Soundtrack 1, two, 3. Soundtrack 1, two, 3. Good morning everyone and welcome to audit finance and administration committee for May 7th. Your favorite committee of committee week. >> No. Okay, I tried. Uh we have quorum. So we are going to get things started this morning. Joining us in chambers, councilors Tatison, Clark Cooper, Moren Wilson, Cretch, Spataphora, Paul's, and online, councelor Alex Wilson. A quick reminder to committee members and all in the gallery, please set your phones to silent. Please turn your devices to a nonaudible function. So, we're going to begin with uh item number three, which is approval of the agenda. We have a request from a committee member to change the agenda order. Uh that will come as a motion from councelor Cooper. I understand you'd like to move your motion 9.1 up to just after the delegation. So if you've got a seconder, you can introduce that and we will go from there. >> Councelor Cooper. >> Thank you, Chair. Moved by myself, second by councelor Clark to do exactly what you'd mentioned. Okay. Thank you. >> So this will require an electronic vote. So once again, what we're voting on is moving 9.1, which is councelor Cooper's motion, up on the agenda to just before 7.1, just after the delegations, and that would enable those that may be in the gallery to not wait until the end of the meeting to watch the uh proceedings with the motion take place. So go ahead and indicate this will require an electronic vote. So once again, what we're voting on is moving 9.1. Is that who is that? >> Wow. And the motion carries 90. Thank you colleagues. We are now going to continue with the approval of the agenda. If I could have a mover in a second or two to approve the agenda as amended. Looking for councelor Tison, councelor Paul's. Thank you. A show of hands. All in favor of the agenda as amended. If we could just put your hands up to see if you're in favor. Thank you very much. That is approved. Moving on to item four, declarations of interest. Any declarations of interest from members of committee? Seeing none, we're going right to the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. This is AFA26005, which is the meeting from April 16, 2026. If I could have a mover in a second or to adopt the previous minutes. Seeing councelor Cretch, councelor Spataphora, any questions, comments on the minutes? And seeing none, please indicate your vote by a show of hands. All in favor? That is unanimous. Thank you. Colleagues, we're moving on to item six, which is delegations. So before we begin our delegations, I just want to remind members of committee that questions of the delegates are for clarification information purposes only and not for debate. And uh we have one delegate on the docket today, which is 6.1A. Danny Gabriel, if uh you want to come down to the stand here, Danny, I'm going to give you up to 5 minutes to complete your delegation. At the 4m minute mark, there'll be a tone. That's the indication that you've got one minute left. And then around the five minute mark, um hopefully you have concluded. Otherwise, I may give you a soft prompt. Okay. >> Whenever you're ready, Danny, please proceed. Good morning, chair and members of committee. My name is Danny Gabriel. I am here representing WHBA as chair. I am also director of operations at Mars Homes, a third generation homebuilder developer that has been operating in this region for nearly 50 years. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I want to start with a simple reality. We are not operating in a normal housing market. We are in a severe downturn. Projects across Hamilton are being delayed, shelved, or cancelled. Not because builders are cautious, but because they no longer make financial sense. The math does not work. The cost of building a home today exceeds what buyers are able to pay. Our members have delayed projects and reduced staff. Builders across this region are laying people off, and that doesn't just affect us. It leaves trades and supply partners without work. That is already happening. So when we talk about a 4% increase in development charges, I need to be very clear. There is no capacity in the system to absorb it. We've already cut costs. We've already pushed our trades and suppliers to be more competitive and we've reduced pricing where we can. Which brings me to an important point. There is a perception that builders pocket incentives or cost reductions. That is not true. If we can't sell houses right now, why would we not decrease the price of a home to sell it? Recent HST changes have resulted in real price reductions being passed directly to buyers. We've shared those price sheets with committee, and for the first time in a long time, we're starting to see early signs of demand returning. That tells you how sensitive the market is. Reductions bring buyers back, which means even small increases push projects further out of reach. And I want to be clear, we've reached the point of diminishing returns on housing charges. There was a time when increasing fees and charges still generated revenue without stopping projects. But we've passed that point. Now, every additional increase does more harm than good. It doesn't generate more revenue, it eliminates it. Because when costs rise beyond what buyers can afford, supply doesn't increase. It disappears. And when supply disappears, nothing gets built. And when nothing gets built, the city collects nothing. No development charges, no permit revenue, no assessment growth. That is the risk in front of you. At the same time, other municipalities are taking action. Fawn has eliminated 100% of development charges until October 2027. and senior levels of government have made it clear they are prepared to invest billions of dollars into municipalities that take meaningful steps to reduce barriers to housing. So the signal matters. Increasing development charges right now sends the wrong signal to Hamiltonians and to other levels of government. It also puts Hamilton at a competitive disadvantage because capital is mobile. If projects don't work here, they will go somewhere else and we will be left behind. So our ask today is simple. We are not asking you to reduce development charges. We are asking you to not increase them to provide stability to recognize the reality of the market and to give projects a chance to move forward. Because right now confidence is fragile and decisions like this determine whether projects ultimately proceed or not. Committee has a choice. increase costs in an already strained market through DC increases the city likely isn't collecting anyway while risking access to billions from senior levels of government or hold the line. Position Hamilton as a willing partner and help get homes built. Option one and two give you that path. I'll close with this. Hamilton lost nearly 2,000 residential construction jobs last year, twice the size of the entire Stelco workforce. If we continue to add costs in a market that is already breaking, that number will grow. We are asking you to work with us to protect jobs, restore viability, and unlock the housing and investment the city needs. Please hold the line. Thank you. >> Thank you, Danny. We have a speaker list that has been populated. We're going to begin with councelor Rob Cooper, please. >> Thank you, chair. Thank you, Danny, for your presentation today. Just wondering if you could give us a better sense of uh the reductions you're talking about and how it's being passed on to buyers. It's a real concern of this council that you know we're not just cutting uh I'll say fees and and and it's not going on to the buyers. So if you give us some more detail on that that'd be greatly appreciated. >> Yes, >> Danny. >> Absolutely. Um through the chair. So one way that we are showing real price reductions is with the recent HST announcement. So um we we have provided price lists but I'd like to use our Niagara on the lake example um or our Niagara on the lake site as an example where we have shown the price in one column the HST in another column and the price less the HST in the next column. So when purchasers or potential purchasers come into our sales center they can see that our price list as of today was exactly the same as it was in October. um we've just netted out that HST amount. >> Thank you. And and could you give us a sense of how this is impacting um even uh sales that are going on now? Like are we having a real impact? Is are we starting to see a a lift in in terms of how many people are buying homes? >> Yeah. Um thank you for the question again through the chair. Um I the HST announcement was was massive. It was the single largest tax cut new homeowners have probably ever seen. So, um, yes, it is bringing more people through our sales centers, but I will admit it is not, um, increasing sales in the way that I had expected and hoped. And I think that shows you how sensitive the market is and that the more cuts we can pass on to the buyer, the better it is. Um, we have seen more traffic from firsttime home buyers, which is really great. However, one of the main concerns we keep hearing from them is that that down payment amount as well. >> Okay. Councelor, >> thank you, chair. Um, the development charge cuts that we've did as a council. Are we seeing that coming through to the pricing now and has that had any impact on sales at all? I know we talked about the HST, but just wondering the part that council has been involved in. >> Yes. Um, so I would like to use our Stony Creek site as an example of that. Um, we were locked in with DC rates that were from 2021 and we sold between 2023 and 2025 at that 2021 DC rate, which was $50,000 uh for a single family home. When our lockin rate expired, that price went up from $50,000 to $78,000. We did not the DC rate, sorry. We did not pass on that increased amount to our purchasers and that was or our potential purchasers or the new homeowner um because we knew that they wouldn't be able to pay it. So, we as builders absorbed that cost, but we're at the point now where we can't absorb any more costs. And I also want to share that since um that we haven't sold a house there in 14 months. So, um I think that just further shows that that we have a cost uh pricing problem. >> Thank you, Danny. Uh and through you, chair, one of the things I've observed is we this stress test has been put in by the federal government. And a stress test assumes people's income never goes up, which is a false assumption. They assume your principal never goes down, which is a false assumption because over the term of your mortgage, you're paying it down. And then they guess at an interest rate. My sense is this is keeping people out of homes because it limits what they can actually purchase. Do you see that as well being a real barrier to entry for folks at our local market? >> Yeah, I think there's uh definitely the stress test and um and just in general the whole kind of financing process um certainly adds levels of difficulty for buyers, especially first-time home buyers. Um I I can provide a little bit more about the stress test details um at a later date, but it's certainly becoming more difficult for purchasers um to to be able to afford a home. >> Thank you. Thank you. And through your chair, I mean, another thing I've heard from people in my ward is they've really struggled with also the idea of the down payment. They're like, "We chase the down payment into our 50s. We can't get the down payment. Uh keeps us out of a home." And if you look at Hamilton right now, rents are higher than mortgage costs. And if the federal government were to take off that stress test and the down payment, >> everybody that wanted to be in the house would be in the house today. And and that's a real barrier because many times we talk about development charges, we talk about HST, we talk about these costs that various levels of government put on. >> Is government policy and I'm interested in your thoughts on this. The government policy, I believe, is keeping people at homes right now. I I'm interested in your thoughts on that as well. Yeah, I I mean as we layer on more costs and fees, it becomes more difficult for us to be able to um provide housing at a cost that uh purchasers can can pay for it. So, um the higher that cost goes up, the more down payment required and and the harder it is. >> Um sorry, >> no, you continue. He's out of time. You're not >> I'm sorry. This is my first time, so I'm still learning the mechanics of all this. continue. >> Um um sorry I lost my train of thought there. I hope I answered your question. >> There you go. You're welcome to go on for a second time if you wish. We're going to go on now to uh councelor Crutch, please. >> Thanks. My question for you is primarily about development charges that cities offer, not about what's happening other levels of government. What I'm wondering is if you're aware of the CIPA development charge framework for downtown at all. >> Yes, I'm aware of the program. Yes. >> So with council having giving a 20% discount to DC's across the city plus the CIPA being 35% right now in 2026 until May 31st, that means that DC charges are discounted by 55% downtown right now. What are the barriers? because you're saying here to us today if we deal with these 4% increase to DC charges is going to have some kind of impact. Housing is going to be built. I could I could point to you take you around downtown right now where housing is not being built despite there being 55% discounts on development charges. So when I look at this I don't see this huge impact. Could you could you address that please? >> Danny. >> Yeah. Um thank you for the count the question uh councelor Croach. Um, I think every I I recently heard somebody say that the a single leaf does not provide shade nor shelter and that you need to layer in multiple leaves to afford the h to be able to um solve the affordability crisis. So, will development charges on its own increase um revenue or stimulate activity in the downtown core or wherever? No. we need to layer in multiple pieces to make that more affordable. Um the 55% reduction in downtown, frankly, I I think that it's amazing that the city of Hamilton has put out these um these programs, especially in the downtown core because the downtown core is suffering the most right now with the most amount of high-rise uh being downtown. >> Right. So, I'm just curious about the market model. Right. So what we're seeing here is happening is condominiums are no longer really being something that people are wanting to purchase downtown. Apartments are something people are wanting to be purchasing downtown despite this idea that um somehow they could afford to buy a house. We see all the data saying that actually the income for renters is much lower than the income for people who already own property. The model seems broken. like we could pour in 75% and at one time there was 70% DC charge reductions in different parts of the city. Um that didn't mean development was suddenly happening. So I'm just really wanting to get the core of that like the model doesn't seem to be working. What are you doing to address the model itself? >> Danny, >> I I mean again back to what I said earlier. I think what we're trying to do here is reduce the cost of housing. when you increase supply, the cost of housing goes down. Um, the more supply we bring into the market, the more affordable it is. So, I I'm not I'm kind of I I guess I I'm not exactly sure how to answer that that question. Um, >> sure. Different question. I understand. Um, I mean, that's an argument made a lot about supply and demand. I don't believe that argument is valid, but I understand your perspective. What I want to say is that or ask you specifically is whether or not your there's any kind of financial transparency with respect to development charges because you talked about HST, right? You said we have these columns and on and the lake project for HST. You're showing people what that looks like. Do you do the same thing when it comes to development charges? Is there any transparency around that financial accountability with development charges? Um, right now we don't specifically break out development charges, but we would be we would be happy to do that. Um, again, I use that Stony Creek site as an example, right, of where we didn't take on that additional cost. But, uh, yes, we we absolutely can do that. And I would really like to see, um, I I know this isn't a municipal issue, but on our statement of adjustments, we explicitly have the HST line item right there. We could have that development charge line item right there, which would then allow the purchaser to qualify for a mortgage that would be less because right now that development charge cost is included in the purchase price of the home and then they then have to get a mortgage on that cost and carry that for 25 years. Um, as opposed to it coming right off the statement of adjustments and bringing that total cost down. >> You were saying that wasn't a municipal issue. What level of government is that an issue for? That would be I I believe that's a federal issue, I believe, but I would like to confirm that. >> Thank you. We're going on next to Councelor Brad Clark, please. >> Thank you, chair, and I want to thank the delegate for appearing today. Um, I listened carefully. So the your presentation and the questions the market across Ontario has really nose dived for better lack of, you know, in some areas it's much worse. The condo market seems to have collapsed in on itself, not just here, but in Toronto. Um, how much of some of these when when people are looking at where they want to buy a home, does the price, for example, having a significant reductions in prices in Toronto for condos, will that cure their problem? the we can't force people to buy condos if they want to buy a single family home. And so in my mind, at least from my experience in my ward, there are different markets within my ward and there are different markets within the city. So there's large demand in my ward for single family homes and town homes. Um there isn't huge demand for condos. In fact, Mr. Loausani who who does wonderful work built two two multi-residential buildings. Originally, they were going to be condos, but the market collapsed. So, he switched it to purpose-built rental housing and those two apartments are completely full now. Those two buildings are 100% capacity. He's done an amazing job. So the question is it's not just DC's the markets are different right across the city for different reasons. People are looking for homes for different reasons. Is that a fair assessment as to what's overall going on with customer interest? >> Danny, >> yes. Um so certainly there's interest changes depending on the the purchaser and what suits their lifestyle and their needs etc. Right now, we're seeing, and I only speak from personal experience at Mars Homes, we're seeing that people want 3BGB housing, which is groundbased, three-bedroom groundbased housing, right? So, that's that's where um we're seeing most of our our product sell. I say sell, but at a very slow rate. Um so, yes, absolutely. uh the it it is market dip or um it is people's wants and needs change by uh location and the product type that best suits their needs. Yes, I agree with that statement. >> Thank you. Um the Canada Ontario partnership to build funding, they couldn't get a bigger title for the the program. Um, if I understand the program correctly, the senior levels of government are willing to invest in infrastructure in municipalities that lower their development charges by an equitable amount. In other words, if they give us $200 million for the water treatment plant, then they're expecting to see an equal amount of reduction DCS. Um, when it comes to the indexing, if the city were to declined to increase the DC rate this year, that would also fall under that program. any reduction in DC's the 20% we've already done if we don't go to this indexing all of that will enable us to make applications under that program is that your understanding of how that program works >> I am still uh WHBA and OB are working really hard to understand the mechanics of how this program is going to work >> I I understand that frustration I understand um Uh but at this point in time we don't have a lot of information. What I can tell you is that it's the 8.8 billion fund over um 10 years. There is a price matching model. We hope to receive more information in June on exactly how this program plays out. But um what I what I will say is that it is an unprecedented amount of money. Federal government typically doesn't um intervene in this way uh for housing related issues. and that I would just hope that Hamilton would consider putting themselves um um in a good position so that when we have more information about this program, we we can take advantage of it. >> Council, you're at the end of your five minutes. You're welcome to go on for a second time. >> Thank you. >> I'm moving now to uh councelor Moren Wilson, please. >> I think I took myself off. Thank you, chair. >> Okay, we're going on now to councelor Spataphora, please. Thank you, chair, and thank you, Danny, uh, for coming in today. So, uh, my question is, um, you know, I think it was brought up about, uh, the DC credits or discounts that we're giving downtown. Um, do you think that that that has to do with what we're able to um offer people downtown as opposed to if we had that kind of a DC discount on town homes and areas like that? Do you think there'd be a difference in maybe the shift in action from downtown where typically we can only build high-rise condos as opposed to building a large site of town homes, three-story towns, bungalow lofts, things that maybe are more in sort of demand right now over a condo through you, chair >> Danny? >> Yeah, through the chair. I just want to clarify. So, you're asking if the DC reductions would show more activity in the downtown versus other areas or >> if we were able to provide those DC discounts cuz downtown has a CIP that you stack everything on. >> Do you think that would move some of the other locations in the city that are offering a different type of housing as opposed to a condo building downtown? Sorry, just to clarify, uh, vice chair, I think you were asking if those same DC's discounts were active in other locations in other communities for other housing products up to a 55% discount, would that have a stimulus effect? Is that what you're asking? Okay, >> understand there, Danny. >> I'm sorry, I need it one more time. >> If the DCs that are offered in the downtown, which are stacked and come out to approximately 55%. If those DC credits were offered in other parts of the city for different products other than condos, would that have a stimulus effect? >> Oh, yes. Okay. Yes. Yes. Love to hear it. Okay. Where do I sign? Um, no. I I definitely think that it would uh it would start moving things like again we're coming down to affordability here. So the if we can offer a house at a lower price um we are going to have more people be able to enter um to enter the market. And I also want to say when we're talking about our downtown core, um, we're talking about a 55% reduction with CIP, uh, sorry, I don't think I got that acronym right, um, and DC's, but when we look at high-rise product in Vaughn in Miss, we've seen Vaughn cut it 100%. Right? We've seen reductions in Missaga. So, for that high-rise product, um, if we don't reduce, a lot of people can go to these neighboring areas, um, where they may have been, uh, priced out before and and now they're not. Um, but yeah, I I certainly think that that would increase, um, um, demand in in neighboring areas. >> Thank you for that. Um, my other question was, and I just lost my lot of lot train of thought losing this morning. That's happening. Jeez. >> Pardon? >> I'm trying my best. Yes. So, um, wow. >> You got a minute 50 to figure it out, counselor. >> Do you want me to just sing until that happens? >> You want to come on for a second time? >> I'll go back I'll go back on once I uh Okay. Reformulate this question. >> We're going to move on now to councelor Esther Paul's for first time. >> Thank you. and you're doing a great job for being the first time here speaking. You're welcome anytime. Thank you. So, thank you. Yes. Um Danielle, u I'm just uh you're here because you heard that we're probably indexed 4% on on our DC. Is that the reason? And I heard you say we should leave it alone. Is that why you're here speaking? >> Yes. I I am urging you to hold the rate. Don't red We're not asking for a rece DC reduction. Just just keep things constant. And what's your understanding? I I don't really understand it either. The government said GST, you know, there's not going on new homes. What are they saying how they're going to help the cities with the uh you know, DC charges? Do you do you have a clearer picture or >> I don't I wish that I did. Uh we're hoping to get more information in June as opposed to how um in regards to how the program rolls out, but at this time we don't have a lot of specifics. Um after this meeting, uh WHB is happy to share everything that we have at this point, but it isn't a lot. >> Right. I remember looking at the news and saying, "Oh, that's great. They're going to help us with the DC charges so we could eliminate them if the uh the government helps us." Right? So, um it's So, I think with that 4% you're saying we should leave it alone uh alone till we know what's going on and have a clearer picture. >> That's what you're here for. >> That's exactly what I'm saying. Yes. I wouldn't want to risk not receiving this funding because the province has been very clear with us there. Um uh Premier Ford has said if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. >> Right. So, I'm hearing that as well. So, so I think uh waiting would be a smart thing to do. Uh but I was wondering about we have 55% downtown. Um a and I'm wondering why the builders are not building. Maybe because people sometimes uh want a house, a townhouse and not live in high-rise or an apartment. So could that be some of the reason? And they want to live on the mountain, you know, uh and because maybe the family is growing and they cannot live downtown. Could that be the reason why as well? >> Yeah, I think that what we've seen lately is that the the groundoriented housing is um more desirable for most people. Um and that in the past a lot of the high-rise product was also bought by investors. Investor market isn't there in the way that it has been in the past. Um, and the investor market was able to provide a lot of um a purpose-built rent or um a lot of rental units as well, which which is great. >> I heard you say if we have 55% discount everywhere, it would really help. So, that's in the background here. So, thank you. >> Yeah, thank you for coming. >> We're going next to first time speaker councelor Alex Wilson on the big screen, please. >> Hi there, Danny. Thanks. So, thanks for coming and apologies for being behind you. just feeling a bit under the weather this week. Um I did just have a question for clarification. I'm not sure I'm following and I think all the conversation about the broader housing sector is actually getting me further away. So I just want to kind of get back into the DC piece that you're here to talk about. Um when you you talking about kind of giving that incentive to boost sales, you mentioned um that the HST removal has had an anecdotally positive experience at least in seeing people in open houses and interest. Can you um help me understand if giving that reduction helped get people interested? Why didn't yourself and other builders provide that discount before there was a federal or provincial program >> through the chair? Um thank you councelor Wilson. Um we we didn't have any more room to be able to um to provide further incentives. We've already cut our costs as much as we can. We've gone back to our trades and suppliers. We've asked them to cut down their costs as well. Um, and what we're offering right now is is really the best we can do. >> That makes sense to me. So, it wasn't a sure thing. You need to know if one of the levels of government had said, "Hey, we need to see you pay to play here. We need to see you discount prices by 10% before you're able to get financial assistance." As you know, this is your livelihood. This is your business. This is how you make money. Would that have felt fair to you? um you know, if your business had to cut costs, had to had to go with bills unpaid, had to either say, "Hey, people aren't going to get paid fair, you had to take on debt in order to participate in a program later." Would that have been, you know, how would you have felt? >> Um, councelor Wilson, I I I hear you, but we're not asking for you to reduce the cut, reduce costs right now, right? We're asking you to just hold them constant um for a short term until we can get more information on this funding. Thank you. Um, and I guess that's where I'll switch is I guess I'm just confused in a bit of a sense is I'm hearing that if builders aren't able to do this with their private funds and I think I understand that like I understand it's not a not there's a risk to the decision um we are stewarding public funds here and I think it's important to have the details of those programs available to be a part of the decision-making. I want to echo what other um counselors have said which is I think there's a real willingness to do that work but can you ask help me clarify a little bit more about why you're asking for a freeze which you know things go up every year that is a that is a funding there is a funding for that when we don't have the details of the program versus if that program came out after the details of the program um could you just help me understand the timing of the ask a little bit more >> yeah for sure I I think the timing of the ask goes back again to the um what we're hearing ing from Premier Ford and from the senior levels of government which is work right now to try and make um housing more affordable by reducing the DC and we're seeing other municipalities do that as well. Right now vaugh Missaga Toronto is not Toronto is not indexing for 2025 and 2026 and Missaga and Peele have instituted 50% DC reductions. Um so so I I understand the timing piece is is not ideal but um I I just feel that based on what we've heard from senior levels of government based on the amount of funding that could be available to us and what other municipalities are doing that we that we have to hold the line um and hopefully maybe look at other ways um maybe other things can be removed from um the DC's bylaw that uh might not need or sorry remove from the background study um at this time. >> Thank you. I really I think I do have a better understanding of what's being asked of us today. Really appreciate your answers to the questions and appreciate all the experience you bring because you're right there in the sector. You know, you have examples of what's being built and what's not. So appreciate all the all the expertise you're bringing today. Um and for the answers to your questions, I think I better understand the ask through you chair. >> Thank you. We're going on to second time speaker, councelor Brad Clark, please. >> Thank you, chair. Um I'm this discussion is really informing me in a lot of areas. Can I ask um given your professional experience in in the housing sector in my ward um being very parochial. It's a secondary planned community. Site plans have been approved on several properties across the ward. And yet when you're driving down Centennial Parkway, you see empty fields and no construction. along Rhymeal Road, empty fields, no construction. They've all been sight planned. So why what what is preventing the developers from doing that work? What's what's happening in the economy that's causing this? >> Mhm. >> Um and and and speak candidly, please. I'm I'm seriously people ask me what's happening. We expected town homes here. Well, they're coming, but they're not coming quickly. >> Um, >> so, oh, sorry. Um, through the chair. Okay, so a couple things here. Um, firstly, uh, our projects need to get financed to be able to build them. So, if the math doesn't work, we will not get financing. Um I also want to add and not I don't think a lot of people um necessarily know this but when we provide our performers or budgets to the bank they look at them they have a certain margin that they need to receive in order to to uh give us the funding but they also sometimes come back to us and say we don't agree with your assumptions and they make that budget even tighter than it already is. So there's times when the it doesn't pencil. Um so developers may have to hold back on releasing that site um until they can get the financing or until something in their perform one of their inputs budges and makes it more favorable as a whole. Um I will tell you from a Mars homes perspective, we do not have any fully approved sites that we're just sitting on right now at this moment. Um we actually find that um it takes a a very long time to get uh zoning or um development approvals in Hamilton. Um so I I can't speak to the specific uh your specific ward um or those specific sites without knowing a little bit more but that is that is my experience at Mars. Yeah, I I have heard that from developers directly uh that that is one of the main things and the other thing is that the marketplace itself there's no no while there's a demand for housing people are unwilling to pay for the prices or they can't get financing for that high of a value on a home seem to be uh intricately interwoven with each other. Um from the municipal perspective, the way the development charges act is written, if a municipality after completing its background study and setting it de its development charges then chooses to lower the development charges arbitrarily, we need to find a financial offset for that lowering of the fee. basic public sector accounting. If I'm going to reduce them by hund00 million, you still need the hund00 million because you have to build the infrastructure. So where are you finding the $und00 million? That's in essence what the act is saying. What's before us today is that the province and the feds are saying we understand that and we're looking at this this Canada Ontario partnership to offset your DCs with grants for infrastructure that is needed in your community. Mhm. >> Therefore, you don't need to charge those DCs because we gave you the money. In this case, is it your position that not moving forward with the indexing on DCs that have already been approved is sending a signal to the senior levels of government that the city of Hamilton wants to participate and wants to help solve this problem. Yes, I feel if we increase if we go with our indexing, we are sending a very bad message to senior levels of government. We're saying we're not we don't want to be part of the problem or part of the solution here. >> We don't want to play. >> Yeah, that that's how I view this. >> Thank you. My my view has been evolving over this discussion, not today, but over the last few weeks. I really appreciate your cander. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Clark. We're now moving back to the first time speakers list with councelor Mark Tatterson, please. >> Just following up on Councelor Wilson and Councelor Clark's um questions. So, part of the argument for the request is we need to show that we're sending a signal that we want to participate. Okay. So for me, going back to councelor Wilson, um the timing piece, can you can you tell me when the other jurisdictions reduce their development charges that you've cited like Toronto and so forth? What did that happen before the federal and provincial HST reductions or afterwards? >> Danny, >> yes, through the chair. I know Vaughn just reduced their development charges to 100% last week. I believe it was within the last week. Um, Missaga would have been before the announcement. Um, yeah, Missaga was before the announcement. Other municipalities, um, sorry, I have Missaga here. Um, I'm not sure about the other municipalities. We can get that information. >> Can you just, um, >> go over what their discounts that they were that were given, the amounts were? >> Sure. Um so for von again it was 100%. >> Missaga and the region appeal is 50% DC reductions. Toronto removed indexing for 2025 and 2026. And sorry I've uh that that's all I know off the top of my head here. >> That's fine. And I just wanted to get you know a general understanding there >> and it's something that I know I can just check up myself but um >> so does our 20% reduction because it became be because it was given a while back does that not warrant the same considerations from the province as you know more recent ones? >> Um >> I'm not sure that she's able to answer that question. Councilor you're asking higher level from her opinion >> in your opinion. Okay. >> From from her opinion >> in in your role as uh a member of the HBA. >> Um thank you through the chair. Um I think it likely helps. Again, this is only my opinion. I think it likely helps, but I think the further reductions after the announcement are go a little bit little bit further. Um it shows even more initiative. Um, and again, when we're seeing other municipalities do this, I think that we need to be competitive and and do the same. >> Thanks. Thanks, Danny. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we're going to continue in the first time speakers lane with councelor Morin Wilson, please. >> Thank you very much. Um, thank you for being here and providing um, what only you can provide because you're living and working in the market and I respect that. Um, and I don't discount any of the um the factors that are at play here, but I I am just struggling with um one aspect of it. Um, you did raise the bank financing um and I my understanding as rudimentary as it is I I think that is absolutely at play in your industry. Um is it I am just curious um I did read one time that the margin sought uh the margin that is required by bankers and investors is around 20% return on capital employed is that is that usually what is that plate >> yeah through the chair I don't have that exact margin amount it's dependent on market conditions what bank you're working with uh what your product type is risk level so I I can't answer that I can't give you a specific um number. >> Okay. Um the the real thing that I am struggling with in all of all of this is that I have been advised that the price of new private housing stock is set by existing homes in that type in that specific market. Um and and that is this the something over which this discussion arguably has no impact. And I I'm wondering if you could provide some professional assistance with that struggle that I'm having. And it's not in the other thing if I can add on to that. It's it's not in the industry's self-interest to over supply because that would diminish you referenced earlier the law of supply and demand. That would diminish in fact the value of of your product. Could you help me reconcile these? >> Yeah, for sure. Um through the chair. So when when we're looking at pricing a um a new site, yes, we do look at comparable product and existing housing stock, but it is actually more nuanced than you would expect. It's not just, you know, we're comparing a single family home to another single family home in the neighborhood. Um there are a lot of factors that are considered when we're pricing and that go into our assumptions on how we price. So, um whether it's new versus old, a newer home um has a lot uh higher requirements from a building code perspective. So, you would um it would be a better built home, more expensive house to build. Um also, sometimes we'll uh uh we'll go into a market where there hasn't been that product type in that market at all or um like for example a backto-back town home, maybe a newer product. Um, so we need to make assumptions on how we arrive to that pricing. So we certainly use the existing housing stock as a guideline, but there are a lot of assumptions that have to happen for us to arrive to our final pricing. I'll also say that depending on what your budget looks like and what you paid for land and um other factors, there is a possibility that you're able to provide housing at a lower cost because maybe your land cost is less. So maybe um you're able to to go in more competitively. Um I also think some builders have different um perspectives as well. Maybe um they're priced very aggressively to sell very quickly because they're a big shop and and need to to keep things moving. Um so I I just think there's a lot of different factors that that have to be considered. Um, when you say that the supply, the the last piece that you mentioned about supply, um, to be honest, in Hamilton, we are nowhere near, um, seeing the development approval timelines that we would need to be able to create a ton of supply all at once. Um, I hope I answered your question. >> Yeah. >> No, I I thank you. I I think uh I think if I have understood you, we have to consider the ecosystem with within which you're working and that market ecosystem and the prices affected by by your preference by your income. Um but uh the the cost uh that it the cost of development and I I heard you say that the city of Hamilton is not helping in that regard because it's affecting your your capacity to put supply online. So I if did I get that? >> Yes. >> Summary. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Okay. Okay, we're going back up to the second time speakers list beginning with beginning and ending with councelor Mike Spataphora and then councelor Esther Paul's. Thanks Danny. Just a question on when we gave our um when this committee put the 20% discount out um if I'm not mistaken it was for any developments coming after that day. Uh, and there's been some question about, you know, we did a reduction, we didn't see any action. We did a this, we didn't see any action. Do you think things would have been different if those DC reductions were put on sites that were sitting stagnant because builders couldn't move even though they had their approvals. If we would have put those DCs on any um site plan that was approved, even if it was prior to the day we gave that reduction, do you think we would have seen some action come out of the construction industry >> through you chair? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Um yeah, through the chair. So uh we've Yes, I do feel that way. I think um the Rebecca condo that I I know that you are familiar with uh in downtown Hamilton is a really good example of that. Um it's they have not been able to get the sales momentum that they would have liked and and expected. Um and it's just sitting there right now. So they've p they've passed on that HST reduction uh new that new price after the HST reduction to purchase and it still isn't helping. I think um being able to pass on that DC would make a huge difference and and I use that project in particular because it is sitting right in the downtown core. Um it would be generating $3 million of dollar $3 million a year in um tax uh revenue and um it yes I I think those downtown projects need as as much help as they can get. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Um that's good. Yeah, I think um I guess you know indexing we could index but um if we index and and we don't bring any sites online I guess we're indexing for nothing I'm assuming cuz um that would make the product more expensive which means you guys as developers would do even less than what you're doing now which means there would still be no revenue for the city from a DC perspective. Does that make sense? My last question chair. >> Okay. >> Sorry. Um absolutely and I again through the chair. So I yes I I do feel um feel that way for sure. I think um you know right we're talking about an index an indexing amount or increase of 4% on development charges that we're likely not getting right now. Um so so that that is my opinion. >> Okay. We're going to continue with councelor Esther Paul's followed by Cameron Crutch please. >> Thank you and through the chair. Thank you Daniel. I I was um thinking today we're talking about housing, we're talking about the housing market, we're talking about developers, builders. In your opinion, who else effects down the line? I was thinking about the lumber. I was thinking about the um the cabinet maker and I was thinking about the window maker and the plumber and the people that are not working. Does this trickle down to our economy on everyone? Danny. >> Yes, through the chair. Thank you, councelor Paul, for the question. Yes, I I think that is such an important point to make because it doesn't just affect the builders, it affects so many different people um in the economy. Uh you know, we have like you said the lumber yards, we have our suppliers, our trades, um appliance manufacturers, so on so forth. Like there's just so many people. our consultants um uh WHEBA represents a large um segment of the market, many of which that I I just um shared and all of these people are affected by this. Um I will say too that Altus had predicted that jobs would um I'm sorry I have my note right here. Um I don't want to mess up this number. Um I believe the my gosh sorry I I will get you the job loss number that Altus had projected um but it was a staggering amount and um if we continue on that path then we will just continue to see more cuts >> right we suffer all of us uh and you know I've had calls from lumber shops I've had window makers calling me they're not selling as many windows, you know, uh the granite, they're not selling kitchen cabinets. So, so I know it affects everyone. So, this is important for us to get it right and to see what the government is willing to help us with as a city uh to help everyone. So, thank you for sharing. >> Okay. And I believe that you'd made a comment in your delegation about the equivalency to the job losses in your industry to be that roughly of the Stelco workforce. >> Yes, >> if I recall. >> Yes, >> by memory. You can correct me later. Uh going to uh councelor Crutch, please. >> I have two questions. One was just inspired by something you recently said about 71 Rebecca Street and the condominium project there. I know a lot of builders are considering purpose-built rentals because they recognize that the condominium market is not viable in downtowns as it used to be for many reasons partly because it is very difficult for people to come up with a down payment stress test or not especially in communities like downtown. So what about that conundrum problem issue? What is your ind industry doing to build more purpose-built rentals if that's where the demand is? because that seems to be the issue there frankly. So that that the condominium sales are not happening. >> Yeah. Uh through the chair we a lot of our members have shifted their condominium projects to rental projects. Um but I will say that financing a rental project requires a lot of equity and some of our members don't have that type of equity to park for um for 20 plus years. But yes, we are addressing that with many uh purpose-built rentals. One of them being um the example that councelor Clark shared uh by Los Sani Homes on the mountain. >> Thanks council. >> My last question is about Jamesville. So Jamesville is a project where there are town homes slated to be built. The minister's zoning order has given the green light for the project now. I feel like almost eight months ago at this point almost a year I think it's been a while >> since the green light was given. This is in the downtown area. It's an affordable housing project. They're there. All the boxes are ticked there. The city will pay to have the land remediated so it becomes a green field site. What's stopping the building from going ahead there? >> Danny, >> through the chair, thank you councelor coach for the question. Uh we're really excited about that Jamesville project. Um we've had a lot of a lot of challenges there. Absolutely. Yes, we did receive the M Zo recently and we've been working with CHH to submit a application to build Canada homes. Um, so we are still doing everything that we can to continue moving that file forward. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. I'm going to turn the chair over quickly to councelor Spataphora. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, Danny. Um, at the beginning when you were giving your presentation, you cited an example in the Niagara region. I know that you circulated that to members, but there may be those, you know, two or three people that actually watch the YouTube channel that may be interested in knowing what the number is. Can you offer uh that that specific price reduction that occurred once the HST uh discount was offered? >> Can you give that figure? >> Yeah. So, uh, I can give you the one specific price off the top of my head. For example, we had starting from back to starting from pricing at $4.99 for backtoback product about 1,700 square foot unit. Um, and we originally, as I said, priced at $4.99. After the HST reduction, it's now 460. >> Okay. So, a reduction of $30,000 roughly, give or take. Okay. Which is, you know, >> about 40. It was 49. Yeah. About 40 grand. >> Okay. 40,000. Okay. Significant enough for a first- time home buyer. I'm sure. >> Um and then just based on you've got sites you mentioned you have a site in Stony Creek. Uh maybe not directly comparable in terms of the built form, but just in terms of the the market in which you're dealing. >> Just sorry just one sec. >> So you got it. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead, counselor. >> Yep. No problem. Thank you, Vice Chair. Um in terms of the the ward that I represent, you mentioned Stony Creek. We're very close to the Niagara region and we find ourselves perhaps directly or indirectly in in something with competition. People can move up and down the QW if they're having employment in Hamilton. Uh they may choose to live elsewhere and commute in. I'm just wondering in terms of the market that you see in Niagara region. You mentioned uh a price point now of 460 something uh for a town home. I'm wondering what is the comparable in Hamilton from your experience? Um, and are we are we competitive? What's what is with are we competitive with what is happening in the Niagara region or is Hamilton still in a a different um price market currently? >> Yeah. Um, thank you um for the question. I um Okay. So, when we look at our Niagara on the Lake site, um the de the sorry, the development charges um for a town home there is $35,000. The development charges for a town home here is $50,000. Um I I want to preface this with I love Hamilton. I was born and raised in Stony Creek. I left. I came back. I raised my own family here now, too. I love the city. Um >> thank you for that. I will say that the Niagara on the Lake site, we were able to get development approvals in four years, which is a um a relatively short amount of time. We have projects in Hamilton that are 20, 25, 30 years, still no approvals. I use our our Fruitland Road example um all the time in the urban boundary in 2001. It'll be 30 years before someone moves into that house. So over that 30 years, we have interest costs, we have carry costs. It makes it more difficult for us to be able to um provide housing at an attainable price that the city of Hamilton would like to see. It it makes it more difficult for us to add features that the city of Hamilton would like to see. So um so to go back to your question in in terms of being more comparable we can I realize that that is an extreme example but there's there when the town is working um you know faster we're able to to provide that housing at at a more affordable um rate. >> Okay. And I am very familiar with that. I believe that's the block one uh project that was just recently approved here after as you mentioned about 30 years. Yes. >> Um, but just in terms of that, I come from a retail business background, so I'm keenly aware of what price points and and the uh effect that they have on consumers. So, I think what you're saying is that your price point in Niagara is going to be less so uh currently than the price points in Hamilton. >> Yes. Yes. >> All right. I'll take the chair back and I have uh one final speaker for a third time. Councelor Brad Clark, please. Um, you can tell me if I have the latitude to ask the question. Is one of the challenges for developers in getting a development on the books and out to the market, the fact that the city of Hamilton requires um external infrastructure costs to be borne by the developer initially to be reimbursed later on. I'm hearing about that more frequently. The building of curbs, pipes, sewers, all infrastructure that we have collected DCS for. We're asking developers to do the work and pay for it and we'll pay you back. >> I'll allow the question continue, Danny. >> Yes. Uh through the chair. Absolutely. Um we're we're also seeing this in the Futland Road project that I just mentioned. we are going to have to um uh provide a lot of infrastructure before we get to uh start construction and yeah it's a lot of capital upfront that either is equity or or has to be financed and um uh yeah that that certainly continues to be >> and to that point the banks are now loathed to give financing to developers to pay for external infrastructure that is the obligation and responsibility of the administ municipality. Is that not true? >> It it becomes yeah difficult to get financing um for for that. I I don't know exactly how that's working for our Fruitland Road project, but I I can get you more. >> It's not working well. Um that's another item that we have to deal with as well. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Clark. I don't see any further questions from committee. Danny, um you're you're welcome to to take a rest. You've been standing there for some time. uh if you want to see how the deliberations go uh when we get to item I believe it's 7.1 which will be right up after our next item which is coming up shortly which will be the motion from councelor uh Cooper but before we get there if I could have a mover and seconder to receive the delegation seeing councelor spat councelor Paul's all in favor with a show of hands that is unanimous thank you colleagues we're moving on to item 9.1 And if I could ask um councelor Cooper please to introduce your motion. This is the adjustment to fair wage uh eligibility timeline. Uh please introduce your motion and your seconder. >> Thank you chair. Um moved by myself seconded by councelor Kutch. It's an adjustment to fair fee wage uh fee fair wage eligibility timeline. Whereas some contractors are signitories to provinially negotiated trade union agreements whereby they're obligated to pay their employees at those uh negotiated trade union agreement rates. Other contractors are not and are under no obligation to pay set rates other than what is stipulated in the fair wage schedule for applicable city contracts. Whereas aligning wage rates more closely with a current current prevailing construction wages would better support workers, improve fairness, and ensure the municipality remains competitive and attracting skilled labor. Therefore, be it resolved a that the fair wage policy be amended to eliminate the two-year lag and replace it with a one-year lag from current respective trade union or association collective agreement rates were ratified and available as follows. 14.1. Unless otherwise approved by council, the manager of procurement policy and contracts shall update hourly total hourly compensation rates each year to reflect a one-year leg in accordance with the following. A based on the most recent available ratified respective trade union or association collective agreements, wage rates provided to the executive director of human resources or their designate no later than March 1st. B calculated by increasing the respective collective agreements hourly wage rates by no more than 24%. And what this is actually an historical reference that goes back to 2005. Um C the total the total hourly compensation rates will be updated annually on the first day in May. MP that staff be directed to implement uh these charges and update all policies, procedures, contracts to reflect a one-year lag from current prevailing construction wage rates at the earliest feasible date. So, the change that we're talking about here, chair, is really moving from a two-year lag to a one-year lag and also moving the timing uh of the compensated rate compensation rates to the first Monday in May, which aligns with when the rates are updated. Now I just want to recognize some people here this morning. We have null uh uh coutrolis um the mill rights local 1916 and the president of Hamilton uh Brford Building Trades. Thank you null. Uh we also have with us today Ricardo Piery from Leona 837. Thank you Ricardo. Uh Marco Scabetta from LO Leona 837 as well. Thank you. Thank you Marco for being here as well. We got Sam Purcell from the IBEDW local 105 electricians. Sam, thank you for being with us. Uh James Hannah from the uh Iron Workers Local 736. James, thank you for coming as well. We have Gavin McTavish from the Carpenters Local 18. Gavin, thank you for coming. Dave Harrison from the Sheet Metal and Roofers Local 537. Thank you for coming, Dave. Uh Dylan Milson from the Elevator Mechanics Union Local 90. Uh Dylan, thank you for coming this morning as well. and Glenn Grady from the Elevator Mechanics Union 90 uh local 90. Thank you for coming as well, Glenn. So, I met all these folks when I was invited to speak at the um annual general meeting for the Hamilton Brford uh building trades. And this was a great honor for me because uh my grandfather was uh in the trades as a carpenter. My father and uncles worked in steel industry. And when I was a lot younger than I am now, I worked at in Stelco Local 105. And we saw the mill being torn down last week, the number three bloom bill. That was brought back a lot of memories for me because it's where I worked. Um, when I went around to talk to folks at the AGM to a person to an affiliate, what came up was the uh the the fair wage policy we had. And there was a feeling that it should move to a one-year from a two-year. And I want to recognize councelor Kutch. He's done a lot of work on this as well. And and so my commitment to the to the group that day was that I'd bring it back. invite them to council and we put it on the floor and we would uh uh have council um uh debate it, talk about it and and look to improve it. Now, uh what we have to realize is that because we have this um lag, what we're really asking our trades to do is take a haircut and subsidize our projects with their wage rates. We don't ask anyone else to do it. These are the people who build our bridges, build our roads, build our hospitals. And so I put this before you today for your consideration. And in terms of bringing us closer to fair wage practices, other municipalities like Toronto, they have fair wage practices that are matched right up to the the current year of their uh of their collective agreements. All these rates we're talking about have been collectively bargained at the provincial level. We're just uh and to me collective bargaining is making a promise. What we're doing is we're keeping these promises and we're keeping these folks whole. So I uh thank you chair for the opportunity to put this on the floor this morning. >> Okay. Thank you very much. We have uh speakers list populated beginning with councelor Brad Clark please. >> Thank you. If councelor Cret's secondary wants to speak I'd be happy to yield and go after him. >> You're good. Okay. >> You're free to commence. >> So I I do not have any challenges with the language in the motion where it changes to reflect the one-year lag. I think it is um not only prudent but very clear and transparent. Where I'm confused in the motion language chair and I'd like to ask a question of GM Ziggger is in section B of 14.1. It says calculated by increasing the respective collective agreements hourly wages by no more than 24%. So, it's not clear what that means. And to the average person out there, they see the 24% and wonder what's going on. So, can you please clarify what this means? >> Okay, we can turn it over. >> Mike Sager, general manager of finance corporate services. The motion that's before committee is consistent with the policy and within the policy uh the policy includes and makes reference to section B of the motion. The 24% uh relates to the gross up of the wage rate in order to calculate a total compensation rate. The 24% uh is represents 20% related to benefits and 4% as it relates to vacation entitlement. And so that's the purpose of the 24%. It's to capture a total compensation rate which would be wages, benefits plus vacation. >> So why doesn't it say that? >> This is very open-ended. I get it that it's old policy, but we've been trying to unlegal ease our language in our policies. Um, to the lay person, this is confusing. So, why wouldn't we just say um 20% benefit, 4% wage or whatever the case is. So through the chair in the policy it's further defined with respect to the 24% uh but we can take it away and work with clerks uh if there's a way to better describe section B uh that's captured in the motion >> counselor. >> So um I understand that we're not amending B but I still have a question on it because the item is before us. So my question is in order. Um, and I would appreciate GM Zagaric without necessarily having a motion from the committee to look at the language and then perhaps come back at a later date in terms of what more clarif clarifying language on it because when you look at these things as they are written 2 3 4 5 years from now that's going to jump out and you're not there's no clarification in there as to how what it what it is. So we need to very clearly reference the policy but also clarify the language as to what the original intention was of that policy because it in my mind it does not necessarily represent what that intention is clearly to the public. So I have concerns about that. So I I had no choice but to raise it here today because it's it's on the docket. Um but I will gladly support the rest of the motion. Thank you. >> Okay. So just uh so that I honor the spirit of the the concern that you've raised uh councelor Clark I think we proceed with the motion as written today and then if there's different language uh perhaps that may come after the fact would that be suitable for you? >> Yes. What I would like the committee to know is that um happy to support the motion as it is written today based on the original policy, but I will meet with GM Zagaric and see if there's a way to um clarify the language in that original referencing policy so that all future councils will understand it better. >> Okay. And I have a comment from the general manager. And I also want to make note that I did see the mover was shaking his head in agreement or nodding. So, uh, that seems to be agreeable to the mover of the motion. We'll go now to the general manager, please. >> Yeah. Through the chair, um, if the motion's approved by committee and council, there is time um, leading up to the amendment of the procurement policy. This is referenced in the procurement policy. So, we're happy to work with councelor Clark at the time of having to amend the procurement policy to capture these changes to see whether there is clearer language that can be captured in the policy. >> Okay. Councelor Clark response. >> Sorry, through the chair. Fair wage policy, not procurement policy. Thank you. >> Thank you. And so again, to be clear, I'm not seeking amendment. So, wasn't seeking the support of the the mover. I agree with the motion. I will deal with um wrong terminology. I will speak with GM Zeric offline and see if there's a way of cleaning up the language. That's all. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we are uh now looking at the speakers list. I don't see any further speakers. I think we have a clear understanding of the direction raised by the W9 counselor. We're now going to proceed if there are no further speakers to a vote. If you could indicate your electronic vote now, please in favor or against. Oh, look at that. It passed 90. Congratulations, Councelor Cooper. Thank you to members of the gallery who joined us here from our various trade unions. Uh you're always welcome here and thank you for participating today. And I also make note that we've got some guests that have joined us from possibly an elementary school. Looks about the level there. Hello folks. Welcome. We're going to move back now to item 7.1 on your road map here. If I can pull that up, that is uh the item for consideration FCS26032, which is the 2026 development charges index report. Um if I could turn to um general manager Mike Sigar for an overview of the report. Please proceed through the chair. Uh I'll introduce it and then I'll invite acting director Weaver to uh provide a further description. This is in response to a initial report in April uh with respect to the indexing of development charges under our current uh bylaw. The bylaw stipulates uh that um DCS will be indexed. They are indexed by a non-residential price index uh a stats Canada index uh effective June 1st of uh of the upcoming year. So in this case it would be June 1st of 2026. um committee and council directed staff to investigate whether variable rates, rates varying across different development classes were an option. Uh staff were not able to determine whether it was an option over the last 3-week period. However, staff have provided three options that are referenced in the report as um two options and then the third being uh further opportunity for committee to provide some further direction. So, I'll invite acting director Weaver maybe to take committee through the two options. >> Okay. Acting director Weaver, please. >> Through the chair, Kirk Weaver, acting director financial planning, administration, and policy. Uh just following up on GMZ Garrick's overview, this the initial report came in April uh to AFNA uh as information uh for our our uh annual indexing and was referred uh for further information which is presented in the um second report FCS 2632A um and um while we weren't able to uh do the deep dive into the you know the legislative component of rather We could amend indexing or as was requested by council uh amend indexing and apply it to various sectors. Uh what we are presenting to committee uh should they wish to act on it are two alternatives. One would be to effectively create a discretionary exemption uh equal to the 4% indexing that would take effect on June the 1st that would apply to all developments across the city uh similar to the 20% reduction that we currently have in place. It would be an additional 4%. And the second alternative would be more limited to only the residential sector um to offset the 4% increase that would take place on June the 1st uh in 2026. So those are the two options. The third alternative is essentially should committee choose a different percentage or different approach um you have that alternative available to you as well. The report contains appendices that that um would make the appropriate amendments should uh council wish to pursue those alternatives. I will point out that this the indexing is set to take effect June 1st per the DC bylaw. So if there is a desire to take some action, it would need to occur uh at this committee and and be ratified at next week's council uh in order to avoid the automatic indexing taking place on June the 1st given the the current committee cycles that we have and the timing of those. >> Okay, thank you for that acting director Weaver and our guests in the gallery are learning all about the fascinating world of indexing development charges. You picked a great day. to come to city hall. Uh, okay. I have uh councelor Brad Clark up first on the speakers list, please. >> Thank you, chair. To a policy wonk like myself talking about the indexing of DCS is exciting. Um, but that's just me. I'm >> You take a very different outlook on excitement. Continue, please. Um, so the first question I have would be to general manager Zagaric with regards to the Canada Ontario Partnership Build uh funding program. Um, I understand the feds in the province are in the process of bringing this online. Can you give us an update on the status of the program as it sits right now? >> Okay, I'll turn it back to the bench. Looking to GM Ziggar, please. So through the chair, the the program provides every young person 12 years of age and younger with a free iPad and gaming system. >> Just looking for teasing. >> Very good. Talk about pandering to the audience. Continue, please. General manager. >> Who's the politician here? >> Yeah. So through the chair uh we staff haven't any further updates to provide committee relative to three weeks ago. Uh our understanding is and it was described previously uh by staff. This this really is a pay-to-play uh program whereby municipalities will be assessed by senior levels of government uh and their applications for funding will be assessed based on a whether that municipality is a priority area for residential growth and b whether or not the municipality has exempted or discounted development charge in the range that they provided or referenced is 30 to 50%. Those those are the primary um qualifiers that staff are aware of. The other qualifier is that the discounter exemption is to be extended for a three-year period. Um and uh with respect to the funding, the $ 8.8 billion u that commitment is over a 10-year period. Not clear whether or not municipalities will carry a cash flow um responsibility or challenge given that the funding may spread over 10 years relative to a municipality providing a discount or exemption over 3 years and um final point I'll make is it is not clear whether or not uh or the magnitude or size of the funding relative to the discount other then referenced that it is expected that the municipalities will participate or partake in the contribution or funding which would suggest that the funding from senior levels of government will not make municipalities whole with respect to the dwellment charge discounts and exemptions. >> Okay, thank you for that counselor. >> Well, thank you for that. Um, so there's no application process yet. Yet there are rumors of municipalities that have filed letters of application indicating a desire to participate in the program. Have we done a similar thing >> through the chair? I'm not aware of an application process and staff have not uh submitted any applications in that again we are not aware of an application process. Okay. um the 20% reduction which we have already implemented and should this body recommend to council not to index the DCs uh for this the next 12-month period um would those send a strong message to the federal government that we are doing what we can within our means um to lower the cost of housing >> GM Yeah, through the chair uh we would hope it would be received positively from senior levels of government that the municipality has provided uh some temporary development charge relief. It's uh the references to what municipalities have done varies. Some municipalities have provided relief for 12 months. In the case of city of Hamilton, it was for a 2-year period. I'll also mention this is only one form of development charge relief that we provide. We provide relief to all sectors through our uh typical development charge or development charge policy. I'll also highlight that the options that are before committee today um staff have approached uh the options recognizing that by waving the indexing of DCS that's not captured any in a manner that senior levels of government would recognize the waving of DCs by stacking the 4% onto the temporary 20% exemption that would further demonstrate the city's contribution. And so for that reason, staff have presented this option to in order to capture that 4% um recognizing that by waving the DCS that's not demonstrated or highlighted. Uh that's just simply more of a calculation in the background. So the alternative one is temporary partial exemption equivalent to indexing for residential developments. I I'm confused. Your last statement is that when you're dealing with the federal and provincial government, is that going to be seen as a cumulative reduction? The 20% and then the four >> through the chair. That is the objective with respect to the options that are before committee today. >> And so option one would achieve that goal >> through the chair that is our that's what we've worked towards and we would hope it would be received in that manner. >> So when I say option one it's the alternative one correct >> through the chair. Uh both options one and two receive the goal uh option one I believe is all developments. Option two is all forms of development, residential and non-residential. Sorry, option. I've got it reversed. Sorry. >> Alternative one or option one, just so we're close. Just so we're clear. >> So, I'm going to ask director Weaver to highlight uh which one is relates to residential and non-residential and why we presented residential as an option. uh residential only is that the senior levels of government are focusing on residential only >> director. >> So through the chair it looks like the the clerk has put the um options or the one option on the screen. Uh so option one is specific to residential developments. So alternative just to use the language in the report alternative one is specific to residential developments. Alternative two would apply that um discretionary 4% discount to all developments. Both of them as as GM Ziggger has has referenced we would hope uh would be viewed by the the federal government in their program as um further efforts to support in um uh their their objectives through that uh Canada Ontario housing program. >> Thank you. I've exceeded my time so if you could put me on for a second time for comments please clerk. >> Certainly. Yep. I'm happy to do so. And I just I think I want to make sure that we are all on the same page before I continue on the speakers list. Uh we have a um report to receive here today. If we simply chose to receive, there would be no action taken. There are three alternative directions that are embedded within this report that committee members may choose to move um in addition to the receipt of the original report. So that is kind of the order in which we will proceed. We'll continue with the questioning here. But when we're talking about the options, they are the alternatives to simply a status quo receipt of the report as presented. So with that, we are now going to go to uh Cal Councelor Alex Wilson, please. >> Thank you and thanks for that overview. Chair, with that said, uh through you to staff, are staff able to comment on whether their main recommendation is to proceed with indexing and so therefore just to receive this report or if staff are actually recommending one of the alternatives. I understand the alternatives maybe there's a risk mitigation perspective and that was discussed in the last question, but could staff just be really clear what is the their primary recommendation that they're saying is the best best recommendation for the city and their view. Okay, I'm going to turn that to general manager Zarick, please. through the chair. Uh with respect to the alternative one uh that speaks to residential, we see the the strengths or positives with respect to alternative one is it gets the city of Hamilton closer to what has been referenced by provincial and federal governments with respect to the 30 to 50% uh development charge discount or exemption that uh they are expecting as it relates to the federal ederal and provincial funding program. The other uh pro with respect to alternative one, we do not forego the indexing in perpetuity. This would be only for the temporary period of the uh DC discount and so when that temporary uh DC disc >> sorry chair I don't want to inter I just want to be clear have I guess I'm asking have staff changed their recommendation from not indexing at the last meeting staff said we don't recommend indexing committee said could you give us some more information about alternatives have staff said we've changed our mind and we now do recommend not proceeding with indexing and we think alternative one is the recommended approach or is alternative one the best approach within a like I guess I'm trying to understand if the main recommendation of just continuing with indexing has shifted as a result of the additional work that's been done because this is not a recommendation report the initial recommendation was to proceed with indexing I'm just trying to understand if that has changed before getting into the comparative value of the alternatives or staff actually recommending one of the alternatives >> okay so I'll turn to the general manager understand we're looking for information. Is there a recommendation embedded in this >> through the chair? Appreciate the the followup and the opportunity to be clear. Staff are not changing their recommendation. Again, this is not a recommendation report. We presented alternatives uh and we're happy to walk through the alternatives if there's further questions with respect to the strengths or challenges, pros and cons of those alternatives. >> Okay. Councelor, >> thank you. Um, but the and just again the just receiving the report proceeding with the 4% indexing without introducing uh further alleviation that's the recommendation. Why is that the recommendation as opposed to proceeding with one of the alternatives? general manager >> through the chair. Uh with respect, it's principally with respect to preserving the purchasing power of our development charges and uh our ability to fund growth uh enabling projects at the time when those growth enabling projects proceed. We see the risk uh of foregoing the indexing of DC's and the potential to have to then turn to existing taxpayers and rateayers to offset that foregone indexing benefit. >> Councelor, >> thank you. Uh through the chair, as we heard more details about the program, I heard staff say that it doesn't look like the municipality is going to be able to be made whole. is the outcome of the municipality not being made whole at the end of this that effectively taxpayers have paid for growth related infrastructure that we current currently don't have on the books that kind of accounted for them. We have that accounted for the private sector paying for that growth infrastructure and so by reducing DCS and then not being made whole. The end effect of that is that taxpayers have subsidized that growth related infrastructure as opposed to say a higher level of government or the private sector paying into that. General manager, your interpretation >> through through the chair. Uh our interpretation of the program based on media release is that the municipality will form part of the funding contribution. Municipalities will not be made whole. In order for municipalities to to fund DC exemptions or discounts, those are born by existing rateayers and taxpayers and not just residential. It would be all sectors. >> Thank you. Last question from me chair. Could we explain what paytoplay means in this context? >> Certainly that was a phrase that was bantied about earlier. So >> through the chair the program um sorry the media release makes reference that municipalities uh that are identified in priority growth areas by senior levels of government uh and who have discounted or exempted development charges their applications for funding against the program will be considered. And so in the context that in order to be eligible for consideration, a municipality will have to discount or forego development charges and fund that through existing taxpayers and rateayers. That is the uh that is the reference to paytoplay. And is there any um in the policy document through you chair any reference that that decision has to be made before the program is officially announced or when the program is actually announced if we came up with a plan to do reductions based on the information available? I'm just wonder is it you have to do it before the government announces the program and before there are specifics available. We have to pay in and hope that that balances out by investing taxpayer money or would we still have the opportunity if we said hey we do think there's value. We do think it's worth paying into this program with taxpayer funds. Um would we get to see the program before we pay in or is there some value to paying in before we get to see the details? >> GM through the chair. It's uh again based on media release. It's our interpretation staff's interpretation that in order for municipalities applications for funding to be considered a municipality would have already made a policy decision with respect to discounting or exempting DCs. Thank you for chair. If I could just one clarification that's it from me is is our understanding then so municipalities have to put forward taxpayer funds to subsidize growth related infrastructure may or may not get it back at the hopes that we may be included in a provincial program is what we're meaning when we say paytoplay is that's those are some of the risks or that's some of the assumptions being put into place and that's our understanding of the program from the provincial government >> through the chair that's correct >> through you chair my commentary is that sounds like corruption to Okay. >> Okay. Anything further, counselor? >> No. >> Okay. We're moving on now to next up on the speakers list is councelor Esther Pauls, please. >> Thank you. Through the chair. I just want to be clarify something. Um G uh what the GM uh would explain. I have um residents calling me about the potholes all around the city and their assumption is if we don't increase the DC charges those potholes are not going to be um fixed. Can you tell us what the development charges pay for? I I understand that they only pay for new infrastructure, not old infrastructure. Can you please make it clear so people understand what we're talking about today? >> Okay. GM Zerk, the delineation between I suppose rate um and levy and DC >> through the chair development charges relate to growth enabling projects. Uh so these could be either new facilities related to a expansion in the municipality but it could be an upgrade or expansion to an existing asset or facility. And for instance if a road were to be widened in order to accommodate growth there would be a portion of that funded through DC's and a portion of that funded through our tax levy. >> Okay. So my understanding is that the money is used to help fund new infrastructure needed because of the growth that we want to experience so that we could get taxes to pay for all uh many things and then uh they do not pay for existing infrastructure. So the potholes we see all over the city it does not come from DC charges. GM through through the chair. Our roads maintenance uh budget is not funded through development charges. It is funded through the tax levy uh and it is more so a operating budget uh funding. >> Thank you, >> counselor. >> Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. We're moving on next to councelor uh Marine Wilson, please. >> Thank you. Um, respectfully, I I really appreciate um the questioning that councelor Paul's was uh answering in order for uh I think a message of accountability of uh the payment of new versus existing. I I just do feel as part of my um service to also just additionally make the point that the existing operating and maintenance costs um being felt by existing and future residents is a consequence of land development decisions. um and the deficit that has accumulated because of that because um the cost exceeds um the in the uh available funds. I'll leave it there. Just seeking some clarity if I could through the chair to GM Ziggger. Um, as a consequence of some good questions raised by councelor Alex Wilson, the alternative, let's just say alternative one just for residential. Alternative two is residential plus commercial industrial. If either of those were chosen, the rec the that is informed by we would be taking the 4% and stacking it on top of the 20. Would that then enable you to continue the um indexing? Could you just answer that question because there was a caution I thought I read in the report about um by not continuing with the indexing the the compounding impact of that would uh would be significant. Could you just clarify for for my benefit please and thank you through the chair. >> Jim Zigger through the chair. I appreciate the question and that was the point I was trying to make. So I'll try to be more effective at this point. >> Uh in terms of mechanics is the indexing if if committee and council were to move one of the alternatives the indexing would continue. We would introduce the 4% indexing. it would be offset during the duration of our temporary DC period. At the end of that period, then the city would recoup that 24% uh that was being discounted. Uh so one of the benefits of the alternative uh relative to to not proceeding with indexing of DCS is that we do not forego that future benefit compounding benefit of the indexing. Uh we provide temporary relief in the current market but in future years we would benefit from that compounding. >> Thank you for clarifying that. Um if I could go back to uh the genesis of the 20% uh that uh council sought which my recollection was it was informed by two things which in my opinion are still informing this discussion. One was the uh the present geopolitical situation in the form of say tariffs not tariffs, what rate of tariffs that is causing uncertainty in the market and that uncertainty is affecting um decision- making in the say an industry whether to expand their plant or not expand their plant and that's having trickled down in terms of uh employment decisions, uh supply decisions, production decisions. The 20% at the time was sought not just to pro not just to it included residential and industrial commercial because of that macro um environment which arguably is still at play today. So I am trying to reconcile if we're stating that um and I think one of our delegates said that the home construction industry is is significant in its economic impact in this city. It informs drywallers, painters, plumbers, landscapers, builders, some of whom are at an age where um they were hoping to to get into their final years of retirement. Now the market is cons is contracting. It's affecting that longitudinal ability for them. I'm trying to understand while the government is talking about residential around this table, we've been talking about not just exclusively residential. We've been talking about uh commercial and industrial. So uh I guess I'm playing devil's advocate. Why would we if we started from the 20% rooted in the premise of commercial, industrial and residential is um being affected. What would be the rationale if from just choosing residential in one of the alternatives when we know that these these sectors are still being affected? So through the chair um the councelor is correct in terms of the the outcome of our consultation process with both the residential and non-residential developers. What we heard from both those sectors uh was a reference to consumer confidence in the context of trade and tariffs. Geopolitical was that was eroding uh consumer confidence and that was being demonstrated as it relates to the demand for not only residential housing but as well as the level of activity with non-residential housing. What we also heard as as the counselor identified is that uh there is a certain cohort of the labor force who is transitioning out of skilled labor and another co cohort that is looking to enter and if there isn't an overlap there isn't the opportunity for internship and mentoring and coaching and so that was identified as an issue in both both of those sectors. uh we brought a suite of options uh through forward through the consultation process and based on the feedback staff recommended the 20% aid to support the local labor force and some of the transition occurring in the local labor force uh and as well to uh offset some of the headwinds that both the residential and non-residential sectors are facing to the question of why uh would committee and council consider considered just a residential staff presented it as an alternative just in the context of what the federal and provincial governments are focused on as it relates to qualifiers for their funding program. Uh I do not know I've not uh heard through our colleagues in planning economic development that circumstances have changed in the non-residential sector. uh and so um we presented that as an alternative as well is maintaining the current structure of the 20% discount and providing that further 4% across all sectors. >> Thank you. If I have any time, um may I ask through the chair to director Schlehan if he could comment on um the sentiment, the feelings, the what he's hearing from the commercial industrial sectors, whether they're feeling more void since we made the decision about the 20% or not. >> Okay. So, I would take that as your final first-time question. Okay. So, I've uh given considerable amount of leeway for complex questions. That's fine. complex questions that require complex answers. So, I've been trying to be as generous as I can with the speaker time, but we have a final question from councelor Moren Wilson. I see director Schllehan uh ready to respond up in the top of the gallery. Director, please introduce yourself. >> Thank you, chair. Uh Norm Schllehan, director economic development, city of Hamilton. uh with respect to so the question is with regard to the 20% and what are they feeling with respect to the 20% counselor in terms of has it been effective >> no not necessarily has it been effective but uh at the time when the decision was made at the 20% I think there was a a recognition by a majority members of council that it was a commercial industrial sector that was in some distress um given the uncertainty and I'm just wondering ing given your interface with those players whether they feel any greater certainty or whether they're still under stress. Thank you, >> director. Uh so through to the counselor, there still is a tremendous amount of stress out there. Um costs are are extremely expensive still in terms of uh trying to build uh similar to the residential sector. Uh there there's still competitive uh issues. the 20% although it it was it it it's it's good to have the 20% uh it didn't really unlock what was already in the pipeline because basically if you were already locked in uh to the to the rate um it didn't it wasn't your locked in rate minus 20% it was your it was your locked in rate. So that that caused a little bit of so what you're seeing the development that you're seeing right now isn't really a lot of the 20% that you're seeing. You're seeing what's been already in the pipeline that's already been locked in. So, um I'm not sure if I've really answered your question, counselor, but the 20% it is it it's great to have. Uh but we haven't seen a lot of new development as a result of the 20%. >> Okay. And I had a followup just quickly from the general managers and Garrick before we go back to you counselor >> through the chair. As as much as we're focused on the 20% and the 4% today, um I will make reference to what we have done in collaboration with economic development. The city of Hamilton offers uh DC deferral opportunities. Not all municipalities provide DC deferral opportunities. Uh what's the city of Hamilton did in 2025 is we amended and reduced the the interest rate on DC deferrals and brought it down to zero as a further uh incentive for development opportunity. We have seen in the commercial industrial sector a recognition of the benefits of that adjustment and um and possibly a factor in terms of projects that are proceeding. >> Okay. And then I going back up to the director for a final time and then proceed with >> and I will confirm that that had a huge impact. So that 0% uh for 5year deferral was a major impact. So that is >> okay. >> Just wanted to confirm with that. >> Thank you for that director. We're going now to uh councelor Rob Cooper, please. >> Thank you, Chair. And just um maybe to the general manager of finance. Just some clarification on wording where we have temporary partial. Why are we using the word partial? I get the temporary part because we're doing it because of where we find ourselves. But why are we using the language partial? >> Geonoral manager. >> Yeah. Through the chair, I'll start and then if director Weaver has more formal more formal response. Uh I believe it's in the context that it is a partial 20% discount and not a full exemption. >> Okay. >> Counselor or rather director please. >> Director. Yeah. >> Yeah. That I I've it's essentially it's a 20% reduction as opposed to 100%. So it's partial. >> And thank you. And and in terms of the indexing we're talking about um 100% index reduction like the 4% would be zero. director >> through through the chair. If uh committee proceeded with one of the alternatives, indexing would proceed and then there would be an offset through the partial uh an increase in the partial exemption. >> Oh, okay. So, so what we're saying is if you know the development charges are 100% and we reduced it 20% down to 80%. Okay. So, we'd put the 100% the 4% 100% now we're at 104. And so, we'd still be indexing on the 80. We're just taking the indexing off the 20. Is that correct? >> So, through the chair, I apologize, Councelor Cooper, it may be clear to you here. Let me try to explain it. Uh, through the chair, if the DCs were $100, uh, it would be indexed by 4%, $104. the 20% uh discount would apply to the $104, but we would top up the 20% to 24% to offset the indexing. That's the objective. >> Okay. So, the idea there is we bring it back in your example, it would bring it back to 80. So, we go 100 do the 4% 104 the 24%. You're saying that would be reflective of bringing us back to the 80 and keeping us whole. So through the chair to be clearer maybe and simpler the objective is in absolute dollar terms it would not change the DC would not uh change. >> Okay that that's just with the language here I found it a little bit uh um let's just say a little bit confusing. I don't know if long as you know what it means because you're going to be implementing it. So thank you. >> Okay. Uh seeing no further first- time speakers going back to the second time speakers list with councelor Brad Clark please. >> So one quick question and then some comments. Chair, what is the current um expected assessment dollar value increase in our budget and has that decreased in the last couple of years? >> James Garrick. >> Yeah. So, through the chair and uh I'll turn to acting director Weaver uh if if he recalls the specifics. Uh it has varied over the years. I believe in 2024 it was about 1.6% uh and in 2025 um I believe similarly around 1.6% 6% but it did drop off to I believe.9% sorry.9% for 2026 based on 2025 sorry so just some quick comments um we've now heard from GM Zeric that our expected increase in assessment dollar figures has decreased down 2.9 9, which is lower than we've seen in the past. So, we're starting to see the economy and the drop in housing impact dollar values that are coming into the city from increased growth, which is logical. It's interesting, and I'd been doing a fair bit of research. Um in 2021 share uh there were 28,985 new units launched for sale in Hamilton. In 2025 there were 1,289 compared to 29,000. That demonstrates to me a significant compression. There were 76 new ground oriented and 102 new condo units sold in Hamilton between January 1, 2025 and September 30th. That's 178 units. So we went from 29,000 in 2021 to 1300 in 2023 to 178 currently. Um, if that's not the housing bubble bursting and the housing market crashing, I'm not sure what it is. Um, we are not alone in this. We are seeing it across Ontario, but I have to worry about residents in my ward and residents in Hamilton. And what this is precipitating now is there is an increase in layoffs and we're seeing significant increases and the lay councelor Balls is correct. The layoffs are not just the folks who are building the housing, building the condos. The layoffs are for everyone that is supplying all of the supplies to build those houses, to build those condos. And it's just it's slowly migrating down to the point where we are seeing a significant increase in layoffs. I think that's what has grabbed the attention of the federal government and the provincial government. I think that's why they are creating the Canada Ontario building program to help municipalities lower the cost of housing. And I get it. It is not just the low lowering the the cost of housing. The challenge is also the financing requirements that have have been restricted by uh the Bank of Canada and the federal government in their own in their own policies. And so it's a perfect storm for problems. Um more recently I have um appined um that the indexing of our rate is based on simply that the the cost of of doing that work for infrastructure for the city is going up. So that's why we have indexing and that's why we automated it years ago. Um, and I fought over the years to increase development charges because development growth was not paying for development growth. Um, and it was disproportionate. It was more the taxpayers were paying for it, not development growth, not DC's. And so through the development charge background studies which have become much more complicated over the years and I chaired that committee for several years um we can verify very clearly this is the external cost that we have to pay and so there's a portion for new growth and there's a portion for exist existing neighborhoods. Um but we are sitting in very strange times and to blindly increase the rate uh based on indexing policies without accounting for the challenges that we are seeing. Um we are burning ourselves at both ends and if we don't see the assessment increase in value then we're going to increase property taxes because we have to pay the bills. And so the construction industry has really helped Hamilton over the years, helped to keep our budgets um as as low as we can get them. Um it offsets that taxes. So in a roundabout way, um I'm inclined at this point in time um to not support the indexing of the development charges and not just for the housing construction industry. I would suggest um that we're going to have to look at both and I'll see what comes up around the table. Um but that's where I am. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for that. I've got I lost track of if you're a first time speaker, second time speaker, councelor Spataphora, but you're next. >> Um all right, so since no one else wants to do it, I'll do it. I got a question then I'll move an alternative. Um, we'll do it together. How's that? Okay. I just just one question before I move uh one of the alternatives. Do we have um some approximate data on when we did the 20% reduction for any new projects um what the city's loss was. So obviously we gave a 20% reduction. So, anything new that came after that would have cost us money because we would have taken in 20 less percent. Do we have a number on um what that is? Did we have, you know, did we lose $20 million because of 20% discounts on new developments through your chair >> James Garrick? >> Through the chair. Uh, I believe the last report I saw was it was approximately $3 million that form part of the overall $75 million in funding of development charts exemptions and discounts. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um, chair, if it's okay, I'm looking to move alternative two. Um, I don't know if you need uh me to wait. >> Sure. >> But just let me know what you need. >> Okay. Thank you. Um we will be receiving the report first. That would be the uh uh procedural uh way forward and then after that is done we would seek to move the uh alternative should you wish. Um what I might just do uh before we get to that if I could turn it to you vice chair just a quick comment. Um thank you. Go ahead. Um, a couple of things that came out of the the delegation today uh that struck me and u I mean we had members of the trades in our gallery today uh due to the motion that was brought forward. Uh those are the folks that are are being impacted by the inability of the housing market within Hamilton to restart. Um, the second thing was the size of the workforce. And when the delegate mentioned that it's the equivalency of basically Stelco, uh, if Stelco were to suddenly lay off all of its workforce in Hamilton, I think we'd be, uh, we'd be taking note and possibly doing what we could to assist. It's a little bit out of our realm, perhaps, maybe not a direct comparator, uh, but I think we'd take note. and having it framed as such I think is uh beneficial for us. Um you all know that I am a business person. Uh I run a retail operation. I'm keenly aware of price point and when you have a price point in a neighboring jurisdiction that is coming in at less than what we're able to do it here in Hamilton. Um those are competitive pressures that are causing people to go elsewhere and it's not helping us any. So uh I'm looking forward to uh further discussion on the alternatives. I think that we have to be part of the overall solution. We've heard that the higher levels of government are bringing forward proposals. Uh we don't yet know what they are. True, but if we do nothing, we get nothing. So, I'd like us to try to do what we can within, as the phrase goes, using the cards that we have, not the ones we wish we had, and see how we might be able to participate in a solution that will be helpful uh for our local economy. And just in general to try to make spaces for people that want to continue to live in Hamilton to be able to afford to live in Hamilton so they don't have to go to Niger on the Lake or Thorald, Woodstock, Calonia, Brandt County, etc. I'll take the chair back. So, we're going to begin by uh a motion to receive the report. Seeing councelor Spataphora, Councelor Rob Cooper. Thank you. Uh both reports, apologies, that is um the two reports here 26032 and 26032A. Okay. Um, so we've had an exhaustive conversation. Just looking for an electronic vote. Sorry, it is a hand vote. My apologies. Getting ahead of myself. Seeing hands up. Thank you. That is unanimous. Now I'm going to turn it to councelor spat. I understand that you would like to move an alternative. >> Thank you, chair. Um, I'd like to move alternative two. Councelor Morin Wilson has um asked a second or said she would second for me. So, that's uh all I have. Alternative two moved and seconded by myself and Council Moren Wilson. Thank you. >> Okay. So, just so we're clear, alternative two is the 4% temporary partial exemption for all developments. That is correct. Okay. Seeing nodding heads. Um, we have a mover and secondary. So, we're speaking to the motion and I have Oh, before we go there, I do have a comment before we move to comments and questions from counselors. I understand that GM Zagaric has um has something to offer. GM >> through the chair, if I can direct um the deputy clerk and the chair uh staff have prepared draft wording in case one of the alternatives. So on the bottom of page 11 of 14 is that's okay is uh the recommendation as it relates to I believe alternative 2. So again page 11 of 14 and the applicable uh bylaw is attached as an appendix to the report. >> Okay. So the deputy clerk will be putting that up in a moment and what I understand is I'm reading it is appendex C to report FCS26032A. Um that is page 11 of 14 as noted in the report and that is what is being moved and discussed right now. So we're going to speakers to this motion beginning with councelor Crutch please. I asked questions up to this point, haven't made any comments. I'm just going to make a few. I'm not supporting this. I'm not that's not going to surprise anyone. And it's not because I don't support the development industry. I do. What I've noticed though, especially downtown, is there has not been an impact from the things we have done period. No matter the housing form or housing type, development is not moving ahead. And so the suggestion that somehow doing this and creating more cost for the municipality, we heard earlier, we've already incurred $3 million in cost being passed on to people who are paying taxes in our city and we haven't seen any improvement. Continue to throw this good money after bad makes no sense to me. I continue to say the model here is not working and we're continuing to incentivize a model that's not working. We're playing a shell game where we're we're worried about equity here and equity there. Meanwhile, people don't have places to live and need places to live. And so until we can start figuring out a way to do this that makes sense and honestly if there there needs to be a massive shift in policy a massive um way to rethink this and there is some need for financial incentives to do that. This is not the level of government who can incentivize anyone to do anything at the scale that's required and the crisis we're at. I understand it's important for people to send signs and signals right a sign and signal to build confidence here and a sign and signal to build confidence here. In fact, I meet with the people at 71 Rebecca soon to talk to them about what their financials look like. And that for me is the number one issue in front of all of this is there's still no requirement whatsoever for anyone taking money from the city of Hamilton to produce their audited financials for us to understand what the impact is, how that money is being passed along. It's all just well um take our word for it. I'm sorry. I don't understand why a government is just taking for-profit businesses word for anything in that way. It doesn't make any sense. If we're subsidizing people, we should demand financial accountability. Thank you. >> Okay. Up next is Councelor Brad Clark, please. >> Thank you. So, and looking at the alternative motion, which I support, it doesn't indicate the offset. So the way it's left right now, if we don't declare the offset, the offset falls to property taxpayers, which means an increase in property taxes. So how can we prevent that? Can the language be written in such a manner that it references the Canada Ontario partnership as the offset and that we as soon as possible file notice with the federal government of our interest to participate in that program. My concern, chair, is that we don't do that, then at the budget time for council, this is going to be a part of that budget increase on property taxes. So, can I hear from GMZ Garrick? >> Okay, we're going to turn it to the general manager, please. >> Yeah. through the chair, we could um committee and council could include reference that senior levels of government be asked to offset the foregone revenue for the city of Hamilton, but I don't know that uh we can assume the the offset from senior levels of government. So it could be a request that is in some way reflected in the decision by council. Uh possibly as an amendment, further amendment is that uh senior levels of federal and provincial governments be asked or required or uh requested to offset the foregone revenue related to the temporary DC adjustment so as to not negatively impact act taxpayers and rateayers >> counselor. >> Okay. So instead of um taking up a great deal of time trying to words smmith the language on that I want to excuse me I want noted that I'll be speaking with GM Ziggger and Mayor Horvath to look at language that we can bring before uh the council to clarify what the funding source is going to be because right now we're we're lowering the rate. the rate was already included in our budget. So therefore, we need to find an offset for that allocation in that budget. >> Okay. So no change to the direction that's being presented here by councelor spatora and you'll have a conversation perhaps report back by council. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um we're now moving to councelor Alex Wilson please. >> Thank you through you chair. just confirming uh through staff what was the total new amount of money spent in the 2026 uh budget that we did at the city. So that's the number I believe it's in the hundreds of millions of dollars and that's the it gets broken out every 13 million or so becomes that percentage number. Are you able to refresh us uh what the approximate figure was for 2026? >> I'm looking to staff to see if they have availability on that number >> through the chair. I apologize. I if the council can repeat the question. Okay. >> Just we spent I think it's somewhere the answer is either 160 180 200 million more in 2026 than we did in 2025. Just how much did the overall city budget increase that can be rounded? I'm just trying to get an approximate value very very comfortable if it's loose. >> Okay. And I think just to clarify councelor you are looking for the overall global budget that was passed for 2026 what the increase as compared to 2025 was. >> Yeah. >> Okay. They're conferring on the bench >> just not as a percent but as a raw number. >> Please stand by. >> I through the chair. Approximately $55 million was the increase to the net levy. >> Okay. >> Approximately $55 million. Thank you. And am I correct in going through the financials that this is uh $5.52 million is the costing of this item that would be added to the levy >> through the chair. That is an estimate based on some estimated uh growth levels. >> Thank you. Um chair, I think that answers the question for me. I can't support this motion. I've already raised my concerns about the risks with the federal provincial programs and the lack of clarity around getting money back. But I think just frankly this is about a tenth of the money if you new spending. Like this is a substantial investment that we're talking about. I think there are incredible risks associated with it. But what I've learned, and I get that I come from a different generational experience than lots of folks around the room, um, look, when I reflect back to the last housing market crash 2008, is that a lot of folks took issue with how uh, private corporation, banks, housing developers were some of the first people to get their bailouts when everyone in the economy was struggling. If layoffs are happening in a sector that's made profit upon profit upon profit, and that profit's not being spread across everyone in the workforce, people on the front lines building the homes are not making the same bank that the people owning these development companies are, but the city's being asked to put in our equity, our risk um when things are going difficult. And I think it's not just a little bit of money. It's not just something to help stabilize. I think we're talking about 10% of the total spending increase that happened in this past calendar year. We're council talking about fiscal discipline respecting taxpayers. Um, and I just frankly if we were to ask Hamiltonians, hey, the economy is crashing. Uh, your local city government's going to bail out an industry. Developers would not be anyone's first choice. And I I I know that so clearly and I so I feel very comfortable representing my community and representing the city and saying I can't support this. I don't believe this is what act what what our citizens would like us to do at this time and I appreciate that we're dealt with difficult programs and we're frankly dealing with senior levels of government that aren't giving us serious solutions and I think that is a really frustrating place but I don't think that means that we take um just the bad options that aren't necessarily in front of us. I don't think there's enough facts here to to justify the hope frankly. >> Okay, thank you for that counselor. We're moving on next to councelor Rob Cooper please. Thank you, chair. You know, just a little bit of clarification here. So, we're actually Stelco right now has about 750 employees. We're talking about 1,900 people lost their jobs in last year. And that's just first level. We're not even getting to the spin-off of the 1,900 people. And that's and that's in our trades. It's people you saw sitting here today. We have new provincial legislation coming in that clearly states that agreements, purchase, and sale have to break out the taxes. So we keep talking about this idea that it's not flowing through and now we have to have transparency we're asking for. So that's being delivered. You know many times when we talk about developers, we don't realize who we're really talking about as homeowners. We talk about, you know, almost this disconnect between developers and getting people in homes. There's only one place these fees go and that goes the homeowners. There's not a magic pot of gold under a rainbow. And I keep talking about this. The developers go and they pay for this. They're not subsidizing housing. They're not taking a hit on this because ultimately there's not a bottomless pit of money they have. So we're sitting on I think $600 million in development charges. Other levels of government look at us a little funny. They go, why are you sitting on $600 million in development charges? It's like we're not running a bank here. So if we have to take a pause on this, we're not putting it on homeowners. We're taking the $600 million sitting in our bank. We're not going to keep running that number up. Like, that's the question we keep getting. Why do you guys have $600 million sitting in the bank for development charges? It doesn't make sense to an awful lot of people. So, I cannot support this going on on the backs of homeowners. I'd like to see the the motion amended, and I mentioned this to the mover to say that we're not going to put this on the backs of homeowners. Thank you, Chair. >> Okay. Thank you for that, Councelor Cooper. Uh, we have councelor Morin Wilson up next, please. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I'll try not to get uh too theoretical here. I understand the disgruntlement and the dissatisfaction with the existing housing system and I understand some of my colleagues or more of my colleagues would much rather us have a discussion about the necessary investments that have to and should come into the 6% non non-private market. We've been at 3% uh co-op homes since the 1960s. However, those you you you can't talk about, in my opinion, the the need for other levels of government to come to the table on that. While we know that the the rules of the game right now are on the 94%. And the anemic activity right now in the 94% is having a consequence in our local economy. We can't talk about the importance of fair wage when we're in a situation where some folks have no wage because they're not building. And I understand the propensity to say, you know, we've seen nothing since the 20%, therefore the 20% aren't working. We all know that the economy is informed by many things all at once. And it's going to be have it's going to have to be those many things all at once that are going to impact the market and impact and affect confidence. And the other thing I would say is I I've heard this refrain ironically from some younger members talking about uh existing taxpayers when we absolutely know that we have to talk about future taxpayers and future residents and the burden that is being felt by them. There's nowhere left to drive to qualify and those future residents are bearing already a burden with our investment choices. We need young minds, young hearts, young talents to be able to find housing in Hamilton. um they are going to be the reservoir from which we're drawing in order to further fund public goods. So and the other just final things if there is no development in the 94% or in the uh commercial industrial sector to councelor Clark's point we're not going to be able to get that last minute gift in budget decisions of a 1.6 six assessment growth because there's nothing growing um and we're not going to have a reservoir uh of development charges because there's nothing being built. So, um those are my comments. Uh that's why I will be supporting uh the alternative that has been put forward. Do we wish it was a different system? It Yes, I do. I think I've said that. I've written about that. But this is the system in which we have right now and we have an emergency right now. So uh and I think we all have a role to play. Every level of government in that uh my opinion is other levels of government have a much greater role to play um in bringing certainty to that. Uh we've talked about the HSD. There's still no rules about that. developers are having to make the rules up as they as they go um in in their relationship with uh purchasers. So those are my comments. Thank you. >> Thank you. And our final speaker and a reminder to committee that we have a substantial agenda still ahead of us and a hard stop to make room for ECS following this. So I'll turn now to uh councelor Mark Tatterson and hopefully we're able to conclude with a vote on the matter. Councelor Tatter. I just wanted to uh two things. I wanted to welcome our friends from Parkdale uh elementary school. They they're joining us this morning fulfilling I suppose their government learnings and uh on municipal federal and provincial uh politics. So my question again I think councelor Spataphor asked this. I'm just wondering the difference between option one and option two. What was that amount? Was that did I hear that was about a $3,000 amount between the um exemption for all development as opposed to just for residential? >> Okay, I'm turning to general manager Ziggger for a response >> through through the chair if I could ask the counselor is he asking what the difference in the foregone revenue is between the two. Option um option two is estimated at 5.52 million. Option one is estimated at 4.49 million. So a difference of approximately a million. >> Okay. Thanks. That's uh that helps me with my decision. Thank you. >> Okay. So we have had healthy conversation. We've actually um been visited by two field trips during this same conversation. So, gives you an indication of the timeline and uh you've picked an interesting day to come and join us. I actually said that to the last group as well. We have a motion on the floor. Uh we have no further speakers. So, at this time, I'm going to call the question. Please indicate your electronic vote. This is would going to be in favor or against alternative number two which would see um the commensurate reduction in DC's for all um forms of development not just residential. >> Okay. So that carries 72. Thank you colleagues. We are now going to move on to item number two. We were going to move on to item number two. That has been withdrawn. We are now moving on to item number three which is FCS 26025. The reserve revenue fund investment performance report as of December 31st, 2025. Uh does does committee have any questions on this report? We will do them all together. uh we will receive everything together upon the conclusion of all reports at the same time. So I have a first- time speaker and councelor Brad Clark please. >> Uh thank you. So just a quick question to GM Ziggger. In terms of the rate of return that we're seeing on our investments um with the economy the way it is, are we seeing a decrease or an increase in our expected rates of return? Jim Zarick through the chair. I'll start and then I'll uh invite director McMullen. The reports that are before you today uh in all cases with the exception of the cemetery trust the performance for 2025 exceeded the benchmark uh in all three cases. With respect to uh some of the contributing factors to that is a strong equity market uh was definitely a contributing factor. uh looking forward uh I don't know that anyone would uh have a perfect crystal ball to suggest in terms of some of the geopolitical factors uh but again we are uh aligned with the legislative as well as council approved policies and so for the city of Hamilton the majority of our investments are in fixed income and bond markets and so I don't know if director McMullen has anything to share with respect to 2026 what we're forecasting for 2026. >> I'm seeing that director McMullen is shaking his head now. You've covered it uh appropriately. GM, I'll turn it back to the counselor now. >> Um thank you. And so our policy still stands that the return on investment of our investments of our reserves go back into the reserve accounts. Correct. >> GM through the chair. uh the vast majority do uh with respect to the there is a contribution to the tax levy and I believe that may be in $4.5 million that is contributed to the tax levy but the balance goes into reserves as part of our sustainability strategy for reserves. >> Brad, thank you. I'm happy with uh receiving the report with thanks to the investment team. Okay, seeing no further questions on this particular reserve report, we're now moving on to 7.4 S uh FCS26026, which is the Hamilton Future Fund Investment Performance Report as of December 31st. Any questions on that investment report. Excellent. Seeing none, we're moving on to 7.5 FCS 26027, Cemetery Trust account investment performance as of December 21st. Any questions on that investment report? Excellent. Seeing none, we're moving on to 7.6 FCS26028 treasurers investment report for the 2025 fiscal year by AON. Any questions on this investment report? Seeing none, 7.7 HUR260008 Elect Respect Outstanding Business List. Any questions on this report? Excellent. Moving on to 7.8 8 ped 26077 corporate real estate leases and licenses audit status update. Any questions on this report? I do have councelor crutch please. >> No questions but just a quick comment and thanks to the auditor um for the recommendations made here many of which will improve the processes we use for these kinds of leases in the future. I can say I wasn't satisfied with this process as somebody on the inside of it in any way. And I think that it's really important that we have these kinds of controls in place and agree that staff um I'd appreciate the staff have agreed to do them. I think it's really really important that we have this kind of benchmarking, this kind of data, this kind of information we make decisions like this. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Any further questions on item 7.8? Seeing none, we're moving to item 7.9. AUD260005 fraud waste and whistleblower semianual update. Any questions on this report? Seeing councelor Clark, please. >> Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of quick questions. Um, when I'm looking at page three of 11, and it has a lovely chart, fraud and waste report as of December 31st, 2025. Um there is an increasing number of reports of fraud or waste. I could take from that two things. One, um that there is more fraud and waste or that more people are reporting what they believe to be fraud and waste. I'd like to hear the auditor general in terms of which way I should take that. >> Okay. We'll turn it over to Auditor General Charles Brown. If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself. >> Uh through the chair. I'm Charles Charles Brown, Auditor General. Uh so, uh I can't be definitive. I don't have data to support it, but I think it's it's just the notoriety of the fraud and waste hotline that generates more. I mean, that was the whole purpose at the beginning where we weren't that well known. Um but with more reports and more investigations being reported, especially with um the public becoming more aware of of our uh fraud and waste hotline generates more uh more complaints. >> Okay. Thank you. I can recall uh I think it was councelor Brian McCaddy and I who first floated the ideal of a whistleblower protection bylaw in Hamilton and we were the first municipality in Canada to do that. It was usually federal and provincial. And so we've seen and we've come a long way from that initial um initiative. Um, I'd like to ask the auditor general now that he's been on the job a bit and he's seeing the things come across his desk, um, is he pleased with, um, I guess the public understanding of the hotline and is he pleased that people are reaching out now? I mean, we've come up a long way from 2019. >> Your thoughts, AG. Brown? >> Uh, through the chair. Through the chair. Yes. Yes. I'm very pleased. Uh, mostly from the aspect that it's not just fraud. Uh, it's it and and I don't um it's it's the waste aspect, which means we get all kinds of complaints about how programs are run, not necessarily to the satisfaction of citizens. So I think what I'm most proud of is the fact that we uh that citizens themselves can be involved because a lot of these waste complaints as you know end up in uh uh being becoming an audit that we come back and report to council. So I think it it provides an opportunity for citizen involvement in in the activities that we do. >> Thank you. And then on page six of 11 of the report, whistleblower bylaw disclosures. Um, so these are employees that have sought out your office to explain a concern that they have under the understanding with the understanding, not to be redundant, that um their job is protected through the whistleblower protection bylaw. through the chair. That's that's correct. They've been assessed and they qualify. It these are qualifying what are called qualifying disclosures. >> And so each one of those individuals who who came to you with that uh they don't have to worry about their job. They're they're protected through that bylaw >> through the chair. That's correct. >> Thank you. Thank you for all of the work that you do. Uh you have done a yman's job for the city of Hamilton. It's a big job. Um I'm very grateful for you and your staff um in going through this process and doing the audits and finding out what's happening. And it's not always about pointing fingers to who's doing something wrong. It's about improving the process to ensure that taxpayers get better value for money um through the programs that we operate. So uh thank you very much, Auditor General. Thank you. >> Okay, so we have no further speakers on the matter. I'm looking for a mover and seconder. We're going to batch all of the items that we've just discussed 73 through 79 together. If I could have a mover in councelor Spataphora, seconded by councelor Paul's, please indicate your vote with a show of hands. All in favor? Looking for all hands to be in the air if you are in favor. Thank you. That is unanimous. We're moving on now to items for consideration beginning with 8.1HSC26012, the transition of the Women and Gender Equity Advisory Committee to Hamilton Women and Gender Equity Community Liaon Group. If I could have a mover and seconder to put this on the floor. Seeing councelor Crunch, Councelor Spataphora, I have councelor Brad Clark up next as first speaker. Um I still remain philosophically opposed to the change from advisory committees to uh community leazison groups. So on that basis I'm going to oppose as I have done all of the others. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers to the report? Okay. Seeing none, we will now ask for your electronic vote. Please indicate in favor or opposed. And that carries 61. Thank you, colleagues. We are moving efficiently on to 8.2. And I just want to make note that I erroneously said we had to be out of here by 1:30. We actually have to be out of here by one. So, we've lost a half hour. Uh 8.2 two is FCSC or FCS26015. This is the tax and rate operating budget forecast 2025 variance report. Um I can ask if we want an overview >> and I'm seeing that there's no appetite for that. So we'll go directly to questions beginning with councelor Mike Spapora. Please >> I'll do it after. >> Thanks chair. Just a quick question for GM Zerk. The forecast is a surplus of 20 million, but then there's 5.3 um in commitment commitments, pre-commitments. Can you just give me I know they're in there. I just don't want to go searching for them because I you probably know them off air. Can you just give me a quick snippet of what those pre-commitments that add up to the 5.3 are? >> Yeah, >> please. Through you, chair. >> Through the chair. The the 5.9 relates to our 2026 budget process. Uh, council moved a motion and it was uh through the adopted budget that it included $5.9 million in forecasted 2025 surplus to reduce the 2026 levy. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Clark, please. >> Thank you, Chair. So, I appreciate this report. Um, and I'd like to ask a question incillary to this report. So, if we can have a 2025 budget variance report, why can't we get interim financial statements or audited financial statements until 2027? >> Cherrick, so through the chair, I appreciate the question. Um the body of work that has to be completed is the inputting and the finalization of our 2024 financial statements and financial information before we can proceed to 2025. So we're having to go in sequence where we're looking to finalize 2023 shortly proceed with 2024 in order to get a ending position for 2024. that is our starting position for 2025 uh and then in sequence and and that's the principal reason >> counselor >> so we have the approved budget we have the full forecast we have projected variances similarly restated budget projected actuals so where are all these numbers coming from if we don't if you don't have the data if you're still populating it in order to enable an audited financial statement or an interim financial statement. Clearly, you have some of the data if you've we've literally have the numbers per department through the chair. We do have the data and again this is a forecast. It'll be subject to the auditor's reviewing staff's uh inputting of information and subject to the audit there may be adjustments to these forecasts. Uh so I apologize if if I wasn't clear. We do have the data. There are still adjustments to the data staff are making for 2024 that will impact our 2025 starting position. And that's uh the body of work staff are focused on right now is to do the final adjustments for 2024. That will put us in a position to work with the external auditor uh later this year with respect to our 2024 financial statements. counselor. >> So, help me understand this because the way it looks right now with an election pending as of October 26th and the audited financial statements for 2025, not 2026, 2025 will not be available until 2027. The voters won't have the benefit for those who want to find it. financial statements for 2025. >> How do I how do I explain that to the folks who are wanting to understand how we spent money, where we spent money, where did the reserves go, how much taxes went up over the period of time, all of those numbers that would come out of interim financial um reports. Jim through the chair and we understand the frustration of committee and the public with respect to the timing of the financial statements. Um again until such time as staff are able to make all adjustments into our interim financial system and then have our external auditor undertake the audit. we won't be in a position to complete our 2024 and 25 financial statements. Um, and again, I appreciate the frustration and the challenge for the public in terms of understanding a delay of this nature. Uh, I'll just simply say that staff are doing their best in terms of uh doing the work necessary in order to prioritize this work and this is our top priority is getting our financial statements completed. Okay. Counor, >> last question then. Is it possible to get an interim financial statement um by the end of August? >> Not the audited financial statement, an interim one. >> GM through the chair. I can take that away and work with uh the team to see what uh we are able to produce uh in the form of a unodudited um interim financial statement. >> I'd appreciate that and and I would like the information before council if possible. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for that. I have no further speakers on this report. I negated to get a mover and secondary to put it on the floor. So I'm hoping that councelor spata, councelor Paul's thank you would be so kind. We have uh exhausted the speakers list. I'm now looking for a vote on the matter. Please indicate your electronic vote now. And that carries 70. Thank you colleagues. Moving on now to 8.3 which is FCS26043 city of Hamilton Ministry of Transportation 2025 2026 dedicated gas tax funding agreement. If I could have a mover and second or first to put this on the floor seeing councelor Spataphora and Councelor Moren Wilson. Thank you. Uh first up is councelor Moren Wilson please. >> Thank you through the chair. If I've read this correctly, the funding level has been frozen. Um, did we provide were we given a rationale by the government of Ontario for why the funding was it? I'm assuming it was frozen across the board, not just for this municipality. I know there is a formula that's set out in the report, but just looking for some feedback. Thank you. >> Looking to the bench for a response. They're conferring with each other. >> Do the chair apologize for the delay of just uh getting feedback from staff. There was no specific response from the provincial government as to the reasoning behind the freeze. >> Keler, >> thank you. Um I'll just note my my disappointment in that regard. Uh I think there's consensus around this table that public transit is good and it's part of um a a package of things which provide for a greater affordability for families and individuals. So thank you. >> Okay, seeing no further questions, um there is a mover and second to this item. We are now moved to electronic vote. Please indicate your vote now. I don't know. And that motion carries. Thank you. Colleagues, we're moving on now to 8.4, which is FCS 26044, Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act 2026. As it relates to de pardon me, I'm getting over myself here. As it relates to the development charges act 1997. If I could have a mover and second to put the item on the floor. Seeing councelor Spataphora. Councelor Clark, any questions, comments to the report? Seeing none, we're going to move directly to a vote. Please indicate your vote electronically now, please. Thank you, colleagues. That carries 8 Z. We're moving on now to 8.5, which is amendments to the OBL. I just want to make a housekeeping note that it is still listed potentially 8.5AB, the potential DC charges exemption of fourth residentials. This item was removed from the agenda. So, um, it will not be reflected in the vote today. We'll be moving on 8.5A through to 8.5 AE. If I could have a mover and second to put the amendments to the Obl on the floor. See councelor spatora. Councelor Pauls. Thank you. Any discussion on the Obl. Seeing none, we'll move directly to the vote. Please indicate your vote now. And that carries 8 Z. Thank you, colleagues. Uh, we've already dealt with motions. I'm going now to item 10, which is notice of motion. Any notices of motion? Okay, we're moving now to item 11, which is the closed minute session of AFNA 26005. This is the close session portion of the meeting held April 13, 2026. If I could have a mover and second to adopt the closed minutes of the April 16th meeting. Seeing councelor Crutch, councelor Mike Spataphora. Thank you. Uh I need a show of hands. All in favor, please indicate your vote by a show of hands. Thank you. That is unanimous. With there being no further business now it is 12:13. Thank you colleagues. We were able to fast forward this and get it done within the time frame. This meeting is now adjourned.