Members of uh council, ladies and gentlemen, the clerk advises me that it is now 7:00. So, I will officially call this meeting to order and get you to uh stand and join with me in a moment of silent reflection, our national anthem, and I will read the traditional land acknowledgement. Oh Canada, our home and native land. True patriot love in all of us. for daily. God keep our land glorious and free. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. We acknowledge that the land we gather on is part of the treaty lands and territory of the Missagas of the Credit First Nation. We recognize the traditional territory of the Hiron Wendette and the Hodn Shaune people. We also acknowledge the First Nation Matei and Inuit people who live on these lands today. We commit to working towards reconciliation. Thank you. Madame uh clerk, do you have any agenda announcements andor amendments? Madame clerk? >> Uh thank you. There's a few announcements for this evening. A revised agenda was posted on Friday, May 8th, including the addition of two confidential reports. The reports are related to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of lands for the civic precinct and personal matters about an identifiable individual with respect to the 2026 Milton Sports Hall of Fame inductees. Uh, next, all written submissions received by the town relating to this agenda have been circulated to members of council in advance of this evening's meeting. We have two procedural motions this evening that will need two-thirds support from members of council. There is a notice of motion received and requested to be added to the agenda regarding fourthline street lights from councelor Kauki. In order to have this item added to the agenda for introduction, we'll need a motion to wave rules of procedure to add this item. Also, the mover and seconder would like this notice of motion considered at this evening's uh meeting for a vote. So, we'll need council to approve a procedural motion to wave rules for this item to not only be introduced but considered both procedural motions. If both procedural motions are approved by council, then this item will be added as item for consideration 9.8. And these motions have been prepared for the chair. Later on in today's agenda, we have two statutory public meetings. The first public meeting was regarding an official plan amendment by Shearling Heights Estates Limited applicable to lands municipally known as 1572 Cretchen Street. The second public meeting is regarding an official plan amendment and zoning by amendment by HW transportation applicable to lands known as 7265 number five side road. During the course of the live meeting, members of the public will be given the opportunity to speak on these applications either in person or remotely. Members who wish to connect remotely can uh dial a dedicated phone number 1866-5110021 and they will be given instructions on how to participate during the live stream of the public meeting. Information about how to connect remotely will be scrolling across the video. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh and clerk uh is there any member of council a disclosure of uhary interest this evening? Seeing none, uh before I vacate the chair, councelor Minikakis will be uh uh sitting in the chair and proceeding with the balance of the uh the meeting this evening. But on my left is Miss Scott, who's the acting CEO. Our CEO is off this week on holiday, so she'll be guiding uh things with the uh the clerk here at this meeting here uh tonight. So with that, uh, madame clerk, I don't think we've, uh, missed anything to this point. So just give us a few minutes and we'll turn things around here and councilmanacus will assume the chair. So this portion of the council meeting is now adjourned. Good evening everyone. My name is George Makakus and I'm the uh board one counselor and I will be presiding as chair for this evening. This is not my first uh board chair uh where I've chaired things, but it is my first meeting in council where I've chaired it. So I ask my fellow counselors to be kind to me this evening. I knew that wasn't going to happen. All right. So, um before we get to the consent section of the agenda, we have two procedural motions to consider with regard to tonight's agenda, uh which will both uh need twothirds support of members of council, which means six out of nine members. We have a notice of motion to be added to the agenda this evening regarding fourth line street lights. to have this item added to the agenda for the introduction. We will need a motion to wave rules of procedure to add this agenda item. Secondly, since the mover and the secondary would like to this notice a motion to introduced and considered at this evening's meeting, we need council to approve a procedural motion to wave rules for this item to not only introduce but to be considered and voted upon this meeting uh this meeting and this evening. The first procedural motion is to have this notice of motion added for introduction at the at at this agenda. Um I have a motion from councelor Cali and a seconded from councelor Jaz. Um the clerk has handed me the motion and I will read it. Uh therefore be resolved that the pertinent rules contained in section 7.8 Eight, the procedure of bylaw 014 uh2024 be waved to permit the introduction of coun by council of the motion notice of motion on the council agenda pertaining to fourthline street lights. Um we need twothirds support for the agenda uh for this agenda which is 69 members to clarify to council. Your question is does council approve to add this item to the agenda to this evening's for introduction? Councelor Shner. Pardon me. >> All in favor? Yes. Thank you. All right. You caught me. Okay. All in favor. All right. Carried. Um and we need two/3 support for the agenda. Um for the next piece which is therefore it be resolved that the pertinent rules contained in section 78 of procedure bylaw 01 0142024 be waved to permit the consideration of the council of the notice of motion on the council agenda pertaining to fourth line street lights. Um again uh all in favor? Okay. So this is carried and it moves to 9.8. Okay. So now I have a motion moved by um councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff um with respect to uh consent items 5.1 to 5.6 be approved. Councelor Best. >> Yes. We pull item 5.2 and 5.3. >> Okay. Okay, councelor Cher. >> Yeah, thanks Mr. Chairman. If you could uh pull 5.3 or sorry 5.4 and 5.5 just briefly they're just going to Okay, >> go ahead c. >> Okay, regarding 5.2, too. I like to thank staff for uh bringing back this report and uh discussing with the town of Halton Hill staff and regional staff. Just a question to staff. You mentioned with Carton Road. Was there any need to have it called a road since it is a deadend street and I talked this with Mayor CR at our previous meeting that it was always known as Carton Lane. Is that something that could be amended? >> Yes. At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make that amendment and the mayor could provide further information. >> All right. So, >> yeah. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'll make make it simple that that Carton you that the staff report be approved with the minor amendment that it be known as Carton Lane. Carton Road. >> So, anybody from staff? >> Sorry. Through the chair. There's no issue with changing the suffix. We will just have to coordinate with Halton Hills to make sure that they're on board as well. >> Councelor Best. 5.3. >> 5.3. I just like uh also to uh highlight this is the last heritage designation by Anthony Wong our planner for the last seven years who is uh also uh been instrumental in designating I believe it's 46 heritage designations I'd like to thank him and his staff for all their work as well as his involvement and all planning staff of the mature neighborhood study that uh councelor Malbof and I had a fun time dealing with when it first came about and that's Anthony you certainly stick handled it through. So, congratulations on a well- earned retirement. >> Council Cher, >> uh thanks, Mr. Chairman. Along the same lines, uh when I uh first came back to council, uh I got a call from a guy in the planning department about going out and taking a look at a demolition on a Saturday morning at 9:00. And I thought, this is unusual because usually that takes place between 8:30 and 4:30 Monday to Friday. But uh anyway, I went out to Victoria Street to this demolition and uh uh Anthony was there. That's when I first met him. And uh we became uh fast working colleagues. We worked uh over the last eight years on a number of of similar matters as well as designations and probably I don't know two to 300 street names at least. And uh he was a just a a great guy to work with, open mind, uh hard worker as as I indicated, you know, 9:00 on a Saturday morning to look at a demolition of a a garage. So um anyway, he's going to be missed and I just want him to know that uh he's very much appreciated by the historical community in in Milton and uh everybody wishes him the best in retirement. So thank you. Anthony. Yeah. So, there's Anthony right there. Cra 5.4. >> Uh, yes. Thank you. I just had a couple quick questions, Mr. Chairman, uh, for for Glenn, with respect to this. So, the capital budget at this point is about 30 million above what we had originally uh, forecast in the uh, in the capital budget for 2026. I know that council has approved the changes up to this point. Um I'm just kind of curious as to, you know, where the treasurer thinks it's going to net out by the end of the year. Um and perhaps that's not possible. Perhaps there's more changes coming to the capital budget. But that's my first question. >> CFO through the chair. Um, from a a budget total quantum of budget approval perspective, there's nothing uh imminent that we we have line of sight on that we haven't shared with council already. Council may recall through one of our previous meetings in April, we did a large reduction to the overall capital program just to reflect both closed and uh reductions to in progress projects. So, that's really one of our larger one-time cleanups of budget levels. So, right now, we've really got kind of a clean slate going into the tender season. Um, as far as the actual spend against that, we are getting into some of the heavier months as far. So, I know there's a number referenced in the report for the spending to date in capital, you'll see that number grow uh significantly most likely as we get into really, you know, into June, July where a lot of the larger projects are get becoming more active. >> Mr. chairman through you. My second question is on the operating budget side and of course um it was indicated in the report that uh we see that later on in uh the year uh next month. Uh and I was just wondering you know at this point as of the end of March how are we trending in that regard? The uh one item which I'm sure is top of mind for council as it is uh on the town's budget as it is to personal budgets is fuel. Um that is one that we we have started that uh analysis in advance of that detailed May report and there is definitely going to be pressures there. Uh preliminary estimate suggests that based obviously on what the next few months look like pricing wise you know it could be pushing upwards of just under half a million dollars. So that is the one that we're keeping really close line of sight on. We are doing the final tally for things like the winter costs from the first portion of the year and we'll have more detail on that later. uh the staff gapping and the planning application revenues were two large areas of of uh positive variance last year, but it's really too early at this stage just based on where we're at in in the cycle. >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. >> Councelor Sher uh 5.5. >> Yes, thank you. And and uh my question is with respect to aars, we're looking at about 5.2% 2% roughly. Um and it's and it's high. Um we've had aars that have been um in this range for the last couple years and I'm just sort of wondering what uh what he's seeing this year so far because we've just started well we're in the the second we just finished the second installment, right? So through the chair, um the the trend we're seeing here obviously within the context of a three-year period is is one where we're seeing a lower collection rate or a decline in in the collection rate. Um it is certainly not out of the norm of you know at periods of time in the past where the town has been or when we do our benchmarking we still do compare favorably with other communities even with the the decline that we've seen. Um obviously we are looking to to see some stabilization and ideally at some point an improvement in that it is important to look at not just the collection rate at that point in time but there's some additional statistics this year about the different levels of escalation we have with the arars account. So although at a moment in time the total arars for you know any degree of arars may be in in this case in the order of just over 6,000 the ones that ultimately persist to the point where we're escalating through notice letters and other follow-up activity by the time we get close to that you know one-year period or beyond it really dwindles down to a very small number of properties on the relative scale of things. So, um, you know, happy to to not see any get to the point where we did a public sale last year. This year, um, you know, there's very few that are still on the radar for that potential kind of action this year, and we hope to eliminate those to avoid it again as well. Um, but it is certainly a trend that we're monitoring. >> Thanks, Mr. Sherman. Councelor Ali, 5.6. >> Thank you. I guess every point out of the consent agenda is out today. Um but thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair. You're doing a great job. Um my comments are about uh the procurement activity update and this is with regards to the um tender award for nippasing road reconstruction and it says here the top five awards from 2025 include the tender award for nippasing road reconstruction 23.8 million. Um, I just wanted to take the opportunity at this point, uh, as I see this mentioned in the report to share the comments I've heard from the community about their frustrations surrounding the construction on Nippasing and Child's Drive. And I hope this is just a comment. I hope that the contractors who we have procured will listen to these comments that the residents have, which includes really confusing placements of one-way signage, uh dangerous pedestrian conditions, poor visibility when entering and exiting the commercial plaza, and on that note, lack of business for all of the businesses in the plaza, and of course, concerns about removal of trees. Um, I know that the construction is uh slated to continue through fall of this year or perhaps next year. And so I do believe this is the opportune time to highlight these issues the community has, especially the business community in the area and to make sure that the contractor, you know, um, tries to fix these problems. That's it. >> Any comments from Okay. Council, that's it. Can we call the vote? Okay. All those in favor? It's carried. Okay. We have two public meetings this evening. Uh 7.1 is official plan amendment by Shearling Heights Estates Limited. Uh for this meeting, I now call the clerk to review the procedures for this public meeting. >> Thank you. This public meeting is regarding an official plan amendment by Cheryling Heights Estates Limited, applicable to lands known as 1572 Cretchen Street. Council will consider related bylaws at a future meeting. If you wish to be notified of the decision about this public meeting, please sign the attendance sheet which is located at the back table in council chambers or you can make a written request to town clerk at 150 Mary Street Milton or email town clerk@milton.ca. Following a brief presentation from the applicant, there will be an opportunity for public comments from inerson and remote meeting participants. As a reminder for anyone wishing to connect remotely, the phone number is 18665110021. >> So, uh, welcome. Can you tell us who you are and then, uh, start? >> Okay. Uh, good evening, chair, members of town council, and members of the public. My name is Carmina Tuba. I'm a development manager with Trinity Point Developments as well as a professional planner with the Ontario Professional Planning Institute and I'm here to present our request for a local official plan amendment for our site located at 1572 Cretchin Street, also known as Sherling Heights Estates Limited. The request for today's local official plan amendment is very specific, scoped, and technical in nature. This amendment is needed to allow for our development to proceed as revised to better respond to today's economic conditions. And specifically, we are seeking to implement a special policy area that will increase the limit of ground related housing for the property from 20% to 34% as permitted under the Boing secondary plan policies. Before I go into the rationale for why this official plan amendment is required, I do want to give some context and to as to who Trinity Point Development is and some background to the site and the history of planning entitlements and design concepts. Um, and then I will move into closing and our next steps. So for those of you who are not familiar with Trinity Point Developments, we are a division of the Green Park group of companies and we build all across the GTA and build all types of projects from low to mid and high-rise projects that are typically in transit oriented and mixeduse projects. We are also very proud to be among the builders contributing to Milton's growth and are proudly completing the construction of Tonsman Towers by the Milton GO station. for the project team. I won't go into detailing every specific consultant that we're working with, but know that we work with trusted respective professionals in the industry and uh they are displayed on the screen here. And so these are consultants and experts that we work with very regularly and have been on this project for many years and are on many other projects for Trinity Point. Moving into the site and surrounding context, the site is located in Ward 4 on the northeast corner of Bronty Street South and Britannia Road. It fronts onto Cretchen Street and Bronson Terrace as detailed in staff's recommendation report. The subject lands are identified as a major node block in the official plan through the processing of the draft plan of subdivision in September of 2018. Block 360 was established and reszoned from future development zone to a mixeduse zone under the town of Milton's zoning bylaw. We then subsequently submitted a zoning bylaw amendment application uh which was approved in 2022 to facilitate the development of mixeduse mid-rise buildings, varying types of residential town houses and permit specific architectural considerations. And I will go on to show you what that looks like in a couple slides. Oh, in terms of the existing conditions, um it is a vacant site uh that is surrounded by uh primarily residential uh single detached dwellings, semi- detached dwellings and street townhouse units. The area to the south is currently used for agricultural purposes and the lands to the west are also vacant and I've identified as a major node in the town's official plans. So in terms of what was previously proposed for the site and what our zoning bylaw uh permits uh we had proposed 412 residential units that would have been allocated between three mid-rise condo units. Um we also proposed threetory doublecar garage town houses and backto-back town houses as well as two levels of underground parking. With that um there would have been a 14.6% 6% uh ground related units uh for the site. We also proposed a total of almost 4,000 square meters of open space and over 600 square meters of indoor amenity space that would have fronted along uh Bronte Street South. We also had 900 square meters of commercial area. Um, and as you can see, uh, we were quite proud of the design of the site, especially with the, uh, amount of open space that we were providing that kind of bisected the site and allowed for greater connectivity towards the more major arterials and towards the neighborhood area. And I see if you see on this slide here, we have a massing model that kind of helps illustrate what the massing would have looked like for the site as previously proposed. um you know it supported the major node policies for urban design that called for the highest densities at the corner. So the highest um mid-rise would have been at the corner of Brten and Bronty Road at 12 stories with the other two midrises sitting at six stories. Um but as you know the condo market has um not been doing very well and it was not uh feasible for us to proceed with this proposal and given that downturn we had to come up with a proposal that better responded to today's housing market needs while also supporting the plan function for the major node area that staff were looking for and as well as the town. So at this point of the presentation I'll go on to explain what the revised proposal is. Um, we worked very closely with town planning staff to come up with a concept that would be appropriate for the redevelopment of the site so that it stayed consistent with the provincial planning statement was in conformity with the official plan in conformity with the goals of the Bo secondary plan and um maintain the plan function of the major node and still represent a good planning and the public interest. So we are happy to present a proposal that continues to achieve a mixed density node with a variety of housing options and a context appropriate intensification. So here is our revised site plan and as you can see from the statistics we have a significant drop in units. We are proposing 223 units instead of the previous 412. We also are only proposing one mid-rise condo unit at at condo building at the corner of Bronty and Britannia. And instead um of >> start wrapping it up if you don't mind, please. >> Oh, for sure. Um and then we dropped it down from 12 stories to seven stories and the remainder of the site are threetory uh townhouse rear lane doublec car garages. Um and as you can see the proportion of ground related for this uh site is 31.8% 8% which is inconsistent with the uh requirements of the major node. So the next few slides just kind of illustrate what that would look like for the site. Again, it's very similar to our previous proposal with the central open space as well as with um focusing the the the density around the corner and uh having the three-story town houses for the remainder of the site. Um I'll move on very quickly. This is just the ground floor. Again, we are continuing to maintain uh active spaces fronting along Bronty Street and uh Britannia. And here are a few more views of the site just to help illustrate what will be going there. And in terms of next steps, um of course we hope to receive our approval for an official plan amendment and we are working very closely with staff to um make a resubmission for site plan approval. We'll also be working on our model home construction this summer and hope to launch in the fall um in time to give purchasers a chance to take advantage of the HST rebate. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um just if you mind staying there a little longer. We have questions from council have indicated council Ali. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I remember you folks coming to us many years ago. It's been years >> um when we approved your last rendition of the site plan and uh I was looking at the I would call them improvements to the plan and I'm really happy with what I'm seeing here. I did have a few questions um related to the parking. I did uh didn't hear you mention the parking you because initially we had two stories of underground parking. >> That's right. >> Is that still there? >> No. So I kind of skipped over that detail. I'm trying to keep in time, but we are actually only proposing one level of underground parking. That underground parking will be for the exclusive use of the mid-rise unit residents. Um, and then we have at grade visitor parking for the rest of the uh commercial and residential areas. >> Perfect. So you you think that one level is sufficient for the the decrease in density that we are seeing now there? Yeah, the one level of parking meets the one space per unit requirement for the midrise. So, we are meeting our zoning bylaw requirements there. >> Okay, that is good. Um, I also uh wanted to know if there is any green space that you had initially planned that is lost or taken up by town homes. >> There has been a reduction in open space area. It did initially say we are we were proposing 4,000 square meters. At this time, we are proposing um 1300 square meters of outdoor area. Um it is still central to the site as well as still providing some passive areas that still provide connections to the neighboring area to Bronson, U Britannia, and Bronty. So after this public information meeting is done, you'll come back to us again. Um I know that's the procedure. Um, is there opportunity for myself and councelor Marshall to sit down with you separately to see if there's some things that can be moved around in the plan? >> We're we're always happy to have a discussion with you, counselor. Um, I will say we did explore every avenue to kind of maintain as much as the original design as possible while also kind of keeping with the calculations for the site for density and um and uh and and height and whatnot. But we're happy to have that conversation with you. One last question about the commercial. Um, is there a reduction in the commercial you had initially planned? >> There is a reduction in commercial. We are proposing 200 square me sorry 808 square meters of commercial area as opposed to um we had 900 square meters of commercial area before. >> Okay. So, um we need to talk more about this. Um there's a need in the community for commercial in that corner. uh there's need for community space in that corner. >> Okay. >> And would love to connect with you um and and see how we can make sure that that is achieved through your project. Uh lastly, just a suggestion. I know you have billboards up. Very nice. That tell the community what it's going to look like. I know you might have to change that. Yes. So, please do that so there's no confusion because then there'll be a lot of questions from the community. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Appreciate you. Thank you so much for working with us on this. Councelor Best. >> Yes. Uh, thank you for your presentation. Similar questions, concerns that councelor Ali raised. Are you aware of the what is proposed to the south by CN and the Matthews group? >> I have not seen that. No. >> Uh, you might want to talk to our planners about that. >> Sure. >> Because it may modify your site plan. Uh, second question regarding your commercial area that as you've also noted has been reduced and I have similar concerns. Uh, have you al also looked at what type of commercial are you looking at there because there is a real need for retail and office space in this town? >> We are planning for it to be retail, but it does depend on on the vendors that we start to work with and start to uh lease it out to. >> We tried to keep it flexible for all types of uses. >> I suggest you talk to our economic development staff who's sitting right over there. He can assist you because you'd fill that in about five minutes. >> Okay, Councelor Cher. Uh thanks Mr. Chairman. Uh my question is around um what is the what is the template for what you're proposing? Have you done this this kind of revised development before uh with any of your properties in Ontario >> in terms of the the product that we're building? Uh yeah uh again Green Park is a is a large group of companies. We have some affiliated companies that are actually building this type of rear lane townhouse product. It's actually quite popular right now. Um so while we haven't where we have built some of this on within the house, um this would be I think my first time playing in Milton. >> Okay. And and have you come forward in any other communities with uh a revised proposal as you have with us tonight? >> In terms which communities are you? in a community in Ontario where you've where you've taken a look at the economics of it and you're currently in the process or maybe you've completed the process of of changing uh the proposed development. >> Yeah. So, we work very closely with agents who are on the ground that understand the market and understand the market needs. So, that's kind of why the proposal is being changed because that's our understanding of where the market is going more towards end users and and uh family family owners. >> Okay. But you haven't done it before elsewhere. >> Yes, we have. Yeah, >> you have. So you're working with other municipalities today. >> Yes. So we're doing this in in Vaughn. We have um some projects in Markham I believe as well. >> That's right. >> Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Councelor Marshall. >> Thank you for your presentation. Um as councelor Ali mentioned, um this is part of our ward, so happy to have a further discussion afterwards. I won't repeat some of the things that have been said by councelor Ali because um she and I are on the same page when it comes to open space and park space and the importance to the community um as well as what councelor Ali and councelor Bess has commented on with respect to the commercial space. Um so I really hope that you can go back and give that some thought. Um councelor Bess alluded to some proposed developments that are happening to the south of the property. Um the big piece is obviously CN and so I'm wondering if you have turned your mind to what sort of environmental features you could put in this property to offer some additional protections to these residents. >> So we have been uh based on the history of the file we have been in communication with CN to understand the noise impacts to our site. Um we did um a noise study as well for this site many times actually based on its different iterations and it's our understanding through CN's reporting and through their studies as well as our own internal studies that um the noise impacts uh we aren't anticipating any that are above the limits um and that some noise mitigation isn't required on our site other than um you know being able to provide some soundproofing windows and um structurally um with the town And so I can appreciate your comments based on what CN's provided. I will encourage you to take a look at what is being proposed by Matthews development because they are um proposing a lot of warehousing storage of containers which is definitely going to impact noise directly across from that. >> Um but in addition to noise, there's going to be additional pollutants. So is there an opportunity to have mature trees from the start in this development or what other sort of concepts from an environmental standpoint to decrease um those type of environmental pollutants have you guys give given consideration to? >> Again we we'll take another look at it with our consulting team and take a look at the proposal south of us to see what else we haven't explored at this time. >> Okay. Thank you Rans. >> Yeah, thank you very much Mr. Chairman. again uh guess a comment and a question. I have no issues at all uh of uh you know the two counselors meeting with the uh proponents but I guess the question is should there be uh or will there be a senior staff person involved as well with our policy and procedure will it have to or should come back maybe to council if there's anything major in the changes what we're hearing this evening and that also uh it's been raised a couple of times with the Matthews link there. I think the commissioner should maybe just comment on that where we may or may not be with that because at least as far as I'm concerned that's a long ways off to go. Uh so I don't want that to cloud whatever may involve in that particular area there. So through you Mr. Chair. Uh can I assume that there would be a senior staff person there >> through the chair? We'd be more than happy to support the counselors uh in a meeting with uh Trinity Point. And then to address your question about uh CN and just for clarity uh Matthews Development is representing CN for lands generally um in in between 25 and TAN south of Britannia. We do not have any applications before us at the town. Uh just last week, I understand Matthews uh developments had their own public consultation meeting, not affiliated with the town. Um I will add that any development there would require a very large urban boundary expansion and that would be should they should they decide to uh submit an application, that would be the first question asked of our council. I can certainly provide you with the details that I have to date, but again, it has zero status at the town of Milton at this time. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, this is the point where we turn to uh delegate to delegates, but there are no delegations here today. So, we'll open it up to members of the audience that would like to uh come up and talk about this item. Is anybody out there? Going once. Anybody like to speak on this item, twice? We have someone like can speak. Yeah. Come on up. Stand at the podium. Turn the turn the button on so you can microphone is on. Tell us your name. And you have five minutes. >> Okay. Uh my name is Pat Scaduto. I've been a resident of Milton since about 2006. Love the town. Um, on this item, I I honestly got to say this is one of the first times that I heard a builder, and I don't know the gentleman or the young lady, but their presentation, uh, I really like cuz one of the biggest beefs that I've always had in Milton is we have dozens and dozens of builders. And I know cuz I used to work for a union and I've walked through almost every house that's been built in Milton. They'll build these town houses on top of each other with a single driveway, singlecar garage. This is the first time that I've heard a builder building with a double car garage because nobody in Milton or very few put their cars in these tiny garage are probably 8 feet wide by 16 feet. You put a car in, you can't even walk in your house. So, you know what? Kudos to them. And I think that from this moment, like Shaniah Twain says, from this moment on, you want to build in my town, you better have a extra long driveway so people can put two cars or you better have one that's extra wide so people can put two cars because what happens after, you all know this, people park all over the place, all over the street. They're ticketed. Uh, it's a mess. I moved out of these subdivisions and I live in the old part of town because I was sick and tired of opening my front door and see nothing but car after car after car after car. So, you know what? Green Park is a good company. They're probably one of the biggest builders that I ever dealt with or knew. I don't know this particular uh gentleman or young lady here, but again, kudos to them. And I think from now on, council should only allow, you want to build, you know what, make 30,000 less uh on each unit. Give the people an extra either 15 20 ft of driveway with their wife. So, you know what? Good on them. And I hope the council uh votes in favor. Thank you. >> So, just what one second, sir? Just remain there. Council have any comments or questions? Okay. Well, then thank you. You continue. you take your seat. Take your seats. So, um, we're going to, uh, I'm going to read the motion now. Uh, I have a motion moved by councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff that development services report DS 0302026 be received for information. Uh, can we have a vote and all in favor? So, moved. So, it's carried. Okay. Two of them too. 72. Okay. Um we have official plan 7.2 official plan amendment by and zoning bylaw amendment by HW transportation group. Uh for this meeting I call on the town clerk to review the procedure as well. >> Thank you. So this public meeting is regarding an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment by HW transportation applicable to lands municipally known as 7265 number five side road. Council will consider related bylaws at a future meeting. To be notified of the decision of this matter, please sign the attendant sheet that's located at the back of council chambers. Um or you can make a written request to town clerk at 150 Mary Street Milton or email town clerk@milton.ca following a brief presentation from the applicant. There will be an opportunity for public comments from inerson and remote meeting participants. As a reminder, the phone number for anyone wishing to participate remotely is 1866 5110021. Thank you. >> Welcome. If you can introduce yourself and I want to let you know you have five minutes on the clock. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh my name is Bill Outred. Uh I'm a uh a planning consultant we Outred and Associates Inc. Uh we are the agents for uh the owners of the subject property uh 7265 number side number five side road, excuse me. Um the purpose of the application is a resoning and official plan amendment in this instance uh to add some additional uses uh to the the subject property. Um let me just see I can go through the slides here. Yes, thank you. Um, just go through quickly. Uh, this this is an application uh that follows an application from uh a year and a half ago or so that we came in. Uh, we just simply came in with the resoning application to try and expand on the previous uh um use. Uh, it was previously Pride uh transportation that built the the site, went through site plan approval. uh our client uh bought it and essentially as I said we came through last year with an application to expand the uses to allow truck sales in addition to truck leasing that was previously approved on the subject property. Uh ultimately we probably should have gone through with the OP last year. Uh we did not and we're here today to uh to request the the zoning as well as the the OP. Uh the purpose of the OP is basically to once again expand the uses to permit in addition to the uses that are already permitted um essentially a truck terminal. Um we're looking at obviously the truck rental, leasing, servicing uh and sales as well as the transportation terminal. The site as it was designed and built was for essentially a trucking operation and I believe Pride got caught up in the same OP issue when they designed it. Um, you know, we'll go to the site plan and I'll I'll just show briefly before we get there. Actually, I'll just flip towards the site plan. This is the existing site. Nothing is going to be changing. The existing building is about 1,400 uh square meters. Uh all the parking, all the uh logistics on the site, including uh the service. Uh uh there was also um uh electrical charging for transports and so forth. It was all built with the intention of being more or less a truck terminal. So, so once again, nothing is changing on the site. It is peripheral to the the business park. I think one of the reasons why the uh M2 uses were not permitted on this particular property was just because of the uh the actual location. Um this star on the very top left corner shows the the subject property. You can see all the M2 lands internal to the site. Um about where the star is, there is M2 immediately across the street in both directions. Uh but once again uh this site was just the M2 362 uh a little more restrictive as far as the uses that could be permitted. There's only one small area at the very top left corner. You can see that actually a butts uh of the road uh where u you know there's residential across the road. So there's very limited exposure pertaining to this property as it as it you know looks at the the broader area. So, uh, once again, I don't think it's it's an issue as far as, uh, uh, the the matter of the official plan. Um, just as a note, as I mentioned, all the buildings are being retained. There's no changes whatsoever to the site itself. It's already been laid out uh, uh, as a a truck terminal essentially. Uh we have submitted the applications with uh all the support of documentation as per what the planning department requested including the planning uh justification report, no noise impact, traffic impact, functional servicing brief. Uh everything is in support of uh the change over to the use. Um I guess you know there's not much I can really add to this other than we've had discussions with planning about uh what the intentions are here. Um I I think it's important to note once again that there are no changes uh to the site. Um you know the M2 is surrounding the site uh u you know in two different locations. I I think it's in compliance if the council decides to go forward with this and approve it. It's more or less in compliance uh with uh with the general area within the interior of this industrial park. I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you for your presentation. Any questions from council? Council Cher. >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, just uh I think you identified on the on the slides what the additional uses was were. Um is there any impact in terms of uh of truck traffic? >> There's really no impact through you, Mr. Chair, with truck traffic because the original site and and if you remember when Pride was there, the entire site was full of trucks and trailers. >> Um so there's no real additional impact. We did have the traffic study undertaken and found that there is not going to be any issues pertaining to uh the change over in the use. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions from council? Excuse me. Take your seat. Thank you. >> I am told there is no delegation. So I turn it over to the members of the audience again. Um anyone wishing to come forward to speak on this item going once. Anyone coming over to up front? Don't be shy. Twice a third time. Okay. So, now I will uh read the motion. Uh moved by councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff that development services report DS00003126 be received for information. Um well, all in favor? >> Oh, you have a question? Sorry. >> Yeah. not not so much a question as a uh request to staff. I have no no concerns with the actual application. The concern that is you know Mr. Chairman is the uh truck traffic and detour traffic along five side road and camville side road from basically the the Dublin road traffic circle right over to G line. I just ask ask the staff review this area because as this industrial area fills in, the truck traffic is uh also looking at alternatives such as to going westbound. So if we can anticipate getting ahead of it rather than being reactive to it because I think we were both caught up traffic jam about two weeks ago where it took 20 minutes to get that 6 km. So anything to improve appreciate it. Commissioner, >> we will absolutely do that. Thank you. >> Any other comments? >> No. >> Okay. So, I'll move by councelor Beth and councelor Malbuff uh the development services report DS 003126 be received for information. All in favor? Okay, it's carried. Okay, I now call on our CFO Glen Cowan for a presentation. >> All right. So, good evening, Mayor and members of council. I have two presentations tonight. The first one is going to delve into the development charge study and bylaw update which is on the agenda for tonight. This is a process that we've been undertaking going back to late 2024 uh when council first authorized the initiation of the study process uh and the award of the uh the services to help support it and as we've had to Watson and Associates uh helping support the study itself. And as you can see here, since the original award, we've been busy in terms of both first generating the content and the analysis, which really undertook the first three quarters of 2025, and then moving into the fall of last year, where uh we transitioned into the more public facing portion, including the stakeholder engagements, the release of material, and ultimately a public meeting back in February. Since that public meeting, we have continued stakeholder engagement. There's been uh a number of discussions, review and analysis and uh several addendums issued. In total, you can see there was three addendums with 106 detailed questions uh included and those are part of the package tonight and all this material has been shared throughout the process on the let's talk Milton platform. I would like to highlight that as much work and effort it is from a staff perspective going through the process preparing the material for the stakeholders themselves and the associations we've been uh meeting with over the last few months. It's equally as much work to go through that level of detail and come up with the questions and the uh detailed discussions that we've had and it has resulted in improvements to the final result and package that's in front of you here. So, you know, we do appreciate the the time and effort of those individuals that have continued to meet with us, both uh representatives for the associations like build, some of the landowner groups and other members of the public that have been engaged. We really do appreciate it. And ultimately, the last step you can see here is we're working towards a uh a new way forward as our existing bylaw is set to expire in June. So, why we're doing this process? If you look at the growth within Milton out to 201, the significant amount of population growth, when you look at housing units and employees, you're somewhere in the order of magnitude of 178% increase. And so with that growth is going to need services. And a lot of municipal services are infrastructure driven, which is what the investment here that we're looking at is. So the studies identified $2.3 billion to support this level of growth and uh 0.6 six billion of that within the first 10 years, which is the the maximum length for the bylaw that's being proposed. So, um this is a really critical portion of our strategy to fund this. When you break down where the investment is going, over threequarters of it ultimately is for recreation and roads. When you include the land, that's really driven by those categories as well. We have a couple other services obviously within the development charges, but uh the the two largest categories certainly are are those. When we talk about how we're going to facilitate growth and the different mechanisms we have to support those services, you can see here that from a town council perspective, there's three primary tools or levers that you have available to you. It's the level of service which helps dictate the level of investment in infrastructure. It's the amount of development charge revenue we can generate in order to fund that level of service. And ultimately, if it's not funded from growth, it's funded from other sources with the property tax base being our largest alternative. Um there is other things we can do as far as influencing the timing of growth or the investment in infrastructure that really helps us with things like cash flow. And then ultimately there's that fourth lever I mentioned here and I I differentiate it just because uh it's not one that we have full control over. It does require the involvement of partners and that's often through other levels of government and we'll we'll come back to that point later. So getting into some of the specifics about the bylaw and what's being proposed. We are recommending that we consolidate storm water so that it's still area specific but it's area specific within a single defined area within the town as opposed to currently where we differentiate every secondary plan area. So it would mean 10 geographic areas becoming one. Um as you can see here from a rate perspective the rate in every area will be decreasing through this process even with the consolidation and it will create to a more clear more transparent and more efficient rate structure going forward. It's also worth noting that storm water because it's really not infrastructure driven. It's more the storm water monitoring programs that go ahead with the growth. It's not a large investment category compared to the others. So it's relatively small percentage which again is another I think rationale to support going the the approach we're suggesting which is a single rate within the town. In this case we are suggesting the rate would be effective on May 30th um in part because it is decreasing in order to uh pass those that that that new lower rate on more quickly. Similarly with the non-residential we are suggesting we consolidate those as well. Right now, we differentiate retail and non-retail with the retail being the higher of the two rates. Going forward, we'd like to suggest a single non-residential rate. One of the benefits would be for existing buildings that may have been uh constructed and utilized originally as a non- retail. if they were to have a uh conversion and and a different purpose going forward, it would remove a barrier which sometimes exists now for repurposing some of those buildings, which is they would have to pay a differential between the two DC rates, but it would also provide a more clear and consistent framework on the non-residential side. And as you can see here, we would have a reduction in all categories with the rates that are being proposed. It would be a larger reduction for retail obviously since it's starting from the higher point. And I would highlight also uh as you may see later as well that with the new rates we are significantly lower than a lot of the comparator municipalities uh both on average and in actual terms. So you can see here for example in the retail the lighter shaded arrow on the left is the one that we currently have. And so with the reduction you can see here we'd become the lowest of the comparator group that was utilized for the the purpose of the study. On the non- retail side we were second lowest. we would still be second lowest with a slightly lower rate. Um, and in both cases, uh, you know, we're we're below the average of the comparators, I think, in the order of around 60% when you look at the two areas. With respect to residential, slightly different story than than the non-residential and first before we get into the rates themselves, just highlighting that through the addendum process, there was a number of reductions or adjustments made within the rates. Some of them were framed as technical adjustments and those are ones that are are embedded within the rates that are proposed. There was a separate category of optional service level adjustments that council could choose to make and we are recommending uh that we we do go ahead and and make those adjustments which would really be a deferral of a number of projects outside of the DC planning horizon which has the effect of reducing the charge. So in total it was around $312 million mostly in the recreational development charge that we are suggesting that we push outside the planning horizon and that had the effect of just under $5,000 reduction in the DC relative to what was originally proposed. So to be clear and that's where we get into the next portion of the slide the residential rates would be increasing but not to the degree that the original background study had identified based on the original assumptions that were proposed. So you can see here that the uh residential rate and I should highlight as well this is just the local municipal portion development charges obviously are collected by ourselves by the region by the school boards and within the study itself it would show you the full picture of all of the above. We're keeping the focus in in the presentation at least to what council's deciding tonight at the local level, but you can see that the residential rates would increase between 1,200 and 4,800 per unit depending on what kind of unit we are we are talking about. And that translates to anywhere between 14 to 26%. The reason for the difference between the different rates is just a reflection both of in total the cost changes affect all categories the same. where you see the differences, it relates to the number of people that live in each unit on average. And the fact that you see some going up by more than others means that since 2021, those kind of units have generally seen more people on average. So, we're reflecting that trend in in the rate calculation. In terms of competitive positioning with the different resident residential rate, you can see here we were currently second lowest in that same comparator group. we would remain second lowest albeit slightly higher rate now compared to what uh what we currently have in place um and it would be around 38% below the average of that comparator group. So the rationale and and the reason why we're in front of you suggesting we we proceed with the rate change as proposed. Uh first if you look at growth itself in addition to what we're seeing today on the ground in areas like Boowen and intensification we are actively planning for four new secondary plan areas within the town being trfalar agon me and the Bratannia lands. So knowing that we've got continued growth in the range of that 145% growth in population, it's important to have the funding tools to provide the services as we grow and and this is a necessary step in order to ensure that we can do that. Um we have taken a number of steps already to try to mitigate the degree of increase and I mentioned earlier the 312 million. Um and also noting that the pressures that we are seeing in large part relate to land which when we went through the study process in 2021 uh conscious decision was made uh to be conservative in that estimate because historically that cost hadn't always fully translated into our projects. We found ways of um moving projects forward without incurring it. But the reality is now and what we're seeing and what we're expecting it is a real cost that we're going to need to build new community centers to build the roads. And so we we've taken an approach of reflecting market value and a an estimate of what we think will be necessary uh from a land acquisition perspective. The DC rate does remain competitive, 38% below the average and as you saw, second lowest in that comparator group and we still have mechanisms to provide for exemptions for affordable homes, rental homes, and some of those target areas that are important to council in the community. And then lastly, as far as implementation date, and I I didn't mention it specifically on the last slide, but with what's in front of you, we are proposing a later implementation date for residential because of the increase. There are some provisions in the DC Act that already allow for a transition period through rate freezes. So, what we're suggesting is in addition to those, uh, we we don't implement until later this year for the purpose of providing more time in recognition of some of the concerns we heard about market conditions. We talked about the levers before and we've taken a number of measures within the what's in front of you on the ones that we have control over. I mentioned the fourth one being funding from other levels of government. So within the package, the last appendix is a point of I think relevant speaking points or briefing notes that we can include going forward where we find ourselves either advocating for additional opportunities for funding or just explaining the position of Milton. Um we have a record of translating funding from other levels of government to reduce development charges through this process as an example. Uh the money that went to the nippasing project resulted in money being put back in development charges which meant a lower rate going forward. Same thing with housing accelerator fund where we've been focusing that a lot in transit. So we've seen that benefit in uh in the DC rates already. Going forward, the biggest project that really stands out from an opportunity perspective is likely the transit facility. It's currently proceeding through the environmental stage. It aligns with a lot of strategic priorities at all levels of government and it is a sizable investment for the town. So, if there is opportunity for additional funding for that, we can immediately translate that to a reduced development charge going forward. As far as next steps, uh there is a period of uh appeal. So, we will after the the posting with the clerk monitor for any potential appeals that come forward and highlight should we receive any of those to council as well. Um, as noted, there's a couple different implementation dates identified largely from the perspective of accelerating the rates that are being reduced because we don't want to create a reason for especially on the non-residential side reason for development to slow itself down waiting for the lower rate. we'd like to make sure it's available uh more readily and then you'll see the residential follow later in the year. There is some more administration we'll do. We'll have to update some project funding and there is some clean up of the reserves based on the resolutions and we'll be moving forward with those in the months ahead as well. The last note there, it's not necessarily specific to the development charge rate, but with council's decision on the development charge rates and all the work we've done in recent years on asset management planning, on growth planning, the DC rates are really the final piece that then allow us to do an update to the fiscal impact study. So, we'll look again broadly and that really becomes a framework that all of our budgeting and fiscal planning is based on once we've done that update. The last study was 2021. So, um, we're we're due to take a look and and see how things have changed. With that, happy to answer any questions that council may have and look forward to the discussion. >> I think uh, councelor Ali is first. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that, um, wholesome report. It was easy to understand for a lot of us, but then also challenging for the general public in many ways. Um so I'm going to ask you some questions that might help clarify those confusions. Now um in one of the slides it shows that there's an actual increase in the residential DC rates 14 to 26%. Am I reading that correctly? >> Correct. At the local portion only on a total development charge perspective it's more in the order of probably four to 5% when you consider the other levels of government that collect through development charges. But again, within the local portion only, yes, it'd be between 14 to 20 on the residential side. >> Good to know. Um, so would that average to around 5,000 per unit? >> Uh, the range on that slide, I think the highest was just below 5,000 a unit um for the multiples, I believe, and uh it went as low as 1,200 for the special care or special needs, I believe. >> Thank you. So my question I guess to you because you're here is that who will be paying for that? Um will it be downloaded to the buyer because that basically cancels out all of our efforts to have housing affordability? >> So through the chair the uh rates are paid to the town at the uh by the by the builder. the builder obviously needs to recover their cost and so I mean ultimately there is um yeah it is part of the total bundle of costs that the developers would be looking to recover however they would choose to determine their pricing >> thank you and I know that we have seen we have proposed some reduction into the commercial and employment lands DC's which is good um but having said that how does that affect how soon we're able to build the infrastructure that we need for a community like parks and community centers that are in such high demand currently. >> So right now through our existing budgeting process, we have the detailed 10-year forecast which shows um again based on the current expectation of timing of projects and of growth. Um the there is a solid funding plan for the projects that have already been identified within that 10-year period. Um, with the changes that are proposed here today, we do expect that the net result would be approximately $60 million additional throughout that 10-year period. And so going forward through next year's budget process, council will have decisions on, and again noting we'll we will update the the planning forecast of the number of units. But if the 60 million remains as additional opportunity, whether that's used to change timing of projects, whether that's used to reduce the debt we're using to fund growth because we do have over 90 million of debt within the 10 years, or whether we're putting it in reserve to allow flexibility as we may need to accelerate some projects as we go forward. Those will be decisions council can determine once we have a rate in place. >> Thank you. In my experience on council, I've seen that it's the DCs that will pay for all of the good things that the community wants, which are the parks and the community centers and uh soccer fields, etc., etc. And uh in W 4, which I have the honor to represent for the last 8 years, we've been talking about the Boeing community center for 8 years and we still don't have shovels in the ground because of the market conditions related to the developer. So something to think about, food for thought. Um just commenting here um there are frustrations and I guess council will always have to walk the fine line of you know DC's and then keeping taxes low and making sure infrastructure is available on time. So it is very challenging but I appreciate you for um making sure that everything is clear and transparent in this report. Appreciate that. >> Councelor Challenger. >> Uh thanks Mr. chairman. Uh just a couple comments first of all before I ask my questions and I only have a few questions because of what I'm about to say. So I just want to thank staff over the period of time that we've done this review. First of all hired an excellent consultant. uh the workshops, the presentations that uh were here before council uh very thorough um and it's not easily understood and um I think it's the process that you use to to arrive at tonight was uh very helpful and I I greatly appreciate it and I think it's a a great template for the future because uh we're going to have to do this at least a couple times more before we get to 201. I don't plan to be around for that meeting, but um just the same you might be, but not not me. Anyway, uh u we had you and I had a great conversation. I asked a number of questions u and I I just want to reiterate a couple things. one just the as I indicated before the comparative municipalities. If we can work on possibly uh including municipalities that market their that that have developers marketing their product at roughly the same price that we do in this community. I think that would be that would be helpful and perhaps even have a similar volume of business that that is generated in the town of Milton. I think that would also be helpful. Um my second question is around the the uh the time frame and we had a conversation there and councelor Malof and I have an amendment coming uh with respect to that tonight. Um if you could just explain to to council within the act u the difference between what we're approving tonight and then the actual enactment of when it starts. I think that would be helpful. So within the act when it talks about the time that council has to pass the the development charge bylaw, it does speak to the bylaw needing to be passed within one year of the background study. And in our case, the background study was released on December 19th of last year. What the act doesn't speak to is the actual effective date of that bylaw that's been passed. So right now the resolutions in front of you speak about a November 2nd implementation date after council would approve a bylaw presumably tonight. What's going to come through the motion will be uh a date to align it with December 31st which was a date identified in a letter from build looking for just or suggesting different ways that the town could continue to support build and its members. Um and so although that falls after December 19th again without any direction from the act to say about the effective date um you know there always is potential like any legal situation you could be challenged. We don't think there'd really be much to argue uh because the act is silent on it and the fact that it's very close to what would be the one-year anniversary anyways. We we we think it's very low risk for council uh for us to if council chooses to um hear the feedback from build and and change that date from November 2nd to December 31st. Um it is something that uh staff could support. >> Thanks Mr. Chairman. >> Councelor Best similar comments to councelor Cher. Uh three questions. The first one you mentioned about phasing of trying to get the most financially able. Are you working with the region and and development services in terms of overall phasing that's in the town's favor? Because uh unfortunately everybody's got different agendas in terms of how many homes they want to bring on each year and as as you know we have 4,400 homes already under application east of JFogar road. How does that work and do we have to change our phasing policy of 75% done in one phase before the next phase comes on? Yeah, through the chair. When we talk about timing and phasing, as I alluded to on that slide, there is a couple different avenues of that. One is on the planning side, absolutely about um the location and pace at which the the town expands. The other is on the on our investment in the infrastructure that supports it, noting some services traditionally happen earlier in the development cycle, like roads and fire, whereas some uh happen more as the development is occurring, such as recreation. Um I don't want to overstep in terms of our development commissioner's uh area expertise in terms of the the phasing of the growth itself. Um just noting that the planning processes we go through are fairly extensive as far as looking starting from official plan review into secondary into tertiary planning. there's a lot of thought uh put into those uh those frameworks and uh I do think our staff does a pretty good job at remaining fairly cognizant of which elements are working and if there are opportunities to revisit if needed along the way >> and I hope that staff continue that. Uh second question I also like to thank you for appendix 10 highlighting the advocacy which is mirrors what the association mispils of Ontario is putting to the province that we need is better coordination. It's been noted at the bottom that the transit facility is now going to cost estimated $136 million which I believe is almost double what it was a few years ago. The similar to the boarding community center are staff addressing this in their reviews that when they see this huge increases in construction costs it is reflected in development charges. >> Yes. And I would also just add to that that when we do identify and see some of those pressures, staff are also ensuring that uh the uh the design, the sizing, the um you know phasing opportunities, all those potential avenues are at least considered through the process. um regardless of whether it's taxes or development charges just to ensure best value um in terms of when we're going in constructing and knowing that if there's future expansions, we're looking at the total picture from an efficiency perspective. >> Okay, that's good. And last question, as I mentioned at a previous meeting, what the uh cost is to taxpayers for the exemptions. I believe you mentioned somewhere between5 and $6 million a year or about $10 a month for each household. With these new figures, do you have a rough estimate of what the difference is between what the costs are and what development charges actually cover based on the exemptions the province allows? >> Yes. So, prior to this DC study, the 10-year forecast was averaging around 6.5 million, and that's built up on what we expect as far as additional residential units, municipal facilities, schools. With the changes in the DC, we'll see some relief on the non-residential side because that would be the rate that's applicable to some of the institutional growth that we would have to fund or the industrial. The bigger cost driver though is the additional residential units and those would be affected by the higher residential rate. So, um, preliminary estimates suggest that the 6.5 million, depending on the pace of growth and depending on the the final rate structure, it could creep up closer to 7.5 million throughout, you know, this 10-year term of the bylaw um based on what's in front of you tonight. >> Thank you. And some comments later. >> Okay. I have um two um a motion in front of me and an amendment. So I'll just uh start off with the motion um moved by councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff. This is a long resolution to read aloud. So the motion can be found in recommendation section of a staff report ES02626. the amendment um moved by CH councelor Chner and councelor Malbuff uh second by councelor Malbuff uh that clause 12 of the motion be amended with the following re revised wording that the bylaw on tonight's agenda regarding the extension of and revisions to development charge bylaw 04521 with a revised expiry date of December 31st, 2026 be reconsidered and that clause 13 of the motion be amended with the following revised wording that the bylaw on the tonight's agenda regarding the establishment of a new development charge bylaw for the town of Milton with a revised effective date of December 31st, 2026 be considered. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to the mover of the amendment for any comments. >> Uh thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll just be very brief. uh the uh treasurer has identified that this can be done and the reason why it should be done is to provide some relief to the development community and I think we saw a good example through the public hearing of uh the kind of uh stress points that are currently being uh uh suffered by the development community not only in Ontario but and Milton but across the country and this uh by leaving uh the current u DCs in place until the end of the year that will provide I think some valuable relief to the industry uh as they go through what is a tough economy and I'd appreciate everybody's support. >> Any comments, questions? >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Every level of government talks about the the housing uh crisis we're facing in this country and how hard it is for young couples to get into the housing market and you know on how we uh should be building more affordable housing and then we turn around and impold development charges and new community benefit charges which only increases the the cost of these new homes. Mr. Chair, Ontario has the highest development charges in Canada. The average DC in Quebec on a single family home ranges between four and $6,000 depending on the municipality. In Ontario, it's approximately $60,000. Mr. Chair, the economy is not good right now. Unemployment is up and inflation is up. Families are having to choose between putting gas in their cars and food on the tables and new homes are not being built or selling. Is now the right time to imp implement new development charges and the additional community benefit charge? I say no and that's why I'm supporting the deferring of these charges and I would urge co my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Best. >> Yes. Under comments not so much of the amendment but the main motion amendment I can understand based on uh the comments here but uh unfortunately Ontario and Quebec are very different. Ontario has the lowest provincial funding for anything in any category and anybody in council knows from the FCM and no matter what situation. I understand where you're coming from, but right now I just did a quick calculation based on the CFO. We're going from $120 per household a year subsidy to $150. There's a cost for everybody. What I'm hoping for is a fair share for everybody. This is one thing that AMO has been pushing for is because the costs are going up, we can also look at other alternatives such as smaller houses. You look at one builder in town, their smallest model is 1,700 square ft for a townhouse and they say it's starting for $1 million. Well, I don't know about you, but a lot of us grew up in houses that were 800 to,000 ft and we all seem to have three or four kids. We survived. It's one thing that we have to tailor our wants with our needs and what we can afford not only at government level but also in our own households because it's an unfortunate situation. Costs are going up but the incomes aren't. So hopefully you can find a happy medium. >> Council, >> thank you. I uh I'm uh oh I'm going to support the amendment um because I I was doing some research and I found out that the development industry is facing a lot of job losses and as someone who supports young people um being employed and having jobs. Majority of these job losses are for uh people between the ages of 20 to 25. And so for that reason, I will support the amendment if we can provide a little bit of relief uh to the industry in that way. I'm all up for it. >> Council Khali. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. Through you and thanks, Glenn, for the recommendation that's before us today. I'm supportive of the uh amendment that council Chalner has spearheaded here. Um as staff have identified, there's not really an issue proceeding that way. I do want to talk about the relationship between DCs and uh the cost to purchase a home which are like you briefly mentioned Glenn are usually trickle down sometimes in the purchase price of a home. Um that being said, DCS are very important and uh the increases I think you've proposed are reasonable because of the fact that if the developer doesn't pay for the capital infrastructure like parks, recreation, roads, other things, then that t that uh gets offset to the taxpayer during budget time through property taxes. Now, I do want to emphasize the point you made on one of your slides where you stated that Milton has some of the most competitive DCs. I think one other municipality is a bit lower than us. we're still maintaining that status with the increase that's proposed. So I think the challenges for affordable housing that's impacting my generation quite frankly people are in their 20s are happening right now before these changes are in effect and they're probably going to continue for a while. So uh that balance is always going to be something to keep in mind and um those are my comments in relation to that. Thanks Mr. Chair. >> Any other comments? Okay. All in favor of the amendment? Uh we'll call the vote here. It's carried. And all in favor of the original motion uh as amended. Carried. Thank you. Gwen, you remain there. Um so we turn it over to you a presentation in terms of community benefits charge bylaw and high density incentive program. >> Thank you. Uh and so unlike the development charges where we were working with an expiring bylaw and the next step forward, the community benefit charge would be something new to Milton. Uh not new to municipalities. Most of our neighboring municipalities have already uh proceeded and established community benefit charges, but this was the town's first review and consideration of them. So very similar timeline to what I just showed you for the development charges in terms of the the engagement in terms of the process to uh develop the material and ultimately bring it to you here tonight. Um we do have an effective date for June 26 identified for this one which for reasons that I'll I'll touch on uh throughout the presentation. So this would be a new revenue tool that we are proposing to use to help support our parkland acquisition in relation to growth and specifically growth within highdensity buildings. uh order of magnitude. Unlike the 2 uh2.3 billion dollars you saw in the last presentation, this one is order magnitude much smaller. It's a potential for just over 17 million over the course of the 26-year period that's that's ahead of us. And uh as noted, it it will provide us one opportunity to mitigate some of the loss revenue potential that we used to have before some changes to legislation occurred. When we look at the buildings that are eligible, and I'll I'll get into the criteria on the next slide for what would be eligible, but when you look at what the parkland needs based on the town's existing parkland standard would be for the number of people that will go in those specific units at 37 hectares, it would cost around $213 million to acquire sufficient parkland for them. We can use the planning act and that ability will be retained through this and that would provide for a portion as shown here at 43 million. This new tool would allow us to recover 17 million, but we would be left with still a a notable shortfall relative to again what the town's standard is for those just based on what our legislative abilities are. So where this would be applicable would be firstly only in areas of the town where we don't already have agreements with landowner groups that provide for sufficient parkland. So most secondary plans within the town um whether it's existing ones including Boone or going forward areas like Trafalar, like Britannia, like Agertton, they'll be exempt from the CBC on the basis that we have separately um arrived at agreements where they've contributed lands above and beyond planning act allowances. So really the areas where this would be primarily focused, a lot of the growth would be in the older parts of town in the in the non-husp areas. Um and then potentially going forward in new secondary plans that don't have a similar agreement um as well. It would only be exclusive to highdensity buildings. So they have to be at least five stories or above and at least 10 units or above. And it would exclude a number of uses such as long-term care and retirement homes. As you can see here, what we're saying in terms of that 17 million is there's just over 11,000 units projected out to 2011 that might meet this criteria. And so that's really the uh the audience for the CBC. It would be charged at a rate of 4% of the land value before any development occurs on that site. Um and and that is consistent with the rates that are applied to other municipalities within Ontario. Hence, you don't see the comparison graph for this like you do with the other because it's percentage based and the the percentages are are fairly consistent. The actual dollar value will vary by each location based on density and based on land value. We are estimating that it's approximately $1,500 and we've used some very specific buildings in Milton that have been built and we just use those as test cases and the range we found in those really ranged from just under $800 to just over 1500. So again it it it's probably in that order of magnitude and in this case we are suggesting June 26 in part to provide some uh transition period from today also in part to align with an incentive program that has been approved by the the CHC and I'll touch on that here because as much as we're introducing the CBC itself what we're also proposing to council is to introduce an incentive program which would effectively rebate the CBC until December 2027. 7. That would provide a lengthy transition period for any applications that are currently in process. So that although the town would still recognize the CBC revenue, we'd be using funding that we've collected through the housing accelerator fund as a way to provide this uh transition opportunity. Um the additional rebate we're proposing, so one is specific to the CBC. We're proposing with again housing accelerated funding we go one step further and we extend the building permit rebate that we currently have in place for affordable and rental units and that we extend the program out to all highdensity units within the town. So not just those in the CBC related areas but also within the secondary plans we provide a window of time where we provide that additional incentive. Keeping in mind as well the last slide deck we looked at on development charges did show that high density was one of the areas that were more affected by the DC rate increase. This again just provides one additional measure that uh that can be considered there. I'm not sure if I just shrunk the uh slides accidentally or um so as noted we we would use housing accelerator funding. This is a requirement for us to be eligible for essentially a topup in that program worth 2.2 2 million and at as you'll see through the report, we're suggesting we earmark the entirety of that additional top up for this new incentive program. In the case of the CBC rebate, it'll be valid until December 18th, 2027, regardless of the actual cost. In the case of the highdensity building permit, we've put the December date as a as an end date, but noting that there would be some dollar consideration as well, that should we exceed the 2.2 2 million that uh that there would be a limit on the program unless we come back and increase it. Based on current forecasts, the 2.2 is more than sufficient to get us to December 2027. So, it really is just out of an abundance of caution that we put the dollar threshold and we would revisit that because we would see it as a good news story if we are actually pushing up against it uh as we proceed forward. So, why move ahead with the CBC? Some of the reasons are are summarized here. It does help support the delivery of parks for highdensity buildings and restores some of the funding that we previously could have collected. Uh it does improve par between the different areas given that there are contributions made by secondary plan areas that we we currently don't see in areas such as the intensification area. We still do remain competitive given that many comparator municipalities including all three other municipalities in Halton have the CBC in place today. And as noted, we provide a transition period to to help with the initial launch of it. Similar to the DCs, there is an appeal period. So, we will keep uh counselor counselors updated as we proceed through that. Uh we will be doing updates as well to the public through the website and through other mechanisms. There's already been um notification to anyone moving through the uh the planning process now that's getting close and uh and may be falling within the this category. Um, you will see some language in the recommendations. It's a little awkward in there because it speaks to the old parking development charges which currently sit in the property transaction reserve. So, we're just doing some legislative mechanics here because when parking development charges became ineligible, we were required to put them either first in a CBC, which we didn't have, or somewhere else where they could be used for a similar purpose as the parking was collected for. But the language does say should you introduce a CBC, if you haven't spent the funding yet, you need to bring it here until you do use it. So, it still will be used for parking unlike the rest of the CBC reserve which will be used for park land. Um, but we do need to put it there in in accordance with the planning act. And with that, happy to answer any questions. >> Councelor Chner. >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh Glenn and I also had a wholesome discussion on this and u nobody should be uh under the illusion that this is a panacea for the current situation. You know, as the development charges, they don't they don't cover all the costs for new growth infrastructure and this certainly won't either. and and I think it's probably more acute, frankly, as as as covering off u the cost for highdensity construction uh than the DC's. Um, councelor Best and I when we were concerned about uh the the development at at Drew Center and Thompson, Councelor Best raised the matter of of CBC's at that point in time. And uh and so I'm glad to see that we're considering this now. But I think Glenn, it's probably not a bad idea to sort of apprise council of, you know, where the pressure points are coming from from high density growth in terms of our infrastructure and and what really is the ability of that 4% to underwrite those costs going forward. Uh so as as was illustrated on the one slide as far as specifically the parkland uh shortfall related to the the population that will be in high density this is really it's a it's a useful tool but it doesn't address the the entirety of the deficit. Now with under the old planning regime when there were other tools uh such as higher planning conveyance and planning uh cash inl calculations when the thresholds were a little bit more generous than they are now before there was things like the caps and and the changes to the thresholds um or when there was bonusing provision which was utilized by other municipalities. there was a more revenue opportunity, but admittedly the reason that the changes were made in legislation was in part to prevent barriers from the the project actually being able to get off the ground from what a cost per unit would translate to. So, um you know, we're not looking and and it's really there's no path forward to return to what municipalities may have been able to achieve historically. Um, I will say we are much healthier when it comes to parkland as far as getting closer to our park standard in the balance of the town, which is still the larger area of growth for Melton. So, as much as you saw a fairly sizable shortfall for these specific highdensity projects, we are much healthier as a town overall, not getting to our standard, but at least closing the gap significantly more with what we're able to do in the other areas where most of the growth is occurring. >> Last question, Mr. chairman is around uh other infrastructure. So transit and fire specifically. Uh now maybe I incorrectly identified those as pressure points too, but you can correct me on that. And you know what value will the CBC play there? >> So the CBC in our case, we're going to exclusively use it for parks because the formula is maximize at 4%. Um and there also is language to ensure that we don't double count. And in the case of fire and transit, the full needs of those program have been addressed through the development charge uh that was in our other bylaw tonight. So, so the CBC won't be a contributing factor towards those, but we do use the the development charges to provide for their needs. Uh to your point, there may be differentiate differences between the degree of use of those services, but that is kind of separate and distinct from the way that the rates are calculated. >> I just sneak one last one in. um land swaps. So, you end up perhaps in a situation where you've got a a major developer in our community who decides to build a highdensity building, owns property that potentially could be used for parkland purposes elsewhere in the municipality. Is that still a possibility outside of the outside of the CBC uh program? >> Uh outside or possibly even within in terms of getting credit for what would have otherwise been a CBC, but yes. Thank you, >> Councelor Kali. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. Through you, to Glenn, thank you for the presentation. Quick question for clarity in relation to the financial incentive program you mentioned. Um, you you listed the eligibility criteria there, but I just wanted to ask if um there's any demonstration that the developer needs to make to the town to showcase that they are reducing the cost to purchase a home um if they're eligible for that uh program. >> Uh there is no such criteria in the program. No. >> Okay. So just to flag on that uh would be that you know we're going to be offering an incentive to the development community for those eligible, but that may not necessarily trickle down to that housing unit being a bit more affordable than it would be for somebody who did have to pay the CBC. Having said that, I do support the idea of having a CBC in place. Um like you mentioned, it can help offset the pressures for the cost of building parks. Uh to councelor Challenger's point there, I just wanted to talk about the land swaps. I do believe we've had that conversation before when parks were discussed. uh W 3 has an area, a pocket where that uh a land swap did indeed take parkland away from a particular neighborhood and caused uh pressures in that community which is now built out and there's a lack of park space there. Um I think it's important to make sure we're cautious about uh preventing land swaps from happening again in the future. I think a motion that was brought forward back then a few months ago uh spoke to preventing that from happening. So perhaps you or Commissioner Hogan can just comment on the status of making sure that land swaps don't happen. >> And and just for clarity, I know the term land swapped is used. I was speaking to land conveyance as an alternative. We we have it now in the planning act as an alternative to a cash new payment for example and many elements of the CBC would mirror the same kind of approach in terms of consideration of um what could be a conveyance as opposed to a payment of a cash payment. So um but there there is a role the municipality can play in ensuring that it's actually achieving the needs of the community in that process. >> Thanks Mr. Chair. >> Councelor Marshall. >> Um just a quick question in relation to uh the 2.2 million if it's not fully used. Um is it use it or lose it? >> It is but it's not exclusive to this incentive program. So what'll happen in 2027? We'll obviously be keeping a close eye on how much is being utilized and how much may still be approved. The funding we've received, there's a couple different eligibility categories for how we use it and one of them is infrastructure. So, middle to late 2027 based on how we're trending on this program. This one is getting first priority for that funding, but we do have the opportunity to um to find alternate uses such as infrastructure. >> So, what I'm hearing is that it will be used That would be our goal and intention. Yes. >> Thank you, >> Council Challenger. >> Just a clarification on land swaps. Not all land swaps are bad. As a matter of fact, uh Colin and I and the mayor could take you through the last 40 years, and the vast majority of them have been excellent. They don't always work. Uh for whatever reason, things change. But let's not give land swaps a bad name. They actually have been very beneficial to Milton and many other municipalities across the province of Ontario. Any other questions? All right, we'll move to the motion moved by councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff. This is also a lengthy motion to read out loud. The motion is as written in st in staff report ES02726. And I need a uh call the vote. All those in favor? Okay, it's carried. Thank you, Glenn. We'll see you again. Items 9.1. Uh we'll now turn over to um uh is the updates in Halton Hamilton source protection plan to protect drinking water. And I'll turn that over to Commissioner Jill Hogan for any introductory comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this report is looking for council support on some proposed changes to the Halton Hamilton source protection plan. This really only impacts a small area in the town of Milton, uh, specifically in uh, Campbellville. Now what this what this report is outlining are proposed changes in terms of of development approvals and and any construction activities. It can relate to the storage of salt, agricultural materials, um also the storage of fuel and it's basically upping the um the responsibilities there to ensure that drinking water is protected. So this report is seeking uh your support on the proposed changes. uh but there will be a an extensive public consultation over the coming months um in relation to this. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? >> All right. Uh I have a motion here uh moved by councelor Best and councelor Malbuff that council support the proposed changes to the Halton Hamilton source protection plan. All those in favor? Motion's carried. We're now at 9.2. Uh recommendation report official plan amendment zoning bylaw amendment by Village Securities Limited Remington North. Uh again we turn over to Commissioner Jill Hogan. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Staff are recommending approval of this application for an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. The site is located at the southeast corner of Dair and Fifth Line and the proposal sink seeks a range of light industrial, commercial, retail and entertainment uses including the introduction of a wellness center and spa on the subject property. Uh staff has undertaken uh significant technical review and as I said we are recommending recommending council approve this application this evening. >> Any questions? Being none, um I will read uh the uh we have a motion here moved by councelor Best and uh seconded by councelor Malbuff. The staff report DS03326 outline applications for amendments to the town of Milton official plan and zoning bylaw 016-2014 as amended to facilitate the approval and proposed development uh be approved and the staff be authorized to bring forward an official plan amendment number 98 in accordance with the draft official plan amendment attached to as appendix one to report DS uh 03326 for the council adoption and the June on June 22nd 2026 six meeting of council and further the staff be authorized to bring forward an amendment amending zoning bylaw in accordance with the draft bylaw attached as appendix 2 uh to report DS03326 for council adoption at the June 22nd 2026 meeting of council all those in favor okay motion's carried um I'd like to take a fivem minute recess if we can everybody okay five That's We can call the meeting back to order, please. Okay, we're item number 9.3, recommendation report, um of official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment by Village Securities Limited. Um, we I have a u we're calling uh Commissioner Jill Hogan up again. >> So, just very briefly, uh staff is recommending approval of this official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application. The site is located on the east side of Fifth Line, south of Derry and immediately south of the Union Gas uh line. This amendment is looking to uh specifically uh establish a range of light industrial, commercial, retail and tourism and entertainment uses. Right now, nine buildings are conceptually proposed and this may be further refined through the development process. Uh staff did an extensive technical review and the application meets all of the provincial policy and staff are recommending approval. Thank you. Any questions staff? Okay, I will read the uh motion uh first moved by councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff. The staff report DS uh 034-26 outlining applications for amendments to the town of Milton official plan and zoning bylaw 016-20 2014 as amended to facilitate the approval of the proposed development be approved and that staff be authorized to bring forward official plan amendment number 99 in accordance with the draft official plan amendment attached as appendix 1 to report DS03426 for council adoption at the June 22nd, 2026 meeting of council And further the staff be authorized to bring forward an amending amending zone zoning bylaw in accordance with draft bylaw attached as appendix 2 to report DS03426 for council adoption at the June 22nd 2026 meeting. I have uh call the vote. Uh all in favor it's carried. Okay. So now we'll call up Robbie Grall. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um the item before council here is uh is a is a final update of this council term of the uh corporate strategic plan as well as a uh report back on the organization's uh annual report. Um the purpose of this report essentially we're addressing three critical questions uh for council. Uh first being is what has been delivered over this council term. Uh the second is how the organization is performing and third how the town is positioned uh for the next council term. Um at its core the report is about accountability and results uh dist de demonstrating how council's direction priorities and investments have translated into uh measurable outcomes. Um this report does have a lot of detail and numbers and so forth and I'm sure um council has presided over a lot of these sort of initiatives and this is a bit of a report back and and a culmination of the last four years but if I may just kind of kind of call out or highlight a couple a few themes I think are really important really important for council. Uh the first is um delivery has been strong um on this corporate strategic plan. uh the mo majority of the initiatives have been complete or near completion and it's very is very much at municipal uh best practices. So that's number one. The second is the town has successfully sort of transitioned from you know what what I'll call like planning to delivery. Um as you'll as you'll know in the last four years um you know council has advanced official plan uh enabling development steady and diversifying the economic growth uh surpassing you know provincial housing targets uh and maintaining timely approvals. So very much going from a bit of a planning sort of phase now very much into the delivery of of the growth. The third is service levels have kept up with growth. Um and so we've expanded transit, maintain strong emergency and core services and modernized uh delivery through digital tools and automation. So these are the highle themes that um you'll see a lot of the KPIs and a lot of the initiatives within this report sort of demonstrate, but I wanted to call out these three specific things. Um I will sort of pause there for you. Uh Mr. Chair, >> any questions? Councelor Hashi, >> not so much of a question, but a comment. Uh, excellent job, Robbie. Thank you, >> Councelor Chner. >> Yeah, I echo councelor Jazz's comments and and please pass them on to uh CEO. It's much appreciated. >> Any other questions? Being none, I have a motion in front of us uh moved by councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff. The council received this report for information. Uh all in favor? Motion's carried. Item number 9.5, 2026 final tax levby and tax policy update. Uh Glen, welcome back. Uh so this report is an important one, but it is one where all the key decisions have already been made uh between the passing of our budget, the tax policies at the regional level, and then the assessment values from EMPAC. This is packaging it all so that we can now turn around with council's approval and proceed with final billing process which I am excited to say is going to happen in our new tax system uh for the first time through this process. Any questions for staff? There being none uh I have a motion here moved by councelor Best and second by councelor Malbuff that the final tax rate bylaw on today's agenda be considered for approval. All in favor? Motion's carried. And we're now 9.6 purchasing various various. Uh this again Glenn, nothing in particular to highlight for council. Our monthly purchasing report with some RFP and other awards. Happy to answer any questions that council may have. >> Questions from council? None. We have a motion in front of us uh from moved by councelor Best, seconded by councelor Melbour. Again, this is a long one. Um mot a long motion. It is uh as written in the recommendation data of staff and uh the report uh report ES02826. All in favor? Motion's carried. 9.7 um updates to procurement and banking signing authorities. Glenn, I think this is the last one for you. >> It is. Um so, as much as we're going live with the tax system this month, we're going live with the financial system next month. And there's some elements in here that are preparing us for that in terms of aligning with the business processes in the new system. And at the same time, we've reflected some best practice or just enhancements based on our experience with the existing bylaws for both procurement and banking. Uh and that's what's in front of you tonight. Any questions for council? None. We have a motion here moved by councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff that the procurement bylaw and the banking signing authority bylaws on the council meeting agenda be considered for approval. All those in favor? Okay, motion's carried. We're moving to the introduction of notices of motion and there are two notice of motion listed. Oh. Oh 9.8. Yes. How could I forget? Um all right so 9.8 councelor Kelky. >> Yes. Thank you Mr. Chair. This is definitely a very important one here and uh it's advocacy on behalf of about uh I would say 75 to 80 residents at least you know in a impacted area in W 3. It's word specific resolution and I thank council for adding it to the agenda earlier in the meeting as well for consideration tonight and for staff for waving the rules and preparing the documents for that. Thank you Megan. Um, I'll begin by saying that uh the stretch of fourth line between Bratannia Road and L Staint Laurent uh was supposed to have street lights installed in uh in that neighborhood. Um, one thing that's not in dispute is the fact that both staff and the developer in that area agree that street lights need to be installed. The problem here is the delay it's incurred in getting that infrastructure up and running. And uh what we've seen is um months of and months on months on end of uh the town making attempts to push towards the developer implementing those street lights, but those attempts have been unsuccessful. And uh I want to thank staff for all of their advocacy and work on behalf of our residents to try to move the needle and get those lights installed. But the reality is is that it's been about nine months since this matter has been brought to the attention of the town for the first three months by town the resident directly to town staff and then since November 2025 I've been corresponding with residents and staff collectively to get lights implemented and now we're in May 2026 still no lights. For context, our current subdivision site plan agreements require that developers install and energize street lights 90 days after a building permits issued. In the case of fourth line in that stretch, the first building permit issued for a residence was in December of 2024, which means lights should have been uh operational by March 4th, 2025. Now, husk construction there started in uh later in March on the 25th in 2025 and home occupancy was issued August 8th, 2025 and that's when the lights at the latest should have been operational and they weren't. Um, so like I said, I'm asking council that uh we uh undertake uh the resolution proposed. There's three parts to it. Uh the first part speaks to adding more teeth to our current agreement to prevent this issue from ever happening again in other parts of the municipality in newer neighborhoods. Second clause there speaks to uh about a 10day plus period where we can provide formal notice to the developer to get the infrastructure installed and operational. And then the third uh part is that if the developer fails to do that and causes more delay beyond that date listed that the town will undertake all required works to get the lights installed and operational and uh recoup any costs through our subdivision agreements as listed. Uh on behalf of W three residents in that area, I'd like to express sheer disappointment and frustration with the developer in that neighborhood and uh I'm hoping council can get behind this resolution and support it. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm seconding this motion because this is ultimately a public safety issue. Fourth line between LSL and Britannia has changed a lot over the past few years. More homes have been built, more families have moved in and traffic along the corridor continues to increase, but the street lighting infrastructure still hasn't caught up. And when residents see that, they rightfully ask, why are we still waiting? This isn't about over complic over complicating things. It's about making sure basic infrastructure is delivered when communities are built. The motion creates a clear path forward. It sets expectation going forward. Gives a developer firm deadline to complete the work. And if that does still doesn't happen, allows the town to step in and recover the cost afterward. At the end of the day, residents expect safe and complete communities, and I think that's a reasonable expectation. I'd appreciate council support. Thank you. Um just for the sake of uh council, we're going to put this motion up on the screen and then uh so we I will move it over to councelor Chandler to uh ask question. >> U thanks uh Mr. Chairman. I I I'm going to support the motion. Uh I have some concerns about it. Quite frankly, I'm not sure that it's going to achieve the desired effect and and councelor Best is going to request that we uh we go on camera for another reason. And uh and I think quite frankly the questions I have need to be answered in camera and I think the solution could also be found in camera. So but I will be supporting the motion. Can we uh we have we have the motion up there. Any other questions? So rather than reading this entire entity here I posted it up there so you can take a look at it. Uh but I have have it moved by councelor Ky and councelor Eaz. All those in favor? Motion's carried. Okay. Now we move to introduction of notices of motions. So we have there are two notice of motions listed on the agenda tonight for notices purposes. Uh both will be considered at the June 22nd, 2026 council meeting. And then we're moving to U regional council update. Cra, >> um I know the public has been following this closely, but um using this opportunity to share that the regional chair position has been eliminated by the province and uh it will uh uh from now on be an appointed position and uh there was a motion passed on our regional council um asking the province to keep it the way it is. It was moved by our mayor um and it passed unanimously and u that's that's it. I wanted the public to know that this is happening. >> Anyone else? Thank you. >> Statements from members. >> Council Malbuff. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Mr. Chair, I'm currently in my 22nd year serving as a Milton counselor. 14 of those years included serving as a Halton regional counselor for Milton, which is a lot longer than I ever anticipated. Ever since my getting involved in politics 30 plus years ago, I've always held the view that there should be term limits for politicians. The benchmark for me was two consecutive terms in the same role. And over those 30 years, I've adhered to that benchmark. And so with that in mind and in keeping with my position on term limits and after much soulsearching, I have decided that I will not be seeking reelection in the upcoming municipal election. After 22 years, it's time to move on and to pass on the torch. So that's all I have to say for now, Mr. Chair. I'll save my farewell remarks till the end of the term. Thank you, councelor Malof. Okay. So, we are uh I believe we have a request to go into uh into uh confidential session and I have a motion here u moved by councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff that Milton council convene into confidential session to discuss litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board in respect to a quarterly legal update proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of landsc specific precinct and personal matters about an identifiable individual with respect to 2026 sports hall sports hall of fame inductees. All those in favor? Okay. You'll have to give us a few minutes to move uh technically to uh um into our into our confidential session. So uh we have to clear the room. We're ready to go. Um, we're now in open session. We need to receive the motions related to the staff reports in open session. So, I have u I have to read all three of these. Okay. So, I have three motions. Um moved by councelor Best and councelor Malbuff that the recommendation contained in staff report uh CS0126 be approved. And all those in favor it's carried. And we also have another moved by councelor Best and councelor Malbou. The recommendations contain the staff report ES03126 be approved. All those in favor? Carried. And last one here is moved by councelor Best and councelor Maloo that the recommendations contained in staff report CO 00426 be approved. All those in favor carried. Okay. So now we are at the bylaws. I have a motion uh from councelor Best and seconded by councelor Malbuff that bylaw number 0826 028 2026 through to the bylaw including bylaw 000442026 as amended be read passed and numbered and that the mayor and the town clerk be authorized to sign said bylaws seal them with the seal of corporation and they be engrossed in the bylaw book. All those in favor motions carried. I believe we're adjourned. Okay. Thank you.