Good morning everyone. This meeting of HS Council is being held virtually. This meeting is also being livereamed and may be viewed online in ajax.ca. A friendly reminder to all participants, please activate your microphone only when recognized by the chair. I'll now call this meeting to order. Start with the land acknowledgement. [clears throat] Like to begin this meeting by acknowledging that the land in which we gather is situated within the traditional and treaty territory of the Missagas, more specifically the Missagas of Skugan First Nation, signitories of the Gunshot Treaty of 1788 and the Williams Treaties of 1923. This land is and will continue to be home to the indigenous peoples. Let us acknowledge the mistakes and traumas of the past through authenticity and support truth. and reconciliation. Let us engage and celebrate indigenous communities by being leaders of action and acknowledging the United States Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations towards truth and reconciliation. Let us keep these principles close as we continue towards truth and reconciliation and as we move forward with kindness and respect as a community. Does any member of council have any disclosure of precinary interest? Seeing no hands. Thank you. Uh we just have two items today. First, departmental report PSA 2026-11 development charge reduction program. Um I understand it's not director of public and strate strategic affairs presenting today. Um it'll be Sam Patterson. Sam, are you there to introduce the item, please? >> Good morning. Thank you. >> Uh so through the chair, thank you for the opportunity to bring this report forward today. Um this is a co-authored report between public and strategic affairs and the finance department. Our goal today is to submit an application or receive direction from council to submit an application to the development charge reduction program and to negotiate and secure a successful transfer payment agreement. Uh, and I'll open to any questions from council should you have any. >> Thank you. I'll just add to that, Sam, that this um report today was staff driven. This is not something that that I directed in any way. This came to us by staff through finance. First uh councelor I see is councelor Crawford. You have the floor. >> Thank you. Um my question will be uh I've noticed that uh Pickering and uh Whitby have gone in at 30% reduction in DC's. Um can you explain do you have any knowledge of this or do you have under any knowledge of what other municipalities across Durham region are going in at? >> I believe ours is coming in at 32% based on the project costs that are being submitted. 50. We're going in at 32. >> I believe it's going to be 32. Chrissy >> through the chair. We are asking for direction up to 50. We are not isolating it to 30 or to 50. And the reason for that is because we want to be able to have negotiation room and flexibility um at the TPA stage. So, the transfer payment agreement stage, we want to be able to be like one of the one of the one of the um priorities here is that and to establish um the amount of money you're going to get is upon the percentage you're willing to reduce. So, if it's slightly about one or 2% but we're but we're going to receive a larger grant, we need to maximize that and optimize it. So, we need to have that flexibility. Right now, based on the math um that is in the chart, I'll let Julie speak to that if it's around 32%. But we want to be able to negotiate up or down a bit. Whippy and Pickering, Whippy and Pickering are at 30%, but Clarington, Peele, Peterbr are at 50%. It all depends on the direction that the municipality received uh from their council. really chair to add to that. Um the uh percentage that municipalities are moving forward in recommending also ties back to the level of grant funding that they are requesting of uh through this opportunity. Uh we at the town of Ajax have sufficient projects to validate a 50% reduction and the um the amount that's included and then the projects included in the report before you uh validate that a 50% reduction would be um would be requested should we get the optimal um level of funding here. And and to Christie to director McCclard's point um this is hopefully going to be able to provide some flexibility with the funders to determine where we land ultimately um with our ask through the TPA negotiations. >> So when when will we find out where we land with the TPA? >> Sorry, pardon me. When when will council find out where we land with the TPAs? >> Christie, did you want to take that or? >> Well, well, through the through the chair uh to councelor um Crawford, uh the TPA process will probably take until about mid August to complete. So, the negotiation we expect is going to occur over the uh month of July and into August. And the finalization to that would be in in in late August probably. >> No, I don't think so because I heard at the big city mayors that there's like four weeks where they'll have those numbers down. I also know that there's a mayor at the big city mayors that actually is having this come back to their council after they get their TPA the beginning of August before the close of nominations to tell their council what the amount is or getting from their uh from their um their TPA so that their council can agree or not agree to it. So I want the same here. So through the chair, um we I I I we're on the same timeline. You you mentioned early August, that's where I am, mid August. We believe that it could take until mid August to to be able to finalize um these TPA. Um this is the province that we are working with and they are working with 222 municipalities. So we do expect there to be a process and a negotiation. We are currently requesting authority to um enter into that deep execute the TPA. However, if council would like to change that, um I'll I'll leave it to the clerk um to provide you advice on how to amend that or to bring that as to come forward. >> You're not understanding. So, I think that this is what this report is saying. Go ahead and submit your projects. What I'm saying is I want to know how we did. So, I mean, we we assume we're going to get 90% on everything and there's going to be a 10% uh portion of this that will very likely end up on the tax base and I want to know what the risk is and what we are getting on each of these projects >> from the government before the close of nominations >> through the chair. You're you're you're correct. We're speaking about the same piece, but you would like to see the TPA come forward. You have to amend the staff report to do that. >> Okay. >> Happy to amend it. >> Yeah. But in terms of like how you get to council meeting and what that looks like, you're going to have to ask I'm just suggesting we bring in the clerk to formalize that and what that looks like. >> Uh three. Mr. Mayor, I can work on an amendment for you uh regional counselor Crawford and we can come back to it maybe after your colleagues ask some additional questions today. >> That's fine. I have a a question. It says it talks about near the end of the report about reimbursing DCS that have already been paid but there's no dollar value to that. Can someone explain to me what uh I understand the the concept of what you're saying here. I don't under know I don't know what the money is and how does that affect us? >> M >> so through the chair to regional counselor uh Crawford um the repayment. So, right now we have two single detached uh dwelling units that have either paid, one has actually paid their DCs up front and one um pulled the permit and it's deferred to occupancy. So, on the ones that have been paid, should this TPA go through, we would have to reimburse um assuming it's at 50%, reimburse 50% of those DCS to the to the uh the developer of that property. Um, so that would be about $22,000 in uh in reimbursement. And then the other property, um, they haven't paid their DCs yet. So upon collection, their DCs would be cut in half should it be approved. >> Okay. The the cut in half piece is an interesting one, too. Um, so I'm assuming that this this deal with the DCs is eligible for purpose-built rental through the chair. Yes, it is. Okay. So like uh a minute ago we just approved a DC uh program where they would have five years to pay for their DCs interest free. So now are we saying that they can now cut those DCs in half and pay for them over five years or 15 years uh with half the amount uh first five years being interest free and the next blah blah blah all that other stuff. Is that what we're saying now? >> Just just clarification. [clears throat] We didn't make that decision. That decision was made through bill 23 and bill 17 >> to defer for >> I understand that. >> Okay. But but you said what I'm saying >> we didn't I want to be clear for the public. I I understand I want to be clear for the public. >> We didn't do that. >> We allowed after and I asked the same question with staff. So the way it was explained to me is this program will be on the the gross DC and whatever is left after any reduction would still go through our other program for the deferral up to the 15 years should they choose to enter into a section 27 agreement >> and that's under that's under the purpose build rental only. Correct. >> Correct. >> Right. Okay. So first of all I am not against reducing DCs. We're not getting them anyway. So like it's not like we're getting a boatload of DCs and we're reducing it. So I understand all that concept. My only issue is the 10%. And the 10% is we have never come in a project that has been on budget. So now we're now we're >> submitting. Did I freeze? >> We lost you for about five seconds. >> Okay. Sorry. What did you not hear? >> I don't know. You were gone for 5 seconds. >> Okay. [laughter] So, my only concern in all of this is the 10%. That's it. And the fact that I don't recall in 16 years us ever doing a project that doesn't come in over budget. So now it's not 10%, could be 12%, could be 15%, could be whatever the percentage over budget have. Do we have a contingency for that? Is this all going to be on the taxpayer? Because I feel like since bill 23, our taxpayers have paid for infrastructure upfront either even if all you talk about is water and sewage, that is all being done on the taxpayers's back. So now, are we doing this again to the taxpayer? I feel like >> first of all, I don't expect any of this to fall in the taxpayer. >> That's great news. >> We have many projects that come in under budget. Um, some do come over, but we do have contingency, but the majority of them do come in under budget. Our projects, what this is referring to >> is um DC reduction for developers, which really is on them if they go over budget. That that's their financing. But but just wait one second with this and what interested me when staff brought this to me was we know we're not going to receive any DCs for upwards of 10 years right now >> where if we are el and we're going to have to incur debt to do capital projects in the interimm until occupancy until we start receiving DCS here if we qualify we'll get this funding from the province the federal funding through the province are part of this 8.8 million billion if we're successful now and not have to incur the debt in the short term which is what makes it attractive and I think that's a very important piece we haven't talked about yet is this will help fill the gap in the deferral. >> Go ahead. >> No, and and that I I do appreciate like the program in and of itself is not a bad program. I'm just saying it's not a bad program. What I'm trying to get a handle on is the 10%. The other piece is there's milestones. There are milestones that you have to meet through every single project through this develop like any any project that you submit there's going to be milestones. So if we don't meet those milestones, what does that mean to the money? Does that mean the money is not like it's it's not given to us all at once? Right? So you have to meet these milestones and they give us more money. More milestones they give us more money. What if you don't meet the milestones? What if we don't get anything built? >> So, um, may I jump in for a quick May I jump in for a quick second around the the through the through the chair to council profit. All very good questions that we have had time to digest behind the scenes. Um, and between um my colleague uh um director Mafm and me, we'll we'll do our best to explain it. But from a high level perspective on the 10% we are finding out through the program details right now that there might be some very interesting ways that we can uh a lot our our 10%. So what I'm trying to say is through benefit to existing where we have been already um uh where we have money in the reserves already we can utilize that where we've already received some non uh commercial um DCS we can we can use that. So we are going to get really creative when it comes to um informing council about how we intend to fund our 10%. If we can if we can do this without um uh um m any tax re increases that is our goal right here. And right now I think between director and metham and and I we can say that there are some risks to that but at this point in time we're optimistic about our funding arrangements and what we have to be able to fund our portion of these projects. Julie uh Mattham will will um speak in a minute. The other piece to this is yes, there are risks, but we won't know those risks until we get to the TPA stage. And at the TPA stage, it's are we're able to negotiate the terms and conditions that we want in this, including the milestones, including um the units to be built, and we are going to stand firm on what we can do as a municipality. And at that time um as you as your recommendation will will will come forward in a second you would like to see that TPA before we sign that's all to you and you at that time we can really speak to what those risks are at that point in time but right now we're going to do our best to mitigate any of those risks and it'll be and we will have a strong recommendation if we should be in or not depending on those risks. Director Betham am I correct on both of those sides? >> Yes. Yes. What I'd like to confirm is um the the town has always had to contribute a portion of funding to fund the benefit of growth related projects to existing population. So that money has all that won't change with this grant application. Our DC study is our DC study and and there is still that obligation that we need to fund. Um and and as uh director McCclary indicated indications are that we can use some of that money to offset some of the 10% if not all. We again we don't know what the final outcomes will will be. And as far as the um uh the milestones right now based on our our overview of the application document, it's expense based. So it's a claimsbased grant. So you have to prove that you've incurred the expenditures and that the expenditures uh conform to the eligibility of the grant and based on those milestones the payments will be reimbursed. Um so there is a number of milestones uh seven or eight uh milestones or or decision points throughout the uh grant application. Um the the only um risk would be if our our development um numbers aren't um aren't in line with the the the the projections that we put forward. uh there is a potential risk of um the last payment maybe being uh withheld and you know by about 5% is the early indication um but there will be you know that will factor into our assessment of risk when the TPA comes forward and determine how we how we would go about funding that should we not meet those milestones but all of those negotiations will be done and we will get some clarity on all of these uh ambiguities >> okay because I I'm very happy to hear we're not going in at full third 50%. I understand you want to have the leeway to to be negotiating that piece because when I spoke to uh the mayor of Whitby um she indicated that they did all the numbers and 30% was the most they were willing to go because otherwise it would be paid through the taxpay. That's what she was saying. The other thing I wanted to ask about is are we able to use our half funding to uh cover off some of the 10%. And because I know that was suggested at big city mayors and they're going to put it in their their uh their documentation and see where it lands. I don't know. >> Just a question. >> So my my read of the application is that any other forms of uh federal funding, provincial funding is ineligible to be stacked on to this grant. So we will not be applying any um any of those funds um to this application. >> Okay. All right. Um, I'll let my other colleagues, sorry, thank you for the leeway, chair. Uh, I'll let my other colleagues speak now. Thanks. >> Absolutely. I just want to um follow up on that before we move on to the next one because I'm sure more questions are going to come up about the timing. Um, one of the reasons why we're recommending delegated authority is to not have to bring council back for a special meeting just based on whether these approved. I would suggest that the only time we would um come back to a special meeting would be if something changed drastically. Would that be reason? Well, we'll come back to it in a minute. Uh, next item or next speaker is councelor Tyler Moore. Please go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, good morning everyone. So, most of my slashall my questions are more or less answered just now. Uh when we spoke um um about this earlier, could you just explain um how the 10% would work if we were in a project that was 90% cost recoverable? I know that uh councelor regional councelor Crawford kind of sort of asked this, but it would it would be under the operating budget? Would it be under the capital budget? uh if we're sitting here a year from now and we have $400,000 that we have to make up or something, how would that look and how would that be paid >> uh through the chair to councelor Tyler? Um the the additional 10% should it be not within the funding that we would already have to pay uh we would we would try to recover it first of all um through assessment growth. So uh the whole idea behind this gr this grant is to um spur on additional housing and once those that housing is occupied we should be collecting more tax revenue from from those uh units. So there would be additional assessment growth that would come to the town. So there there is that opportunity to spread that extra uh uh funding required over a number of years um to to be funded through assessment growth. we would look to our reserves and what we already have set aside. Um, for example, if it were $5 million, we could take up to 10 years to fund that that $5 million. It doesn't have it won't necessarily have a a direct tax impact um in any given year. There are ways to mitigate um to mitigate that over time. Um I'm not saying that there will be zero tax uh impact, but we are doing our best to mitigate with our reserves. uh we could even take on some debenture and spread that over a number of years as well. So there are multiple tools that we're looking to utilize. Again, uh we won't know the magnitude of that until we see that final uh transfer payment agreement. >> Okay. So I I definitely appreciate the creativity of this motion and and what we're doing here. I get that we have to think outside the box. And to reiterate, uh yeah, it's the 10% that I'm most worried about. So I appreciate your answer. In the worst case scenario, if we had a $5 million bill, how would that work for us, the current taxpayers? Now, by doing this program, the debenture that we've talked about where there's projects like the widening of Rosen Road that obviously has to be done. Um, with this program, the debenture, like you said, even if we used it for the, let's say, the money that we the 10%, would that mean that we wouldn't have to use as much as we would have without this program? Can you explain that? because there was times when I don't know about the whole price of the project but with this program does that help offset what we would have had to debenture had we not had this >> um through the chair it would have uh this program would help offset the uh DC portion uh of the project that would have been debentured over a number of years um you know and it does secure the it it displaces DC's the requirement to to collect those DCs from developers and basically um guarantees to a certain degree the amount of funding that would be applied to a project right up front. So we wouldn't know upfront, we wouldn't have to debenture that piece. Um the town's portion um we had um again we already have to make provisions for that. Um at at the time uh at our 2026 budget meeting, we had identified that we had sufficient funding in our reserves for Rosen Road for um for Harwood widening. So that those pieces would have been covered. Um and and there would be no change other than perhaps that incremental piece uh if we need to fund that. >> Okay, I'll leave it at there. But just to reiterate, yeah, it is about the 10% because beyond that, I see this as being a way of shuffling the deck a bit and trying to get more creative to get more things done with less of a burden on the tax bill. But okay, I appreciate your worst case scenario answer if we do have a bulk of money that we owe and how it could be spread over 10 years, etc., etc. Okay, [clears throat] I'm I'm good. Thank you. >> U through the chair, may I just make a statement to uh councelor Tyler Moran? Go ahead. >> That I I think it's very important um that we realize that every single capital project we do always has a minimum amount that the taxpayer is responsible for, right? Every single project that we do. So and that's called they call it benefit to existing. So the existing folks are respon like the existing population is required for paying that um gross. In this case, we believe that that benefit to existing that we have that director metham has been collecting is suffici is sufficient enough to cover our portion. There is the money is is already there based on what metham is saying based on the the capital justification sheets. So we are not at this point looking to uh to ask more from the task task tax base. >> Okay, that's uh that's great. Thank you. uh your motion. >> Okay. Uh Councelor Henry, you're next. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um some of my questions has have been answered with regards to uh Pickering and Whippy and what they're doing. That came to me late last night. So, I just want to understand this a little bit more. uh because because those comparisons were brought up. When we're looking at what Ajax is doing, we're looking at uh application size. Is it 132 millionish? Is that correct? Because we have three large projects. Correct? >> I believe there's five. I don't have the chart in front of me. Miss Matam, can you answer this? >> Yes, we're looking at a grant of 122 million at this point. a grant ask of 122 >> 122. So we've got Harwood Roslin and Hunt >> Hunt Church Street urbanization as well and uh some some parks and parkets that are correct. >> I wasn't aware. Okay. So, um, what happens if we only receive part of the funding we request? How does that or is that does that impact financially to the taxpayers? Does it transfer over? What does that look like? Uh so through the chair if we only receive approval for partial funding that's where we would go back and take a look at whether uh a 50% um ask is is reasonable given the financial um uh outlook of what um of the DC collections over the next three years. Um so again that's why we're asking for some flexibility of council in having those negotiations with uh with respect to the transfer payment agreement. We are going in with five projects um you know uh with a a a likely a 50% ask but if if we are not successful in that um that's where we will um you know take a look at at the the financial impacts and make sure that we mitigate any uh adverse impacts to the taxpayers and what happens uh afterwards we get the funding the project start what What happens if uh the project over time increases by 20 30%. Who's paying for that difference? The town or like that that won't be absorbed through the funding because we can only get the funding the one time. It's not like you go back and get a bump up and say, "Hey, it increased by this percentage. What does this look like?" We can't do that. Correct. >> Through the chair, that is my understanding. We will not get additional grant funding. However, uh given they are growthreated capital projects, uh we are looking at using the non-residential DC portion to cover a portion of it. So, if there are cost overruns, um we would uh treat the funding of those capital projects similar to how we would treat any other DC project that receives grant funding uh today. So, we would look at how much is is benefit to existing. That would be our our our town portion. And if there's any opportunities to offset through other DCs or other funding, we would do so. And there's no borrowing cost here. Correct. There's no interest incurred associated with these projects because the funding from the government would pay and we have the DCs in backup for our portion. So there's no interest. Is that correct? through the chair. At this point, should we be successful to uh and get the grant funding for the DC portion of these projects, there would be no um no debenture financing required. Um and we feel pretty confident that we can accommodate the town's portion within our our reserves over time. um you know should that direction change that would be done through budget processes when you're looking at the full uh gamut of projects that are are being proposed but it wouldn't necessarily just because these projects went forward it would be looked at it comprehensively. >> Okay. And when we talk about the DC charges and um I I saw some information you sent me this morning. I just want to clarify this. Um DC charges have gone up since 2019. Correct. So you're saying um by 1.72 to 1.95 times from where they were in 2019. >> That is correct. >> Is that correct? So the the reference you gave me and I think it's fair for the public to kind of to know this and see this is a single detached home in 2019 you're looking at 26,277 versus the 45,279. There's there's a big increase there of 1.72 versus um other dwellings which just keep rising higher and higher. So I think I think that's I'm correct in what I'm reading here, what you sent me. Correct. >> That is correct. The DC rates have increased over time. Yes. >> Yeah. I think it's fair for the public to kind of know and understand that. Um so I've asked about the project runoffs or um runovers. Um, and if the projects don't build fast enough, is there a risk at some point or we don't know this yet of clawing back some of the funding we've received? So, the guidelines do are very specific that the pro projects must be started by July 2030 and completed uh by 2035. Uh so if if we are successful in receiving this funding uh staff will make sure that that those timelines are adeared to um there again that's a question we can validate through our negotiations with the TPA uh if there's any flexibility there but at this time u the guidelines um do not offer that. >> They don't offer that. And when you say staff will'll make sure like once a project starts we're we're not the builder. you don't have the ability to make sure that they're completed in a certain time. >> My apologies. I was speaking more towards the the town's capital infrastructure projects that are being funded by the grant. Um the the the developer portion um uh as long as we the metric that they will be using are the building permit starts. So it does you know once we issue a building permit they do start building um it is normal that they will take a number of years to complete their developments >> and the guidelines are different for between the two right >> between between our projects like our our our portion whose phone is that that keeps ringing in every meeting where is that coming from [laughter] um so it's it's uh we're talking about uh the projects for Harwood, Roslin, um, and Hunt versus the develop the developer projects themselves. >> That's correct. >> The the measure for the town will be the building permit issuance uh, from a development standpoint. >> Okay. And, um, I I want to stand firm with what uh, regional counselor Crawford said at the beginning of this, and I agree with her 100%. Um there's no reason why we can't have um a a special counsel meeting in the summer and have this come back to council prior to signing anything. I mean, I've been here four years and I don't think there's ever been a summer without a special counsel meeting. I don't see any difference in in putting it in August. Um it should happen. difference, >> councelor Henry, is staff were being very cognizant of the election coming up and not wanting to put council in a position to have a special counsel meeting in August just before the election. If that's what you want, fill your boots. We were trying to be um you know ne cognizant of what's happening and not put council in that position. If you guys want that, no problem. >> Yeah, I want to be put in that position. I want I I was elected to make decisions. I want to be able to make the decision. >> No problem. >> I have no problem. >> Any other questions? >> Um I'm just checking here. I I'm going to bow out for now. I might have another one. Thank you. >> I just want um Mccclary to follow up on the comparisons to other municipalities like Whitby and Pickering and why that's that's not really the the best way to look at this. uh through the chair. Um that's a very good question as well. I mean yes um municipalities are coming out with their uh requests of their councils and it's very important to note that our projects are all different and we're coming in at different times and stages of our projects. For instance, all three of our projects are shovel ready and ready to go. So when we t Sorry, did I say three? at all five of our projects are ready to go um and to be funded and are shovel ready, which is a big difference when we look at other municipalities and what they're applying for. Some municipalities are not applying because their projects are not um front-loaded like ours are. They're not ready to go. We need this support and this grant to move some of these projects along. And Miss Betham um maybe you can elaborate a little bit more on that in terms of the state of our projects and why this is very helpful at this juncture compared to other municipalities. >> Yeah. So what I've been hearing uh of other municipalities as well is some have area specific DC charges and some have um a combination of both. And depending on the mix of projects that they do have between their their various uh DC background studies, sometimes it's it's um not as easy to um put forward some projects uh to to have them funded. Sometimes they are um through uh front-ending agreements with developers already. So uh every every municipality is in a different uh position. Um but with respect to our projects, you know, we are able to get shovels in the ground. um you know imminently with you know once the designs are finalized and everything is good uh tenders will be ready to go out um you know probably early 27 uh especially on um on the uh Harwood Avenue and Rosland uh Rosland work has already started with utilities and so on. So, um, our projects are ready. Um, that funding would be an immediate, um, relief, so to speak, as we would know what kind of money, uh, we would get for these projects right up front. Um, and there's no need to wait for developer funding to come through or developer contributions through DCS to to come through over time. So yes, the the in order to to access those funds, we do need to to make that reduction up front, but really it's displacing the revenue that we would otherwise get from development over time and encouraging them to uh encouraging development by lowering those uh upfront costs for developers. >> Thank you for that explanation. Um, councelor Councelor Crawford, I do see you next in the list. You've spoken, so I'm going to take councelor Lee first and come back to you. Councelor Lee, you have the floor. >> Um, thank you, chair, and thank you to director and both directors for your the information thus far. Um, director Mclardy mentioned made mention of five projects. So in a sense the math we are doing is in the hopper over the next three years we have about five maybe six seven projects total that will equal the amount we've projected out. Is that correct? >> Uh through the chair we our projects that we are proposing um uh total the the grant route being requested is a little higher than our projected total DC's um in you know in uh in the report. So we identified in the report um um DC losses of of about 26 million to 44 million um with um projections of about 1100,200 units a year. Uh historically we've been at the 570 um uh annual new units per year mark. So, you know, we're we're we've we've increased those projections, but again, we're hoping that this will incentivize even more developers to come forward um and and and and provide housing, the muchneeded housing that Ajax does need. Um other and a a point on that is other municipalities have um tailored uh in in some way their their grant ask to their projected revenue. But again, projected revenue is very difficult to measure because we don't know the impact. We are trying our best to make those estimates. But um you know, only time will tell as to how many new units are uh come forward and and we know we have many more units in the hopper ready to come, but it's a matter of, you know, getting developers to come to the table as well. >> And no matter what, it's a blanket. Um we we don't get to pick and choose no matter what. Once we reduce DCS for these three years, anybody who's shovel ready can take advantage of this project. Correct. >> That is true. Yes. >> The math you have worked out um the entire finance department presumably is that um to um uh apply for this program, receive the money back that is uh more beneficial to the town than not using this project at all. uh debenturing these five, seven projects um and then paying the interest on that that like in a sense we come out ahead versus the other way as far as our projections. Is that correct? >> We come out ahead and the and the developers come out ahead too. So it's it's a book it's a win-win situation because they don't any interest on DCs would be passed on uh would be collected over time, right? So, um this this basically provides upfront funding and it helps uh get projects going, get projects paid for as well as uh lowering the long-term costs um for the development community as well. >> So, through the chair, I'm normally not the the the riskaverse one, but I will note that this is all dependent on that TPA that signed. We are going into this optimistic. We are very optimistic about this um and the opportunity to optimize this grant and this eligibility for this funding uh to help support our shovel ready projects. But at the end of the day, it will depend on that TPA and the conditions that they put on us. And as we've discussed today, um council would like to to understand that TPA. We're happy to bring that TPA forward if if they wish. So, um, that is the goal right now is to apply and to to optimize this and to hopefully get the get the terms that we want to in order to make this work. >> And the total number of housing is ideally 25,000, we'll call it 26,000 in the next 10 years. Uh, would that exceed the Ajax housing pledge we' made three and a half years ago? >> The housing pledge we made three and a half years ago is at 17,000 units. We we're that is not our optimum goal. Our right now in the in the report Miss Meth and clarify my if I'm wrong is that we're following what we had um indicated in our development charge background study which is the 3,400 units. That is what we are basing our numbers and our math on right now. >> Okay. Um I think um perhaps in the I guess if we do have a special council meeting um I'm sure uh region Crawford has an amendment coming. Uh is it possible to like show us the comparisons? Uh you've shown us table one of what we're projecting ideally best case scenario. Uh could you not show a table two of hey here's the debenture costs of everything. um just so we can AB this and truly see that yeah this is beneficial for us to do >> we can definitely provide additional analysis um as far as showing the b the benture cost are you asking uh uh what it would have been in a situation should the grant not have been approved and then compared to >> or even hypothetically and we I I I hope this passes but if it doesn't if it didn't pass like what what were what were the two paths before this council this moment now you point A. This is table one. This is our best case scenario. Uh table B is we didn't get any money and this is where we are left because I I think those numbers would really tell a really telling tale of why um so many municipalities, so many developers, uh the province, the feds are excited about this program. Um because I I do think we are getting a lot of upfront money um sooner which will help a lot of our debt um things as we had discussed not one month ago. Um, anyways, uh, chair, thank you for my questions. Uh, that's it. >> Well, just to follow up on that, if this didn't pass, it would be probably the most ridiculous decision ever made by this council to not apply for $122 million in grant funding. That That's a no-brainer, I would think. I wouldn't want to try and explain that one at the doors, but we still have the opportunity to come back and revisit this once we know the answers and make the decision at that point. Is that accurate? >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. So, we're really not making a decision today. The decision today is do we apply for our five projects? Yes or no? >> Not. That's that's all we're doing today. Just want to make that very clear because uh I've heard a couple of comments that that could go the other way. All right. So, um back to second time. Councelor Crawford, please go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh thank you, chair. Um that is not that was not my suggestion at all. Like actually when Sterling said if this gets approved today, I'm like well [clears throat] >> we have to apply for the money. We have to apply absolutely have to apply for the money. That's it's it's again we I think I think what everyone's trying to say is we need to know what did we get, >> right? And what risk then happens after that. Um as far as your timelines goes, you have to have these TPA signed by the 15th of August. So I would like to have these back before that. >> That once we get the answers, Councelor Crawford, we will get back to council and we'll decide on on what the next step is. Yes. >> Yeah. but not before it's signed. >> Correct. What I'm saying through the chair, the amendment that I believe the clerk is working on will will state that uh might not provide a a precise date because we're working within the province's timelines, but yes, like that we will come back before anything is signed. >> Yeah, let's not put August 15th. Let's say when we get the answers from the province. >> Could be sooner. >> But it says right here in the report. right here in the report says must be signed by >> the uh that's that's the guideline councelor Crawford and that's what we're working towards. I just I don't think it's going to be it. Maybe we'll be the first one because we're a for Ajax and we can negotiate this and come back sooner for you. That is our hope. Uh but it might take us a little bit more time. >> Go a Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, yeah. And I absolutely understand and appreciate the fact that you don't want to do this in the middle of an election year, but at the same time, I know what will be set out there in the world. And I want to be able to when somebody asked me at the doors, I want to be able to firmly say what I know is correct answer. And so that is why I think it is absolutely critical that I that we have to have this meeting in August. That's I I appreciate what you're saying, but I I need to have this information. Um, no problem. >> Oh, I have a I have a question for planning. Is it all right if I ask planning a question? >> What is the question? >> I meant to I meant to ask Oh, the question is, how many projects would be eligible to begin in the next three years that would able be able to take advantage of this project? So, we have some kind of idea. Well, I think we picked the top five. But >> no, I don't mean our projects. I mean development that would benefit from the the reduction in DCs. Like how many projects are at a stage where they go, "Yeah, hand me the shovel. I'm ready to go." Right. >> Director. >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh through the chair to councelor Crawford. I I don't have a specific list and we'd have to look at our development forecast as well as where everything is currently in process. So, it kind of be working in tandem with PSA and finance to figure out what those projects are. I believe one project would be 310 Kingston Road uh and maybe 101 Pickering Beach, but I don't I don't believe so. Um, I'm just throwing out ones that are going through the process right now that are at the end. Um, they already have building permits. I don't know the retroactivity of of the payment or how it works with the actual process. Um, council >> I can give council an idea of that. >> I think 282 Monarch Jeff is close to phase one as well. I think so as well. That that was one that was on the tip of my tongue, >> but I can have some hyper issues with the lexagon to figure out. >> Yeah, if there's followup required, I can I can kind of give you an idea of the applications that are that far along in the process. >> I apologize. I didn't give you the heads up. I should have gone to uh I should have booked an appointment with Eric. I I just didn't have time yesterday. Sorry. But yeah, >> through the chair, I do have information on that. We did confirm through our our research PSA did um in consultation with um finance and some members of uh Mr. Romanowski's team that we have about 36 projects in the pipeline. They're at various stages um in the pipeline, but there are 36 projects and some are at site plan, some are about to pull building permits, but you have to remember that I believe the guideline dictates that that the permit must be at the foundation stage to be able to be. So we there is a retroactivity um with some projects that >> So you're saying the projects have to be already started in order to >> No no I'm saying that um they have to have been like they have to go through site plan obviously a lot of those 36 projects that I've I've named that are in the pipeline there's still a lot of work that planning is doing with them but once that's done they have to it's the permit at the foundation stage that counts. counts. So they have to they have to pull their boat building permit one that's founded foundation stage. Yes. >> So that's what counts to get the 30% reduction. That's what that's currently right now. >> Pulling the permit. Pulling the permit. Okay. Okay. No, that's fair. >> So we're going to go through all those units and we're going to going to negotiate with the province about which ones we believe that are um that could make this three-year timeline and could count towards our units. That's going to be part of the negotiation. No, I sincerely hope that this does do what the province intends to do and that gets housing going. Um, I fully, you know, whatever we can do to get uh shovels in the ground is is great. Again, my only thing is what about the 10%. That's my my biggest thing. Um, and also what we actually end up getting. So, anyway, thank you for letting me back in. >> Okay, Councelor Henry, for the second time. Thank you. So um just to uh I have other questions but to leap on to phase 136 projects pulling permits. So if there are per permit if there are projects that have foundation in the ground already does that mean that they are not qualified for this program? Because I have folks in Castlefield asking me about projects like Medallion that have already started. Are they qualified for this now? Can they go retroactively back or no? >> My expectation would be that anybody that has not yet paid their development charges would be eligible. That's my expectation based on reading this. Um, Miss Mam and Miss Chris, Miss McCclardy >> charges >> through the chair. um based on my read of this grant program, it's not uh it's not a retroactive uh it's it's retroactive to March 30th um but not beyond that. So, anybody who is pulling building permits or where the town um is is calculating their DC charge after March 30th would be eligible for this uh DC reduction uh program. >> Okay. and through the clarification in that case they haven't paid their DCs yet. Their DCs haven't been frozen. They haven't pulled the foundation permit in order for it to be frozen yet. >> So that's a yes or no on medallion. >> Medallion case by case. I don't know. Uh Julie, sorry. >> Well, it it depends. Medallion on Roslin. Um, so the development that has started already there, no, would not be eligible for for that, but there are other future medallion developments that could take advantage of this. >> Understood. Yes, there's a second phase on uh Rosland phase 2 that would be eligible. Phase one currently, no. 310 Kingston Road eligible or not eligible? >> Yes, >> they would be eligible based on an agreement we have with them. Yes. >> Okay. So, I think it's only fair in all the questions that we're asking when we're asking, you know, uh, Councelor Lee asked a bunch of questions about, you know, charts and this and that. I think it's only fair to let folks know of the 36 projects that we're talking about now, how many of them would be eligible and what's a DC loss versus the gain from the money we get from the government? Because we're going to get asked that questions. I've already been asked those questions. >> So, I think that would be more suitable for our next meeting because right now we don't know what >> we're going to ask this on the floor now. I I'm not asking you to give me an answer now. I am asking you to bring it back for the next meeting in the report and I don't want to catch you off guard where somebody says, "Oh, you should have asked that before. I don't have time to do it." I'm giving you far advance. I want that information. >> Can I just through the chair? Can I clarify something to councelor Henry? Um, just so we know the ask, we will be negotiating the amount of units that we believe that will come through the pipeline. So, we're not I I I'm confused about why we would produce uh numbers that we are not uh we don't believe that are going to come through the pipeline. So, if we sign a TPA and we say for example that over the next three years we're going to have a thousand units built, that is the number of the loss that that you would see in the reduction where because that's you have is that including the 36 projects that are now >> what she's saying is of the 36 projects there's probably 30 of them that just because of timing will never even be eligible for this. So why are we worrying about those numbers? >> Yeah. So I also in that analysis then it should be included the projects that are already work being worked on now that are already have in the process and the loss of DC's for that that's going to be included in that. Well, what I what I'm trying to say, councelor Henry, is that if we negotiate with the province that we believe out of that pipeline and where they are that there are, for example, maybe six projects, six to eight projects that we believe could potentially make it through. I mean, but again, this is not on the municipality like these are up to developers on when they're going to move this. That is what we're negotiating uh the units on. We wouldn't be worried about when we come back staff will provide council everything from the province and all the ins and outs and and what that means but also the potential projects that are eligible and the number of units and you know any potential loss in DC's through the reduction at the same time >> through the units that we've negotiated. Yes. in August. Yes. You'll provide all that information. >> Yeah. >> And that'll include something like a 310. That'll include a project that's already in the works. >> Yes. >> Our loss versus our gain with the project because staff is stating the gain will be far more than the loss >> in the long >> through. Yes, there's long-term reasons for uh the advantage of the the grant. It's the benefit. It's not nec like the benefit in gains is not necessarily about the number value. So you have to there will be some considerations there and we will we will produce that that document for you >> 100%. There'll be there'll be um interest you know interest that we wouldn't have incurred and paid. There's all kinds of things and we'll look at all that but we need to see numbers. And then so my other questions were there was a statement made about um uh we came out ahead and developers come out ahead. So my question goes back to the taxpayer which I'm one of we all are that live here. Um does a taxpayer come out ahead? What is this look like with regards to the levy? Because >> um councelor Lee did the reduction >> I'm going to stop you here. Yeah, >> this report is about us applying for the funding. >> Yes. And I want to know if the funding >> just a minute. >> Let's not get too far down the road. These questions will be more suitable in August or whenever the next meeting is once we know what the real numbers are. So, let's stick today to do we apply for the funding, yes or no? because you're asking I'm gonna vote to apply for the funding. >> Okay, we can't answer your questions right now because we don't have the information. So, what I'm asking is >> let's get the information then ask these particular very specific questions on any potential tax impact because right now we just don't know. >> Okay. So, let me put the question out there on the floor so it's on record for the August meeting. I want to know how this will impact the levy because we saw the report that said that the levy should be going back up to 2% moving forward. It was a one-year break basically that we need it with this program. Will we still need that? Will this will this help in that way to keep it at a 1% levy? I think it's an important question and everybody wants the answer to that. So, please include that in August. Thank you. >> Okay, clear. >> And uh also last thing, if councelor Crawford needs a second or for the motion, happy to second. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, let's see if we have a motion first. Um I don't see any more questions. The clerk is working on on a motion. I don't know if we need a motion. I think we've got enough direction that we're going to report back once this happens. But let's see what um what Jacquine's come up with. >> Uh you Mr. Chair, I do have an amendment that councelor Crawford uh I believe wanted to put forward, but I'll leave it to her whether or not she's introducing that today. >> Okay. Councelor Crawford, do you have an amendment? >> Yes, sir, I do. >> Okay. Please present your amendment. So before we move forward with the amendment, can we get the main motion uh moved and seconded, please? >> Okay. I believe I was >> but go ahead. Councelor Crawford second. Councelor Lee, go ahead. It's on the floor. >> Am I supposed to read it because I can't actually see it with my face there? >> Can you scroll up a little bit? Okay, there we go. So that the motion be amended by removing clause number two adding the following. That council direct that residential development charges be reduced by up to 50% for a period of 3 years effective March 30th, 2026 to March 30th, 2029. And clause three, that the draft TPA be brought forward to council for final approval prior to the town formally entering into the agreement and prior to the August 15, 2026 timeline provided by the province. that that's exactly what I want to I think I've said enough. Um that is exactly what I would like to have have happen. Thank you. >> Councelor Lee as a seconder. Um so I just want to clarify um as far as our staff know this um I'm not going to call it delay but this added step before approval will this in any way jeopardize the total application >> through through the chair to councelor Lee no it will not impact our total application we can make time >> be like you're too slow uh we we need this faster we're in the back of the queue nothing like that >> nothing like that we can come back that's there's No issue with that. My only concern is that we are using a date that I know it's been provided by the province. But is there any worry some clerk that if um if it's delayed beyond that like that's okay like we're okay? >> It does say prior to which gives some flexibility. >> Uh yeah through you Mr. Chair. Um, I believe uh regional counselor Crawford was also open to prior to the August 21st nom 21st being the nomination date for the 2026 uh municipal election. So we I I would take her um advice from here on what date she would like in her amendment. >> Okay, let's see what she would like. Councelor Crawford. >> So So what is a caution? I'm sorry. So my caution so my caution um is the fact that um I'm just worried about having a specific date that's generated by the province. I like the idea of use utilizing the closing of nomination like um coming forward to council before that date which might make more sense >> as long as the >> Yeah. As long as it's done before it's signed >> that won't cause a delay because you still have to sign it anyway, right? So, as long as it's done before it's signed, that's fine. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, if that's the case, can we just get rid of prior to August 21st, so that's not even an issue, and just say we'll be brought forward to council for final approval, prior to the town formally entering into the agreement, councelor Crawford, does that suffice? Just let's bring you back. There we go. >> Yeah. Yeah, that works. That works. Let's strike that >> just so we don't have to worry about an amending something because a date doesn't line up. Okay. Uh further discussion seeing hearing none, please open the vote on the amendment. Okay, that carries. And now um on the item as amended and that carries unanimously. Thank you everyone. Just let me find my spot here again. The next one I hope should be fairly uh fairly straightforward. Just a notice of motion temporary renaming Pat Billy Square for FIFA World Cup celebrations moved by myself and councelor Lee. Uh, I'm sure you've all read the motion and basically this is just council approved the temporary renaming of Pat Square to Derek Cornelius Square effective immediately until the conclusion of the 2026 FIFA World Cup and a temporary public art installation recognizing Derek Cornelius and his connection to Ajax be unveiled at the June 18, 2026 Ajax fan zone watch party hosted in the square and the business gave team in coordination with communications engagement staff be directed to promote community awareness of distribute and a copy of the motion be distributed to the local and upper level um governance. Councelor Lee is a seconder. >> Thank you, chair. Nothing more to add beyond uh we're all incredibly uh proud of Derek and we wish him the best uh winning the entire World Cup. Why not? Thank you, chair. [laughter] >> I I always will welcome the opportunity to recognize and promote local Ajax heroes. So, um I I appreciate staff bringing this forward. It's a it's a great idea. Councelor Henry. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh thank you for the motion. Um, we met Derek's grandparents at the game, uh, the opener up at Oddly Recreation Center, and it was announced there about this motion. Uh, regional counselor Lee announced it. Uh, Derek's grandparents would like a copy of this motion, and I thought it might be nice to verbalize if we could present that to them at uh, the the next game. >> I'm I'm sure that can be done. When is the next game? Um, I don't have I just changed screens. I'm sorry. I don't have it in front of me. >> I'm sure >> if I'm not mistaken, is it is it the 18th? I believe >> it's the 18th. Two days in the square. >> Yeah, two days. Yeah. And there is some activation occurring at the square. So, we can make that possible. Uh, I'll leave that up to uh Yeah, I will talk to PSA staff and communication and get that organized. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. Thank you. Seeing nothing further, um can we open the vote, please? That carries unanimously. Thank you. So, let me go back here. Okay. brings us to the confirming bylaw. Um, I'll just pick a couple of names. I'll start ward one move by councelor Tyler Moore and second by councelor Crawford. And if you have an issue, [snorts] hit your yellow button, please. In uh that bylaw 56-2026 being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the council, the corporation town of HAC, the special meeting held on June 16, 2026 be approved. Open the vote, please. That carries and move on to war two. Move by councelor Henry, second by councelor Lee, that the June 16, 2026 meeting of the council of the town of Ajax be adjourned. Please open to vote. That is carried. Thank you everyone for accommodating this special meeting and enjoy the rest of your day.