh, thank you through your worship. So consistent with many of the provincial or federal grants, the um province and the feds provide an agreement for which sets out all the terms and conditions as well as the projects over the defined period of time for which they will um the manner in which they will pay um cash flow and the reporting requirements that are there. So certainly through this application um we do not know what a TPA um will look like at this point in time. We haven't been provided a draft, but I expect many of the terms and conditions will be very similar to terms and and conditions that are in previous transfer payment agreements that the city has signed with the province and the federal government. So from that perspective, um certainly what we do know is it will be a 90% funding of eligible program costs. So based on the application and the projects that we submit, those would look to pay 90% of what those eligible costs are going to be, 10% needs to be borne by the municipality. And specifically, we are identifying projects that show and demonstrate what the city's contribution already is to those projects that involve already taxpayer funding. So as uh Mr. Mayor had said at the very beginning, there are a number of projects. there are only a certain component of a total project that is actually funded through development charges. The large portion of it is already funded typically by the municipality because the projects may go over a much larger time frame than which um the growth for the development charge background study supports. So we are putting forward an application that maximizes as well when we look at all of our projects the amount of the municipal contribution that is already there. So what we're trying to do is take all of those um criteria that the province has put forward as part of their guidelines and looking at everything to try to maximize and put forward as best an application that could be forward. So that's what we know will be reflected as part of the transfer payment agreement that will come forward. um with respect to if there is higher or lower um DC revenues associated than our application, those are still not known at this point, but there certainly has been considerations that the province said they may consider um could be stipulations within the agreement. So until we see what the form of that agreement is going to be, we don't really know for certain, which is why it's important we feel rather than having delegated authority now that we bring back whatever we are successful with, noting that uh that could be very different than what we submit um this Friday to be able to uh bring something forward. So as soon as we have that information, we will endeavor to bring that all forward for council's approval and anything will be retroactive at that point in time. And we would need to also look at the mechanism in which we provide um potential um changes to those that have already paid their DCS since that March 30th date. >> Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah. Just as a a followup to that. So would the province be picking the projects then? >> I'll go to the deputy city manager. >> Uh thank you through the chair. the province will be determining what portions they fund of the projects that we are going to submit through the application. So that is where through the matrix that we are looking at all of the eligibility criteria to make the best assessment to maximize the projects we put forward that we will submit on Friday as part of the city's application to achieve a 50% DC reduction. The city will choose the projects. We are looking to put forward the projects that will best meet the housing enabling um portion of it. What will be eligible to maximize the loss DC revenues as well as um maximizing the city's contribution in excess of 10%. So the city will choose what the best projects are that fit that criteria that we will submit on Friday and then subject to the assessment the province will determine how much of those they choose or deem to be eligible and how much funding potentially could be provided. Councelor Hopkins. >> And last follow-up question to that is so the city will be picking uh that the projects province will be assessing it. All that information will come back to us in August. We will at that time be making a decision. I understand that we're having uh a PPM for the GMIS. So, our strategies and assessments, how how much do they play into these projects or is it just strictly project by project that qualify for DCS? I I I I'm just trying to have a better understanding um how how we as a city are determining um where to go forward with the um the funding application. >> Mr. Mathers is going to take the first shot at that. >> Thank you. >> Uh through your worship. So the uh the submission will reflect the timing that is being brought forward to uh committee and council uh in the in the next run in the GMS report. So uh we've taken account and ensured that uh that both teams are are discussing those that timing and that they that the application that is submitted will reflect any kind of revision and revised timing provided to uh the council through the GMIS process. >> Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh I'll I'll just uh finish off with um I really like the days when growth used to pay for growth and I know we are going through a number of challenges with housing infrastructure. Uh for me it's um um uh uh the August meeting is is where we are going to be I guess signing on or not and that's going to be an opportunity for us as a council to um make further decisions on um this application. and so look forward to that meeting. Thank you, >> Councelor Frank. >> Thank you. I just wanted to share my thoughts before we go into vote. Um, to me it sounds like if we don't apply this week, we have no possibility of this money. If we apply this week, we have the possibility of this money. It will all come back to us for a final decision at a later time where we'll get fully costed projects. will completely understand all the impacts of the decision that we're making. Um, so I'm okay with that because I don't want to miss out on this opportunity. I'm a big skeptic of DC rebates and refunds and even myself uh being a skeptic am okay at this point to uh save the opportunity for us to make this decision with more information and with the potential of having funding. So I'm not going to um avoid that opportunity. So I'll be supporting that today. Thank you. Councelor Ferrer. >> Uh, thanks, Chair. Um, I same sentiments as the comments from councelor Frank. I just wanted to ask um like will this result in less I guess tax dollars going to I guess supplement for lost DC um losses? Like I know we uh and if you could just remind me in the past we had some uh budget items come through where we were um paying for some DC losses. So I just wanted to know in the end will this result in um I guess less of our tax dollars going into any potential DC losses? >> I'll go to the deputy city manager. >> Uh thank you to the chair. So, this program specifically essentially takes the DC funding that would have otherwise been provided through um the DC reserve funds and collected over time and is replacing it with 90% of the federal provincial funding. So it is a it's basically a displacement of what would have otherwise been funded through development charges with the recognition that we received on the weekend that our existing city of London 10% contribution would already be recognized for the funds that we're already using. So there based on the application that we're reviewing and with the clarification that we received on the weekend there are no new tax dollars that are required to submit into this program. That was an important clarification that we received over the weekend that as of last week was not what we understood and what had been provided to us through the program. So the really good news is that at the end of the day through this program, should the city of London be eligible, it will take some pressure off of the development charge um reserve funds because it would basically replace the dollars that would have otherwise been used for projects that are already within the study and offset it with provincial federal funding. Go ahead, councelor Ferrer. >> Uh, thank you for that. So with um I guess with respect to taking the pressure off of the development charge reserve funds that would mean that if let's say um we did not follow through on this or depending on how the transfer payment agreement uh comes back um we potentially if we still had that pressure on we may potentially in the future have to uh I guess look at the tax base to be able to uh replenish those those pressures. So this is the way I kind of hear it is this is an opportunity to uh mitigate that future pressure on the reserve funds. >> Is that a statement or a question counselor? >> A question. >> Okay. So go ahead. >> Uh yes counselor that is correct. This is an opportunity based on the clarifications that we received over the weekend from the ministry um where we would displace funding that otherwise would have been um required through the development charge background study. So um essentially the where the risk occurs is depending on our projections of what the growth revenue would be over the next three years. But that is certainly something that we are trying to put as competitive an application forward and do the proper analysis to ensure what we put forward will limit the risk to the city of London in whatever way possible. >> Councelor Ferah. >> Okay. Thank you for that. So I would support this in principle as it is right now. Um I do want to see I guess when the report comes back to see all the details and the risks and uh just how that would reduce those pressures in the future. I do see that um from councelor Ramen's questions that it could reduce it will reduce the cost of of new housing. Um but at the same time I also would like to see it not have that or reduce that future pressure that we potentially could have uh on our development charges uh reserve. So uh I'll support this in principle at the moment and then I'll look back for uh what the report comes back uh to make my final uh decision at that point. >> Councelor Cuddy. Thank you, your worship, and through you. You know, I just want to repeat um what uh councelor Frank said so succinctly. You know, this this application gets us in the game. Without this vote today, we have no skin in the game. So, this should be a simple decision. Respectfully, this should be a simple decision by council. Get in the game. Let's be players. And the information will come back to us later. So, we have ample time to to discuss it later in August. And uh this uh this simply is um is our allowance to uh to be a participant in a in a in a uh in an opportunity to uh uh to be in a really good position uh for building in the future. So thank you and I'll be supporting it fully other speakers. >> Councelor Troau, go ahead. First question um through the chair is there some way we could see a more detailed application that has a more robust risk assessment before we approve this. In other words, instead of approving this today and then getting a memo, is there some way we could get this information back and reconvene later in the week? So maybe you can comment on for this decision and then the future decision point and what you'd have then. So what can you provide now and what's possible and what could you provide at the TPA portion which is the point at which we actually make the decision. >> Uh thank you to the chair. So, given that it's 10:00 a.m. Friday morning, that we have to have all this information compiled, um, we are concurrently working on trying to gather all the elements to submit the application. I do not suspect until we get that application in the door cuz it closes at 10:00 a.m. um, that we will be in a position to be able to provide further details on what we're actually going to be providing. Um, failing us working 24/7 literally until that time. Um we are happy to provide a memo that will s you know summarize on Friday afternoon all of the details that we're submitting for the application noting that until we get um any response back from the province we won't know what will actually be accepted and whether there's any funding that will be allocated to make the program viable for the city of London. So um certainly as soon as we receive any information back from the province at that time we intend to bring forward a wholesome report that would have and we would begin that work um right after we submit on identifying what our application was uh what was submitted what was approved and then ultimately what that TPA is with a wholesome assessment of what all those risks are and uh that will fully depend on what the province approves at the end of the day the extent to which the risk uh will be for um the city of London. >> Councelor Tro um who who actually is deciding what's applied for? Is that going to be driven by um developers with applications? Is that going to be based on our assessment of what we'd like to see? Um who is going to make that decision in terms of what's applied for? >> Go ahead. >> Um through the chair. So essentially we have to pick projects that are already within our development charge background study. It is specific to identifying the projects that have a municipal contribution that have the number of housing units that are enabled as well as the very specific time. projects have to begin no later than 2030 and need to be completed by um the end date um in 2035. So they're very narrow specific time frames for which we need to begin and end all of the infrastructure to be eligible for the costs. So that is the assessment. It is our background study that currently exists and is approved by council that is driving the assessment for what is going to be submitted as an application. Councelor Troau, >> can we direct the housing to any particular mix of owner occupancy, rental? Can we direct the housing to any particular mix of lowincome affordable? Can we leverage these funds, for example, to support some of the building efforts that we've heard uh about building deeply affordable housing? What control do we have over that at this point? Go ahead. >> Um, thank you through the chair. Specifically, the application is based on eligible projects that the city of London would be building as part of the development charge background study. It is specific to eligible projects and the DC reduction would be specific to 50% of what is in our development charge background study. There is no relationship to mix or any of those other items that the counselor has noted. Those are outside the scope of the project and would be subject to council's approval of what um housing is built going forward. But certainly until we see the TPA, we believe those are completely out of scope. >> Councelor Tro, >> next question. Um the city's minimum contribution of 10%. Um where where would these funds come from based at the level of uh uh based at the level that we're requesting in this application? >> Go ahead Mr. Sense. >> Uh thank you very much for the question through you. So the the municipal contribution the minimum requirement of 10% would come from the ineligible component which would include the non-growth share which is already currently funded by non DC funding sources >> and those funds are rate supported or tax supported already in the budget. >> That's correct. Council Trosa, >> can I get a sense of what amount that would be based on the uh 10%. Assuming that we just stick to 10% which is the minimum. >> Go ahead. Uh thank you uh thank you through you. So that depends on the on the project mix. So that's what we're doing for the work we're doing now. We're trying to identify the appropriate projects um the maximize the benefit and the maximize our opportunity to be successful in this application. But um depending on the mix again some projects have a higher or lower growth non-growth share and again the municipal contribution we are trying to maximize. We are trying to identify projects that are not 100% growth related but do have some element of a non-grow share. >> Councelor Troa >> in section 3.0 I know uh you the report talks about risks and other considerations. Um again where would the funds come to offset the costs of any of these risks should these risks materialize. So um these are concerning because while we may get money for capital funding um the growth and associated revenues may vary from the estimates and I would be more comfortable if I had a sense of what that potential variance would be and again what the source of uh what the source of making up that gap would be. Would this be coming from the taxpayers? Yeah, I think that's the question that I talked to you about about where the risk is sitting in the DC fund and how that would work if the estimates weren't weren't exactly as we anticipated. Go ahead. >> Thank you through the chair. So certainly until we know for sure um the TPA will identify what potential risks could actually be there based on the amount of funding and the projects that the city may or may not be approved on. Um irrespective of that right now what we are trying to identify is what the calculations are of how much we believe the growth revenue would be over a three-year period to then try to match with the eligibility of the projects for which we would submit to so that they would offset failing those not being equal there could be a risk that the municipality may have money clawed back that will be subject to the TPA and the negotiations that occur to bring something forward and And further to what the mayor said earlier, in the event that um building permits go through the roof and are far in excess of our projections and the lost revenue is greater than the funding that we are receiving, that is where we would need to go back and look at um potential other ways to go to the province or the federal government to see if there are other applications that we could submit for additional project funding. So that is a risk the extent of which we will not know until we see what the approval will be um for the city of London and uh also how the building permits materialize over the next 3 years which will be a bit of a crystal ball. We'll we'll not know what the outcome is until the three-year period is over. >> My last question to uh the mayor is um and then I'll make a very brief comment. If the goal is to decrease costs to buyers, how do we know the resulting savings will actually be passed on to buyers? >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you for the chair. So certainly that is a question that we have outstanding. Um we know that the city of London, if they were successful, would reduce it by 50%. We anticipate that that cost would be um passed along. However, there are other factors and uh certainly we're not certain at this time if there's any legal me mechanism to compel that from for for happening. Certainly, we know that is a discussion that has happened in other municipalities and uh something that we have further questions, but that would be subject to the building community to uh pass those on to their buying customers. >> Go. >> Okay. Um then I'll just make a brief comment. Um I can't support this at this point and I hear what my colleagues are saying in terms of um you know let's let's file the application and and and see what happens. But I I I really worry that we're going to come back in August August and we're it's going to be sort of like trying to push a big boulder up a hill that has already started rolling down the hill. I'm very worried about this. Um I don't think this has been and this is not a reflection of any kind of staff work. Again, I I I want to make it clear. I am not criticizing the staff. You're you're working under very difficult and rushed conditions. I feel like we're working under very difficult and rushed conditions. There are too many there are too many um risk uncertainty factors out there right now. I I appreciate councelor Stevenson uh showing me the Windsor the Windsor application which I I think uh really answers a lot of the questions that I would have that I would have had and they're they're working under the same time frame that that we are. So unless I hear something compelling um in the next in the next period of time I am going to be um voting no on this. And uh again, that's in all due respect to the uh probably large amount of staff work that's already been sunk into this, but these sunk costs add up and I don't want to keep going with this unless some of the types of questions that I've tried to set out and this has been very difficult just getting this file uh at at at the last minute and and just trying to um compose uh these questions. I do not want to create a situation where we're creating sort of a unfortunate situation for the next council or for this council in during the election season or for the taxpayers later on. So I've not heard enough to make me um satisfied that I can um >> approve this. So, right right now I'm I'm a no vote and um I guess before I sit down I better collect my thoughts because that that's it and I'm out of time. But um thank you very much for for hearing me out. Uh I would very much like to be able to participate in a program like this, but I just I don't like feeling rushed and pressured. >> Councelor, your time's up. >> Other speakers. Okay, I'll put myself on the list. I'll turn the chair over to uh councelor PLA. >> Thank you. I have the chair recognizing Mayor Morgan. >> So, thank you. So, I I guess I'll try to make a compelling case to councelor Troau. Um I don't think I've ever convinced you uh with that, but uh happy to give it a go this time. >> Point of order. >> Sure. >> Sorry. Not not to be difficult, but we >> Sorry. >> I appreciate the mayor recognizing those. Sure. Um I have the chair recognizing councelor Stevenson for a point of order. I'm just wondering because we said that we could only speak once at council and the mayor spoke at the beginning. So that's right. >> Um I think it was a a response. Um I appreciate also where we're at at time of uh we also have audit coming up as well. Mayor Morgan, if it's just a response, if you just have clarifying information as well. >> Well, I'll say at the start I was asked to present context from Ontario BigC mayors as part of the presentation. I'd like to actually debate the item. So, I'll look to see how the chair wants to rule on that. >> It's true. I will review that you uh did speak on behalf of the BCM information you brought forward at the beginning and have actually not spoken your personal opinion uh to this matter convincing others or otherwise. Council um I will time though proceed. >> I would expect you to um and cut me off if I get to five. Um so, happy to share some thoughts. Um uh what I want to say is um we had a discussion on Friday. There are lots of municipalities who are doing different things. There are some municipalities who actually move forward with just complete delegated authority to their staff to say, "I don't know what the program's going to be. We want to be part of it. Go apply for it. Let us know um what that works out to be." There are others who actually approved envelopes of funding who on Thursday night realized that they'd be on the hook for significant amount of uh property tax dollars to actually backfill the program when they realized that maybe they couldn't actually commit to um using uh non-growth related funds for the project. Um there are a number who have to revisit their decision based on the new information on Saturday and there are a number who uh decided to move forward not really having a problem with putting taxpayer funds beside trying to maximize their municipal contributions. So what I will say is every municipality is going to do this differently. Every municipality is going to have a different suite of projects in their DC background study to draw from. Some may have a very clear, very large project that they can say, "This kind of fits all the parameters of the program. Very easy. Put one project forward. Put it before council." A competitive application, a competitive application is going to require a couple of things. One, what is the DC rate reduction? I think that's why you heard the treasurer say, "We're going to target 50%, we want to be at the upper end of the the, you know, minimum scale that they're looking for." Others may go above that, but we've got to be also responsible. Two, what's the housing impact going to be? So, the projects that we have within our DC fund, we got to look at which ones are going to unlock what amounts of housing and support what amounts of housing. That's a a measure of competitiveness. And of course, the municipal contribution, you know, 10% is the minimum, but we may be well above the 10%. If we submit a transportation project, and I'm just making it up, that's $100 million and 40 million of it is already in our budget as nonDC but rate and uh or u taxpayer supported, that would be a 40% municipal contribution. So, we want to also put projects in that have significant already budgeted amounts within the DC fund that kind of balance all of those things to make a competitive application. you know, we could try to do that before Friday um as a municipal council, but we're going to have no time for our staff to actually finalize the work and prepare the application. Well, we'll be very transparent to everybody is what we applied for. The staff are going to give that note out. I'm happy to have a press conference and say this is what we applied for. We don't know if we'll get it or not. Um but at the end of it when the province has assessed it and they've discussed with our staff and we have a possible TPA to sign all of these questions will be very clear to say these are the applications these are the values in the projects the staff can do assessment of the risk related to that we'll know the municipal contribution we'll know uh the the estimates on what we think uh housing is going to do over the next number of years and then we can decide whether we want to participate in the program or not whether there's whether it's something that is valuable to municipality. You've heard several times our staff say there could be a benefit to taking pressure off of the DC fund by participating in this program. We're going to know that very clearly when we know what the province is willing to approve out of our DC fund as projects where the risk is in the future on this and again we'll know have some sense of the risk but not a complete sense of it by the end of it. How am I doing? Okay. uh is if we are under so let's say we are projecting I don't know 8,000 units over the next 3 years of growth and we're under that the province and this is a question asked on Friday the province could say you didn't collect enough we're going to claw back money for one of the projects that was challenged and said if we start a project are you really going to claw it back and they basically said no we're going to deal with this on a case-by case basis it's a tool we have but we actually want to build these projects out of the DC funds and we're just looking for good estimates at the time of the application and the province is going to approve those estimates. So if they're off, the province also looked at them too. If things go very well and we're way above our estimate, we do 10,000 units of housing or 11,000 over that period. That was my question to Minister Flack as well as a question at the meeting. Can we put more projects in? Because if we don't where the pressure lands there is the 10% gap or the the gap within the DC fund that the program is not it's not 10% but it's the the amount of foregone DC revenues for based on the the rate reduction in the DC fund. And how we deal with that as a municipality traditionally is through the GMIS pro uh process. We push projects back to basically balance the fund. So the risk is in the DC fund. There's an easy solution to that if we land in that spot. the province can let us do more projects. We do more projects out of the DC fund. And so I think that this is a great opportunity for us to move forward, participate in a program as councelor Cuy said. We can get the application in. Everyone can know what we applied for. Every counselor can make a decision based on what we know at the end of the day. So I'm going to support the uh proposal before us. >> Thank you. I have no further hands up in chambers, but we return the chair to Mayor Morgan. >> Okay. I think everybody in chambers has spoke. So look to anybody online who hasn't spoken. I see nobody. Okay. So what we have before us is uh the motion in escribe that uh everybody should be able to see. Uh it's the same direction as in the uh report as well as the receipt of both um uh our staff's uh presentation which will be made public. It's attached to the record. will distribute to all the counselors and the correspondence uh that was sent in by a number of members of the public. Uh that's before us moved by councelor Layman, seconded by myself, councelor Vamir, we're going to are you looking to speak or are you just trying to vote? >> Oh, you're just trying to vote. Okay. All right. We're going to open that for voting. Um >> sorry, >> can you just separate A and B, please? >> Uh for sure. Yeah, just give us a sec to do that. So just for people, we're going to separate A and B. A has received the information. B is the direction to apply. We'll attach the it being noted to A, which is the correspondence piece. So the first vote we'll do is A, receive the report and noting the presentations and um submissions. And the second vote we'll do is B, which is the direction to submit an application. >> We just need a minute to break that up. So close on audit for you, councelor Ploza. Okay, we're opening A for voting which is receive the report and the being noted. Councelor Layman. >> Councelor Layman votes yes. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Okay. And next we'll open B, which is the direction to our staff uh to apply for the program by the deadline this Friday. and and it being noted about the transfer payment agreement for funding would come back to council for its consideration if we were successful in the application that should be Can't see. So to the counselors who have abstained, councelor Stevenson and councelor Troau, the only way you can abstain under the municipal act is to declare a conflict of interest. I'd ask you both what your conflict of interest is so that we can put it on the record for municipal council. Um because that is how you abstain. So does another counselor want to declare their conflict of interest openly as is required under the act? I don't not I do not have a uh conflict to declare. I would prefer to abstain because I think it's just more respectful of the position that my colleagues and staff have put forward. Um I'm not prepared to vote yes on this. If I'm forced to leave the room or vote no, I'll vote no. But I think uh abstain is a better uh reflection of my position right now. >> So there is no mechanism to abstain if you don't declare a conflict. Um take by the click. So, Um, I want to be clear that if the councilors do not change their vote from abstained, it will be changed to a no vote in the record under 12.7 of the council bylaw notwithstanding the provisions of 12.6 of this bylaw. Every member who has not recused from voting by reason of a declared conflict shall be deemed to be voting against the motion if they decide to ab if they decline or abstain from voting. and that is a provision of the municipal act 2001 section 246 subsection 2. So if the counselors don't want to declare um just realize that your vote will be changed to a no for the public record. I'll just seek one more time whether there's any declaration of uh conflict. >> Uh I have no conflict. So I'll be changing my vote to a yes. But uh I'd rather do that than step out. And I think I made my point earlier that uh there needs to be some mechanism beyond saying no when we're not presented with the information to make a decision. >> Uh appreciate that that you would like to do that. I am bound to follow the rules of the municipal act and the procedure bylaw. So I appreciate you uh change your vote. We need councelor Layman's vote as well. Um you can vote verbally and um >> councelor Layman votes yes. And councelor Troau, you are not changing your vote, so it will be changed to a no as per >> May I speak. >> Well, you don't get to debate again, but I'm asking you. Well, you're declaring a conflict. >> Question about my vote. >> I'm asking if you're declaring a conflict. That's the only thing you could declare at this point. >> I'm I'm not, but I think that what councelor Stevenson said is is a good way to do this. And I'm going to do the same thing she just did. >> Vote yes, but it's very clear what my position is on this. >> So, counselor, >> really feel pressured. >> You we're going to put you as a yes. Councelor Stevenson is a yes. Is everybody got their votes in? Okay, I'll let the clerk read the >> Okay, so if they say it's the mic >> closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. >> Okay. Um >> just confirming the proceedings of >> we have no motions to which notice is given, no reports, no added reports, no deferred matters. can't do inquiries because it's a special meeting or we can but only on this matter. I don't see any uh emergent motions. There aren't any bylaws. We just have the uh confirmation bylaw that we do every meeting um for council. So um I'm going to open Oh, I need a mover in a second. Councelor Cuddy's willing to move. I'll second uh them all. This is the confirmation bylaw and we'll open first reading for voting. Councelor >> Layman votes yes. Can also >> just the confirmation bylaw for the meeting that we do every meeting. >> Um, >> can I just ask one question? >> No, there you can debate at second reading but you can't ask a question at first reading but it's not a question it's debate. So >> So first reading is open. Russell votes yes. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Okay. Second reading. Same mover in a second or is there any discussion on second reading? Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I'm just wondering if there's any concern about not having the information to know whether I have a conflict given that I don't know the list of projects. So, um I I so first off, the clerk wants me to say we don't actually get to debate the confirming bylaw. You can make comments to it, but you can't debate it. So, um um I'm going to allow that. the question um is related to so I I will say clearly I can't give advice neither can the clerks on someone's conflict um the piece of information I can give you is based on previous decisions on the DC background study or any works on GMIS all of the projects that we're contemplating here are ones that are contained within that envelope so um so if someone's declared on previous things within the GMIS, then maybe they would have a conflict. But I I I I can't answer the question about if you do because no, we don't know what the projects are. And until you know what the projects are, you could you couldn't seek advice. So, um I I can't answer your question. I'm not sure anybody here can on that particular piece, counselor. Okay. Okay. Um other comments on the confirming bylaw? Councelor Tro, >> this this puts me in a very very difficult position and I think I I really want to go out of my way not to um have a conflict. This could be a Kings. I mean, I don't I don't know what's on that list. Is Is there a list that I could that we could look at right now to see if we're within uh the range of any of the projects? I don't have a list of the entire DC background study in front of us right now. Um, we also don't know which which projects would be submitted. So again, I I can't give you advice on a conflict. I can't even tell you what I would do because I would be giving advice. But um, the answer is I don't have a list of all of the DC background projects here. Even if we did, you wouldn't be able to determine which ones staff are making the decision to apply for. So, you're not actually making the decision to apply for that project. Staff are doing that under the motion that we put here today. So, I'll that's the best I can give you, counselor, and given the circumstance. >> Okay, we're going to open that for voting. Council Layman votes yes. >> What? >> Who? >> I didn't see that. Michael. >> Okay. Councelor Troa, you voted to abstain. I have to ask if you can declare your conflict um for the abstension. Um well, I don't have enough information to affirmatively declare it, but I don't have enough information to say I don't have one. So, uh, I think I have to in under those circumstances, uh, declare declare a potential conflict based on information that I don't have. Therefore, I think my abstension is in order. >> Okay, counselor, that's fine. You can declare a conflict in whatever way you'd like. You got to actually I'm just as a courtesy remind you, you got to fill out the paperwork um as required under the municipal act on it. So, I'll encourage you to do that. >> I'll I'll do that with pleasure. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 11 to zero. Noting councelor Pelosa is absent and there's one abstain. >> Okay. And third and final reading uh on this. We'll open that for voting. >> Council layman votes yes. Councelor Ramen. Councelor Traso. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to zero, noting one abstain. >> Okay, that uh concludes the uh confirmation bylaw. I only have a motion to adjurnn last left. So, I got councelor Cuddy seconded by uh myself. Uh we can do that by hand and I'll just look to the screen. All those in favor? >> Motion carries.