Okay. >> So cranky. >> Welcome everyone to this budget committee the whole meeting. It's it's uh 1:32. We'll call the meeting to order and we'll begin by an adoption of the agenda. Someone want to move that? Thank you, Councelor Thompson. Any discussion there? All in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Okay. Do any members of the committee have a disclosure of pecuniary interest? I don't see any. So, um, we don't have any delegations. We can move to our scheduled business. And our first presentation is the 2022 budget strategy. A presentation by Gigi Lee, the director of financial services and our treasurer. Go ahead, GG. >> Good afternoon, budget chair Dala and members of the budget committee. I'm presenting staff report CRC CF SRCFS 26022, our 2027 budget strategy. This report formally begins the 2027 budget process and sets out the direction we're recommending for the year ahead. Over the next several slides, I'll walk you through the timelines, the budget pressures we anticipate, and the guidelines we're proposing for the capital operating water, wastewater, and storm water budgets. This presentation has three objectives. First, to provide you with the timelines for the 2027 budget process. Secondly, to highlight the budget pressures we anticipate in the year ahead. And last but not least, to present the guidelines for the 2027 draft budget. By the end, you'll have a clear picture of the path forward and the key decisions we're asking for council to consider. To comply with the strong mayor powers of the municipal act, the mayor has directed staff to begin the 2027 budget process through mayoral decision 05-26. That direction rests on five priorities and they're listed on the slide. This slide highlights the road map for the 2027 budget. We begin today, June 23rd, a budget committee at the whole with a budget strategy alongside with the tariff of fees update. in September, specifically September 8th, we'll return with the 2026 year on operating forecast as well as capital forecast. And then deliberations by the budget committee of the whole are scheduled for January 2027 following by the mayor's tableabling of the 2027 budget. These dates are also set out in the appendix in the staff report. Turning to the capital budget, the 2027 capital budget built on the approach we used last year using defined funding envelopes by source to support long-term financial sustainability. They're guided by four principles. The financial master plan, the asset management plan, and other council approved master plans. It will also adhere to approved rate supported financial plans that were approved by council. It will prioritize the projects through multiriteria evaluation framework that we do aligning strategic alignment service impacts and financial value. And then last but not least to provide forward-looking insight through a comprehensive 9-year capital forecast to support long-term planning as well as decision making. This table lays out the eligible funding sources and the 2027 funding envelopes for the capital budget. As you can see, the tax supported reserve funds provide $35.6 million, followed by water wastewater reserve funds providing 37. Storm water management projects approximately $17 million. $24 million for development charges and then $7 million for the cash of parkland reserve fund. It's worth noting that both rate supported funding envelopes were developed in line with the principles of the financial plans which are re-evaluated annually to reflect changing business needs and priorities. This slide focuses on the tax supported funding. Our 2027 strategy sets the envelope at $35.6 6 million as as I noted earlier uh generated using a similar methodology as we have in the past and continues with the capital asset sustainability levy at 1.5% and the tax rate equivalent. Staff developed this envelope by analyzing the projected expenditures from the 2026 capital budget forecast and indexing it to the annual non-residential construction price index with the cap. We are, as you can see on this graph, forecasting a positive reserve fund by the end of the forecast period. Looking further out, our future budget strategy accounts for a gradual increase to the CAS levy. And in this report, staff recommend moving that to 2% from the 1.5 which was first presented as part of the financial master plan back in March. For rate supported funding, both envelope follows the principles of our council approved financial plans and we re-evaluate every year to reflect the changing business needs and priorities. For water and wastewater, we're allocating $37 million from projects. For storm water management, $17 million. These envelopes ensure we continue to meet our ongoing infrastructure investment requirements for these rate supported assets. This slide highlights the growth related funding. Growth related funding comes from two sources. The first is development charges where we're setting $24 million for DC supported projects. This figure reflects real revenue pressures and the timing risks. Slower growth and lower collections are impacting revenues. Legislative changes under bill 17 are delaying our DC collections and these funding uncertainties mean we'll have to reface and rep prioritize some projects. The second source is cash parkland where we're allocating $7 million based on anticipated revenues and that's a prudent approach aligned with our historical collection trends. This slide highlights the potential challenges that we have in our capital budget and forecast. As noted on the first bullet, our forecasted capital is significantly higher than what we spent historically. We're also faced with limited funding capacity which constraints our ability to fully address our infrastructure needs requiring that we do prioritizations as we have done over the last number of years within defined funding envelopes so that we're reducing or mitigating the pressure on our reserve funds. There continues to be uncertainty as I noted on the earlier slide in de de development charge revenues and we'll continue to monitor that and then obviously economic and market volatility including inflation impact of tariffs and supply chain disruptions will also continue to create a cost uncertainty for us here. Shifting now to the operating budget, we're weighing both internal as well as ex external factors. Internally, we're focused on staffing and cost management, service delivery and operational defic efficiencies, revenue generation and cost recovery, as well as management of our reserves and mitigating strategies. From an external perspective, we're contending with inflation and cost of living pressures, the impact of US tariffs and supply chains, growth uncertainty and the revenues that come along with it, and last but not least, the continued provincial legislative changes. Therefore, balancing these forces is at the heart of building a sustainable operating budget for 2027. The slide before you highlights mitigating measures for this upcoming budget. In order to manage these pressures, staff have identified mitigating measures. First of all, we'll repurpose vacant positions and manage discretionary spending. We'll continue to pursue process improvements and alternative service delivery models. and we'll index user fees and continue our ongoing review of revenue streams. We'll also make strategic use of our reserves to manage one-time pressures. Taken together, these measures will help us absorb cost pressures while protecting service levels under rate budget. Our strategy follows the principles as I mentioned of the approved financial plans for water wastewater as well as storm water. We're proposing a 6% user rate increase for water and wastewater and a 10% increase for storm water management. These adjustments will keep our rate supported services financially sustainable and they're consistent with the long-term financial plan that council has already approved. Mr. Chair, that concludes the first presentation and the recommendations of the staff report are listed on the slide here. >> Okay, thank you very much. Um, a lot to grapple with in the making a strategy going forward for 2027. A lot of factors to consider. I thank you for the work and what you've outlined here in your presentation. Um I think we can we can attempt to have questions and and deal with the recommendations at the same time. So someone want to uh move the recommendations councilor tree. Okay. And you you have questions. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much uh Mr. Chair to our uh our director. So I thank you so much for preparing this strategy plan. um we we we know there are few challenges here. So um my maybe the biggest concern is if we raise up the CS capital budget from current 1.2 five to 2% where I'm going how long that going to be it going to be a few years or going to be for five or 10 years strategies here >> through the chair to council tree. So the city's financial master plan identified growing pressures on the city's ability to fund infrastructure assets and the renewal of them. So it did recommend uh an increase a gradual increase from 1.5% to three 3%. So that that is the goal and that was what was presented in the financial master plan. Uh the 2% is that incremental that's the first step in helping us get to that. So your question is about how long. >> Um so I I do want to remind council that this is to bridge the gap that I showed on the graph earlier. Right. So there there are infrastructure requirements and the infrastructure requirements because our assets are aging will continue to increase. So the 2% will be in place and the goal is to get to 3%. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Another questions I remember we talked about DC charge. If I remember the numbers correct so each year we are having around $24 million. Consider the DC deferral or maybe the cutings from provincial government. So, we're going to lose another 24 or 44 million dollars in the incoming year each year. Is that correct? How much money going to lost if we go to that DC uh complying with the DC uh cutings 30 to 40 to 50 percentage reduction >> through the charity council tree. Um so in reference to the development charges reduction program uh what staff presented last week at special council meeting was um an estimate of $44 million and that's over a threeyear period. So to maintain the reduction for a three-year period the estimate was about $44 million. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's my two questions. I might have more questions after maybe my second run. So I can see we are facing lot of challenges here. The one side is we are losing certain income especially DC charges that's a lot of money. The second part is inflation. I see you have a slide showing all the challenges here. DC charge is not uncertain also inflation rates and other factor as well. Um this is maybe pressure for all of us. So if we bump out from the CIS capital budgeting from 1.5 gradually becomes 3%age and consider there's another part of the operation um budget I don't know that one yet I don't know what the number will be if we combine two together so based on the past few years if the capital is 3% plus operations three something like that we're going to be have a auto tax increasement in next few years. That that's is my first impression. Uh I don't have further questions. I'll wait for more. Okay. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion on the floor. Um the staff recommendations and in item sorry 5.1 here. Uh the next speaker councelor Thompson. >> Thank you to the chair. I just want to uh confirm that we're doing a two for one right now. So in addition to the presentation, we are asking our questions about the report at the same time. >> That's right. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I I just want to follow up on what councelor Tree was talking about with the capital asset sustainability level. I mean, so what's the I'm trying to understand the the proposed increment is intended to put us on a path of uh sustainability or is this intended to slow the widening of the infrastructure funding gap? I'm I'm a little concerned as to what we're actually trying to do here. strategically we're trying to achieve a 3% rate. We're we're incrementally imposing that and and that it it will put us in a sustainable position that the that 3% pressure year year-over-year, >> right? I guess all I'm trying to understand is are we actually solving a problem or are we just merely slowing its growth? Is that you know that's what I'm trying to get at the >> chair to councelor Thompson. So we've pulled up the slide. It's both. So, as you can see on this slide, we are um looking at the vertical bars, those are the the modified spending based on our revenue sources. So, as you can see, we are incrementally increasing the annual spend on tax supported or state of repair assets. But also what's important here to see is that in the background the backdrop the the the color that's in peach that is the declining balance of a reserve fund. So we're trying to find that balance where we are on the one hand managing and prioritizing our expenditures based on the income the level of income that we have but at the same time we need to maintain long-term sustainability. So when we look at the peach color we can see that the reserve fund is declining on a on an annual basis and as a matter of fact through 2033 to 35 based on this projection we actually dip into the negative before we come back out. So to answer your question it is a combination of both. We are trying to manage the gap so it doesn't widen and at the same time to maintain long-term sustainability. >> Good luck with that. No, no, I'm kidding. Um, no, [clears throat] no, it's a it's it is very complex and I get it. You know, it's uh not not an easy fix for sure. Um, I guess one of the other things that stood out to me was the uh reserve sustainability and the report suggests that our reserves come under increasing pressure over that longer term. Um, so do we have a sense of when that pressure could become problematic? I guess this chart is kind of saying 2033, but um you know are there specific interventions that we might be looking at or considered so that we actually avoid reaching that point >> uh through the chair to councelor Thompson. So if I go back to slide 10. So as I've noted earlier, our forecasted capital spend is significantly higher and this was presented as part of our financial master plan as well. So to mitigate some of the challenges related to that, it's it requires a three-prong approach. So for one, I talked about the prioritization. So what we're looking at is a very robust capital plan that requires for us to take a look at prioritizing and perhaps looking at the phasing of capital projects so that on the one hand we're managing the expenditures on the other side we are looking at um additional revenue sources right so the the example that I would use here um is related to tax supported incrementally increasing the contributions so that we're we're managing the gap between our what our needs are from an expenditure perspective as well as the revenues that are coming in. Um last but not least, um as also noted on the slide, one of the recommendations from the financial master plan was potential debt financing in the future. So in order to undertake this entire capital forecast and the projects it does require balancing of of all the different factors and that's why you know we we spend a lot of time monitoring it. We come back on an annual basis to to inform council as well as to look for direction on how to best manage our capital plan. >> No. And then I don't want my comments to come out the wrong way. I definitely see the balancing act that is going on here and and I do respect um the financial prudence that has gone into this as well as the the flexibility that uh that you know we we may have that will allow us to adapt to those evolving conditions as as we move forward. Um, one thing, uh, in the report we talked about development charges now being deferred until occupancy, and I'm just wondering if we've assessed what the potential cash flow impacts uh, could be going forward and whether there is any risk of this affecting our ability to deliver capital projects uh, in a timely manner. through the charity to councelor Thompson. Um so we have done some preliminary analysis on what that impact would be. Um at this point it's not significant. Um so really um that said we do have reserve funds that are available to us. So we're again doing the balancing act um doing a a forecast of what we anticipate in terms of cash flow and that's why you see that when we're presenting and recommending a funding envelope for DC's we're being very conservative right like we we need to be able to manage the cash flow um so that we're still able to advance some of the growth related infrastructure um but making sure that we're not going into the negative. >> Uh thank you for that through the chair. So, um, the conservative approach that you're talking about, would that suggest that we're not going to be relying on provincial funding that may or may not actually materialize? Is that a safe statement? I'm talking about what could happen with the development charges. um through the chair to councelor Thompson. Our more conservative approach right now is to align our capital spending with expected cash flow and reducing the risk of overcommitting what we have. So with respect to the DC uh reduction program and the potential impact that is an extra layer that we we need to consider as well. So right now based on what we know based on bill 17 based on delaying the cash flow to occupancy we've developed this. So as the situation continues to evolve uh we we will need to pivot based on what that outcome is. >> Right. Right. No I appreciate that and I do like uh the the report that you put together here. So uh those are all my questions for the chair. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And the next questions are from uh uh Councelor Davidson. >> Thank you um through you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the reports. Um there was a there was a um a slide there that it said repurpose positions. Are you talking about vacant staff positions? I take it >> through the charge of councelor Davidson. That's correct. So, um, so that looks like we're going to reassess and see where we can put people so we don't have to increase the budget in terms of staff. But my, um, is the capital budget as as in the bar graph, I think it was slide 10, is that showing if we did everything we want to do, this is the shortfall, or is that just doing the bare minimum of what we need to do? Like is there any rigle wiggle room in capital investments? uh through the chair to councelor Davidson. I think you're referring to this one, right? >> Right. So, uh well, maybe that's anyway, the capital expenditures, the green bars, right? Are those like for next year it's 36 million. Is that just to keep the lights on or is that to do some of the bigger projects we need to? Is there anything there that can be is everything a mustd do in the capital budget? I guess that's my question. >> Uh through the charity councelor Davidson. So I do want to clarify this graph focuses and highlights on tax supported funding which is only state of good repair. So it's not the entirety of our capital budget. But as you can see on this one um and based on previous conversations on the asset management plan, this is the what we call the phased in approach. So it's not the everything. we've already scaled down, for lack of a better word, to um what we're calling a phase in approach. So, we're looking at what our upcoming requirements are and also looking back and and dealing with some of the backlog. That is what we're looking at. And even with this scenario, as you can see, there is the the declining reserve balance to manage the the phased in, >> right? So, we're either going to have less, it's going down, period, no matter how we approach it. I understand that. Um, through Mr. Chair, I don't want to debate debt financing and I don't I think you're going to explain more to us, but the thing I don't understand is when we start talking about debt financing, how do you ever get ahead of it if you already don't have enough to pay for everything you need and now you're borrowing money and now you have to pay more? Like I'm I'm look forward to when we talk about debt financing because to me going into debt makes it even harder to be in the black, right? We'll just always be adding now a payment. But anyway, I know here isn't a place to talk about it, but you mentioned it and uh through the chair to councelor Davidson. So I don't I don't think we want to go too much into the details, but but I think what what staff are proposing is the strategic use of that, right? So perhaps, you know, using a household example is to not put your groceries on the credit card. Like I think um obviously we're going to come back with um more information to uh a session to provide more details, but definitely what staff are proposing is the strategic one-time use of debt for major projects. um perhaps um a community center that will benefit development and existing residents for for a number of years to come. Like those are the things that we'll be talking about. So definitely that is it's not cannot be used for day-to-day operating costs but even for capital which is eligible we'll have to be very strategic about when and how we apply the use of debt. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And any other speakers? Any other questions? Okay. So, just following along with what uh some counselors have asked about. Um if you could put that chart back up there, I I just want to emphasize this is the this is the the picture. Um if if if we continue to do what we're doing at 1.5% on a capital asset levy. So, um, if we if we don't increase it, this this is what we're looking at. Um, based on the status quo of what we're doing today, we're we're going to run out of tax supported funding for tax supported repair and replacement um about 2032. So, th this it will shift dramatically. Um, going to 2% it's a 50% increase on on the on the amount of our contributions. uh sorry a 33.3% increase on on our contributions. So so that that red line will go above the green bars and uh the peach color will will be somewhat more sustainable. It it'll it'll exhaust itself at a much later date. And we're um we've we've determined our strategic analysis is showing we need to get to 3% to keep that that peach u area stable um for for our all of our future repair placement needs. Um that that's coming from the tax base. So this is this is very different from the larger capital picture and really less significantly impacted by all the DC changes. This is this is just um you know to keep all of our existing capital assets in in good condition. Um this is our yearly the the yearly amount that we we can only get from the tax base that that we are going to need. So um rather than having an unsustainable position in the next 5 to seven years, we we're the the recommendation is to make this increase. I support it wholeheartedly to go to the 2%. Um I'm I'm I'm hopeful that maybe even maybe the 3% is is uh more than we need, but we're looking at solving a problem. we are and we would be, you know, somewhere the somewhere around that 3% mark. We're going to get a lot closer to solving the problem at 2%. But, uh, this is this is a a a pragmatic approach. We're not leaving future councils with um with this chart we're staring at right here. Um it it will change significantly um if we implement the recommendations and well if we recommend that the mayor's budget include this these recommendations. Do I support what's on the floor? I I don't see any other other questions. So I'll call the vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay, that carries. Thank you. Thank you for all your work with that. Uh and then then we the other thing we do in the early budget process for next year is look into the tariff of fees and we got an update from again Gigi Lee, our treasurer. Go ahead, Miss Lee. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll now move to our second report and presentation. This report covers our annual review of user fees and the increases that we're proposing for 2027. This slide highlights how the annual tariff of fees review works. We update the tariff of fees every year in coordination with the operating budget process. The review incorporates new fees and varying levels of increases to our existing fees. We balance those increases against prevailing economic conditions as well as cost pressures anticipating inflation of around 2%. And we calculate the revenue impact so that they can be factored into the 2027 operating budget. As we set our fees, we apply three considerations. Fees should be justifiable and reasonable for cost recovery, comparable with neighboring municipalities, and affordable to our residents and users while remaining competitive. Under general guidelines, our bylaw gives staff delegated authority to index fees annually up to 5%. As determined by the treasur, anything beyond 5% requires council approval. The fee increases are based on the CPI forecast except where staff propose higher increases to align with municipal benchmarks or marketdriven considerations. And throughout we align with the mayoral decision to balance affordability with the continued delivery of highquality municipal services. Here's a summary of REAF for fees update. fees will increase due to inflationary pressures and we're using a 2% CPI forecast as the basis for the city's 2027 fee increases. Uh for context, Canada's 2026 inflation rate was 2.8% as of April and the province of Ontario CPI forecast for 2027 is actually 2%. And that's from the 2026 spring economic forecast. Here we've also factored in their minimum wage increase uh happening on October 1st of 2026 and that's a 2% increase and that will have an impact on our 2027 operating budget. All this feeds into the estimated 2027 revenue budget impact from the annual fee. As you can see on the slide, between the operating budget as well as water rate wastewater or what we call the rate supported budgets, we are looking at additional revenues generated of about $615,000. We organize our fees into four categories as we've shown here. So the legislative fees are really sanctioned by uh government body or is required by law. Our regulatory fees are imposed through regulatory body or city bylaw. Our cost recovery fees are implemented to fully or partially recuperate our costs of programs and services. And last but not least, our community fees are charged for discretionary pro programs and services. And these were primarily the recreation and culture fees. This table summarizes the tariff of fees by c those four categories that I just spoke about. So in total we will have 1,284 fees in 2027. Compared to our 2026 fee schedule, there are 20 uh 36 increases uh sorry increases of 37 37 new fees, 74 fees remaining unchanged and primarily for the most part the fees are increasing by the inflation factor of 2%. So, as I noted earlier, uh there will be estimated revenue impact of 575,000 in the operating budget and about $40,000 in the rate supported budget. Taking a closer look at the recreation and culture fees, which is our largest fee area, out of 943 fees in this group, 22 of them are new. uh 35 are unchanged and a majority of them is increasing by 2% which is our CPI factor and there a number of them that are increasing more than 2% and these adjustments are intended to keep our recreation programs aligned with the evolving demands of the community. A little bit more background on the changes for recreation and culture fees. First off, um we did look at the the fees and for the most part that's the first category. The fees maintain status quo. These are where the programs and transaction fees are held at current rates and it's really to protect participation, maintaining promotional pricing and cost recovery. Uh the second group is fee alignment. So there are a number of fees that we're adjusting to bring the pricing in line with comparable programs and we've noted a number of them here. Uh the third category or the third bucket that we have essentially these are the increases within the CPI forecast where most of the programs are increased by. Um this is in line with the inflation factor. Last but not least, we do have a number of fees that are increased over the CPI forecast and essentially that is to improve cost recovery and you would note a number of those programs that are highlighted on the slide. As I noted earlier, staff continue to look at uh fee as well as revenue opportunities. Uh what you looking at here is this and the next slide highlights the new fees that are that are being recommended for 2027. As you can see in financial services we have some fees that are related to general administration as well as um fees related to tax collection. And then over to the right a number of new fees that are being introduced related to recreation. And then over to the far right, fees that are related to infrastructure planning and development engineering. You notice um a number of fees are related to site plan inspections uh as well as site alteration permits as well as the EV charging rates. So again, this is intended to uh improve or cost recovery related to efforts or costs that are related to providing these services. A number of other fees are being proposed for these other divisions with minimal impact and they're highlighted on the slide. The recommendations of a staff report are highlighted on the slide and that is for uh the committee to receive the report and also for the draft bylaw to the report to be brought forward to the July council meeting for the effective date with an effective date of January 1st, 2027. Mr. Chair, that concludes my second presentation. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So, um you'll you'll see as part of the agenda that um it's quite a quite an exhaustive schedule of all the all the different fees across the city and what their new proposed rates will be. So, can I can I get someone uh to move I I guess this the staff recommendation. Okay. You're okay with that, Mayor West? You want to go ahead? >> Uh thank you very much. Uh th this is um always a very uh extensive review of a whole bunch of different fees that we charge. I I I may have asked this in the past. I I can't remember um but I I wouldn't mind c can I get a sense of if somebody comes in in particular for a recreation program and they they can't afford it and they can they demonstrate that their their family's not able to afford the fee. what mechanisms are available to us to be able to uh allow that I'm I'm thinking primarily kids to be able to still partake in the programs even though their their family may not be in a financial position to really um allow that kid to participate. Uh yes uh through the chair uh we do have a a subsidy program that is available to all residents uh if they qualify. >> Okay. >> So that's based on a demonstrated uh proof of income that that kind of thing. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Uh generally speaking without I don't need numbers but generally speaking how much uptake do we get on that program? Uh so typically uh the program is pretty well subscribed fully. Uh so we do get good outtake. >> Okay. And and where the funding for that subsidy where does that come from? >> Uh through the chair the the funding is uh carried through our budget line items. Uh we do also receive funding through the region. >> Okay. All right. And is the same type of program available to say uh seniors and seniors groups? >> Yes, that's it is available to any resident that does qualify. >> Okay. So regardless of your age, regardless of anything, there is an ability for us to to um take into account that not everybody has the same financial capacity to deal with or to be able to participate fully in the programs that we offer. That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. I I think um that's probably not something that's terribly wellnown and and I I mean I must admit I do get calls not actually very often from families but from seniors saying you know they want a discount for this program or this program or this program. Um I I mean would it be fair to say in a situation like that people on council that get those types of requests should be um directing them toward that program >> uh through the chair they they would direct them to recreation and culture and we would handle those requests. Yes. >> So if in fact they they they do have a demonstrated need for a discount then then that could be taken care of through the program. >> That's correct. >> Okay. and and you know and frankly I think that's a much more fair way of administering that because you know just offering a discount because somebody said they don't really want to pay the full price is I mean really I think at the end of the day what that does is it just puts that lost revenue if we granted that it just puts that lost revenue on somebody else and it may or may not actually be be justified. So I I appreciate the answer to that. So thank you very much. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor West. Uh, Councelor Davidson, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks again for the report. Um, forgive me if I've missed it, but I I thought the the the the idea of taking fees for recreation is to recover the costs and no more. Is that right? And is that where we're headed still? And that goes for room rentals and the canoe club and all that stuff. >> Uh, through you, Mr. chair, we target at 86% cost operating cost recovery. >> So we're missing 14%. >> That's correct. So that's tax base for >> So why would we do that through you, Miss Mr. Chair? Like why aren't we actually making even 2% on the fees we charge? Because frankly, even things like room rentals, I'm I'm quite shocked at how cheap it is. And I feel like we could do a little bit more for people who want more out of things like recreation rooms and um we're not doing that. I mean I don't know why we can't squeeze a little bit more there >> through you Mr. Chair. So I'm understanding that you're asking why we don't charge more. >> Yes. Um so our objective in recreation culture is to provide facilities and sport and recreation opportunities for everyone in the population. There are um private um uh businesses out there that charge for different uh quality of services at at higher rates. But we try to keep our fees. We are a not for-profit uh just like nonfor-profit organizations. So we try to keep our fees and our services at a level that's available to the majority of the population so everyone could participate. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. But I think on things like room rentals that a 2% increase or even a 5% increase would not be prohibitive. And this idea of breaking even or less doesn't match up with what we're seeing in terms of the revenue shortfalls. So why wouldn't we try to collect a little more where we can? I mean, I get the idea and it's admirable, but the city's heading into the next 10 years really strapped. So why can't we do small little incremental in increases? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. So, we do have some premier facilities like uh the Richmond Hill uh Center for Performing Arts and the rooms there that are more competitive and higher cost because they're higher quality facilities. They're they're um pristine sorry prestige sites. So, we do charge higher rates. Um we aim to balance overall at that 86% level. So, there are some that are higher um because people are willing to pay more and some that are lower. We do review the fees every year and try to maximize um so for every time you raise the rate you get fewer customers coming in so you're actually not really generating revenue and we try to hit that sweet spot um between like the most that we can charge um without um deterring customers at the same time. So it is a bit of a balancing act. Don Donald, did you want to say something? >> Uh, thank you through the chair. Uh, if I can also elaborate. So, uh, Commissioner Steel is is correct. We do, uh, do our municipal comparisons and we do try to find that balance in which the rates are, uh, comparable uh, to our surrounding municipalities. and we are trying to balance with becoming unaffordable where we actually do lose uh a significant participation. So it's a very fine balance each year when we do the tariff and fee bylaw. Uh so we do look at at uh all those rates and do uh that that significant municipal comparison. >> Thank you. Um you Mr. I would say my my view is at the very least we should be recovering the cost of the of the room or the staff or the event. I mean because otherwise other taxpayers are subsidizing your personal use of public facilities. Um but when's the la if we keep doing it under sort of what it costs when's the last time we honestly looked at a small increase what that all these customers would fall off? Is there is there data to support that? recent data to support if we raise it a little bit more that we won't have people wanting to use the facilities. >> Yes, absolutely. We do keep the uh data in terms of our uh performance measures and we are seeing uh some of those external pressures uh that are occurring uh kind of globally and uh we are seeing that in terms of uh the utilization our participation rates. So it again it it is that fine balance and and trying to ensure that we do kind of uh strike it right in terms of the uh fee rate fee structure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions? Councelor Thompson. >> Um thank you very much. Don't go away. Donald. Um, [clears throat] uh, the the mayor brought up the the question around the subsidy funding and, um, I I believe I heard you say that, uh, it's fully subscribed. So, it sounds like every year, uh, I guess there's some form of cap that would be in place and I think you mentioned that some of that is because it comes we get it from the region and whatever we do. Uh I guess my question is um if it is fully subscribed every time uh how are we looking at that? Is it again something where we're trying to get that balance? I mean obviously you don't want to have funding left in the account for sure. Um but I'm just wondering what type of analysis do we do to make sure that it's where it should be or in that regard. >> Yes. Uh through the chair. So, we do actually monitor and we do uh u quarterly reports to ensure that we're on track and that we're not going to uh leave people unfunded uh by the end of the year. And uh by the same token uh make sure that there isn't kind of funds sitting there that should have been uh u utilized uh for subsidy. So we do do that uh quarterly and uh so again uh staff are very diligent in making sure that uh the people who do require the funds do receive it and that we are able to utilize it uh fully each year. Um we do have uh a program in which if somebody hasn't used the funds by a certain time frame uh then uh we are able to go to somebody else and uh use utilize it. So they it does expire at a certain point so it doesn't ex you know sit there forever. >> Appreciate that. Thank you so much. Those are all my questions. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't see any other questions. I just want to Oh, councelor Leu, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just a just a few quick question. Um, under the legal services, um, what is the new fees about the motor vehicle accident damage recovery? >> Mr. Sure uh through the chair to counselor leave. So that is related to the risk and insurance section. So, it's to establish an allowable fee within the bylaw that will allow that section to substantiate and force the collection of the administration fee from various autoinsurers. So, it's um Can you give me an example? I don't quite get it. Sorry. >> What's up? >> No, it was Oh, the fire department. Oh. It's mostly related to fire. >> I think so. >> Yeah. Bonus points for that question. You've stumped some people. >> Is appendex three, Mr. Chair. I believe it's a fire fee and the fire chief is actually online. If we could get him up. Uh, Chief Rayurn, welcome. Okay. Can you help us with this? >> I hope so. >> Mute [clears throat] >> through through the chair. Uh, I I see this isn't under the fire um tab. So, I'm I'm not sure. I hope I'm explaining this correctly. So uh currently when we bill for service an MVC or motor vehicle accident we will bill um the involved parties that bill then goes to the insurance companies and then we seek to um recover the monies from the insurance companies. So now I believe what this is is that we have an option now to collect uh by adding it to the taxes if it is unpaid rather than going through a collection agency. But I'm hope I'm speaking to the right one that help counselor. Okay, maybe I'll get the answer offline then. Uh yeah, I think we'll yeah we'll we'll have staff follow through. >> Thank you. And um the other questions are um under the infrastructure planning and development uh engineering um there's a lots of new fees um I'm just wonder um like the site plan inspection we don't have those fees before through Mr. here >> through the chair of the counselor. Yeah, absolutely. Uh as far as uh our review has gone, there was a lot of areas that we weren't currently collecting for and simply uh represent a recovery in order to uh reflect the work that was being done and pay for those services, right? >> Thank you. So is the the developers are paying for this or the the the residents are paying for this? I mean the the site plan subdivisions site alteration all those fees are are paid by the developers I assume right >> through the chair for the most part. Yes, that is correct. >> Um okay thank you. Um I think my question is um you know I I see all most of them 90% of them are cost recovery. Um are we not allowed to make some revenue out of this if the developers are paying for this because we already deduct their DCs through Mr. through the chair and subject to any additional information that the treasurer may provide. Uh this is a regular process where DC's fund um growth infrastructure whereas the fees are recovery for the services that are provided to enable the development process. >> Okay. Right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I I don't see Oh, Mayor West. >> Okay. That's actually to I if I'm not mistaken, are development fees not legislated as cost recovery only or can we charge whatever we want because I think that's really what Councelor Leo is asking >> through the chair. Yes, they are cost recovery only. In some instances uh there is more work being done by staff than the current recovery and in some instances especially when there's development applications where there's two three and four submissions or developers in the spirit of trying to return um their LC's are looking for um phased assumptions creates more work for us. um road occupancy. Uh there's an example on uh where head um sorry I can't remember the name of the street. Uh the point here is that uh there's a lot of work that's going into even road occupancies when staff has to review what it takes and for example to remove a crane from a large condo that's being built. there's significant impacts and in order to ensure the um safe passage of of road users, pedestrians, there's a lot of engineering work that happens in the background that we were not traditionally recovering for. So, I hope that provides some context. >> Okay. No, I appreciate that. I mean like I I think I I would encourage staff um you know I often wonder when a when a developer puts forward an application that's completely out of well untethered to reality um whether you know they're actually getting charged more um for putting something in that's just you know not going to fit to what is you know allowed on that land. like do we do we end up charging more for an application like that than if then compared to somebody that says look you know X is allowed on this parcel of land and and they apply for X through the chair. Um there's different types of applications fees and they're based directly proportional to staff's time. That's the evaluation that we go through. How much time does staff take on a minor application versus something that is more complex. So we do have data that we use to support the fees for different types of applications. So it's uh reflective and reasonable. >> Right. Okay. No, I appreciate that. Um just because I have the floor, I wasn't actually planning on doing a second round. I think um councelor Davidson made a couple of really good points and they were this has been an interesting discussion as it always is on this council but um I you know I think you know it's always a balance between charging what the market will bear and charging what we need to charge in order to keep the things that we offer affordable because I think the one thing I always try to you know I always get reminded of every time I get invited to some community event that's happening in one of our you know meeting rooms rooms or something that's happening like a community group putting something on at the theater or things like that. It's it's the benefit to the community that we almost always get when we have people coming and using our facilities. Like I've had many many many many many situations where you know I've gone to the community uh to to the the center for the performing arts to see some small community group putting on a really really well done uh performance a because the talent of the people that are putting it on but like I said when I was at the uh theater the other day like the staff that worked there really helped to make the quality of the actors or the musicians or whoever playing at the at the theater really shine and and that you know there is a cost to the taxpayer I suppose for us you know offering those types of services and those types of facilities to the public but at the end of the day that is what we do as a municipal government we provide services and you know I think that this whole exercise and I've been through this now about I don't know however many years I've been on council it's always a balancing act between balancing the impact to the taxpayer and ensuring that the value to the taxpayers who are all paying for this amount that isn't being cost recovered is good and the affordability to the people who are using our facilities. So, you know, it it's a this is uh a a data-driven and and wellthoughtout um attempt to achieve that balance. And I think that's what we're we we have here. Um, you know, if there are ever any specific items that council wants to talk about that, you know, could be raised to a a level, that's fine. But I think generally speaking, the the the list that we have in front of us is a good one, and it really does reflect the ability for our community to use the facilities in a way that's affordable. So, I I'm comfortable with this, and I thank staff for all the work that goes into that. Thank you. >> Okay. Um and deputy mayor Chan. >> U thank you very much u Mr. Chair. Um now it focuses on appendix A. Um I just want to get a better sense through you Mr. Chair on the electrical vehicle charging rates. So much talk about EV EV EV. Um it looks to me is very reasonable rate. Um from base fee to overlay fee. uh how comparable is it to quote unquote market or commercial rate? Are we kind of at par with them or through Mr. Chair >> through the chair of the council? I have director super on the line who can speak to uh the comparableness of these rates with uh the work that we did to benchmark across other jurisdictions. Okay, Mr. Supa. You're you're muted. Your camera is off. There we go. >> Through the chair, too. Uh, Deputy Mayor Chan, you're absolutely right. We have done an industry scan which looked at what other municipalities are doing and the rates that you are seeing in the new tariff of fees uh uh uh chart is reflective of what other municipalities are doing. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that and and it's good for uh um I guess the parties who need to have uh this particular rates to pay is is new. I realize that and we are not charging more or less. Uh it's just going with what the market rate is. That's good to know. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you uh uh Mr. Schumer for the answer. Thank you. certainly pleased. >> No, I'm I'm certainly pleased by the response from the public. You know, all the all these fees uh go public and when this report is published and they have an opportunity through through our website to to um to to to object or to send correspondents to council or call counselors. in in the past, uh, we sometimes have a wave of of residents coming forward and saying, "Well, this isn't right or this that's out of whack." And I I haven't seen any evidence of anything like that. So, I think it's it's very modest increases, a modest expectation increase in revenue for the city, but um I I think we've we've already gone through a lot of the hard work of of uh analyzing and readjusting our our tariff for fees. And I think we're we're in a good position right now. And I I do just do want to highlight um the the the mayor touched on it a little bit, but our overall our our uh mission statement and our strategic plan, it goes to it speaks to bringing the community together and and um there's so many non-monetary benefits of of providing these these services. um community center room rentals and you you can't put a price on on how advantageous it is for our community to be to be h having uh you know c cultural groups educational seminars uh just just connecting a community to come together and ask questions and um I I think I think what what we're doing right now and and getting um all of our facilities are well used and our programs are well applied for and I I think we're in a good position. So, happily support what's on the floor. Any other questions? All in favor? Any opposed? Okay, that carries unanimously. All we need is a motion for adjournment now. Anybody? Deputy Mayor Chan. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Okay.