Transcript: Council Rejects Appointed Regional Chair - Council Meeting - April 27, 2026 | Summary 662

We'll begin in 1 minute. Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order uh council meeting of April 27th, 2026. Everyone that can please rise for the playing of the national anthem. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Yeah. Heat. Ginsby is situated on treaty land. This land is steeped in the rich history of the first nations such as the Hadawender, the Hodnosoni and the Inisha Nave including the Missagas of the Credit First Nation. There are many First Nation, Matei, and Inuit people from across Turtle Island that live and work in Niagara today. The regional municipality of Niagara and the town of Ginsby stand with all indigenous people, past and present, in promoting the wise stewardship of the lands on which we live. Are there any disclosures of peculiary or nonpunary interest? Seeing none, the clerk has advised we have received two delegation requests that have requested to be added to the agenda which relate to the planning and development committee meeting. Before we vote on whether to wave the procedural bylaw to permit them to speak, I was stepping down as chair to put forward a motion to defer. Council Brady, come to the podium, please. Okay, Mayor Jordan has stepped down as chair of the meeting to uh to move a motion. So, Mayor Jordan, can you please read your motion? Sorry, I'm just going to ask for a procedure um because I don't believe that we're even allowed to do this at the beginning of the meeting. I had asked to lift it yesterday and I had a motion prepared and so I'm following the procedural guidelines that we have. If you could please clarify through the chair. Uh so section 10.3 motion to defer. A motion to defer shall be put to vote immediately without prior debate. The member presenting a motion to defer shall be done immediately once given the floor without speaking to the main motion first. uh shall postpone all discussion on the matter until a future date or time shall be established as part of the motion. Those are the relevant sections in the procedural bylaw. The chair except sorry except this should be under the lifted agenda item. So not at the beginning of the meeting because this is not uh we haven't even started the meeting. Mayor's Jordan's motion becomes before uh procedurally before your request to lift. So Mayor Jordan, can you please read your motion? Thank you. Resolve that the planning and development committee minutes and bylaws 2627 and 2628 to be ferred to the May 6th planning and development committee meeting to allow for public consultation and a clarification of the NEC comments. So, Mayor Jordan has moved that motion to defer. Is there a second forer the motion? See, councelor flag, councelor, how um so the only thing I'd say is if there's any additional reasons that we would be deferring it now that I think that council would like to have those in so okay discussion on that you can say that yeah okay not discussion but just so if there are any additional comments to add into the motion now would be the time to say them so on the table councelor flav through you, chair. Um, so is this additional questions that we'd like answered? I'm just I wanted through through the chair. This is a deferral motion, so there's no debate, but if it is deferred, staff need to know what to respond to. So, currently, as it's written, it was just the public consultation and clarifying any C comments. If you have additional information, if the deferral is approved, now would be the time to say that you would like staff to report back on those things. It's not for debate. No, that's what I mean. Okay. So, uh I I is it I could put them in writing if if it's better, but uh the the cash and loop policy. I would like uh a detailed report on the cash and loop policy in for parking. um the the parking framework downtown as a whole. Um and uh sorry I had these written down. I apologize. I didn't realize we were going to discuss them this early. Um and uh the NEC comments already mentioned so that that's good for me. Thank you, Councelor Vardy. Uh thank you. I understand we have people that want to delegate uh on this and should we not vote on that before we look at any kind of deferral motion? So the deferral motion has come before the request. So if you wish to hear the delegations tonight, you'd have to vote no for the deferral and then to vote to suspend the bylaw to allow the delegates to speak. Okay. Councelor Sherwell. Uh thank you through chair. Um so I like I said I had brought forward a motion um because this had gone through the planning and we had three members of council um councelor Bradzy, Mayor Jordan, councelor Freak who were on that committee and it it came to council now. So there was no objection there. So, I I had a motion prepared that's a little strong um stronger as far as what I'm looking for um the information that we have uh asking for staff um to bring forward more information directly to us. So, could I read the motion and then you could we could potentially add it into the motion? You can request an amendment to Mayor Jordan's motion at the time. That would be great. So, I don't know if if it's it's my whole motion that you'd like to amend. Um, but I'd be happy to read it if if I am allowed to. Okay. Where's report PA 3612, official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment at 13 Mountain Street and 19 and 23 Elm Street recommendation report is before council for consideration. And whereas the revised proposal currently before council is materially different um from that presented at the September 2025 statutory public meeting. And whereas the revision raises matters requiring further clarification including adequacy of proposed parking financial details for cash and loo parking spaces and public facing benefits. And whereas comments on the revised application from the Niger Escarment Commission have not been circulated to the public or council. And whereas good planning practice supports ensuring that council and the public have a full and transparent understanding of the proposal before a final decision is made. Now therefore, be it resolved that consideration of report PA2612 be deferred to a future meeting of council and that a peer review of the applicant's transportation studies be commissioned by the town and that updated correspondence from the Niagara regional or Niagara Escarment Commission on the current revision be provided directly to council and that staff report back to council with an updated recommendation report that addresses information and input gathered from this consultation and review period. So, like I said, it's just a little bit um more clarity and directly um to council. Mayor Jordan, do you want to consider that as a friendly amendment? Well, through you chair, uh the problem is now the direction is going to a future council meeting. So, how do we um do both? So, Okay. So, we'll we'll vote on the motion as is. So, her amendment goes first. So, she can have a second. We can vote on hermen. Okay. Do you have a second for your amendment? I do. Councelor uh DeFabio. Um to to clarify if we just take the parts staff have asked for us to give feedback. So, if there are things that that you think I I want to defer all, but I think going to planning is more appropriate, it'll eventually come back to to council. Um, so if you want to take out the the parts of that that are missing from what we've already highlighted, I I would prefer to do it that way and and have staff report back to the planning committee and and go through the appropriate channels. I like the the committee system and I want to make sure that we're using it properly and giving those committee members an opportunity to have their voice too. Sorry, just for clarification, councelor uh DeFlavio. So, you're just asking these items are okay, but you just wanted to go to planning because I'm I'm fine with that if that's the case. Through you, chair. Um yeah, I'm okay with it going back to uh planning. Uh the it's the more clarification on this and the more uh the more um we can have everything uh spelled out. I I felt it was um rushed cuz I felt found a lot more information out between Wednesday's planning and today. So I think it'll be better. through the chair. There's just one line in here um that I'm concerned with about the applicant transportation studies to be commissioned by the town. I was just hoping we could get the director to weigh in on that because that would further delay this uh which I don't believe is the intention. So perhaps it could just be considered by as opposed to actually commission it or provide comments on it just to make it Yeah, I'm I'm fine with that as well. Thank you. Okay, staff are just going to add the amendments to the screen. Just bear with us for a minute. Councelor Frank. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little confused about this about what councelor Shaw wants and in comparison to what the mayor is looking for. Can we just clarify this because I think there's a little bit of confusion out there. I don't think I'm the only one. So through the chair just be behalf on behalf of the chair uh while we get it on the screen. Uh the deferral motion that's in front of council is that it that the planning and development minutes of April 22nd be deferred to the May 6 planning and development committee for additional public consultation. Uh clarification on the NEC comments cash in lie of parking. uh explanation of the parking framework and uh consideration or additional information about transportation studies. That's what I've got. Sorry, can I follow up? Yes, councelor Frank. So, what if this never gets a chance to go back to planning or another meeting and it just goes straight to OOLT? What happens then? A deferral motion. I agree with your question, counselor, but we're getting outside the scope of a deferral motion. So, I think we need to to first vote on this deferral. Good to call the question on Eastcribe. So, we're going to call the question on Eastcribe. She thinks something's missing. Can make it. Yeah. Councelor Devoy. Thank you. I just want clarification. Um, we've typed up in the amendment a parking framework, but councelor Charwa had actually asked for a peer review. So, I just want to be clear, we know what we're getting back. Are we just getting back comments from staff on parking or are we contemplating a third-party peer review on parking through through the chair? Uh there was two separate comments. One was additional information about parking framework from councelor DeFlavio and I believe we agreed on a friendly amendment for staff to provide comments on future transportation studies associated with it, not actually commissioning it. Councelor Frank, which what is your vote? Yes to the deferral. And the motion is carried. So the minutes will be deferred. Can you just say that the delegations will be there? And the delegations will be deferred there as well. So Mayor Jordan, and I'll hand you back to chair. Have fun with the hot seat. All right, I need a mover and seconder to approve the agenda as amended. Moved by councelor How, second by councelor DeFlavio. Resolved that the agenda for April 27th, 2026 council meeting be approved as amended. All in favor? That's carried. Before we start the delegations, I want to remind all speakers that speaking times have been limited to five minutes due to the length of the agenda. We will hold all questions for the consultant until the discussion report is on the floor. Stefan from Hempson will now speak to the building fee review. Uh, please go ahead Stefan. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, my name is Stephan Cedronovich. I'm a partner in Hempson Consulting in Toronto and uh we've been retained uh by the town to uh undertake uh a review of your building permit fees and your development application fees. And uh tonight's presentation is um ready to summarize the results of the first study, the building u permit fee study. Uh the presentation I'm making this evening is very similar to one I made at a public meeting that was held under section 7 of the building code act um a couple of weeks ago. uh and that's required prior to town council uh making any changes to these fees um moving forward. Uh so just to be clear what we're talking about here, these fees are charged to recover the costs of reviewing construction drawings and conducting building inspections during building construction in the town. And these are services that the town is responsible for as the administrator of the building code. Uh next slide, please. Uh so I'm I'm hoping to take sort of between 10 and 12 minutes and I'm just going to summarize the analysis of the costs uh to provide this service um and the fee revenues uh that you collect associated with this service. Uh and then I'll show you the fees that you could uh impose uh to recover those costs and see how those fees compare to what you're currently charging and what other municipalities in the surrounding area charge. Um and um obviously I'll finish up with a period uh for answering questions. Um we issued a report uh on the matter uh last month in March. Uh and that report is available on on the website. Next slide please. Um so you know uh as I alluded to these fees are uh imposed to pay for a very specific service. Um, and that service is set out quite clearly under the building code act. And you can see on the left there the language that's used to describe what you can charge these fees for. So essentially plans, review, inspections, and enforcement um, uh, activities associated with that process. Um, there's a public process for char changing the fees and that's the public meeting and there's not notice requirements that have been met uh, and reporting requirements that that have also been met. Uh there's no right of appeal of these fees to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Uh and that's quite distinct from the second study that we're going to be undertaking on the development application fees where there is a right of appeal. So uh slightly different in that respect. And then on the right there, there's a regulation that that governs how these fees are reported on. Um, and you have to report annually on the direct costs uh that are incurred, the indirect costs that are incurred, and then the balance of any building permit fee reserve fund that you have on hand. And I'll I'll deal with all of those costs uh in the coming slides. Uh, next slide, please. Um, so this is an $865,000 operation. Um uh and it it it involves about full uh five full-time staff, all of whom are in the building division uh at the town. Um we've set the fees to recover these costs over the next 5 years uh on the assumption that you wouldn't want to do a study like this on an annual basis. Um and so we've looked at um what you might need over the next 5 years to deal with the flow of applications that might be coming. Recognizing there's quite significant growth being planned for in the town, uh we've made provision for um the cost to uh hire a new permit coordinator in 2030. So at the end of the 5-year period. Um but if you look at the pie chart on the left there, you can see the vast majority of the costs are associated with the salaries of the staff who are involved in the process. Uh in the gold portion of the pie, you can see that there's some other direct operating costs mainly associated with the vehicles um that are used to do the inspections. In the gray there, you have the costs of the more corporate departments of the town which support the direct service providers. Uh and that includes um a you know not inconsequential cost associated with the cloud permitting software. Uh and then in the black portion of the pie, you can see that there's a provision being made um so that a portion of each fee that's paid is set aside and deposited into the reserve fund. Uh next slide. Uh thank you. Um so the first row of figures here shows you the revenue that you've collected um uh from these fees over the last 5 years. And you can see that it it fluctuates uh quite considerably from one year to the next. Uh so in some years you collect more revenue than you need to fund the operations and then in other years you don't collect enough and and this is this is why you need a reserve fund because in those years where you don't collect enough you draw from the reserve fund to fund the operations and when you in the years where you sort of make collect a surplus I should say the surplus is is sequestered into the reserve fund but but you know in 2020 2025 it's 150% more revenue than than the average uh and whereas in 2021 it's 60% below the average. So it really does go up and down with the business cycles, the construction cycles you see here. And then moving forward under the current fee rates you can see that we've assumed revenues to be a little bit higher moving forward. Um this year obviously we're in a bit of a a slowdown. Uh but in keeping with um the town's infrastructure plans and official plan, we've ramped the revenue up uh fairly steadily over the next five years. Um uh reaching a point in 2030 where you you might be collecting around $800,000 per year. Uh next slide, please. Uh so as I mentioned at the beginning, it's an $865,000 uh operation. Um, and on average over the next 5 years under the current fee rates, we estimate you'd collect about $727,000. That's a difference of 138,000. And so town council has the authority to increase the fees by 19% to bridge the gap between the costs and the revenues. Um I should point out you're under no obligation to implement full cost recovery fees. Um but if you don't um then you will need to find another source of revenue to cover any shortfall and that will invariably be uh the property tax. Next slide please. Um we done a lot of work uh and you'll see this in our report on um how the fees stack up against what other municipalities charge. And this is just a list of the municipalities we looked at. Um just a couple of things about these um benchmarks. Uh first of all, these comparisons say nothing about the standard of service that's provided from one municipality to a next. So some municipalities may have higher fees, but they may also be providing a higher standard of service. Um and as well um this is never going to give you an indication of whether municipalities are actually charging full cost recovery. So there may be fees that are lower in some municipalities and that's because they are in fact um subsidizing the process through the through the tax levy. Uh next slide please. So uh there's quite a lot of figures here and I'm only going to highlight a couple of them. Um but before I I sort of take you to some of the figures, I just wanted to point out a couple of things. First of all, um these fees have not been indexed um for the last two years. Um so assuming at least two and a half 3% um inflation per year what that means is that about 5% of the 19% increase that can be justified is addressing those inflationary increases that you've not addressed through indexing. So the effective increase in the fees is probably more like 13 14%. Um so if we look here and we move from columns from the left to the right, these are the different types of buildings um building classifications under the building code and these are the fees per square foot that are charged. Uh and the first column of figures there, those are the current fees per square foot that that are in place. And then the column to the right of that would be the 19% higher fees, the full cost recovery fees. Uh and then we have the median of the benchmarks of all the municipalities I showed you on the last slide. And then the minimum fee in the benchmark range and then finally the maximum fee that's imposed in the benchmark range. So the current fees, if you look at the current fees, you can see that they're either the lowest in the case of uh assembly or institutional buildings or they're very near the lowest um or at or below the median fee uh across the board. Um and you'll see in the case of the residential, which I I've put in bold there, uh that is very near the lowest fee. Uh the reason why I've bolded that one is because by far the most revenue is is raised from those fees, those two residential fees. Um and then when you look at the full cost recovery fees, they are very close to the median fees in almost all cases. Um the exceptions would be the office, commercial, industrial, and residential alterations and renovations fees. They're a little bit higher uh than the median uh but well within sort of the benchmark range and nowhere near the maximum fees. Um so just just one final thing before I I go to the next um slide. Um one of the things that came up with the public meeting was sort of what this means for a typical home. So, I I just wanted to add to my presentation that for a sort of a $2,000 um 2,000 square foot single detached house, um a 19% increase in the fees represents around about 560 additional dollars in building permit fees that would be paid. Uh next slide, please. I just wanted to finish up, Mr. Mayor, by uh speaking a little bit about the reserve fund. I spoke about its purpose. Um, right now, as of year end 2025, it's in a surplus position of around $1.5 million. Uh, but almost a third of that has been committed through the 2026 budget um to cover operations this year. Um, and it's estimated that revenues will be insufficient to cover operations and so a draw down of around $472,000 is required. So we've, you know, in order to get to at the end of the five years a reserve fund target of about 1.5 times the operating costs, which is a fairly standard benchmark um in the municipal world, uh that will require an annual transfer to the reserve fund of $62,500. And so that's equivalent to that 7% or the the black portion of the pie chart that I showed in the slide earlier. Uh next slide please. So our report includes a number of recommendations. Uh the first would be to move to a full cost recovery regime and increase all the fees by 19%. Uh there are some fee structure modifications that are recommended but they're fairly minor. Um and there are one or there I should say one or two four or five new fees that we're recommending introducing mainly rel related to the enforcement side of things. These are very very small revenue generators so they're not hugely um consequential in that respect. Uh we recommend that uh the bylaw include an indexing uh provision moving forward. Um and then bullets four and five here on this slide um make recommendations about how indirect costs are allocated and reported on. Um and and these recommendations are really about improving the transparency of the indirect cost allocation and ensuring also that these fees only fund building code related costs. Uh and then finally the recommendation would be to continue monitoring the benchmarks of other municipalities and at the end of the five years undertake another fee review to make sure things remain aligned moving forward. So thank you Mr. Mayor and obviously happy to answer questions uh you or members of council may have. All right. Thank you very much for your presentation. Question. Yeah, we can do questions now. Yeah. Well, uh councelor um Dvoli to start. Thank you, mayor. Um, a few questions. Um, and it may be to our um, our consultants, but I I'm also going to ask our finance director to chime in. Um, so we're talking about um, a benchmark of one and a half times operating cost. Could you just remind me again of what the operating cost total is that you're talking about in the report? Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor. So it's going to be uh if you remember the pie chart that we have uh it will include the cost of the salaries the cost of the other direct costs the maintaining the vehicles keeping the lights on in the building and then the indirect costs which are around 18% of the total costs. So the total costs are the total yeah so um I I want to say 865,000 but that should be less the reserve fund component. So that is that reserve fund component is 62,500. So it's it's just over $800,000. Yeah, that was my first question. Thank you. Um my second question and and you may not have the latest numbers. Uh tonight our finance committee will be reporting and the year- end surplus or deficit and our reserve is estimated to end the year at 1.9 million and I realize you're talking about 1.5. Um so we have a little bit more upto-date information than you currently had when you were doing the work for us. Um, and I realize this is something you probably weren't aware of, but now that you are, tell me what impact that would have on your forecasting. Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor. So, it's it's and I'm not I don't want to evade the question, but it's a it's not a there's not a straightforward answer here. So the estimate is from year end 2025 and all of our calculations are based upon revenue projections and costs starting in January 1st 2026. So um uh if the projection of 1.9 million at the end of this year 25 oh was it the end of 25? Oh my my apologies. Okay. Well, then in that case then assuming all other things being equal, uh that would probably reduce the requirement to uh pay into the reserve fund uh and might well reduce the fees that I've I've shown you. Yeah. I I'm not sure how much though have to do some work to get that right. Yeah. I I realize you wouldn't have had I'll call it late breaking news that we have. So, um, prior, of course, there is a surplus this year, which is also what's bringing it back up to the 1.9 million. Uh, really, we're kind of, I'm going to say ending the year in a break even. Where we were at the beginning of 25 and where we ended or at the end of 25 is very very close to 1.9 million. So I re I realize you you without knowing that you would have assumed 1.5 because we have a surplus for the councor devol I think you're getting a little bit off topic because you're going down the finance row. Um so and we have a big agenda tonight. So um we need to just be succinct with our questions and answers. Well the reason I'm asking this is because that makes a difference as to how much we transfer into reserves going forward. um which is part of the analysis obviously. Thank Councelor Vardy. I um I'd like to amend the recommendations but I don't know if I'm too early for that or this is the um not the time to do that. You got to do that during the staff report. This is just questions for the consultant right now. Thank you councelor uh DeFlavia. Thank you mayor through you. Uh so trying to understand uh we haven't had an increase in so the 5% that you were talking about was because there hadn't been an increase in how long? Uh through you Mr. Mayor. So you haven't you did not index your fees for the last uh uh for the year 2025 or for this year. Thank you through you mayor. So the 19% increase uh and I'm sorry if I missed it in your presentation, is it immediate or is it phased in? Uh so it would be an immediate increase? Uh yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor, and and this is why why I was sort of just struggling with the council's question here because uh that that assumes an immediate implementation of the 19% as of January the 1st, 2026. Uh so again we're now at the end of April now. So already we are you know in in the context of our analysis we're a little bit behind um not counting the the adjustment of the reserve fund. So so there are a few moving parts there but no the 19% assumes a full implementation to full cost recovery immediately and we missed the indexing for the last year and change. Uh this takes into consideration indexing for the future uh up till was it 3030 is that the the end date of yeah through you Mr. Mayor. So one of the recommendations is that you continue to index on an annual basis from now until 2030. Okay. Uh one more mayor. Um so if there's a because we're trying to find that sweet spot between you know uh building the reserves and maintaining that reserve and that's something we've done over a long period of time because there are downturns which your chart clearly shows there are years that are lean. Um what happens if down in a downturn if permit volumes dr uh drop significantly with this model? Um, and how long can the reserve sustain the operations under those low growth conditions? Because I'm concerned about the market and you know where it's going there. It could be all rosy, but it could also be you know continue along the same path or or you know right now we I I'm assuming based on this year's numbers that some of those numbers are the purpose-built rentals for example that we've seen being built. there's not a lot of new construction that isn't that is you know uh traditional for lack of a better way of putting it. So I I want to make sure that we're building in those lean years and so how long what happens if a down in a downturn if permit volumes drop significantly and how long can the reserve sustain the operation I guess if if you can answer if if that's too much to ask then I apologize but if you can kind of spitball it that would be a great start. Um, thank you. So, through you, Mr. Mayor, and it will be a spitball because the answer to the question depends on how low the downturn's going to be and and particularly how sustained it is. Um so um the idea behind the 1.5 um times operating costs is that that would allow you to tide yourself through perhaps two consecutive years of very low permit volume. Um after that if it was to continue after that I would say you might may want to do one of two things. either open up the study again and and look at um a fee adjustment or you know if this is going if this is just the new reality in Grimby maybe you need to rethink about how you provide the service and and and you know I mean it it raises bigger questions than just the ups and downs that I've been talking about. So through you, mayor. So you're implying then that if that downturn occurred for more than a couple years, might have to reevaluate staffing. We might have to reevaluate other things that that are related to this these costs to adjust what what we're actually charging for. And and uh Mayor, you know, you've said it many times and we've talked about it lots of times that growth should pay for growth. And I I'm comfortable with this being that. Uh, at the same time, you know, we don't want to price people out of the market. So, I think that you found a really good sweet spot when you showed your charts with the competitors. I think you did an excellent job of showing how you landed in the area that you landed in. So, I thank you for that and for your justification. Uh, seeing no other questions, um, where are we? Can I have a mover and second to receive the delegation? Moved by councelor Vardy, second by councelor DeFlavio. Resolve that the delegation from Hempson be received. All in favor. That's carried. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Up next, we have Mike Collins Williams from the West End Homebuilders Association. Uh Mike, come on up to the podium and uh go ahead. Good evening and uh thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mike Collins Williams uh CEO of the West End Homebuilders Association. We represent over 300 member companies involved in residential construction, renovation, and development across the Hamilton uh CMA and we work in collaboration with our friends and colleagues at the Niagara Homebuilders Association. I'm here today representing our members concerns that increasing fees while we're in the midst of the sharpest downturn in a generation, some would say this is even worse than the 1990s. This increase unfortunately creates the conditions to make it even more difficult to recover. We understand that the town's need to fund services appropriately, but we have serious questions about the proposed 19% increase in building permit fees. It's critical to be clear about who this really impacts. Our industry is coming to has come to a grinding halt. New housing applications have dropped dramatically. And yet, despite the economic conditions and the massive reduction of new housing applications, the town's proposed a 19% increase in building permit fees. I want to ground this discussion on who the town is actually collecting fees from. by and large because there's a common assumption that building permit fees primarily attack affect builders and large developers. But the data contained in the staff report is pointing to something else. New home applications have fallen off a cliff. In fact, in 2024, there were only 19 uh new residential applications submitted. So, if new home construction has slowed to this extent, then who's applying for the permits? It's not large-scale development. It's everyday residents. It's the homeowner who wants to build a porch, the family putting in a deck, and somebody trying to add a pool or renovate part of their home. So, when we talk about a 19% increase in fees, we need to be very clear. This is increase is falling overwhelmingly on regular taxpayers, not developers. But let me bring it back to our members. As mentioned, the construction industry is under significant pressure. We're dealing with tariffs, elevated material and labor cost, development charges, and a steady rise in municipal fees. The cumulative impact of this has made conditions nearly impossible. We are seeing projects being cancelled, units sitting unsold, and we're seeing massive job losses across the sector. The Altus Group has forecasted up to 100,000 job losses in our sector across the GTA and Hamilton census metropolitan areas over the next 5 years if current trends are not reversed. There's also a fundamental question of logic here and we think that deserves attention. If new residential activities decrease significantly, how is it that the cost to administer and enforce building permits has increased to the point where a 19% hike is being proposed? That disconnect is difficult to reconcile. It raises questions about whether the current cost assumptions truly reflect today's level of activity and whether staffing and operational models have been adequately adjusted to match that reality. And let's be real here, inspecting and reviewing applications for a deck or a small renovation is a lot less complicated than a condo tower. So, not only is your volume gone down, your complexity likely has as well. The final point I want to leave you with tonight is about the reserve fund. The report notes that approximately 7% of the building permit fee structure is intended to go to contributions to the building permit reserve fund. It also confirmed the town had already had a reserve fund of a balance of 1.5 million, which was in my notes, although we've just heard that the town has 1.9 million in reserves. I think it's worth pausing on that. We're currently in one of the most challenging periods the residential construction industry has faced in decades. And yet, at this exact moment, the proposal is not only to increase fees, but to do so in part to add more money to an already substantial reserve fund. one we just heard a few moments ago has $400,000 more than in the consultant report. That approach is impossible to justify because a reserve fund exists exactly to manage this kind of volatility. It exists to help municipalities navigate downturns without shifting the financial burden onto residents. So we strongly urge council to consider using the reserve to stabilize operations during the current downturn, not as a permanent solution, but as a measured and responsible response to current conditions. The reserve fund should be viewed as a first option, not the last. In closing, I'm respectfully asking council to reconsider the timing and necessity of this fee increase. WHBA proposes council consider deferring this decision until after the election into the fall uh to give time for the industry to recover, find deficiencies, and ensure that it's not just residents trying to make improvements that are going to pay this bill. I'll note that Thorald recently did just that, pausing and deferring the decision until November. And my colleague Chuck McShane will certainly speak more to that. During our proposed deferral period, the town can utilize the existing refer uh reserve fund to manage any volatility. There's if there's no scenario in which you'll consider a deferral, then at the very least, I'd respectfully ask you to drop the 7% contribution to the reserve fund. Please don't be putting a massive increase forward in which a significant portion of that is to pad the existing reserve fund that we just heard is higher than what was previously thought. We remain committed to working collaboratively with the town to support housing supply, economic stability, and sustainable growth in the community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration to potentially defer the increase into the fall. Thank you for your presentation, Mike. Councelor Dvoli, a question to our presenter. If we were to defer Would some of the building activity that is not occurring now, do you think some of these builders would start applying and building now? Would that make I guess my ultimate question is would it make a change in their future behavior? That would be the hope. Although any action made by the town of Grimby is not happening in isolation. Um we have come to a grinding halt. Although in the last 5 weeks there has been significant action from senior levels of government. Uh so our hope is that you know we're not going to get out of this without working together uh with the town of Grimby region of Niagara uh the provincial government and federal government. And I think all indications are from the federal and provincial government that they have all hands on deck. Um the the cuts to the HST are literally the most significant tax cuts um on the housing sector in a generation. Uh there's talk about um an $ 8.8 billion fund for municipalities to potentially be able to tap into to reduce development charges. So, I think we're seeing some strong signals from senior levels of government um to try to to bluntly to put shovels in the ground and save jobs and and we're asking the town not to literally increase fees a few weeks after the provincial and federal governments have made substantial moves and substantial investments to reduce the cost of housing. Follow up if I could. Um we were our consultant shared with us that we're talking about an increase of about $500 uh roughly. Um so even if we were to let's say phase this in, it would be an increase of $250 this year and then another $250 and change the next year. Um I guess I go back to my question like would it really change behavior? I'm thinking it's so small that it probably doesn't make much of a difference, but I'd like to hear your thoughts through the chair. I'm not going to pretend that $500 is going to make or break a consumer's decision on to whether to purchase a new home, but you have to consider the cumulative impacts and this is not being done in isolation. You have other fees and charges that you're looking at. The region has different fees and charges they're looking at. Um, and then you have the province and federal government on their side of the ledger trying to reduce fees. Um, I think it's challenging optically if you have other levels of government giving up tax room and then you're just immediately going in and filling that. So again, $500 is not going to make or break somebody's decision. But I do think that every dollar does count. And it isn't just $500 upfront. It's $500 that goes into somebody's mortgage advertised over 25 years. You know, that makes a slight difference on monthly payments. Councelor Shawa. Dear Mayor Jordan, thank you. Um, so I feel like we're at a breaking point a little bit. Um, I'd say this term of council has been very progressive and we've been very um friendly and helpful to our development community. Uh, we've just uh approved a uh hem consulting report for our community of 31,000 right now to grow to 51,000 um in the next 25 years. So, I would say um that's quite progressive. So we know that we're going to have more development here. Um we've, you know, welcomed developers here. So we're going to see more and more. So when we are not um in line with our building fees, there's going to be a progressive gap that will happen over the next 25 years, especially if we are building at the rate that we have accommodated. Um so and you know I I do sympathize with with the costs that the developers have have had recently. However um we are all aware that the province and the federal government has assisted and has dropped development charges by 50% which is a significant shortfall now for our municipalities. So not only um you know the the development charges are massive and these used to you know help growth pay for growth now that is being shouldered on the existing taxpayer um at a much higher rate than these building fees. So um there has to be a point where we can't just give it all away because we don't have all of it to give. So even when we're talking about our reserve fund, these these come from taxpayers. This isn't just some miraculous amount that we've just accumulated. This is our money and we should not have to constantly shoulder the burden of um the infrastructure for the new development. There there's a breaking point for the residents. So I am not in support of any type of reduction. I I fully um support this and uh honestly if if we could go higher um I would probably say go higher. So um thank you. I appreciate you for coming but again I I think there's a breaking point through the chair. Can I make a point of clarity? Uh the reserve fund that exists is 100% funded through previously collected building permit fees. So there is no impact whatsoever on the tax base. This is 100% funded through building permit fees and you now have a reserve accumulated of 1.9 million. We are not asking you to reduce them. We're asking for help just to get through a slow period for council to come back and take a look at this again in the fall and hopefully we've stabilized as an industry and and can absorb some increases. But there is no impact on the tax base. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. Uh, seeing no further questions, uh, can I have a mover and second to receive the delegation? Moved by councelor DeFlavio, second by councelor Devoi. Resolve the delegation from Mike Collins Williams be received. All in favor. That's carried. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Have a good evening. Up next, um, Chuck McShane from Niagara Homebuilders Association will now speak. Come on up to the podium, Chuck, and go ahead. Thank you. not compare our notes so you might hear some duplication in what I am saying. Excuse me. Good evening. My name is Chuck McShane and I am proud to serve as the chief executive officer for the Niagara Homebuilders Association. I'd like to begin by thanking all of you, the town of Grimsby, for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. Our association represents over 170 member companies, builders, developers, professional consultants, and service providers who have been the voice of the home building industry and the new home purchaser for more than 70 years. We're also affiliated with both the Ontario Homebuilders Association and the Canadian Homebuilders Association. As you know, Niagara has been at the forefront of provincial discussions around governance and the need to find cost savings for residents and businesses. At the same time, the home building industry is experiencing one of its lowest points in decades. In Grimby, only 172 residential building permits have been issued since 2020. Five years, folks. An average of 29 units per year. Your background study projects a decline in revenues from 25 2025 to 2026 of approximately $200,000 with an average reduction of 130,000 per year over the proposed 5-year period. This aligns with what we are seeing across the industry. a significant drop in building activity. As a result, companies have had to make difficult adjustments to their workforce, overhead, and operating budgets. Many employees have been laid off and placed on reduced schedules or have lost their jobs entirely. This brings me to a key question. When the town's income and workloads are decreasing, why are fees increasing? instead of efficiencies being found just as every other business has been forced to do. Your own study indicates that future workloads will be reduced. If that is the case, why has the town not examined its overhead costs, staffing levels, and operational fish efficiencies before proposing fee increases at a time when the province is actively exploring governance change to reduce red tape and for cost efficiencies, an unjustified fee increase only strengthens the argument for intervention and forced change by the province. Both the provincial and federal governments are working hard to make housing more affordable and we appreciate their efforts. The question now is does the town of Grimby want to be part of the housing and overall affordability solution? Raising fees at a time when the industry, the residents and businesses are struggling and without clear justification sends the wrong message to not just the housing industry, but to the citizens and businesses of the town of Grimby who are already having to deal with an 11% property tax increase within the last two years. And now we'll have to deal with a 19% increase in permit fees if they want to build a fence, a porch, a deck, or even a pool. These are just a few items on the list of 80 permit fees that are charged in this town that are all going up. The rest range from anywhere from interior alterations, farm buildings, green houses, outdoor patios for restaurants, etc., etc. during already difficult financial times. With the aforementioned, I will close with a recommendation for your consideration and that the town of Grimby follow the example set by the city of Thorald and pause the proposed fee increase until November 2026, 6 months, giving the industry, residents, and businesses time to help regain stability. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you for your presentation, Chuck. Uh, questions from councel. Seeing none, uh, can I have a mover and seconder to receive the delegation? Moved by councelor How, second by councelor Vardy, resolve the delegation from Chuck Mshane be received. All in favor? Councelor Frank, do you have a comment? I'm voting. Well, I read the resolution. So, all in favor? That's carried. Thank you, Chuck. Uh, have a good evening. Thank you for having me tonight. All right. Can I have a mover and secondary to get the building permit fee review report on the floor for discussion? Moved by councelor How, second by councelor Devoi. Are there any questions from council for the consultant or staff? Councelor De Flavio. Thank you mayor. Uh both of the representatives of the homebuilders associations talked about uh the impact on typical residential permits. So I guess my question is related to um how it impacts the typical residential permit. What types of permits are are we talking about? I for example you know you know the idea the deck and pool examples were were used again and again. Um so can help staff help us understand what it looks like for a typical residential permit like a basement renovation or a deck. Um I think that would help us understand the real impact on residents and um could staff confirm whether the building for code uh reserve fund is restricted solely to building related revenues and expenses. So I think I know the answer to that already. It's it's only it can only be used for building department. Uh so we what we don't want is these fees going into another column obviously and and I know that that's not what happens but let's just make sure that everybody else knows that too. Um thank you councelor and through you Mr. Mayor. So just I just there's 80 fees in in the fee schedule for the building bylaw. So, I'll just kind of pick a few at random. Uh, so, um, an outdoor patio, the current fee is $281. It's a flat fee. Uh, so the new fee would be $334. So, an increase of 34 almost $50. Um, a um private outdoor pool enclosure permit, it's the same, $250, $52, uh, would increase to $300. So, uh, the example I'd given you earlier was, um, the fees for new construction for a new 2,000 foot home. Uh, things for decks and pools are are far less expensive, less costly um permits than than we're talking about for for a new home or indeed a new condo building. Um and the answer to the second question is that uh um no. Under the building code act, the fees uh are collected on the basis that they would be used um to uh administer and enforce the building code during building construction. So they they cannot be used to raise money for general revenue. Councelor Devoli. Mayor Jordan, if I could just ask our consultants. I'm sorry. as you're leaving to clarify something for me. So, you're right. There is a long list of these fees. Um and in your study or in your opinion um the fees that we currently have and the proposal to increase them would you say that by individual category that they are capturing the full cost uh through you Mr. Mayor. So um we have not not done a full cost recovery on the basis of each fee. However, we have reviewed the fee schedule uh with staff uh to make sure that the current relationship between the fees is still appropriate to the approximate work that's been undertaken. Where there are gaps, we've made specific recommendations to change those. Um but it is very difficult to uh identify the precise cost of a deck permit or maybe that that one might be a little bit more straightforward actually but there are a lot of these where it's difficult to to identify what the precise average cost would be. So sometimes we use the benchmarking to assist with that evaluation. Um but no uh it may well be that you know for individual fees uh an individual applicant may pay more or less than the actual cost uh is that that's required to do to process their application. In my view that that is not offsite with the building code act approach. The building code act is quite specific that you must you must set the fees so that the entire pool of revenue that recover you that you raise on any given year does not exceed the entire pool of costs that you incur. It does not require you to set the fees on the basis of each application. Um if I could just add a comment to that. So I come from an industry where we we track our time in six minute intervals 0.12.3 as does the legal industry for example and many others. Um so I think what I'm hearing from you is that we haven't actually taken any specific examples. We haven't our staff haven't track their time to know whether the individual components of this make sense on a full cost recovery basis. um we're we're dealing at a much higher level in terms of the entire costs of the department. I'm understanding it that way. Correct. Yes. Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Um staff do not track their time on individual applications uh like lawyers do or consultants. Um and uh the only thing I would add to that is that when we get to the development application fee review that's coming um the planning act requires that those fees be set on the basis of full cost recovery for each type of application. So we will be doing a time tracking exercise. It won't go down to the individual fee level, but it'll be a time tracking exercise, and that's why that study is a little bit more involved. Um, and as I say, there's a right of appeal for those fees. So, a better bigger incentive to get it right, put it that way, uh, than there is with this one. Yeah. Councelor Vardy. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, two questions. One, are our fees similar to other municipalities? Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. The scope of the fees um uh the basis on which they're charged, which would be a an area based rate for construction with a set of flat fees for, you know, things like decks and fairly standardized kinds of work. That's very common across the board. In fact, that is the sort of the the municipal benchmark standard approach. Um and um so there's nothing unusual about your bylaw that stands out. That would be my view. So for the the last two years, we've not included any inflationary increases. So what I mean, if I understand this correctly, this we're playing catchup. Is that correct? I mean, that's what this is to get us into where um where we would only ask for inflationary increases in the future presumably unless something dramatically changes. Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would say that a portion of what we are recommending is sort of quote unquote catchup. Yes. Councelor How? Um thank you and through you, Mayor. um and not so much for you sir. I wonder if I can make a suggestion as to u maybe we can go forward with this and if we look at the resolution uh number two let's just change it take the money take those charges divide in half spread it over two years so it's 9.5% first year 9.5% the second year of which 5% is anyways uh then that takes us to the end of 27 as an as a change or amendment, whatever you want to call it. All right. So, that's councelor House's amendment. Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Sorry, I sorry, I've had my hand up here for a while and nobody's ignoring me. That's not the This is the third time. He doesn't have the hand up. Well, there's an amendment on the floor right now. So, uh, I wanted to speak before the amendment. Okay. I've asked my hands been up for a while. There's no All right. Well, I'll allow you to speak before the amendment. Councelor Frank. Thank you, Mayor Jordan. Uh, I just want to clarify something and I asked the consultant to do so. I heard some more information tonight that we hadn't heard before. uh and uh councelor Devoli brought it to our attention by asking our finance group. So I understand from the new financial updates that there's an actually over $400,000 more dollars in that account than we thought was there. Is that correct? Can I get that question answered first of all? Yeah, through the mayor that's correct. There was a building department surplus of about 300,000 and change that was transferred to the building reserve as of 2025 year end. So this is new information we didn't have before. So we now have nearly $2 million in the reserve. Is that correct? 1.9 1.9 something. That's correct. of that 1.9 about 400 or 500,000 is allocated as part of the 2026 operating budget. So, so we're pretty well flushed going into this year and going into next year. So, why are we pushing to get this increase now if if we actually have nearly $2 million in the reserve and from what I understand is that yeah, we to clarify, I mean, this is not a tax. This is a fee. I want to make that clear because I think some counselors don't think that's what it is. is a fee and that fee is there to only absorb the actual direct costs in a for a permit. It could be the building inspector going back once or twice or they pay for his time. So, it's so all inflationary numbers are already built into it because if we're we're actually costing this out at cost counc a clarification. So I'd just like to clarify that during uh during the fee study, this was the council's direction was to follow up on a fee on the fee study from strategy corp. So uh this was one of council strategic initiatives and this was what we had brought forward um at the direction of council. Yeah, I understand that. Thank you. Thank you, clerk. But I what what I'm saying is that we now had new information we didn't have before. So we have a lot more in that reserve than we thought we had. So there is no reason why we need to put this in place now. We can in fact defer it like someone suggested earlier when you consider we have over 400,000 more dollars in the kitty. I mean why why install it this year if we can push if we have that much more money in there and taking into consideration that we have less permits. Uh the the economy is down. We're going to have less permits. And so it lines up that we we can actually push this off and still be fully ahead coming into the next term. So I'm suggesting that we just defer this till next term, be honest with you. So, I like to add that in there into the resolution. through you mayor. Uh so if we were to go 9 and a half n and a half the n the the 19% is based on uh compounding based on numbers that you you've used. So I would assume that that would change the actual number. It wouldn't be 19 anymore because as you mentioned the I don't know how to how to word it. I don't know if what I'm saying is making sense. The the it changes the the way that the numbers compounded. If you if you went 9 and a half and 9 and 1/2 instead of 19 this year, it would actually make it a little bit more next year uh than 9 and a half because you're leaving some on the table this year. Is is am I misunderstanding that or is that correct? Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor. So, I think you know there there would be a weighing here. you would um you have additional unanticipated funds in the reserve fund that we would not have accounted for in in our study which in theory would um uh provide you with slightly more revenue than we anticipated and then if you only implemented for this year 9 and a half 9 12% instead of a 19% increase and then did the same next year I think is what you're what you're um proposing then uh you would raise less revenue than we anticipated. So there there's an off setting. Now I don't know whether it's exact um but there's offsetting uh effects there. Yeah. All right. So we have uh the amendment on the floor. Moved by councelor How, second by councelor DeFlavio, resolve the report BLDG26-02, building permit fee review and update dated April 27th, 2026 be received and that council approve an incremental increase of 9.5% beginning on June 1st, 2026 and the remaining 9.5% beginning on June 1st, 2027 with any new building fees being implemented fully in 2026 and that the update updated building permit fee schedule in appendix B be approved as amended and two that council approve the adoption of the updated building bylaw 26-25 attached as appendix C to reflect the current legislative requirements improve administrative clarity and support the implementation of the revised fee structure um recorded vote Councelor Frank, uh, your vote. I'm going to vote no with in light of the new information. All right, that's defeated. Did councelor Frank want to put forward? Councelor Frank, do you have a um motion that you want to put forward? Uh councelor Brad, I I would sorry. Yes, I would like to propose that we defer this till next year in light of the fact that we just found another 400 some odd thousand dollars. So we're we're going into the we're going into the end of this year with well healed more or less because of the newfound money. So I think we should defer this till the next term. That's my resolution. And hopefully I get a seconder. Councelor Bradzy will um second it. But councelor DeFlavio has a question. Thank you mayor. I I don't know if people were voting against it because they didn't want to defer it uh half and half or if they or if they were opposed to the increase at all. So I do do you know what I'm saying? Like some people might have voted against councelor How and I and and my uh resolution because they didn't want any change. They So I think it's important that we vote on the original resolution first before we we move on to well the deferral takes precedence. Okay. Okay. Fair. Yeah, it's a deferral resolution, so there's no debate. So, you just can I just Yeah. So, through the chair, we would still be approving um that the building fee review would be received. Uh the second recommendation is going to be changed uh to def uh def deferring it to the January 1st, 2027 budget. And the third uh resolution would still be there about updating the building bylaw uh as per appendix C, which is not the fees, it's just the actual uh building bylaw updates. So Katie's just Katie's just working on getting that on the screen. This is an important one for Jennifer to No, it's a deferral motion. deferral takes precedent. If you vote against it, then it and it's defeated, then it goes back to the original the original resolution that was on the floor. The first amended um resolution was defeated. We have a second um deferral motion on the floor. The deferral motion is to push it back to January 2027. And if that's defeated, then we vote on the original motion. So, we're just waiting. It's up there now. So, only if it's a point of clarification. Yes, just to clarify, um, it talks about council approve the sorry, building fee re be deferred. That's a given. That council approved the adoption of the updated building bylaw. Um, so really we're not um it will be the next council who will be dealing with any potential increases in the building uh fees. Have I arrived at the right answer through the chair? That's correct. There's two bylaws attached. One is the user fee that is being recommend that is that is being asked for a deferral. Appendix C is a building bylaw which is separate. All right. I'll read the I'll read the resolution. Moved by councelor Frank, second by councelor DeFlavio. result of report BLG 26-02 building permit fee review and update dated April 27th, 2026 be received and one that building fee review be deferred to the January 1st, 2027 budget. and two, that the council approved the adoption of the updated building bylaw 2625 attached as appendix C to reflect the current legislative requirements, improve administrative clarity, and support the implementation of the revised fee structure. Mayor, I I did not second this. I just want to make sure that that's I don't want my name attached to this in any way. Yeah, that's fine. So, who is the seconder? Um, it's councelor Bradzi is the second. Yeah, it was councelor Bradzy. Councelor Frank. Councelor Bradzy. So, we'll correct that. Can you get councelor Frank's? Mayor, councelor Frank, your vote on this one though. It says and support the implementation of the revised fee structure. Is that applicable seeing we're deferring it? Yeah, we'll we'll clear clear it up. Um, the clerk because we're doing this on the fly. It the clerk will uh fix that. Councelor Frank, we still need your vote. Yes. All right. So, that's tied. So, it's defeated. All right. We move back down back to the original motion. All right. Yeah. Councelor Vardy. Thank you. Um, I would like to propose a different staged in implementation. Can I do that now? Can I put that forward to amend it? Yes, you can. Okay. Put forward an amendment now. Okay. So, I'd like to amend it to be 555 in the next 3 years starting January 1, 2027. And then we can And then Thank you. and then we can re-evaluate at that time. So, so let me get this clear. So, 5% January 2027, 5% more January 2028, and 5% more January 2029. Yes. And that at that point, we can re-evaluate. All right. Yeah. I don't think we can handcuff the next council with with that. We can only defer it and um we can't put numbers on the next council. So if I were to propose 5% now, 5% January 1, 2027, and January 1, 2028. I can't do that. Yeah, we we can propose it, but the new council can um Well, they can change anything they want anyway. So, okay. So, can my original proposition stand? Is is that a yes? Yeah. Um I I've got direction from the just from clarification. It may be a moot point, but we can Okay. Okay. So, I'm proposing 555 starting January 1, 2027. Yeah. Councelor Shaw, uh through Mayor, thank you. I think we need to just make the tough decisions now rather than kicking the can down and and forcing this on the other council. It's getting confusing. We've had these price adjustments like all over the place with water. Um let's just do it. So, make a decision, stick with it. Um, you know, we've been doing this for a long time. You got to make some hard decisions. So, if you're not in favor, it's fine. Let's just make that decision rather than kicking this down for for the next council. With all due respect, if I may, Mr. Mayor, that is my decision. And it's not kicking it down a road. It's looking at sort of where we're at, what's coming, not knowing what the future will tell, what the future will hold, and trying to find some kind of balance that will allow us to re-evaluate while taking into consideration the fact that we're not charging enough for the service that's being provided. So, I think I'm just going to call the vote on this one. I think everyone's put their position on where they are quite quite uh My motion stand then? Yeah, we're calling the vote on your on that on my motion 555. Yeah. Thank you. And if it's defeated, it just goes back to the original. Councelor Frank, your vote. Yes. Mayor, again it says new fees being implemented fully in 2026. Sorry. Yeah, we okay that part is not going to be in the final of the region. So if we wanted to add half a million, we could probably do it, but I don't think that's prudent. All right, that's defeated. So, uh, let's call let's just call the original vote. Thank you, mayor. So I I want to I want to ask are people questioning the findings of the consultant and the feedback of staff because the consultants report pretty clearly shows, you know, that we're what we're trying to do is um look at long-term costs. Uh you know, the the costs are long-term in nature. This isn't these things are cyclical. Uh so we're not dealing we're not looking at short-term fluctuations in the building cycle. People are talking about things that are happening right now. These these fees are meant to look at the next x number of years and what's going to happen to the market is is not what we need to consider. We need to consider what our costs are. And that's what our report does. Our report tells us what our costs are going to be. Looks at the possible fluctuations. says if everything goes according to plan, this is what you need to to charge. That's what the fee structure is based on. So I I am sympathetic to the market. I understand that the market now is terrible, but that's not our job here. We're not the federal government. We don't have billions of dollars to to mess with here. We have exactly what the what the the department is using, which is about $800,000, I think is what the the consultant used as a number for the entire department budget. So, I want to make sure that we're distinguishing between, you know, structural cost issues and cyclical revenue changes. Um, and that we're addressing, you know, what this actually is meant to do. It's meant to to look at the the long-term costs, not what the cost is today of building, but what the cost is going to be over the next five years. So, uh I agree that we should look at efficiencies. You know, if we have to look at staffing, again, that's a long-term thing. That's not a today question. Today's question is, do these fees accurately reflect what it costs or what it will cost over the next 5 years to to support our building department? I think the answer is yes. That's what the cons consultant report says. I didn't hear anything that that opposed that. So I think we have to go with what the consultant has brought forward. That's that's my opinion. All right. So everyone's commented on this resolution. I'm going to separate it out though. Um so we vote on the middle part separately. So moved by councelor how second by councelor Devoi. Resolve the report BLG26-02 building fee permit fee review and update dated April 27th, 2026 be received and the council approve the adoption of the updated building bylaw 2625 attached as appendix C to reflect current legislative requirements, improve administrative clarity and support the implementation of the revised fee structure. Okay. All right. Sorry. That's okay. Councelor Frank. Yes. All right. So, that's carried. And now, um, moved by councelor House, second by councelor Devoy, resolve that council approve the updated building fee or permit fee schedule to achieve full cost recovery in accordance with the building code act and approve user fee amendment bylaw 26-24 attached as appendix B. Uh, recorded vote. Councelor Frank. Yes. On cost recovery. Yes. All right, that's carried. All right. Um, now we have uh Annette Gibbons will now speak to the MMAH proposals 20 26-m and 26 MH026. Annette, please go ahead. Good evening. My name is Annette Gibbons and I'm a resident of Grimby. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm here regarding the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Proposal 26 MMAH 010 and 26- MMAH026. The province is seeking feedback on the proposed legislation changes by May 2nd for 26 mm ah and May 17th for 26 mm ah026. Making timely review and response critically important. The proposals include significant changes to the governance of Niagara region, a region representing over 550,000 residents, and it directly affects how those res residents are represented. It proposes reducing the number of elected regional representatives, introducing weighted voting, and most significantly, the provincial appointment of a regional chair with strong chair powers. Taken together, these changes represent a fundamental restructuring of regional governance, shifting authority away from elected officials and toward a more centralized and less directly accountable model. In addition to these concerns, there has been a lack of clarity and consistency in how these changes have been communicated. There have been mixed messages regarding the intent, scope and implementation of these governance reforms. It has also been understood that governance changes of this magnitude were expected to be addressed within Niagara itself with meaningful local input and consideration of regional context. Instead, these proposals are being advanced at the provincial level, creating uncertainty and concern among residents and how and where decisions affecting Niagara are being made. This disconnect further contributes to the lack of public confidence in the process and reinforces the need for clear communication and locally grounded decisionmaking. Under the proposals, the most powerful regional position would not be elected directly by citizens or by their elected representatives at regional council. Residents would not have the ability to directly influence who leads their regional government. And in practice, this weakens the connection between the voter choice and regional decisionmaking. When key leadership roles are removed from the electoral process, democratic accountability is reduced at its core. A very concerning element of this proposal is the appointment of regional chair with strong executive authority. This is not simply a ceremonial role. Depending on how the model is implemented, a strong chair could set or control council agendas, determining what issues are debated, influence the flow of staff reports and information council relies on. shape the timing and framing of decisions before council votes occur. Exercise procedural authority that can limit or structure debate and tightly divided decisions hold significant influence over outcomes. Most importantly, this structure creates the potential for an appointed chair to override or effectively overrule the collective decisions of elected mayors through procedural control or enhanced executive authority. Even where formal veto power may not exist, control over agenda setting and process can effectively determine outcomes before elected officials have a meaningful opportunity to act. This represents a shift away from decisions being made by a group of elected representatives toward a model where a single appointed individual holds disproportionate influence over regional outcomes. That fundamentally changes the role of elected mayors at the regional table and weakens local democratic representation. Another serious concern is the lack of meaningful consultation. While these changes are being advanced through the ERRO under the consultation window, um the consultation window is both limited and timesensitive and does not reflect the scale of the governance changes being proposed. And Annette, I hate to interrupt you, but you're going to have to wrap it up. Okay. I've got I've got two sentences. Two. Okay. But that's okay. There has not been broad accessible regionwide engagement with Niagara residents before these structural changes were introduced. Using a short error posting as a primary consultation tool is not sufficient reforms that would permanently alter how regional government functions. Um, the next is Oh, shoot. Yeah, I didn't I didn't realize my time got limited to five minutes. Yeah, I've given you over a minute and a half extra. So, uh um thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions from council? Councelor How? If I can. Um Annette, I got to applaud appla applaud you. I'll get that word out and you know what I'm saying. Well thought out. well presented. Thank you. Thank you. I I did um print out the rest of my presentation. So, since I wasn't able to um address council with my full presentation, I would hope that you would consider what I've written the rest of my presentation to. Yes. Thank you for handing us out hard copies. So, we'll definitely all read it. Councelor DeFlavio. Thank you, Mayor. Through you, to Annette. Yeah. Thanks, Annette, for your presentation. Did you see the town's comments uh in tonight's agenda? Yes, I did. And uh do you think that they accurately reflect what you're saying? Um, I would like I I actually included a um a council consideration in my presentation and also I I wrote a um I've got a resolution to in my presentation that I would really love um council to consider because I really took a lot of it took a lot of effort for me to do this and it's really important Yes, I can certainly echo that that the importance is uh extreme. Any other questions from council? Thank you very much for your presentation again, Annette. Uh can I have a mover and secondary to receive the delegation? Moved by councelor How, second by councelor Vardy. Resolve that the delegation from Annette Gibbons be received. All in favor? And that's carried. Thank you, Annette. Up next, we have uh John Vanderland. We'll now speak on parking bylaw concerns. Uh please come to the podium and go ahead, John. Okay. Uh, good evening, uh, Mary Jordan and council. My name is John Vanderland, and I have resided in Grimby since 1966. I have been a homeowner in Grimby, owning the same house for over 41 years. And my deposition presentation tonight is about the safe flow of pedestrians, residential traffic, town vehicles, and emergency vehicles in older parts of Grimby where no sidewalks or curbs exist. This flow of mo movement involves many parts of Grimby that were built prior to curbs and sidewalks being installed. Exhibit one. Not up there. Exhibit one shows a typical B boulevard and or grass granular shoulder. This boulevard and or grass granular shoulder comes in many forms throughout the town. In exhibit two, there is a vehicle parked legally to the current bylaw on the road with a pedestrian walking by near the vehicle near the center of the road. Screw that up. In exhibit three, there are two vehicles parked legally on the road to the current bylaw. Exhibit four shows a measurement between the two vehicles from mirror to mirror which is 89 in. The minimum fire emergency response vehicle width is 99 in. This means the vehicles are 10 in too tight. One of the vehicles would have to be on the boulevard and or grass granular shoulder for emergency vehicle to pass. But this would put one of the vehicles in violation of the current bylaw. Also, it is putting pedestrians navigating around the vehicle in danger of vehicles moving on the road. a serious safety concern and difficulties for residential traffic. Exhibit five shows a town vehicle parked on the boulevard and or grasped granular shoulder to allow the safe flow of pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Exhibit six is a notice to residents from the public works department. Although it's related to sports related objects, it could be applied to vehicles. In paragraph 4 and in line four, it states that for areas with granular or grass shoulders/ditches, we ask that objects should be stored at a minimum of 1.5 m or 5 ft back from the edge of the road surface. A vehicle could be an object. Exhibit 7 shows a typical older road in Grimby with no curbs or sidewalks. The vehicles are all parked on the boulevard and or grass granular shoulder and are all parked illegally to the current bylaw. This is typical in older parts of town since I have resided in Grimby with vehicles turning grassy boulevards into boulevards with a grass granular mix after decades of vehicles parking that way. Exhibit 8 shows a newer town road where the vehicles are off the normal operation of the roadway. Exhibit 9 is a granular graveled area that is wide enough to accommodate a vehicle and has been maintained and improved by me for 41 years. Does this meet a shoulder definition, not an outer boulevard, aka grass area? Could council ask staff if vehicles can park there or not? In conclusion, I hope to remove the bylaw and allow residential parking on a distance approved by council on the boulevard and or grass granular shoulder where no sidewalks or curb shoulders exist to allow the safe passage of pedestrians and vehicles. Thank you for your patience and time. Thank you for your presentation, John. Are there any questions from council? Councelor Shaw through Mayor Jordan. Thank you. I just wanted to thank you, John. I know John's one of my constituents. Um we've I've visited your house. I've called you a few times about this issue. Um we've had some uh communication issues with bylaw over this. Um, I like the fact that you brought these photos to show council um, some of the safety issues cuz that's, you know, um, the number one thing that I think that you were trying to convey is the safety. Would that would that be safe to say? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. My concern is with the vehicle being full on and uh pedestrians or parents that are walking their kids and uh we have scooters and if the vehicle is parked fully on the road and they're coming up behind it and they scoot or they walk around the vehicle and another vehicle is coming towards them, they could get seriously hit. And I, you know, it hasn't happened for 41 years, but it could happen tomorrow. It could happen in 5 years from now, but I think it's going to happen. Um, so I I would like to propose if we could somehow, if if if I'm allowed to propose a motion u for this to be looked at by our um by Henry um and see if if something can be done about this cuz I know we are on a complaint base. um system. So, uh if there's a review that can happen, I I would like to put that forward. Yeah, we we can u motion. Yeah, we need a resolution to um uh report have staff report back to council. So, you need a seconder. Can I get a seconder? It should go to public works. Yeah, that's fine. Would anybody be counselorio? Would you second that? Okay. Councelor DeFlavia will be my seconder. Can I ask a question? Is your question concerning about clarification? No. There there's what we're doing. We have a resolution on the floor right now. No. And we're not going to put staff on a spot on um to just go over different areas of town and what the bylaw is. It's not about this particular area. Well, then it's not concerning the question to the delegation. So, it's not it's out of order. So, we have moved by councelor Shawa, second by councelor DeFlavio. Yeah. Yeah. Moved by councelor Sharwa, second by councelor DeFlavio. Resolve the delegation from John Vander land be received and that public works staff report back. All in favor and that's Gary. Yeah. I was going to ask for a record vote, but that's fine. Thank you. All right. Now we move to chair's reports. Uh we had a planning committee meeting on April 22nd, 2026. Uh we had an official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment from 13 Mountain Street and 19 to 23 Elm. Um we learned in the official plan amendment uh that the amenity area went from um 363 m to 190 3 or 190 square meters. Um the units went down to 150 units, but the affordable units went from uh 25 units to 15 units. Um there was parking for 154 spots for 150 units. Um we didn't see the Niagara government uh commission uh visual impact assessment. Uh um and NEC hasn't commented as of yet. Um uh and those 154 spots uh there's some uh tandem parking and some small vehicle parking. Uh and uh then uh planning um referred it to council and tonight it got u deferred back to planning. So that's pretty much the meeting. Sorry, can I ask a question? Sure. I was under the impression that uh it was supported. It was that you were you received the communication. It wasn't deferred like it wasn't forwarded. It was sent to council. Um but it was it was received. So it was supported from the committee. Correct. Well, the v the vote it wasn't a recorded vote, but uh I do know that three people voted for it. So it then it become it passed. Sorry. Were you missing any members? No. Are you sure? Councelor Frank voted for it. Councelor and the two um the two uh lay members voted for it. So was there anybody absent at that meeting? No. I believe there was a counselor but okay. Thank you. No. Um councelor Bradzy was uh in attendance for the whole meeting virtually. All right, Councelor Devoli. Thank you, Mayor Jordan. The finance committee met on April 23rd, which was just a few days ago. Um, besides the usual approving of previous minutes, we had a delegation from the chair and staff of GDAC who gave us an update on and a summary of the work that they've been doing in the last um I'll say few years. Um the two reports that the committee actually dealt with and has recommendations for council this evening is um the first one deals with our 2026 tax levy and our tax rates and um and so council's approval is needed tonight in order so that our finance department can send out the final tax bills. the um in accordance with the um legislation, an interimm levy of 50% of last year's taxes has already gone out and this will allow for the final billing of the 2026 final balances. Um within the report is a great summary of sort of an average property. And just to be very clear, um the town's levy went up by 4.6, six, but then the wastewater is no longer uh that revenue is no longer being collected through the levy and that is being done solely through the billing process, the water billing process. So that too has made a change. Um but that's what the first report and the recommendations are to accept the um the levy rates um so that billing may occur. The second report had to do with our year-end results and transfers to reserves. Quite an extensive report there, too. We finished 2025 with a surplus of 726,000 roughly in our operational levy, 300,000 roughly in our water, and unfortunately a deficit of 792,000 um closer to 793,000 in our wastewater. and the report that is attached which I won't go through in detail but basically gives um an analysis of why those surpluses or deficits arose and so the um the result though is a recommendation from staff that um the surplus or deficit be allocated to our various reserves which is on page four of the report $319,32 to our levy contingency The library has a library strategic priorities reserve and they will um the recommendation is to allocate 25,413 to it to take out of the environmental reserve $792,823 for the deficit incurred by wastewater water will see an increase in its allocation to reserves by its surplus which is $300,156. And as was noted earlier, the building department also had a surplus for the year of $381,72. And so, uh, the recommendation of the finance committee is to accept the recommendations in the finance report, including the allocation of the surplus and deficits to the various reserves. Thank you, councelor Dvoli. Any questions? Nope. Um, can I have a mover and second to approve the previous minutes? Moved by councelor Vardy, second by councelor DeFlavio, resolved that the following minutes be approved. Council April 13, 2026. Planning and development committee April 22nd, 2026 as amended and finance committee, April 23rd, 2026. All in favor? That's carried. Um, can I have a mover and secondary to approve the Ginsby Heritage Advisory Committee's council endorsement package? Moved by councelor DeFlavio, second by councelor How resolved that the council endorsement package from the Ginsby Heritage Advisory Committee dated April 14th, 2026 be approved. All in favor? That's carried. Can I have a mover and seconder to receive the board minutes? Moved by councelor How. Secer. Councelor Dvoli. Moved by councelor How. Second by councelor Dvoli. Resolved that the following board minutes be received. Ginsby Public Library Board March 11th, 2026. Committee of adjustment March 17, 2026. and Ginsby Heritage Advisory Committee, April 14th, 2026. All in favor? That's carried. Are there any announcements this evening? Councelor Vardy. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the first thing I'd like to uh let everybody know about is that uh Grimby is having a tree giveaway. It'll be May 9th from 10 until 10:00 a.m. until all the trees are gone. Uh it'll be at Southward Park. So, um there'll be people on hand and instructions on hand to be able to tell you uh how best and where to plant your tree. So, uh just like to draw your attention to that. Great. Well, I'm not done. Okay. Uh the other thing I'd like to tell you about is the smile cookies. And there you go. Smile cookies by Tim Hortons is having a uh uh a fundraiser. The money going to McNal House. Some of my colleagues were there today and they're here. Uh Veronica I saw there and so is Michelle Seabour. So it was great. And uh there's a competition. you can see my uh my cookie and I hope you'll vote for it. Um and then the last thing that I I I wanted to say and probably you know the most important thing um this is the final year of this council's term and I want to say that I think there are a lot of really competent, smart, accomplished people in Grimby who would make great counselors and I um I know people who watch this uh watch council, but I think the important thing is if you want to have a voice in your community, if you want to be able to influence how your community is run, how decisions are made, then I encourage you to step up. And uh the community needs you. We need people who are who are smart and committed and are willing to put the work in. And uh so I hope my little public service announcement will encourage uh many smart accomplished people to come forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Bardy. Uh any other announcements? Councelor Shaw? Uh through Mayor Jordan. Thank you. Uh just briefly I just thought of it. Um ways goose happened uh in support of the public library or sorry the uh art gallery the public library on the weekend and it was uh I had popped in at the beginning looked like it was a a great event um and a lot of the community was uh was out. They were expecting 2,000 people from all over um for this event. So I just wanted to give a shout out to the public library or sorry the public art gallery for this event. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Um, seeing no further announcements, uh, Councelor Seaborn, um, come on up to the podium to give you a regional, uh, update. Thank you, Mayor Jordan. Excuse me. Yes, you did say it was going to be a long meeting tonight. Excuse me. So, now my voice has gone to sleep. Thank you for having me here tonight. Um, you got my package this morning. I'm really sorry that it wasn't before this morning. Um, I wanted to check a couple things with the NPCA. They are mentioned in my report. So, as many of you are aware, there is a consolidation of the 36 conservation authorities. The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority will now become part of the Western Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority joining Hamilton, Holton, and Credit Valley. The bill was passed third reading and is expected to be uh to receive Royal Ascent shortly. This means that nine new areas will be governed under a new Ontario Provincial Conservation Authority. It's expected the new governing body will lead to improvements in conservation um providing centralized leadership and oversight. Despite the push back from all conservation authorities and residents, the new system is expected to be in place by February 27. Closer to home, Beamer Memorial Conservation Area initiated a management plan with strong focus on collaboration and community engagement. Beamer is 63 hectares and often or rather offers breathtaking panoramic views of the Niagara escarment in Lake Ontario. It's a popular observation area for the annual spring hawk migration as they pass over the escarment watershed. Hikers, hikers, and n naturalists enjoy the area while following the Bruce Trail, which leads right up to the park. You have a full report on, I understand, in your package. I did want to mention that there's another information session on June 18th from 6:00 till 8 at the major refrigeration Peach King Center. Recent concerns due to the extreme weather and erosion has led to the temporary closure of the Gibson Street stairs that connect the upper and lower portions of the site along the escarment. Due to the significant damage and concerns of slope stability, the stairs have been temporarily closed and will not be reinstated in their current form. The NPCA will um will initiate geotechnical engineering studies to assess the feasibility of the future connection between the upper and lower sections. Until then, the stairs remain closed, excuse me, s side with barriers uh due to the safety risk. Sorry about that. There is one other part that I wanted to mention that is Niagara region has a is a critical economic devel uh driver within Ontario and Canada. A globally recognized tourist destination with or over 14 million visitors annually resulting in over three billion in tourist and related economic activity. Niagara also has one of the busiest border crossings and is bounded on three sides by water. This places unique and sustained pressure on regional and local infrastructure including roads, waste management, transit, policing, emergency services, water wastewater and public areas. The economic benefits generated by tourism and trade sectors significantly contribute to the polit provincial and federal um revenues. each mi yet municipalities bear a disproportionate share of the costs required to s sustain the economic activity. At the last corporate services meeting at the region, a motion was brought forward calling for the province of Ontario to initiate comprehensive review of political sorry uh provincial and uh municipal framework including the assessment of municipal service responsibilities, the elimination of mitigation on ongoing provincial downloading, the identification of new sustainable municipal tools with Niagara as a pilot, and that the province of Ontario be requested to ensure that any further transfer of responsibilities to municipalities is accompanied by full and ongoing funding. Further, that the government of Canada be requested to expand permanent direct federal funding streams to municipalities, increase investments in affordable housing, and enable infrastructure. recognize the high um the recognize the support high impact tourism and trade corridors in the region such as Niagara. The motion was accepted unanimously and will be coming up to um vote on Thursday's meeting. I wanted to mention what our counselor already had mentioned as well. There is a a new term coming up and I just wanted to remind council and members of both municipal and regional council that we all looked at the elect respect um motion that was passed in August. And just a reminder that play nice, it's going to be uh a tough time for a lot of new uh new candidates and uh we don't want to scare them away because they are very valuable. And that's my report for tonight. Sorry about the throat. Thank you for your pres presentation, councelor Seaburn. Um, councelor Dully, thank you. I do think councelor How had his hand up first though. You picked me. Um, my question to councelor Seabard has to do with the corporate services resolution and um, I noticed that the motion is asking the province of Ontario to initiate a comprehensive review and I'm wondering if you could give us some background or rationale and I'm not asking how you voted on it but just why we're asking the province to do the review rather than I'll say working together to do it between our upper and lower tier municipalities. I think I tried to put that it was a comprehensive review of uh provincial and municipal framework. Um and and we're all battered with how much the province downloads to the the lower um municipalities and what have you and it's becoming to a point where we can't afford it anymore and they keep adding more and more and more things to us. And it's time that they started working with us, which is what I was hoping to bring forward there, and find ways where we can mitigate some of this and and prevent that uh constant onslaught of of fees. Thank you for clarifying that, councelor. How? Uh thank you through you, Mayor. Um you're being very polite, councelor Seabour, when you talk about the conservation authorities. That's going to be the same kind of screw up as oh provincial amalgamations of municipals. It's going to be the same thing. Councelor Shaw. Uh through Mayor Jordan, thank you. Uh two questions. First one is with this replacement of the stairs. They're going to do a uh a review. Do you have an idea of timeline for that? They haven't started the geo um the geote techchnical um assessment yet. It's not going to be in the next day or two. It's probably going to be a bit long term. They'll have to re um reconfigure what they plan on doing. Those stairs probably won't reopen. There'll probably be a new system put into place. That was as of Friday. Okay. Thank you. Uh the the second question has to do with tourism. So there's a lot of talk about um tourism in Niagara and and the financial benefits. Could you um maybe just expand on, you know, your position um for tourism in Grimby specifically um if you've ad advocated for it um and what the financial commitments would be for Grimby taxpayers? That's going to be more of a question than I can answer. It is uh of course Niagara is wine country. It is casinos. It is natural beauty in Grimby. We have the trails. We have tourism in Grimby. You just have to look for it. Um I have heard the report that was given to you about tourism and at this point I can't comment on what the value of it would be for for Grimsby but it all all of re um all of the region brings in a lot of money in the tourism trade. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your report. Um, councelor Seaburn, have a good evening. Have a good night. Then can I have a move in secondary to get the town responses memos regarding bill 98 and the mm ah proposals on the floor for discussion? Councelor How? Councelor DeFlavio. Questions, comments? Councelor DeFlavio. Thank you, mayor. Through you. Um, so I understand why it's worded the way that it is, uh, because we're trying to be careful and, you know, be measured and respectful, but I think it's important that we say what we mean when we draft these things. So, if we do not support an appointed chair, I think we need to start with that. You know, I think that needs to be the headline. I think we're burying the headline here. So, um I don't think this is a time where soft language serves us well. I think that we need to be clear about what we're saying. So, you know, these are not like we're not talking about minor technical adjustments. We're talking about a a vast overhaul to the way the governance of the region is is being done. Um so, you know, how municipalities are represented, how accountability flows to residents, uh Annette spoke to it earlier, so I don't want to be redundant, but um you know, a proincially appointed chair really changes the democratic structure of of the region. It's not a minor thing. So, we need to be very clear about how we feel about that. I mean, I'm speaking for me. I'm not speaking for all of us, but I hope that I'm speaking for all of us when when I say that a a Democrat, a a a regionally appointed chair is not something that we support in any way. So, I want to make that clear in our in our statement. Uh, you know, it says it, but it's in a kind of soft language. I think we need to say clearly we do not support an appointed chair in in our statement. Um, I understand the the movement towards efficiencies. I don't agree with it, but it can't come at the expense of the democratic legitimacy uh or fair representation and and that's what will happen with an appointed chair. Um, so I I have other concerns, you know, about lots of these these governance things, but I think when it comes to the appointment of a chair, we need to be very clear about how we feel about that and I want to make sure that we state that in strong language. So, whatever that looks like to you, mayor, because I I assume that a lot of this was drafted with your, you know, your discussions with our staff. So, I I I hope that we can strengthen that language is is the gist of of what I want to say. Clerk, did you want to add a little bit of a background? Sure. Through the chair, I I'll start and maybe um if the CIO is on the line, she could she can add in as well. Um it is drafted. I I would say um with not as strong language as you're asking for. It was intentional in the fact that we didn't think we would get consensus across the table. We felt it was important to submit some form of comment and all of council can submit their own comments individually. The members of the public can submit the comments. We encourage everybody to do their own comments. I know that uh the CIO has been in meetings with a group of other uh mayors and municipalities that are working on perhaps a statement that would go in as well. So, um those are we're we knew it would be varying levels and so that's why it's not included. If you'd like to see changes in either this one or the bill 98, I would just suggest that you add um an amendment and and change the wording. And can you just see if the CIO is there? Sarah, are you um virtual? Great. Yes, I am. Hello. You Mr. Mayor? Yes, I think the clerk has covered it all. Uh if council wishes to add those points about appointment of chair and the strong chair's power, we can do so. Councelor Flavia. So I would like to move an amendment then, mayor. Um I I would like something along the lines of and I can email this to to our clerk. The town does not support the appointment of an upper tier regional chair. By ministerial order, the regional chair plays a critical leadership role in agenda setting, regional prioritization, and intergovernmental coordination. This position should remain accountable either through election by public or selection by regional council from among its elected members. Uh, an appointed chair would introduce a level of provincial control that's inconsistent with principles of local democratic governance and reduces direct accountability to residents. So, that's what I'd like to see in there. If people want to take out the last sentence uh because it's a little too far, then that's fine. But I'll email that to to the clerk right now and uh maybe we could put it up and if people are okay with it. Uh I'll send it to Katie and Victoria. So through the chair, if I could just share what's in there because I think what you were saying was was mostly just changing a couple words. Yeah, it was if I can just I used yours as as my starting point. So Are there any other amendments on the floor? Councelor Shawa, sorry. With with the uh council composition, where are we at with this? Because all it just there's only the one part here. Maintains policies that only municipalities with six or more council members are eligible for strong mayor designation. Um so sorry, was there any other were there any other changes in this? Well, it's it's in the provincial government's uh ballpark if they want to right in the middle of the election. Uh okay. I just wanted to campaign period change us from 8 to 6. Well, it's going to be fairly difficult. They can do it, but then we have to have a peer review for ward boundaries, right? Okay. Okay. Yeah. I I'm uh I would just uh echo the same comments as councelor DeFlavia. I just want to make sure that we're using strong language with the um with the regional chair appointment and the strong chair powers. Yeah. Um, okay. So, we're happy to take that and um and change our what we're putting forward. Uh, any other comments on either bill 98 or bill 98 or bill 100? Councelor DeFlavio. Thank you, Mayor. I I don't want to I I want to give other people a chance to speak. I I also have concerns about other things obviously weighted voting uh is concerns me because what it means is uh one representative the mayor of St. Catherine's and Nagra Falls and Wellland has have significantly more power than the mayor of Grimsby, the mayor of Wayne Fleet, the of the smaller tier municipalities. That's a concern because previously if you had six representatives, and I know you know this already, so I'm speaking to the choir, but the if you had six representatives, you had to convince all six representatives from St. Cathine's that might come from a wide political spectrum to vote the same way. Now one member of council who has one very specific political belief has control over that entire municipal vote which is also a very significant change to the way voting is done. I don't know how deep we want to get into this into this discussion. Yeah I okay I know it's I don't know if we if we again if we want to strengthen our wording on that or if we're comfortable with with that. So, well, I I I think I'm happy with that because we don't know where what's going to happen. they're going to rely on it and um certainly uh our CEO and the eight other municipalities have been um working tirelessly to try to push a consensus to the provincial government and uh the mayors of each of the municipalities have been in conversations directly with the premier and directly with u minister flag. So, uh, our concerns are are being pushed to them, um, as much as we can with, uh, out, um, not being able to get a hold of them anymore. So, um, so we can vote on this as a as amended. Now, I'll read the resolution again. Moved by councelor House, second by councelor DeFlavio resolved that the town memorandum on bill 98 be received and approved as amended and that the town memorandum on MMA proposals MMAH 10 and MMAH026 be received and approved as amended. to staff forward the comments to the province prior to the end of the commenting deadline and circulate to MM M PP Samsterhoff the Nagra region and the Niagara local area municipalities all in favor that's carried have a mover and seconded to receive the memo from MPCA moved by councelor DeFlavio second by councelor Vardy resolved that the memorandum from the NPCA regarding the Beamer management plant be received. All in favor? That's carried. June 12th. Yes, the meeting the there is a meeting on this uh June 18th um 2026 from 6:00 to 8 at U MRPKC. All right. Can I have a mover and second for the bylaws? Just clar that we won't be dealing with. Yeah, I I I will be uh changing them. I have it corrected in here now. Thank you. Moved by councelor how seconder councelor DeFlavio moved by councelor how second by councelor DeFlavio resolved that leave begin introduce bylaws 26-24 to 26-26 inclusive and that same be read a first time considered and passed. All in favor? That's carried. Uh, next council meeting is scheduled for May 11th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Um, thank you everyone for coming out tonight. Um, it's been a long meeting. Can I have a mover and second to move into close session to discuss wastewater reconciliation? Mover councelor Dvoli seconder councelor how resolved that council meet in close session to discuss wastewater reconciliation pursuant to section 239 2F of the municipal act all in favor to go into closed that's carried we take a two minute break yeah we're going to take a 5m minute break right now this is the least before we go into Okay. All right, welcome back to open session. Uh, can I have a mover and seconded to approve the close session direction? Moved by councelor How, second by councelor Charwa resolve that the direction provided in close session regarding wastewater reconciliation be approved. All in favor? That's carried. Can I have a mover and second for the confirming bylaw? Moved by councelor Dvoli, seconded by councelor Vardy. Resolve that leave be given to introduce bylaw 26-29 and that same be read at first time considered and passed. All in favor? That's carried. Thank you everyone. Meeting is adjourned. Have a good evening. That NPCA meeting that we mentioned is the same night as the River Lions.

Full Transcript