And so I'll call this meeting to order. Uh we're going to uh skip by the uh the moment of silent reflection etc. Uh there are no uh agenda announcements this evening. Any disclosure of peuner interest? Samir any any peuner interest? I just to keep you in the loop. >> Uh none whatsoever, Mr. Chair. Right. Thank you. Uh there are no delegations but apparently we have a presentation this evening. So if the treasur come forward. Thank you. All right. Good evening everyone. Going to provide a presentation just to provide an overview of the report. It's going to be a little bit longer than I would normally uh provide in terms of report overviews strictly because the timing of when the report itself was released and just to uh give a good sense of some of the content that was there before you get into your decision- making. Okay. So, we'll get right into it. Uh the agenda itself is actually structured like the report. uh the goal is essentially just to touch on some of the major points of of information and analysis and the program overview from there uh leading to your your deliberation. So from a timeline perspective, this slide really just summarizes the application process itself. I will speak later to the timelines of the actual funding program. Um it really started with the start of June and the guidelines which uh as we'll touch on later are attached as an appendix to the staff report. And for us really uh the last two weeks have been assessing those guidelines and working on bringing the report to you uh as you saw on Friday in ES 3626. We are working towards the deadline for the program which is this upcoming Friday for applications after which uh the province will return feedback to municipalities in the summer and ultimately look for a an agreement executed by the middle of August. The program itself does outline the application process, the evaluation process as well as some of the elements that will be in the transfer payment agreement. I will say those details in in the the TPA would be really important for a municipality that is proceeding. There's still some areas that uh I would call some gray areas as to exactly how to interpret what it'll look like. Uh the one area specifically for example when it comes to the 10% municipal share and the different funding options. Um we've interpreted the guidelines. We've heard ministry staff speaking to the interpretations and we've seen some FAQs and there are still elements of that that would really need to be ironed out in anything that that came in in a final agreement. There's a few other areas as well that we would definitely benefit from that. So, we prepared the report based on our best understanding of what the program would entail, knowing that if if we were ever to proceed, there'd be that additional step and we bring back something to council with more firm details at that time. So at a high level, the key elements of the program, it is a competitive process, so there's no guarantee of funding for those that do apply. And they have indicated which evaluation criteria are most important to them. And we'll we'll touch on those. The first major element is the reduction of development charges. So it needs to be at minimum a 30% reduction to the rates that were in effect on March 30th. And they'll evaluate more favorably the higher you go beyond the 30%. And the reduction can be across all development charges or across just single categories. And you'll see that's relevant later when we talk about managing risk. So on the one hand is the DC reduction. On the other hand then is the project financing. So they'll fund up to five projects. They must be tendered by July 2030 and complete no later than October 2035. They must be identified in the development charge study, the most recent development charge study. And in that study, they need to be identified at 2030 or prior. They do prefer housing enabling and shovel ready. And as you're going to see, the project we've identified for Milton is neither of those things. It's still eligible. It just wouldn't be looked on as favorably. And ultimately, the province is and with federal funding as well willing to pay 90% of what's determined to be eligible costs, but they are requiring municipal funding for 10% of what those eligible costs are as well. So with that in mind, some of the key considerations that will really touch on the analysis that we've done. Uh number one is that the municipalities are being asked to bear the risk of any variance in that development charge reduction. So we'll talk about the estimated amount for Milton later at the 90 million. Anything that comes in above that, it would be a funding responsibility for the town and we'll touch on later. There's rules around what you can fund that with. And in our case, it would mean something that's nond related in a go forward basis. So whether it's tax base or otherwise that that risk is passed on to to some of the non-growth funding sources. Secondly is the the cash flow uh differential. So the program for the DC reductions is within the first three years, but the funding that municipalities will be receiving is over a 10-year period based on milestone payments. So municipalities should be anticipating and ready to fund the reductions up front knowing that reimbursement will h will happen after the fact over a more extended period of time. Third is the fact that since the upfront funding is in the form of DC reductions and the reimbursement is related to projects, there is a risk that if reimbursement doesn't occur for any reason and the one that we're most concerned with is a project timing perspective, then the town or municipality would be required to come up with the funding source for the reductions another way. And again, it would be nonds that would need to be the solution in that case. And then lastly is the element of the municipal funding. So the our understanding has been that the eligible costs relate to the growth related share as the intent of the program from the province's perspective is to displace the development charges with alternative sources being the grant and the 10% from the municipality. So because that is a growth related portion of the project, it's not one that we would typically use non-growth related funding sources for. Um, we have started to look at different potential sources for that and we would have to iron out the details of those, but that would be a an element that the program introduces that is kind of new and separate from what we would have uh been budgeting for previously. And then just some context from a legislative perspective, two two key aspects of the development charges act worth highlighting. The first one here is paraphrasing an excerpt from the bylaw, but what it essentially says is that if a municipality chooses to reduce a development charge by way of exemption, reduction or discount, it needs to make up for that in a way that makes sure that that cost isn't then passed on to other forms of growth. And typically what that means is finding a nonDC revenue source for those uh exemptions. So that exists today when it comes to affordable housing, rental housing, any other exempt uh purpose. We have a separate funding stream and that's the $6.5 million a year that we budget in our operating budget. So that's how we ensure that we're not passing that cost off in future DC bylaws. It'll be the same consideration here when we talk about uh the risks involved and what it would look like should we have no grant funding or a reduced grant funding level to pay for it. And then secondly, it's important to remember that although we we sometimes plan for development charges on an aggregate basis, each service is independently monitored and and tracked. So that when we do things like development charge updates, any savings, any uh additional costs are exclusive to that particular service, whether it's roads, fire, recreation. Um, and that's important when we talk about program design here because which projects we apply any grand funding to and which specific parts of our development charge we reduce, it is really important to keep a relationship there to make sure that we're protecting ourselves. So with that, getting into some of the analysis that's in the report and first talking about how much are we looking at rebating through a program like this under the rules. So in this graph, starting on the left, you can see what the development charge rate was on March 30th. We have not included storm water here uh strictly because there was a number of storm water rates in effect on March 30th and we've since consolidated them in our latest bylaw. We are going to have to include that in anything we submit to the province for this program. And in the worst case scenario, there's only one storm charge that isn't already reduced enough to qualify for this program. So, what that means is essentially when we talk about the numbers later on the right here about what the new rate would have to be, we would take about $12 more off of that just to satisfy the storm water uh categories. But from an overall percentage perspective, you can get the idea here on on the other categories. But what you can see is on March 30th, and I'll just use the single and semi- detached as the example, our DC rate was just over $30,000. So the minimum rate that we could we could apply if we were to participate in this program would be $21,000 121 on a go forward basis for three years. We are a little unique in the case of Milton. Not only did we index on April 1st, we also passed a new DC bylaw with a residential rate that will come into effect in December this year. So in the next two columns over when you first see the blue column looking at what'll really be the effective rate for DC's for the month or for the year of 2026 and then in purple for 2027 and beyond. That would be the DC rate as calculated and beside it is the percent reduction that we would need to apply to get back to that $21,121 figure which is essentially what we need to maintain for three years if we're to participate in this program. So what that means is for the first year to the end of 2026, we'd be providing a 32 to 33% reduction in development charges. After that point, it would go from 40 to 47% when the new rates become effective in our new bylaw. Um you can see that it is a different rate for each category of of house, whether it's a single detached or the apartment or multiples. And that's strictly a result of what our new development charge bylaw kicked out once we looked at how many people lived in a unit type and how that's changed over the years. Um, but it is a requirement of this program that every single residential category go down by at least that 30% which is why we're tracking it this way. Looking at our our development charge rate itself and how the different services make up that total. So the total, you know, currently being just over 30,000 and going to just under 35,000 in the future. The key takeaway here is that you can see parks and recreation make up almost half of our current development charge rate. And again, looking at how we relate projects to where the discounts are being provided. What that suggests is that if we are to concentrate our application on a fewer number of projects, um it is hard to achieve an overall DC rate reduction of 40 to 47% if we don't include parks and recreation in that calculation because of the size of it. Um and then library will come up later as well in the context of the combined community center and library and you can see that adds another 5%. So those are really the the combination of services that give us enough room to accommodate the entirety of the rate reduction if we were to go that route. If we were to use roads or transit, we would still need to bring probably recreation and parks into it anyways to to get a total that's large enough. So uh so going forward and looking now on a on a forward-looking basis, you know, what does growth look like for the next three years? We've updated our forecast working with our development services area and it's really built up for the purpose of this analysis going to almost a sightby-sight basis where based on best estimates of each application where it's at in the process and expected timing we we come up with a forecast of what we think the next three years will be. We do the same process for budgeting purposes. Typically in the budget purpose, we would apply a cap of around 2900 units just based on historical averaging. We haven't applied that cap here in the third year in part because for the sake of this program, we are looking at risk mitigation and our risk here as we're going to touch on in a minute. Our biggest risk is if the uh number of units goes up, not down. So that was number one. Number two is with the number of different programs out there, not just the DC rebate program, but the HST rebate program and the feedback we've heard to date from from industry about what those could look like in terms of incenting new units. You know, it does come to uh you know, a potential for a higher forecast than what we would typically see. So, our base case, and you're going to see it referred to later, is really what you're looking at here, which is you know, a slower in 2026. We we knew there was going to be a bit of a a slowdown based on our our prior projections, but then kind of returning in 2027 uh to what has recently been closer to where we've we've ended in recent years and then a larger number in 2028, which would end up aligning with what the end of this program would be. But in total with the additional units, just over 8,500 units would be a three-year estimate. So putting that in the context of what could come forward, we looked at what are the number of units that are actually in current active discussion with the town at various stages of the application process. So in the first column here, you can see 19,643 units. Those are the number of units at the different stages with our planning with our planning area. So you can see that 3,600 are currently at the stage where they're ready for building permits. 9,200 are partially complete applications that are nearing that stage. And then we've got just over 6,700 that have either just started the application process or just undertaking pre-conultations. So 19,000 is the inventory of active files or active units. And then you can see here for the 7,700 that we've projected in the next three years um again excluding ARUS which we'll get back to later. That's about 39% we're saying of the existing units would proceed in a three-year period to the stage of getting a building permit um approved. And so we will touch on some scenario testing here. So, you know, the risk here to the program is really that if we see more uptake in the next three years than we project, if that exceeds the funding we receive, that needs a funding source other than DC. So, that's where we get back to a taxpayer impact. So we haven't modeled the the downward side. So if units come in lower, there is a risk that if we were in this program and our units didn't achieve the uh the number we were forecasting that the the province could choose to claw back some of the funding. Our current assumption is that we would be able to use development charges for anything that's deemed kind of outside the program because that would have been the funding source anyways. it's really only that eligible cost component that we're managing the risk of from our current interpretation. So that's why we've looked at the the scenarios going the other direction of what if what if the units come in stronger. So you know uh three scenarios, one is a 10% increase where you can see here we would go up to around 8,400 units as opposed to the originally forecasted 7,700 and that would represent about 43% of all units that are currently in the planning process. If it was a 50% increase, we would then see 59% of all those units that are in the in the process proceeding. And then ultimately, we did one where, you know, what if every single unit in that in that forecast proceeded uh within the three-year time frame. That does result in an extremely ambitious number for a three-year period and is probably outside the realm of what's what's likely or reasonable, but it just gives a sense in a minute here when we put some dollar figures to this as to kind of what that dollar threshold might look like. So taking those planning numbers and turning them into dollars based on, you know, we we do think that the average DC loss through this program is going to be per unit, you know, between 10,500 and 11,000 on average. And so applying those numbers to the the number of units, you can see our baseline is that we think there'll be about a $90 million reduction in development charges in three years. And then as we get into the scenarios, a 10% increase pushes it to 98 million. the 50% increase takes it to 132 and then ultimately if if all those units proceeded you see that at 28 million. So we'll come back to this a little later when we talk about the size of project that we're we're talking about but this was really just to get a sense of of different potential risk thresholds. So because one element of the program is that we cash flow the reductions in the first three years and then recover funding over 10 years. It is important to take a quick look at our development charge forecast to get a sense of what that looks like. Couple things to highlight here. First is that very top line, the parks and rec. You can see, and this is the only slide where I've rounded the millions off, but you can see at 132 million and carrying to 186 million over the forecast, those two development charge reserves are really the um not the only positive balances, but the strongest positive balances within our within our cash flow. And the reason for that is unlike roads and fire which we typically build at the early stages of subdivisions and secondary plans, community centers tend to trail once the population is there. So they have a greater tendency to accumulate a balance and then see a large draw every time a community center is built. So you see the positive balances in those particular DC reserves followed by the negative balances in the combined uh balance of all the other DC reserves and roads and transit along with fire uh are are three of the ones that that generally carry in a negative balance. Uh growth studies as well typically uh carries a negative as well. So overall in the very middle of this graph you can see the total DC balance it does show as maintaining a positive balance throughout the 10-year period. I will highlight that we have assumed that we're going to issue 94 million in debt during that period. So had we not done that, that would have been a negative carry for the development charges on their own. Um but where the 94 million comes from if you go down two more lines on top of development charges, we also keep a line on the post period capacity. And the best way to think about post period is when we build the transit facility because that is the the major driver of those figures you see there. that facility is going to benefit growth well beyond a 10-year period. It's going to be, you know, uh somewhere between 10 20 years of growth will be accommodated in that space. Under the development charge rules, we're not allowed to fund the entirety of that growth upfront with DC's. Only the growth that is in the next 10 years can contribute to it for the time being. So, as a municipality, we need to fund that difference for the future growth and then recover it in the future. And that's what you're seeing here is essentially the carrying cost to the town for building that facility and then we'll recover that when we get to 2040 and beyond from that future growth. So we try to look at both post period NDC's on an aggregate basis to try to maintain a positive balance. You can see here we we get to that kind of net neutral state in 2031. But in order to do that we needed 94 million of debt to balance the entirety of the cash flow. So, um, but the point of all of this is is to say the parks and wreck and library DCs are better positioned to cash flow any reductions that we're doing. And we we do need to be mindful overall of if we do participate, our overall DC balance is probably going to go negative and we're going to need to come up with another interimm financing source. Maybe it's more external debt. Maybe we'll internally borrow against taxpayer funded reserves, but we will have to do something in the cash flow to to fund the exemptions that we're providing until we got reimbursement for them. So with that in mind, we then look at what projects might we want to apply for if we were to participate. So we have differentiated them here between the housing enabling and the community infrastructure knowing that the province would far prefer the first category of the housing enabling and we we really have focused on the larger projects and only the projects that showed in the DC study in the first years before 2030. So we do have a few options when it comes to roads and transit. um we would require uh more projects if we use those because the size of them. We need to make sure we exceed the 90 million to make sure we're made whole. And because of the size of the DC rates, there's probably no getting around the fact that we're going to need parks and recreation and we're going to need part of the Boone Recreation Center no matter what. So that leads us to where ultimately the recommendation in in the staff report reads is because the balance in in the park and recre DC is the healthiest because of the fact that uh it allows us to to focus on one project and one DC rate largely actually I should say two because library is its own DC reserve but one project with two DC reserves and uh and largely from that that cash flow perspective you know it it is probably in the town's best interest to focus focus on the the community center and the library if we were to proceed rather than getting into the road DC reserve which is already significantly negative. Um and it also allows us then to focus uh the efforts on on one area whereas if we include all those roads and the transit facility that you see up top there's a number of external factors and timelines that would also influence the town's risk. So, I I think I've started to speak to what's on this slide, which is really the rationale as to why we're suggesting the community center and the library knowing that it may not be evaluated as strongly as the housing enabling projects. Um, but there are risks and downside and that's what I just want to highlight in those last two points there is we're going to talk about a little bit more, but the timing of that community center has a lot of um risk to it because we don't have a clear path forward and from a delivery perspective. Um so and that especially when we talk about 2030 as a tender date, you know, there's a lot of things that would have to happen for that facility before that date. Um the second risk there is just from a checking the box from a provincial perspective, it's not housing enabling and it's not shovel ready, which are two of their criteria that they would give preferential treatment to in their evaluation process. Um but the reason it is being put forward is those first three check marks you see especially when it comes to the managing of the financial risk with the reserve and the DC rates. So getting to the options themselves option one is presented in the report would be to put an application in. So the first part of the application would address the 30% reduction from the March 30th rates. It would mean that our DC reductions starting in December 31st of this year would be between 40 47% and they would actually go up in 2027 and 2028 with indexing. The DC rate that we're charging would stay flat, but the value of the reduction would go up increasing the value of it. It would need to be a three-year commitment. So that would take us to 2029 and we are estimating the revenue reduction of about $90 million. We have identified 158 million is what the funding request could be for the community center and library. To be clear, that's when we take what they've considered to be ineligible and then take 90% of what's left. That's how we get to 158. That does assume that we're allowed to apply inflation to our current cost estimate because we know we won't be tendering it for a few more years. And as you can see, that number is well above the $90 million perspective. 90 million and and the differential to the 158 that is definitely beneficial to the town because it gives us protection. Um from a provincial perspective they have articulated that their intention is to fund the estimated DC loss and not necessarily you know providing contingencies for municipalities for the risk that they're bearing. So, you know, it would be through the application process that if we were offered funding, we would have to get clarity on to what degree, but the number you see in the report is definitely kind of the um higher end of request based on what our project allows for and to provide for the risk that we'd be taking on. Uh there would be the town funding commitment as part of this program and we've identified an estimate of $24 million here. That includes both the 10% share as well as there are ineligible costs in our $158 million estimate that we know will have to be funded out of outside the program. A lot of that would relate to things like any sort of internal administration charges and there's a list of other kind of non-eligible costs in the program guidelines. So, we've made sure to kind of deduct those first before getting into the 10% calculation. We have looked at a number of different potential funding sources for the 10%. One opportunity we may have because we do fund our development charge exemptions historically. So, every time we've we've approved a new additional unit, um whether it's a municipal building or a school building, every time we've historically been incurring exemptions, we've been accumulating that funding in a town reserve so that we can apply it to the next community center that we build. We may be able to recognize some of that funding through this program if we were to do that, which could help reduce the cost to the taxpayer, not fully eliminate it, but it might be a partial mitigation. But we would need to see in the TPA that the province would actually allow us to do that still. So with option one, there are a couple of the risks that we mentioned before. Um in this case, the the first risk being that what if the amount of development activity exceeds our projection. As noted, the 158 million currently exceeds the 90 million estimate by 76%. That's not to say that the province would be on board with that request, but that would be the way that the application could be submitted. um which would be the best form of risk mitigation we could have on that on that reduction level risk if we find ourselves in a scenario where the province did approve us extra money and if that uh if we if the 90 million was a a correct and valid estimate if we do end up with extra funding in the process the benefit of that funding would go directly to the development community. So any excess funding at the end of this program would have the effect of either in our next bylaw update or whether we just did it as a standalone bylaw, we could permanently reduce DC's with any extra funding we receive. So to be clear, the difference between 158 and 90 million, it'll never result in a direct benefit to the taxpayer. It'll be a benefit to the development community in the form of a lower rate if it were ever materialized. The second risk we talked about is the risk of the project itself. And in my mind, this is the bigger risk because if for any reason we we aren't reimbursed after we've already upfront reduced the development charges, you know, that creates the biggest potential risk to the taxpayer because legislation, the way it reads, won't allow us to pass that on to other forms of growth. So, it would require a tender by 2030. Um, you know, we are looking at opportunities and and ways of potentially being able to accelerate the process, but without environmental work done, site work done and all the steps along the way, um, there is a significant amount of risk associated with this project and especially using it for the this kind of purpose. Um, we could, you know, endeavor to ask the province for what kind of mitigations they might consider or or where they might ease up on some of the current program language, but definitely the language as it reads now is is a risk. Um, and then the last point just reiterates what I've already noted, which is if if we upfront the reductions and don't get the full extent of project funding, uh, there would be a need to make up for the differential, you know, from somewhere non-growth related. So that was option one. Option two uh would be that we don't apply. And in that scenario, if if we chose not to, and a couple of the reasons why council may choose not to are identified in the report, um the town still does remain very well positioned to accommodate additional growth within within the province. Our DC rate is already 38% lower below a lot of our competitor municipalities. Um, we have exceeded our housing targets three years in a row and we had a very strong 2025 in the midst of of slowdowns within many other areas within the province. We do continue to plan for four new residential oriented uh new secondary plans as we continue to build out the existing areas like Boone and the MTSA. So, we are providing opportunity for future housing growth through those processes. We are already funding a number of exemptions in targeted areas for affordable housing, rental housing, the additional units that we mentioned and we continue to fund the uh development charge share of public infrastructure whether it's municipal buildings, schools, hospitals. Um, and to be pointed out as well with the recent uh, introduction of the HST rebate, which is still uh, in effect until, you know, Q1 of next year, we still have yet to see the exact impacts of that stimulus and what effect it has on housing as well. So, there are lots of reasons to think that the the town is positioned to continue to move forward from a growth perspective. So from a next steps perspective, we have provided resolutions for both option one and option two that council could consider within the body of the report. Uh if there is direction to move ahead with an application, it will be a short turnaround time from now until Friday. Uh so we'll we'll pull together the resources needed to make sure we we hit that target. We have highlighted that because of some of the unknowns that will only be sorted out through a TPA process. We would have to come back to council. Right now we do have a meeting in July. I suspect we will not have clarity in time for that. So most likely it would probably require an additional meeting of council closer to the deadline of August 15th. Uh but again we would kind of follow the province's lead based on feedback we receive if an application were submitted. And with that I think that are is the major points I wanted to raise but happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you Glenn. I have councelor Ali at this point with a question. Go ahead councelor Ali. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you for your presentation, Glenn. Um, at this point, listening to what you have just shared. Option two looks uh uh like a viable option to me, but I'll wait to hear what my colleagues have to say on this. However, option one uh gives us the option to expedite the Boone Community Center, which as you know is something that we've been hoping to get shovels in the grounds for. Uh my question to you or through you to other members of the staff contingent is uh um should we go with option two? Um are there other avenues we can explore to expedite Boeing Community Center? >> Uh I'll take that one through the chair. Um councelor Lee, great question. Um, right now I would say we're kind of at the mercy of what sort of economic conditions, what's happening in the market as far as that property goes and being able to move forward on at at Boone District Park West where we're originally thinking about putting the Boone Community Center. So, um, really we're just waiting for economic change to to happen. what's in the marketplace as to whether or not or how that moves forward and when. That's kind of outside our control and there's not much that we can do with that until such time as a developer chooses to move forward. >> Thank you so much. Um because yes, that was my understanding that we were waiting for the developer to move forward which exactly is tied directly to the DCs um that will come from that development. So, thank you for clarifying that. Thanks, Glenn. Okay, I have uh next councelor Maloo and Mayor CR. Go ahead, counselor. Yep. Thank you. Don't have my ears in. Okay. Uh Okay. Thank you, Glenn, for your presentation. Uh I've gone through this report a couple of times. There's a lot of information, a lot of numbers here. Uh, and I'm sure you spent a lot more time dissecting and crunching the numbers than we have. And so based on your financial experience, okay, and what you see here, if you were in our position, which option would you support through the chair? Um, if we're looking at it from managing the risk to the taxpayer perspective, the the timing of that community center and library is a major risk, you know, from a the timelines as presented in the program guidelines. and at a $90 million price tag for the cost of exemptions during the period. Um, you know, from a ultimately it would be council's decision, but I would suggest from a riskmanagement perspective and especially looking at existing taxpayers. Option two is the only way to ensure that the risk is minimized for taxpayers. Anything we move forward with, again, there there could be opportunities to work with the province to maybe change language. I'm just not sure what time frame within their 10-year period would get us to the point of enough comfort on that facility to take that $90 million risk upfront. Um only then to find out after the exact pace at which a facility like that could move forward. >> Okay, thank you Gleno. >> Okay, so I have Mayor CR then councelor Minakus and Councelor Marshall. So go ahead, Mayor. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And uh I have a couple of questions and of course uh uh I'm open to being convinced otherwise but right now option two is the one that I'm lean towards but uh open to be convinced otherwise. Uh the word risk has been me mentioned many many many times uh this evening and throughout this report on uh the low medium high scale uh when uh where would we be would be low risk medium risk high risk on uh what we're talking about >> based on the the current program structure and guidelines and we did talk about the the two kinds of risks. So for the first one about the risk of what if the growth is faster and and higher than we're anticipating, whether it's low, medium, high really would depend on what the financial offer from the province was. The closer they get to our 90 million in terms of their project funding. And to be clear, that's where they've expressed where they want to be is matching our estimated loss. I would say that gets into the the higher risk category because the combination of the new growth areas, HST, um the rebates that we and potentially the region would be providing, there would be incentive to see maybe growth patterns that don't reflect the historical three-year period or our history at all for that matter. Three years is a long time and a lot can happen within the economy and other things in that period. On the second risk of the project timing, again, because the program does require a tender by 2030, I tend to put that in the high-risisk category. Um, I would definitely defer to our experts in the uh in the infrastructure area that have the experience with these projects, but I would just use as an example for council when we first got the announcement for funding for the transit facility. You know, the announcement happened in 2019, the agreement was signed in 2020. At that stage, again, a new facility didn't have a site located at the time. There's been a number of steps needed along the way, including all the environmental work that comes with developing a new site. And so, from 2020 until now, you know, we're still in the environmental stage. Now, if we saw that kind of timeline on a facility related to this program, we would miss the the targets and the funding reimbursement would be at risk, which is why I naturally draw towards it's the higher risk side from a a project funding perspective. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At least in a layman's perspective was be high risk as far as I'm concerned there as well. I believe it was uh slide 13 and report page number eight. If we could pull that up and uh council mentioned about uh numbers. There's a lot of great numbers in this uh report if you really look uh really close at it. So when it comes up uh there and I'm talking about uh page eight and slide 13 if I recall rightly >> and the uh the question is and it may uh be to Jill but under apartments over the last few years we've been putting a lot of emphasis on uh on apartments there uh but I noticed 2026, we got roughly 800 there. And then 2027, which is not all that far away, it really takes a real drop. And then of course 2028, uh we're up to 1,800 roughly. So I just wonder what that 2027 would really indicate. What's happening in that area? >> I'll maybe speak to that first and Jill can can supplement if if helpful. The high density is actually one of the areas that always causes us challenges in our forecasting process. A single building that has 600 700 units, whether it comes in in December or January, has significant impact on what our annual totals are. And we see very real examples of that every year in the budget process. The the numbers that you referred to there that are shown in the table, that is again based on a very sightby-sight based analysis uh with our development services staff's best estimates. Um and and you saw there was the influx of units. As much as we went down next year, it immediately rebounded. I think it was 1,700 uh highdensity units the following year. Um it is really important to look at that with a a certain degree of averaging knowing that just one of those units from 2028 moving itself forward to secure whether it's the incentives that we're providing or other levels of government. those numbers can change fairly quickly because a lot of those units I think out of the 19,000 units that are currently in the application process it was around 11,000 or high density. So there is definitely um some agility potential there between the units. how much of that the market can absorb and bear at a given point in time. And that's where we really look to the development industry's insight. But um the fact that you see those year-over-year anomalies is just specifically due to our best interpretation of when we think specific applications are going to move forward. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thanks, your worship. I now have councelor Mikakus, then councelor Marshall, and councelor Best. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. My I have a question and a comment. So first the question competitively out there how does if we chose number one versus number two how does it change our attractiveness to from builders? >> Um so I'll answer that in in two parts. From a local DC perspective we do know that we are on the lower end of development charges and I mentioned the 38% below the average of the comparators. So part of this answer is subject to what other municipalities choose to do or not with this program. we may see some other local municipalities come closer to us with a 30% reduction uh you know during this period. So you know over the fullness of time we'll have a better understanding of that the context in terms of how much would this particular decision we're making impact the ability and viability of an individual project. I mean the general answer is anything we can provide in terms of reducing cost is always valued and appreciated. We did mention though in the report it's between 10,500 to 11,000 per unit reduction, you know, based on the the reduction at the local level. To put that in context, you know, the overall development charge in Halton region, depending on Greenfield built boundary, is in anywhere in the order of 10 to 12 times that amount. Um, the HST rebate that was recently introduced provides rebates of also 12 to 13 times greater than the reduction we're talking about. So whether this one on its own moves the needle compared to some of those much larger um other reductions or costs uh again I would defer to the development industry and their proformas but on the overall cost of a house $10,000 versus whatever their ultimate sale price would be. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. My summation of this is that Glenn review was excellent, but there were a lot of ifs in the in his in his presentation, particularly if you you have to do this and if it if it doesn't happen, this could happen. It's too complex. What we're doing today is fundamentally very very targeted and it's very effective. I think there's a risk in going with option one that does not help this community in terms of its growth plans. Besides, I also view this programs to be nothing more than a stimulus package. Um, and that's what I think it should be called, you know, to identify opportunities where they may even exist um for the marketplace to pick up and start selling more homes. But reality is we're doing a pretty good job of that and I don't think there's any need for this. Thanks councelor councelor Marshall and then councelor best >> I think uh councelor makis might have been reading part of my mind because my question relates to the last thing uh that he just commented on and the ifs and so a lot of what you were talking about is well if the province interprets it this way at what point in this application process do you think we would have clarity on that if at all >> I would suggest that would be at the time that the transfer payment agreement is provided with terms that are specific to Milton in terms of the project, the funding level. Um, we could certainly ask about project timelines, but um, you know, the the guideline is pretty clear on that part about what their expectations are, but it would be with that transfer payment agreement in hand where we'd have more uh, solid understanding of any of those gray areas that we currently are are concerned with. And so if we were to entertain submitting an application and then we got the agreement and we didn't agree with the things that it said and our interpretation of it and any clarification that was provided, are there outs built out along the way or what does that look like from a you're now bound by it perspective? So the province has has indicated that until there's a transfer payment agreement, there's no obligation on their their end that it's a competitive process and that they're uh they're not committing to anything till we get to that stage. There is language in I believe it's the program guideline and the application where essentially by submitting an application there's some form of attestation that we're recognizing and in principle accepting the structure of this program. Now, I mean, until we sign that TPA, there's no firm commitment on the town's part, but to even sign an attestation acknowledging that is a that is somewhat of a concern as well. >> Thank you. Those are my questions. >> Thank you, counselor. Councelor Best, then councelor Rez. >> Uh, no com no questions as a comment. Are you taking comments now? >> I'll take your comment, counselor. >> Okay. Thank you. First of all, my apologies, uh, Mr. Chairman and committee. Unfortunately, I was chairing another meeting at the same time in Brookville. Unfortunately, the 401's backed up again. Uh, thanks Glenn for your preparation and uh your speed reading here for all these documents here. Uh, just a comment similar to what Mayor CR mentioned. We were in a meeting on Thursday regarding the Allenale project. The estimated cost for about was it 200 units is $150 million. That's $750,000 for a bare basics one-bedroom apartment. The current market in Milton for a one-bedroom apartment is $519,000. So you're looking at over $200,000 difference between the market, which declined by 9% and the costs. I don't see the cost coming down. And similar to Councilman Kakus, this is a stimulus package and we're basically asking property taxers to pay for it. So if the motion does come up, I would move option two, Mr. chairman because uh uh I I've had to deal with other provincial announcements like this and it's like hurry up and wait. You were given what 18 days to put this together. So congratulations on fast but uh we still don't have the details. >> Thanks councelor. Councelor Le. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Uh thank you Glenn. Uh one of the key risks identified in the report is that the town could provide the DC reductions but not receive the full reimbursement if the community center and library project does not meet the province's required timelines. Based on what we know today, how confident is staff that this project can realistically meet those deadlines and what are the biggest factors that could impact that schedule? >> Appreciate the question for this. I might ask our uh commissioner of community services to comment more specifically >> uh through the chair. Thank you for the question, councelor Jazz. um this project that's been brought forward and suggested as a possibility already as Glenn had mentioned earlier contains a number of the workflow required to get that moving is you know I would suggest we're about even if we were to start this year and and start the process I would suggest we would be four years before we'd be able to to be ready to issue a tender so I think we'd be outside the timeline right now based on current experience what the lay of the land is the amount of work that would be required to move that forward. We would right off the get-go that date is in jeopardy. >> Thank you, Mayor CR. Go ahead. You have a second question. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. for the uh second time. Glenn had mentioned uh the uh the regional uh DCs on a uh hypothetical uh scenario and I don't know where the other three municipalities are and Glenn may or may not know as some of us colleagues they may or may not have uh been dealing with it. I know it will be coming up at the regional level but just let's assume for a moment that the uh four municipalities were split. One says we jump in or two says we jump in. Two says we don't jump in. The region is out there say well we're going to jump in. Uh what's the risk to all of us on a scenario such as that? Uh does Glenn ever with his colleagues at the four area municipalities ever thought about that uh risk? >> Uh through the chair. What I can comment on is some of the information that's in the public realm. Uh and I'll qualify this with it's a quick read that I've done of of some of the reports amongst our peers. There will be similar report going to regional council on Wednesday. Uh where there within the body of the report are alternatives identified and the report itself is for information. I believe the region is focusing more on water wastewater which are more housing enabling and not necessarily supported by the tax base but rather by the rate base. Um, but I would say that the decision of regional council is process-wise similar to what we're doing here tonight. There's some facts on the table and a report for information with some uh with some potential options in the body. I believe Oakville is in the same. They're actually probably talking about this the exact same time as us in their agenda tonight. Similar position information report with some options. Uh, so at this stage, and again, this is just the nature of the timeline for this one. I think everyone's talking about it on the same time frames. So we really won't have a solid understanding of where everyone lands until unfortunately we've already had to make our own decision. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, your worship. Are there any other questions of staff? Seeing none, then uh we'll move to uh the report. So uh just so council knows, I have a mover and a seconder already for option two. Uh but I'm wondering uh if amongst members of council there is any interest in moving or seconding option one. Seeing none, then uh we'll move to uh to option two. And I'll read the motion. It's moved by Councelor Cali and seconded by Mayor CR. The town of Milton Council elects not to participate in the DCP. And so I'll take uh any any final comments you may wish before I call the vote. Councelor Ky. >> Yep. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to echo all the sentiments shared by my colleagues. Uh obviously there's a lot of risk involved in this program and one of the challenges that the federal government and the province is trying to tackle is increasing the housing supply across the country and in Ontario. And Milton's actually not part of that problem. Um, like mentioned, we're exceeding our housing targets and, uh, it's pretty lucrative from our current DC rates for developers to continue building out in this community and the nearby municipalities around us have already primarily built out their places and, uh, you know, Milton is the next area that's slated to continue growing up until 2011 and beyond, you know, so our projections are very optimistic there and I think we can continue to get good projects built uh, by continuing to remain lucrative to our development community, but at the same time not take unnecessary risk that uh in the context that Milton doesn't uh contribute to the problem that the Ontario government and federal government's striving to solve. I'll keep it at that. Thanks. >> Thanks, councelor. Any other comments before I call the vote, >> Mr. Chairman, a seconder of that. Uh Melton over the past 25 years have done our fair share and more than our fair share with regards to housing in this province here. So, uh, and we've done reasonably well for the taxpayer as far as I'm concerned, and we're protecting the property tax base here in the, uh, town of Melton. Still look forward to, uh, development of, uh, you know, the housing. However, one might want to, uh, interpret affordable housing, and that's really what we're talking about. So, Mr. Chair, I would also call for a record vote on it. Thank you, >> Councelor Elli. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. chair for affording me the opportunity to share some comments. I agree wholeheartedly with all of the comments made by my colleagues around the horseshoe. I also wanted to highlight the fact that a lot of the ifs and buts mentioned rely heavily on our reserves and the condition of our reserves and that is never good financial practice. And so based on that alone, this is not a good option for the town of Milton, which as many of my colleagues have mentioned have done great with regards to building more housing. And um I believe personally and a lot of research also suggests that the solution lies in making sure there's inclusionary zoning, which something we are already doing. So thank you again for the opportunity. >> Thanks counselor. Any other comments? Seeing none, it's a recorded motion, so that the clerk will take over from here. >> Um, thank you. Um, councelor Lee being remote, um, if you could just raise your hand when I call for in favor or opposed. That probably would would work best. Um, so if I could please have members of council in chambers, please stand. Those who are in favor of the motion and councelor Lee, if you are in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. I'm seeing councelor Ali in favor, councelor Kulkkey in favor, councelor best in favor, mayor CR in favor, councelor Marshall in favor, councelor Malbuff in favor, councelor manakus in favor, councelor a jazz in favor, councelor Chiner in favor, and that's carried unanimously. >> Thank you. >> Uh the next matter is a confidential session. Is there any member of councel who's interested in going in camera just to sort of extend the evening? Okay, seeing none, sounds like you have better things to do, right? Okay. So, there is uh one motion coming out of the confidential session and I'll read that and seek your support. It's moved by uh councelor Cali and seconded by councelor Marshall that the recommendations contained in staff report CO- 009-26 be approved. All in favor? That's carried. And then the bylaws. So, it's moved by councelor Calky and seconded by councelor Marshall that bylaw number 045-2026 and bylaw number 046-2026 be read, passed, and numbered and that the mayor and the town clerk be authorized to sign the said bylaws, seal them with the seal of the corporation, and that they be engrossed in the bylaw book. All in favor of that motion. It's carried. And with that council we are adjourned. Thank you.