testing sound check. One, two, three. Second shar check. One, two, three. French sound check. 1 2 3 We'll get going in 1 minute. 1 minute. All right, with my apologies for the uh delay in getting started here. Has somebody got their speaker on? Nope. Okay. Good morning. Uh welcome to the 65th meeting of the planning and housing committee. We acknowledge that Ottawa is located on the unseated and never surrendered territory of Algangquin Anishnabi nation whose culture and presence have nurtured and continue to nurture this land. I know we have regrets from councelor Dudes but could we get the roll call please Kelly? >> Councelor Brochington >> here. >> Councelor Curry >> here. >> Councelor Johnson I saw her >> here. Councelor Kavanaaugh >> present. >> Councelor Kelly >> present. >> Councelor Kits >> here. >> Councelor Low >> here. >> Councelor Tierney >> here. >> Councelor Trustster >> here. >> Vice Chair Gower >> here. >> Chair UFO. >> Thank you so much. This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendments listed as items 41 to 43 on today's agenda. for the items just mentioned. Only those who are specifically identified in the planning act who make uh oral submissions today, I was going to say moral submissions. It should always be moral. Um today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. If council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for a zoning bylaw amendment and 120 days for an official plan amendment to submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by city council on May 27th, 2026, please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? Nope. Are the minutes of our meeting uh of May 6th, 2026 confirmed? >> Confirmed. Thank you. >> The first item is the zoning bylaw amendment for part of 6041 Fernbank Road. Um I know Glenn just wanted to make a couple of um uh brief comments ahead of that and then we can let those staff go. >> Yeah, thank you chair. Um I just um for this item it's it's I guess considered a fairly minor item from a overall city planning but we had a a large number of inquiries and comments from residents and I just wanted to thank uh Emily Charby and the planning team for uh helping us to answer those. Um and this has been an interesting file from 2015 to today. I think this is the third uh zoning amendment on this on this property and there's been a lot of impact beyond the planning piece uh from true removal and blasting and design of the linear pathway. So, it's become um quite a complex development and um a cause for a lot of concern with residents and uh I know there's a number of residents wa watching today and uh if you still have questions about this before this comes to council next week, please reach out to my office and be happy to walk through exactly what is uh changing here. This is about changing the zoning permissions to allow town homes alongside singles and semis on the interior part of this property. Thanks, chair. >> Thank you very much, vice chair. Um, I hadn't anticipated that we'd have a presentation. The, uh, do any members wish to have this one held? No. Uh, I know that the applicants are online. Uh, to the applicants if committee is willing to carry this. Do you still wish to speak? >> Good morning, chair. We have no comments. Thank you. >> We're good. Amazing. Uh, so is that item carried? Thank you. Uh moving on, we will receive the presentation for the OPA on Stitchville South urban boundary expansion. Uh with respect to item 43, the official plan amendment on coordinating municipal servicing, infrastructure, and subdivision appeals. Did any members wish to have that one held? Is that item carried? Thank you. on item 44, the front ending report for um the design and construction of the March Road and Invention Boulevard intersection. I know uh councelor Curry wanted to take just a couple moments to say something before we uh proceed with that item. Councelor Curry. >> Yeah, I don't need this held. Honestly, if my counselor comments I can't remember what they were, but if I would have put what I meant, I would have said thank God and hallelujah. And uh councelor Kelly and I know just how important this is and uh you know the the danger for residents to come out of these two big subdivisions and onto March Road at 80 km an hour. I think councelor Kelly drives it every day and probably slows down to make sure it's safe. But it is it is such a bad situation. So it's so great to see this. Uh really really appreciative. Uh thank you very much to Elizabeth Murphy and to Mento who have agreed to do this frontending agreement uh for this big subdivision they're building. So really appreciative to everyone on this and and the residents in the area are so happy. So thank you everybody and uh happy to approve this. >> Thank you very much councelor Curry. Uh we hadn't anticipated the presentation. There are no delegations and there's no correspondence on this item. Did members wish to have this one held? I don't see any such interest. Is that item carried? Thank you. With respect to item 51, the area specific storm water development charges amendment for Shirley's Brook. We hadn't anticipated a presentation. There are no delegations and there was no correspondence. Did any members wish to have this one held? Nope. Is that item carried? Thank you. We will receive the report on the um treasures report on 2025 growth related revenues. Um, and then just in case there are staff here to address the uh IPD, I hadn't received any interest in lifting the um IPD on the housing dashboard approvals. No. Good. Okay. So, we'll consider that one uh dealt with and then we'll move on to councelor Truster's motion. So coming back to the start of the agenda, we will look forward to the presentation on item 42, the official plan amendment for Stitzville South urban boundary expansion for Flewell and Shay. Good morning, Mr. Chair, vice chair and committee members. I just hand over the presentation to our senior planner, Mr. Stre Shen. Good morning, chair, members of planning committee. My name is Shim Shen and I'm before you today to provide the staff recommendation for the official plan amendment application on the Stitzville South urban expansion area. Next slide, please. The application was deemed complete by the Ontario Land Tribunal in late 2024 and as staff was working through the application, it was appealed by the applicant for a lack of decision to the tribunal in December of 2025. We have a case management conference hearing coming up imminently. So therefore, staff is before committee today to both provide a recommendation and including a recommendation for staff to defend the city's position before the tribunal itself. Next slide, please. The city has initiated our official plan growth projection work. In October of 2024, the new provincial planning statement was released. The Ministry of Finance population projection now the basis to determine municipal level housing projection at the time of an official plan update. However, in between such update, the growth projection in the existing official plan continue to form the basis in determining land needs. Uh since 2024, staff has undertaken uh a series of baseline uh knowledge gathering exercise including the vacant green field residential land survey, the vacant industrial land survey, and the rural residential land survey. Next slide, please. In February of this year, council adopted the population, household and employment projection which formed the basis for the growth management strategy and future official plan update and staff has initiated work on the growth management strategy with the time horizon to 2015. In the next couple of months, staff will continue to work on the strategy to determine settlement area land requirement. continue to receive requests for consideration for expansion parcels and to identify and evaluate potential new settlement area lands in consultation with the public community group, industry and the ministry. um which all accumulated back to a report back to committee and council with a recommendation for growth scenarios projected land needs to 201 and if require the specific parcel recommendation for inclusion within the urban boundary in Q1 of 2027 and based on council's um this direction staff will bring forward the formal official plan amendment policies in Q2 of 2027 7. Next slide, please. In October of 24, when uh the provincial planning statement change to allow for these individual urban expansion application, council approve a new process and framework to evaluate these files. Starting with assessing infrastructure capacity as step one, identifying new servicing capacity when ones doesn't exist or are not planned. Moving on to step three to assess the land needs. Step four settlement area parcel analysis. And then finally step five committee and council decision. Next slide. The landing question today is located in the southern end of Stitzville at the northwestern corner of Fleellen and Sha. Uh its a future neighborhood parcel that was approved as part of the 2022 official plan to the west and now named the uh Magnolia subdivision. Next slide, please. The requested amendment is to bring the destination from a rural countryside into a neighborhood destination under the suburban transct. Slide please. So starting with step one and two of the process through the secondary planning process for the future neighborhood area a comprehensive servicing evaluation was undertaken which included this parcel. So although the parcel was outside of the urban boundary because it forms the remnant piece from the the overall bigger subdivision to the west um the parcel was considered to ensure holistic planning and a servicing boundary and to promote orderly development. Because of that it was determined step one and two of the process has been completed. Next slide please. Looking at the land need perspective on step number three. The PPS require the city at all time have a minimum of 15-year supply of designated and available land. And based on the city's analysis and from the Greenfield residential land survey, our city supply is currently sitting at approximately 25 years. Therefore, the need for additional land has not been demonstrated. Next slide, please. So, as a result, step four has not been undertaken. However, as part of the 2021 growth management process, city staff did assess the current land, which was labeled as category 2 assessed but not recommended. The land itself met all the minimal scoring threshold, but were excluded due to an active court case at the time on a alleged site alteration bylaw violation. That uh hearing has since been resolved. Next slide, please. So in summary, staff recommend that the planning and housing committee recommend council to refuse the official plan amendment application to bring the subject line into the urban boundary and to direct staff to defend the city's position before the Ontario Land Tribunal. And that concludes the presentation. We're available to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Uh we don't have any public delegations to speak to this one. There was one piece of correspondence from a local resident who opposes the um uh opposes the proposed expansion. Uh do any members have questions? Councelor Kavanagh. >> Yeah, thank you. um what are the chances at the um at the Ontario Land Tribunal because uh um I don't think that they'll be very happy with this, but um I'm you know is I I'm just I just fig we're trying to figure out what the odds are. >> Mr. Chair, this is one of five matters, urban expansion matters that are at the Ontario Land Tribunal. Uh the city is moving forward with the position uh that uh the official plan has identified uh the enforced official plans has identified uh land needs and housing needs. No one has applied to change uh any of those figures in the official plan in all the applications that have been made. Uh so they stand in place and it'll be the city's position that uh it is inappropriate uh for the tribunal uh to add land uh in face of those forecasts because based upon the numbers in the official plan uh there is no identified land need at this time. Uh and so there's a a rolling number of hearings uh starting June one and then another one in September into October uh and then another one in January and I expect this one uh will follow upon that sometime in 2027. >> It anyway it it's right beside a development. So I'm just I'm just surprised. And uh what about uh the capacity for for water and sewage is what was the ratings on that? Apologies. >> Uh so the parcel has received a passing score when we scored it in 2021 and through the concept plan exercise in the abuing land. A scope master servicing study was completed. There there um is some projects that needs to be upgraded in terms of the pumping station and the force mate. However, that's currently under works. Um, so there is adequate uh either existing or planned capacity coming online. >> Okay. When we accept pieces of land that are way out with no connections and then we refuse one that's right beside a neighborhood, I'm just puzzled. Okay. I can't support this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Cavana. Vice Gower. >> Thanks. Um I just wanted to ask because there is the land adjacent to this that is going through the secondary planning process. Does um would a recommendation to refuse affect the planning process or how would it affect the planning process for the adjacent green field land? Um next to this >> uh the planning process it's um underway for the adjacent land because that piece of land was brought into the urban boundary in 2022. Uh we have completed a concept plan planning process and it was um approved by committee and council uh last year. So right now we're moving on to the review of the subdivision. Overall we are keeping this piece in mind to make sure that orderly planning for the greater parcel. However, it doesn't um um practicate any decision by council on this matter. >> Okay. So, the other property that planning process continues despite >> that's correct. >> Whether or not this this other piece is in the urban boundary or not. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thanks, Chair. >> Thanks. I think uh general manager Wallace wanted to jump in. >> Thank you. Um through the chair, I would just add that we are trying to take a consistent approach on all these urban expansions while we're actually in the process of evaluating land needs and coming up with a an additional growth management strategy. And as you all saw in my memo to council a few weeks ago, we're looking at several scenarios that would uh transfer that forecasted growth in lots of different ways. We are working very hard to unlock the lands that were um included but not yet built on in the last growth management strategy and that's why we believe we have lands to accommodate the growth in our official plan. We will be looking at uh whether or not another round of expansion and and certainly uh sites like this would be in that conversation. Uh but at this point we're taking a consistent approach on all of these coming forward that this is premature and uh and that we believe there's enough land at this time. >> Thank you very much. Um you don't have any further questions, vice chair. Thanks. Uh councelor Brockton. >> Thanks chair. Could staff just outline what the reasons for the delay in the process of the application are please. >> Uh chair. So this is a complicated application um involving both the infrastructure review component which was happening concurrently with the adjacent land um as well as the the land need component as new information continues uh comes to light. Um so with that's resulted in a bit of a delay in the accumulation of providing the recommendation to committee. In your presentation you have a date uh a date that the tribunal deemed the application complete. Does that differ from when their package was received by the city of Ottawa and you started to assess the application? uh chair. So the package was received by the city in August of 2024. Um it it was there's several application at play and there were changes made by the applicant to distinguish between the OPA for the existing expansion area as well as the new one. Um so so there was a couple days at play but generally speaking the way we deem an application complete and similarly with tribunal is it's backdated to the date when we receive the complete package. So it's consistent between how city and tribunal deem it complete. >> Okay. And just from a process point of view, should the committee reject the staff recommendation this morning, it would then be an order to immediately put a motion on the floor to approve the del the proponents application. What is I'm just trying to clarify the process here, Mr. Chair. If the committee were so inclined to recommend approval, uh then it would be appropriate um for a motion to be passed uh requesting that staff bring forward unofficial plan amendment to include these lands within the urban area. That isn't with you um today. Um I don't know that it could be ready for council next week. Uh but that would be an appropriate motion. I think that would be uh my preference as well is just to go ahead with recommend or whatever the um uh the committee's recommendation is and and to do that at council. Uh and I'm sure staff could have something uh prepared by then. Any further questions? Council Brock. Perfect. Um I don't see any other members with their hands up. I will just say I want to thank uh city staff for um persisting with trying to bring some order and coherency to the land use planning process. Uh this is an issue that has generational implications and uh I'm glad that the city of Ottawa staff are looking out after the long-term future of this city even if the province isn't uh isn't doing so. Um are there no further questions? Is this item carried? >> Carried. >> Descent, please. >> Descent. Do you want us and let's do and >> councelor Brockington? >> No. >> Councelor Curry. >> Yes. Das. Councelor Johnson. >> Yes. >> Councelor Kavanaaugh. >> No. >> Councelor Kelly. >> Yes. >> Councelor Kits. >> Yes. >> Councelor Lowe. >> Yes. Councelor Tierney, >> no. >> Councelor Troster, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Gower, >> yes. >> Chair Leaper, >> yes. >> AAS, three Naz. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Members, we will move on then to our next presentation which is with respect to the treasures report on 2025 growth related revenues item 52. Expect that'll be Gary. Oh no, it's not. Good morning. Uh, so I'm here with Courtney Trudeell, manager of financial strategies, and we're going to present the results of the treasures report for 2025 for growth related revenues. Next slide. So, the development charges act section 43 requires that the city treasurer submit a year-end summary of development charge reserve fund balances to council and province uh recently changed that act to also ensure that it it is reported by the end of June. Um, the report provides a 2025 year-end summary including summary statement of development charges reserve funds, capital project funding, legislative changes and development charge exemptions and other growth related revenues. And the recommendation in the report is that the planning and housing committee recommend that council receive the information. And I'll pass it to Courtney for the rest. >> Okay. So within the report there's a summary statement of the development charge reserve funds. That's document one and it summarized the various transactions of the development charge reserves including in 2025 the city collected 247.7 million in revenue and generated additional 23.1 in interest. The net transfers to growth related capital projects totaled 141.1 million. Outstanding budgeted capital project transfers totaled 823.7 million and future authorized debentures were 1.1 billion at the end of 2025. The combination of ongoing expenditures and budgeted funding allocations resulted in a total negative estimated closing balance of 911 million. Included in the report is also the development charge capital project funding and allocations which is document two and it provides details of capital project funding and allocations by service category. Next slide please. The report also includes legislative changes and development charge exemptions. Starting in 2019, there have been 12 legislative amendments to the development charge act that have been implemented uh statutory DC exemptions and have impacted the collections of development charges. Legislative changes impacting development charge collections in 2025 include the development charge exemption for long-term care homes, removal of interest on five-year deferral implemented through bill 138 and DC payment deferrals for all residential development to occupancy interest free and those were all included in bill 17. In 2025, the imposition of statutory exemptions alone transferred an estimated 47.2 2 million in costs required for funding of growth related infrastructure to the city. The city does not re reimburse the reserves created by statutory exemptions. The discretionary DC exemptions that are listed in the city's development charge bylaw. In 2025, the city exempted 5.2 million. The offset to offset the annual foregone contributions the city reimbures the reserve funds for general revenues on a yearly basis. Next slide please. The next slide goes through the other growth related revenues and it includes cash in le of parkland deferred revenue accounts document three and it summarizes the various transactions including in 2025 the city collected 14.8 million in revenue and generated an additional 1.8 million in interest. Overall the capital project transfers to and from those accounts totaled 7.1 million. The closing total account balance for cash and loop parkland excluding outstanding commitments as of the end of 2025 was 118.8 million. The report also includes uh details of cash in L of Parkland capital projects with cash in L of Parkland and non-cash inl parkland funding in alignment with the cash and ll of parkland policy. And it also includes the community benefit charge deferred revenue accounts which is document 4. And it lists the annual allocations and collections including the city collected 20 or 2.3 million in revenues and earned an additional 267.7,000 in interest. Development related capital cost transfers were 1.7 million and the closing balance excluding outstanding commitments was 14.2 million. And that's the end of the presentation. There's any questions? >> Thank you very much. Uh there are no delegations on this. So we'll move right to councelor Curry. >> Just a quick question. Any update on the making us whole uh promises we've had that uh you know we see a negative amount there. Is there any promises any update on that? >> Uh I haven't heard any. We're not uh actively pursuing that. Um and the issue with that is uh we have done some analysis in terms of if we were to reduce our DCS by let's say 50%, we would lose about 100 million. So they would have to make us whole by that. But then the way it's written is we'd have to also contribute a part of it. So we'd have to look for projects where there's benefit to existing and hopefully they would accept that as our contribution. So there's a lot more work that needs to go into understanding what the implications are for the city. Okay, thanks for that. So, but no, you're you're not actively working on it, but is anybody actively working on it? I mean, it would be fascinating to see what projects that might include a benefit to existing that that we would contribute to. >> I'm not aware. >> Okay. Is there any plan to eventually look at it at some point? >> Uh yes, absolutely. when the if the province approaches us, uh we would absolutely do that. >> Okay. But we're not proactively like getting a plan A, plan B, plan C. So currently, uh the the way it's structured, it would be a cost to us. And so we'd have to have assurances from the province that it would be net neutral and no additional cost to the taxpayers. We haven't seen that yet. Okay. All right. Well, let me hear what my fellow colleagues have to say about this as we we carry on. But I mean, I think this is a big concern to me for sure. Uh we need to be figuring out what we're going to do here. But anyways, I'll I'll hear what other people have, >> our general manager. >> Thank you. So, I will say that um the province has asked us to like like any large city, they're asking us to consider this and as you've heard from Isabelle, there's a lot of concerns with what this might look like. So, we are looking at our own DC background study and what it what what it would take to make a good deal for Ottawa. At this point, we're not um we're not submitting anything and there isn't an actual uh application process, but it's not clear that there this is a very unusual thing. It seems to be conversations between willing municipalities. So, we are looking into it at the senior level, but at this point, we don't have anything that we want to bring forward to the um province. And if we did, we would uh bring it before committee and counsel. >> Councelor Curry, you still have the floor. Yeah. Okay, that's all right. Thanks. I'll listen to what others have to say. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Brockton. >> Thank you, Gerald. I'll just add for colleagues that um the development charge matter is a top priority for AMO. I was in a meeting about two weeks ago with the minister where this was a top issue that we were discussing and it remains I think one of the more significant concerns that municipalities have given the pressures to renew infrastructure and should there be future decisions made that would reduce the amount of DC revenue. the the concerns about growth not already paying for growth will be further compounded by any potential decision the province makes. The staff believe there's a pressure to start spending more of our reserves now in the fear that the province might claw them back or even take them on themselves. Uh the only um pressure that we're we've identified is the regulations now say that we have to spend at least 60% of what we receive and we have done that. >> Okay. But there are no murmurss at any professional association, any other municipalities worried that the province may um want to take on accumulated reserves and think of I don't know if they'd come up with some other distribution plan, but I just want to make sure that historically the province has identified reserves that municipalities have had any time municipalities have asked for funding. They say, "Well, you have all of these reserves." They, I don't think, fully understand or appreciate why we collect reserves to begin with, and it's not just a one-year thing. It's multiple year accumulation to pay for big ticket items. But I just want to confirm with staff they're not hearing anything that could jeopardize the reserves that we have and would want to contribute to council making decisions to spend those money sooner rather than later. So uh one thing that the province um often fails to understand and and we haven't reported it previously but we now we do is all the commitments against the reserves and that's why the report now shows all the commitments going forward puts us in a deficit of 900 million. >> Thank you. It's appreciated. And finally section 37 monies is that included in this report or is that separate? Yes, it's included in the C in the uh CBC report. So, you'll see all of the CBC projects as well as the section 37 um funds as well. >> And can staff just clarify that section 37 monies that aren't paid out right away because a development is delayed for some reason is indexed with inflation. So that if projects have been identified for how those section $37 will be used and given there's construction inflation and other inflationary pressures that the section 37 commitment is indexed until it is spent. >> Yes. So the section 37 commitment is indexed from the date the agreement is executed. The section 37 agreement until the date it's paid. And then if once we have those funds, there's interest that's accured until the construction project moves forward. >> Thank you, Councelor Brockton. Councelor Kits. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, this is actually one of my favorite reports of the year because I find it very telling. Um, but I'm I'm troubled by what's in this report. So, in 2024, the report warned um that DC deferrals and exemptions could create long-term sustainability challenges. And then this report um says that DC receipts have declined by 46% equivalent to about 6 million less per month due to proincially mandated interest free deferrals and expanded exemptions. I have that correct? Yeah. Okay. And so, um, in 2024, there was 2.9 million in discretionary exemption reimbursements, rising to 5.2 million, uh, in 2025. And I want to read a part of the report that I think we should all be deeply concerned about. All these measures negatively impact collections, cash flow, and annual interest revenue needed to fund growth related infrastructure. I'm bolding and exclamation pointing that any funding gap must be offset by the city. Given the constraints that exist on own source funding, the resulting reduction in growth related revenue may include an increased use of debt or project delays and deferrals. So I am actually in favor of us using debt for uh growth related infrastructure. I have I have a motion asking us to look at that. But project delays and deferrals I think is absolutely unacceptable. And the final sentence I want to read is the inevitable outcome is reduced service levels for new and existing development and increased upward pressure on taxes and user rates. So we should all be really concerned about I know there's a lot of uh enthusiasm for uh development charge reductions. I have never been in that camp. I think we are already in a deep infrastructure hole when it comes to supporting growth. So, I think this report is a big red flag and we should all be paying a lot of attention to it. Thank you. >> Well said, Councelor Kits. Thank you, uh, Councelor Johnson. >> Thank you. Yes. So, you know, given that we just had a split vote on adding an additional piece to the urban boundary, um, that was interesting to me in the context of this report. We're talking about how as uh counselor kits. So, oh, am I freezing? Am I freezing? I'm actually in the Ben Franklin office. Like, I'm in a city office, you know, but I my connection is always wonky. Anyhow, so yeah, in the context of that, I think we should be very cautious about doing anyone any favors to expand further when we are already meeting our land targets. Um, similarly to Kits's um, statements, I guess I have some questions. So, you know, firstly, I I I have to say I was a little alarmed by the answer when when councelor Curry asked about, you know, whether we're pursuing the provincial funding. Um I'd like to understand in the absence of the you know provincial commitments to make us whole on DC's if that program is not appropriate what are the city's next best tools to be able to um correct for some of the vulnerabilities that we're seeing in this. >> So uh the what the province is u suggesting is to reduce DCS. does not bring in any additional revenues to the city. It just helps to reduce development charges. Uh but there could be a cost to the city to do that and that's what we're why we're being very careful. So in the absence of that program not being appropriate for the city of that time at this time, what are the city's next best tools to be able to offset some of the vulnerabilities in this report? So right now the vulnerability is in terms of deferred um DCS. We're not giving up DCs. We're just pushing them out 18 months. So in 18 months on average that's when occupancy happens. Uh we would see those revenues start to flow in. So we're just essentially pushing those revenues out. We are losing on interest u on collections on revenues. And I'd just also add that um the upload that we are pursuing has a significant impact. It is two-thirds funded by DCS >> and um so looking at some of the the notes in here from what I understand our existing DCs are already committed to projects and additional growth would have to find additional financial support. Is that what this paper is describing? Yes. So if there was additional growth uh and approval of additional growth projects, those would um then be included in the next DC background study and then we would collect DCs off of that going forward. Okay. So, this report explicitly warns about project delays, possible increased borrowing, upward tax pressure, and reduced service levels as a way of justifying uh some of the vulnerabilities that we're seeing in the way the province has created exemptions on DCs. Our existing coffers are already allocated to projects that exist. And in my ward, you know, some of those park projects, like we have some condo complexes that collected for parks um those condos have gone bankrupt and the park is now so expensive that what was collected at the beginning um can't cover the cost of the park. So, you know, again, these are one of the the sort of the intersection of um the current housing market, how the city is able to, you know, provide those infrastructure services for those housing starts. I there's a deep disconnect between what the housing starts are allowing for and how we're paying to service them. So, I share uh my council colleagues alarm and um you know, I think we need to be thinking very carefully about what growth looks like. I'm ready to do my part in the outer urban ward to advance housing starts. Um, not all my residents feel the same way, but financially it's the right thing to do. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Kavanaaugh. >> Yeah, thank you. And, uh, no, I agree with my colleagues, uh, Councelor Kits. Um, I I get worried about the the, um, the promise of no development charges. um we've been portrayed as the bad guys that we're the ones that are costing new development and uh that's what we hear but if we don't do it we're you know we're going to be treading water and I'm I'm very worried about that. I'm glad to hear from councelor Brochington that is uh on this and I'm sure that I'm going to hear from uh councelor attorney that FCM should be on this as well. Um it it's a positive thing if they take it on because having uh property tax taking on uh any kind of growth is problematic. It's not fair and um to have it more influx from the uh federal government and the province is a good thing since that is more equitable. But we haven't seen it. All we're being told is that we're the bad guys because we charge development charges and that makes housing prices because it's easy to see that. So, I I say we push back and um and I'm glad we have representatives who are going to push back because other municipalities are are feeling the same way. So, um it's it's you know, we're we're we're sucking it in right now, but um we can't do it forever. And um we want those things that are nice to have in neighborhoods, including uh the very basics, but um growth should pay for growth. and we but if it doesn't come from our coffers, it should come from the province and the federal government. So there's no real question here. I just have to let you know that that's that's how I feel and I think a lot of my colleagues do too. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Kavanagh. Council Tierney. >> Great. Thank you, Chair. And uh you would be quite correct. Uh in two weeks uh we'll be meeting 3,3500 elected officials from municipalities from coast to coast to coast. I've already prepared my speaking notes and as uh my term begins as president of FCM uh that is actually in the top three. It's uh infrastructure is definitely there as one of the big big ticket items. We as municipalities can't afford to take on this debt load. So as we prepare for things and I've heard it time and again it's you know FCM brought us the gas tax back in the day. Something that was guaranteed. We saw it as a line item. We know what it was. know gas is a bad word. Of course, another government change at the Canadian Building Fund and then the Canada Builds Fund. Well, now you're just really changing names, but we don't see more money coming to solve a lot of the issues we're seeing in municipalities. So, you're going to hear a very heavy lobby effort uh coming from the entire country that trickles down to provinces to make sure we're made whole. Um that is one of the largest issues. It's great if they want to give us money. I'm very happy that I'll call it the the new uh Carne government versus the Trudeau government uh when they proposed something in the way of DC's for housing, but it's still not all there. It's it's a marked improvement, but it's they haven't checked all the boxes and answered all the questions and uh we feel we could do better with the money coming directly to us. chop out the province, make it a direct transfer payment like we did with the gas tax. Uh these are things that uh we'll continue to push for and I'm sure you would like it too because of course you want to you want to have a line item. You want to know the consistency right now. You're really reading a crystal ball. So it was more of a rant, Mr. Chair, but I think uh it kind of sums up where the country is right now. Thank you. >> No, thank you very much, Councelor Tyrion. That's well said and we appreciate both your and councelor Brockington's efforts on those respective um uh associations. I do have one question. Let me pull it up. Uh so just to understand again um uh in specific terms, I'm sorry, I'm trying to remember which slide this is on. Slide four. There was a uh bullet that in 2020 uh five the imposition of statutory exemptions alone transferred an estimated 47.2 2 million in costs required for funding of growth related infrastructure to the city. The city does not reimburse reserves created by statutory exemptions. So where is that $47.2 million in 2025 coming from? >> So th that is a direct impact um and having to defer um projects um it takes longer to collect the money was uh if we're not making those whole. Yeah, >> it may not be uh entirely fair, but can you give me some color as to uh which projects may have been deferred as a result of that very significant exemption? >> It no it it's just part of the annual budgeting process understanding what we have available and what can move forward. >> It's a it's a large amount of money $47.2 million. It's wild. I think if the federal and the provincial governments are so keen for the property tax payers to pay for the cost of infrastructure, uh they they need to make that clear. Uh if they want us to make that change, if they want us to put the cost of growth on taxpayers, uh we need we we cannot afford to do it. We need to be made whole. and we need to be made whole in a way that is um not one-off projects, not one-off announcements, uh but that is uh in a in a guaranteed and long-term fashion. So um you know, this is obviously a concerning reports and we appreciate you're putting it together. I don't think I'm going back. I don't see any further hands up. Um colleagues, is this report received? Thank you very much. We'll move through. So I think that that brings us to item 8.1. Councelor Troster's motion with respect to the installation of a projected sign on Beach Street. >> Thank you. This is thrilling stuff. Just to be clear, this is something that will eventually be regularized. They're just asking to do this a little bit earlier. Whereas Almanac Green is proposing to install a projecting sign at Beach Street to promote their new location. Whereas Almanac Green is a local and community focused small bit business providing economic and social benefits to the community related to food insecurity. And whereas the proposed signage does not comply with the permanent signs on private property bylaw. And whereas once the new zoning bylaw comes into effect, the sign would be permitted by the sign's bylaw. And whereas the sign is projecting less than 300 millimeters wow into the rightway. And whereas Elma grain will be required to obtain a permanent be responsible for the associated fees. And whereas the approval timeline for assigned variance would be the same timeline for the adoption of the new zoning bylaw negating the need for a variance. Therefore, be it resolved that planning and housing committee recommend council approve exemptions of the permanent signs on private property bylaw as amended for 50 beach street to allow the installation of a projecting sign in an R4 zone uh for commercial use while the bylaw limits this type of sign in residential zones and to allow internal illumination for the projecting sign while the bylaw limits illumination in residential zones. Thank you. Great motion. Thank you. Does anyone >> Does anyone have any questions? Is that item carried? >> Mr. Chair. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Council Johnson. Please go ahead. >> I just wanted to, you know, point out that last PHC we dealt with a sign that was three stories high and today we're dealing with a story that is uh, you know, um, a sign that is 300 millimeters. So, uh, over the bylaw. So, you know, just it's an interesting committee. That's all. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Councelor Johnson. Um, so is that uncarried? Yes. >> Carried. >> Thank you. Um, are there any notices of motion? I hadn't been apprised of any. Nope. Are there any inquiries? Nope. We don't have any other business. We are adjourned until our next meeting, June 3rd, 2026. Thank you very much colleagues.