Sound check 1 2 3. Sound check. 1 2 3 Good morning everybody. Today's Wednesday, June 17, 2026. Welcome to the general issues committee. I will be your chair for today. Craig Casar, Council for W 12. As we have quant for today's meeting, I would like to call the meeting to order. If you want to take a look at your electronic devices right now, please, and make sure that it's turned to silent so we don't get interrupted, I would very much appreciate that. Around the table here, we have councilors Francis, Tatison, Bey, Clark, Cooper, A Wilson or M. Wilson. A Wilson is not here at the moment. Spora and Wang and online councelor Pauls. Welcome everybody. Okay, we don't have any ceremonial activities, so we will go to approval of the agenda. Clerk Kelsey, can you advise of items included in the addendum, please? >> Yes, Chair. The added items were two delegations. The withdrawal of items 74 through to 78, as well as added written submissions for items 83, 85, and 86, as well as an added notice of motion, which have all been published to the online agenda. >> Thank you very much. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the agenda as presented? Councelor Spataphora, Councelor Bey, is there any discussion on the agenda? Councelor Cooper. >> Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to make the public aware I'll be stepping away from uh around 12:30 to 2:15 just for some city business. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Seeing no further speakers, all in favor to adopt. >> Oh, councelor Wang. I also have to leave around 12:30 um to attend city business as well. >> Okay, I'm just going to count the heads around the table here and we might put us in quorum challenge. So, please take that into consideration. Councelor Clark is staying. Please follow his lead. Okay. Okay. Is anyone else have a comment at this point in time? Seeing none, we have a mover and seconder. Show of hands to adopt the agenda and that carries. Okay, moving along. Declarations of interest committee. Are there any declarations of interest today? Not seeing any hands. We'll keep going. Item five, approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. We have 5.1 and 11.1. Those are the minutes from May 27th, both open and closed. May I have a mover and second to adopt those previous minutes and that the close session minutes remain confidential. Councelor Wang, Councelor Tatterson. Okay, that will be a show of hands, please. All those in favor? Oh, and the mayor has joined us. Good morning, Mayor Horvath. Did you wish to speak, Mayor Horvath? No. Okay, thank you. Okay, that carries. We've adopted the minutes. Moving on to delegations. Before we begin our delegations for today, members are reminded that questions of the delegations are for clarification purposes only and not for debate. And a note to our de delegates, you will have five minutes to complete your delegation. And you will hear that tone of four minutes reminding you you have a minute to wrap up. And our first delegation is from Mike Collins Williams, West End Homebuilders Association, respecting federal provincial development charges reduction program 2026 to 2023 2035, excuse me. That is item 8.6 and Mike is here in person. And before we get to that, I'll just acknowledge that councelor McMegan has joined us. >> Oh, and councelor Jackson. All right. Excellent. We are much better quum position for later on. Okay. Good morning, Mike. You know the routine. Over to you. >> Good morning, uh, chair. Uh, good morning, mayor and general issues committee. Uh, my name is Mike Collins Williams, and I'm the chief executive officer of the West End Homebuilders Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of Hamilton submitting an application to the development charges reduction program. On behalf of the residential homebuilding industry, I am here today uh provide unequivocal support for Hamilton submitting an application to the DC reduction program. The program represents a rare opportunity to secure substantial provincial and federal investment in housing enabling infrastructure while strengthening Hamilton's ability to attract new housing development, economic investment, and assessment growth. An application positions Hamilton to compete for available funding, evaluating the opportunity in full and leveraging what is truly a once in a generation opportunity to support growth, affordability, and long-term prosperity. For years, municipalities across Ontario, including Hamilton, have been calling on senior levels of government to become meaningful partners in addressing the housing crisis. Council has repeatedly spoken about the challenges municipalities face in funding growth related infrastructure, delivering housing, and managing rising cost while maintaining affordability for taxpayers. That support has arrived. The DC reduction program is precisely the type of partnership municipalities have been asking for. It offers Hamilton the opportunity to access funding covering up to 90% of eligible infrastructure costs related to roads, water, wastewater, and transit infrastructure. Securing funding through the DCP will accelerate housing, support growth, reduce pressure on municipal finances, and create long-term benefits for residential taxpayers. From our perspective, applying is a prudent and responsible step. Should Hamilton be successful, council will have the opportunity to review the details of the proposed agreement, evaluate the financial implications, assess the benefits and considerations, and determine how best to proceed. Today's decision simply ensures Hamilton remains positioned to take advantage of an opportunity that could deliver substantial benefits to the community. The timing could not be more important. Hamilton's housing sector is facing significant challenges. Housing starts have slowed dramatically. Investment decisions have become increasingly difficult. Projects are being delayed or postponed. The impacts are being felt not only by builders and developers, but by workers, suppliers, trades people, local businesses, and families across our community. Last year alone, Hamilton lost nearly 2,000 residential construction jobs. Behind that number are skilled workers, local families, and businesses that depend on a healthy home building industry. Residential construction is one of Hamilton's most important economic engines. Our industry creates jobs, generates investment, supports local businesses, drives economic activity, and continue contributes significantly to municipal revenues. Every new home built supports a broad network of trades, consultants, engineers, architects, manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, and service providers. That's why every opportunity to improve housing economics, support infrastructure delivery, and attract investment deserves serious consideration. Municipalities across Ontario understand this. Many have already moved forward quickly to position themselves for funding through this program. They recognize that housing investment is increasingly competitive, that infrastructure investment drives economic growth, and that communities that successfully tracked both will be better positioned for long-term prosperity. The opportunity is particularly compelling for Hamilton because Hamilton council has actually already done a lot of the heavy lifting. In 2025, council approved a 20% reduction in development charges. The DC reduction program now offers Hamilton the opportunity to leverage that decision into substantial infrastructure funding. By pursuing the additional at least 10% reduction, the city could unlock access to tens of millions of dollars for roads, water, wastewater, and transit infrastructure. And even further reduction could unlock substantially more funds. Few opportunities exist where a relatively modest additional policy adjustment can create access to s significant external investment. Hamilton is already p partway down the path. This program provides an opportunity to maximize that return on investment. The West End Homebuilders Association believes the city should pursue every available tool it can to help deliver housing support, economic growth, and secure um economic investment. Opportunities of this scale are rare. They have the potential to accelerate infrastructure delivery. As stakeholders, we want council to know that you have our full support in pursuing this opportunity. We stand to ready to work collaboratively with the city, provide industry insight and market intelligence, and assist in any way we can to help Hamilton put forward the strongest application possible. This is an opportunity to bring additional resources to our community and position Hamilton for future success. For those reasons, we respectfully encourage council to support the application and ensure Hamilton takes full advantage of the extraordinary opportunity. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. We do have a speakers list, so just hang tight there. First, Councelor McMe. Uh, >> thank you, Chair. Good morning, Michael. Um, >> good morning. >> I'm I want to start, I guess, by saying this is a day we should celebrate. We've been talking a lot about a shared sense of purpose, multi-government approach to supporting Bukova workers and the development industry that's building industry that's so important to our economy. So, so thank you for your leadership on that. Um and u our general manager has outlined previously for us the implications of uh of increasing our support and uh I I'm hoping that we'll have support around the table for that. My question to you is um given that uh we've been able to make some moves on uh eliminating taxes on builds and uh some of the development charge uh issues. Uh are there other things that we around this horseshoe can do to support the industry >> through the chair? There there's always different things that um can be done. Uh we're running towards the the tail end of this council term. Um so I'm not sure how many new initiatives could be brought forward. Um this is a great opportunity sitting right before you. The application deadline uh is Friday, but uh my understanding in discussions with the city and discussions we've had with the province that there will be additional time for further dialogue um between municipalities that make that application um with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing um and before actually signing a deal. Um, you know, we've had conversations in the past, some related to development charges like um, you know, the fourth the fourth unit in um, uh, quadplexes being charged to DC versus the the first three units not. Um, that would potentially unlock additional missing middle housing, which um, I actually see as sort of the sweet spot going forward for the industry. um given broader economic conditions, we're probably not going to have a whole lot of large new buildings built in downtown in the next few years and um even larger green field um projects um just by their very nature. Uh the size of the construction loans are are a higher risk. So we actually may see um a lot more of that smallcale um missing middle um in Hamilton. And more broadly speaking, um, and of course we're always looking to have discussions with, um, with the planning department and with the city on opportunities to, um, to streamline approvals, um, provide more certainty. Um, you know, there'll be additional discussions, I'm sure, in the future about zoning in the official plan and creating more as of right opportunities when it comes to small-cale intensification. >> Thank you. I appreciate the partnership that's evolving here and it's really critical to uh uh to our great city and um the economic welfare of SEM. So thank thanks again and good luck. I hope we have a positive uh um support for your and I think our finance guru has uh indicated to us the urgency of uh coming to the table in order to access federal and provincial dollars. So thank you. Thank you, councelor. >> Okay, our next speaker, councelor Tatison. >> Hey, Mike. Uh, you said 2,000 residential housing construction jobs lost lost last year. Is that number actually greater if you you know look at the cumulative effect of say the past 3 years >> through the chair. I don't have that data right in front of me. That came from Dr. Mike Moffett and uh the uh Smart Prosperity Institutes uh in terms of analyzing uh declines in in housing starts. Um over the last 3 years, we've been generally on a downward trend. And I would just offer that it's it's not just the jobs on site, the traditional construction jobs that you um you're thinking. There have been a lot of um downstream impacts. They're not Hamilton based, but um a large company across Canada, Coast Appliances, uh is now in receiverhip, and a lot of that is to do with um you know, less orders being taken for appliances. When you're not building new homes, new condos, there's a lot less dishwashers, um um stoves, refrigerators, etc. So, the the the job losses, it's a bit like a contagion. starts on the construction site and it starts spreading uh more broadly to um suppliers, manufacturers, um architects, engineers, etc. >> So, so was that number that you gave us 2,000 construction, residential housing, construction jobs lost, was that just was that Ontario? Was that Canada or was that Hamilton? >> That was Hamilton specifically last year. >> Okay. Thanks. And um I'm hearing that you know one of the costs of increasing prices is uh the labor. So if say construction were to turn around a little bit, do we have the labor necessary to you know keep those costs down or is that going to be a demand that you know just helps increase costing for building houses? through the chair. Over the last number of years, um especially as sort of construction took off, um leading out of the pandemic, there were a lot of cost pressures on labor. Labor costs are actually going down now. Um it's one of the areas where costs have been easing and that's simply that as folks are getting laid off, they're bidding on jobs and it's becoming much more competitive. Um, so on one hand that's good news in terms of cost pressures, but it's also not great news when people are out of work and having to um to remain gainfully employed. They're having to work for less um going forward. And I was recently at Parliament Hill um speaking to a parliamentary uh committee two weeks ago on this subject. Um my greatest fear with the current downturn is on the labor side. Um, broadly speaking, across Canada, there is a goal to double housing starts um, over the coming years and the labor issue is going to be the number one issue. During the current downturn, young people are not uh, going through skilled trade certifications and finding employment. A lot are becoming retrained or going to other industries. um folks that are mid-career that are losing their jobs are getting retrained and they are finding employment in other sectors. The question is if this thing turns around in the next couple of years will those people come back >> or if they are uh successfully pursuing a career in a different industry at a different sector would they come back and the other issue we have is a lot of the most talented journey persons who've been around for decades who are there to train the next generation. If you're in your mid50s, early 60s and um you are exiting the industry due to uh employment, you're probably not going to pick up the tool belt in 2 or 3 years. So um you know maybe not the subject of today, but it is a major major concern for the industry that eventually this thing will turn around and will we have that labor supply because of the number of workers that exited the industry during this downturn. >> Okay, thanks Mike for those insights. Much appreciated. Thank you. Next speaker, Councelor Cooper. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mike, for your presentation. So, just so add on a little bit to what we've heard so far. So, 2,000 jobs were lost last year. Right now, Canada has the distinction of being the only country in the G7 and D G20 to be in a recession. I don't know if you're seeing that show up right now, but maybe you could just talk about that in light of where we're going with this decision right now around development charges and what that's going to mean to your industry once this recession takes takes flight in and in in your industry. I don't know if it has yet or not. Interesting your insights in terms of how that all ties into today's conversation >> through the chair. We were cautiously optimistic in the past few months that we'd hit bottom and that we're starting to come out of this uh as as an industry and I I believe we are. Um, I don't think it's going to be a fast V-shaped rebound. Um, things have improved somewhat since the federal and provincial announcements related to the GST and HST. However, unlike buying um a pair of jeans uh or or a television or or a consumer product, um purchasing a new home is not just a financial decision. It's an emotional decision given for most folks it is the most significant purchase of their lifetime. Um development charges, HST, um planning approvals, all of that factors into the price of a home. But when there are uh when the world is on fire and there are wars happening elsewhere and there are headlines around recession, uncertainty with interest rates, all of these things um play into that decision-making process. So, um, the headlines around recessions certainly don't necessarily, uh, encourage people to make the largest investment decision of their life. Um, I am hopeful that the city of Hamilton moves forward with this program. Every dollar helps. Um, the GST, HST announcements were the most significant tax cut in a generation. That being said, there are implementation challenges. The CRA still does not have the forms. Um so that means that um let's just say the air has been let out of the balloon a little bit since the announcement in April. So um the picture going forward for the industry is a lot of uncertainty. I I do think that things are improving but slowly. >> Thank you. Mike, have you been able to get a sense from the federal government of when they're going to implement the program on GSTHST? through the chair. The program was officially implemented on April 1st. Um the legislation um pathway was slow. It would have been nice to have all of the ducks lined up before the announcement. Uh for better or for worse, some of our partners are very good at announcements um and sometimes the follow through is not there. So technically it is in place, but if you were to purchase a new home today, you would be entitled to the full um HST rebate. However, because the CRA forms are not officially in place, you may purchase that home and the lawyer for the consumer would air on the side of caution and say that there are risks here. Um so we have found that there are some deals being signed, but during the cooling off period, those deals are evaporating. Um there is also builders are handling it differently. Um most builders are handling it the way that the HST has been handled in the past in that the rebate is assigned to the builder meaning the sticker price up front is what comes down. Because of the uncertainty some builders are applying it to the consumer meaning they pay the higher price up front and the CRA issues the rebate. Our challenge is the banks and this is in general whether you're going to TDCIBC RBC and I'm just going to use round numbers. If the price of the home is 700,000 but with the HST off it is 600 because there are not the CRA forms they are requiring the buyer to pre-qualify for the mortgage at the higher price at the 700. So the ultimate price may be 600 but that buyer still has to qualify at the higher amount once the HST forms are in place. um this should be going much more smoothly. It would have been nice to have them in place on April 1st. >> So, thank you, Mike. So, we're still waiting for the date from the federal government when they're going to actually have it in place. We don't have a date on that yet. >> Through the chair, the simple announce uh simple answer is that technically it is in place, but there are not forms from the Canada Revenue Agency. >> Okay. >> This is not entirely new. The CRA is often slow. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate everything you're doing. >> Okay. Our next speaker is councelor Clark. >> Thank you, Chair. Just a few questions for the delegate. Um so the GST HST that issue is being resolved as we speak. Um DC's um we're in the process of filing that application. Can you speak to the other challenges that developers are having specifically with securing financing for their projects? through the chair. Um, every project's different. Every builder developer has um different methods of securing financing uh and may have different amounts of capital uh to put into themselves. So, I'll be speaking from a more general perspective. um the banks and financial partners are seeing residential construction as a much more risky endeavor um in 2026 than perhaps in 2016 or 2006. So a lot of the terms are different in terms of uh pre-sales thresholds in terms of the amount of equity that has to be put in and um you know the the percentage on the construction loan or or other loans reflects what that lender sees in terms of the risk profile. So um again this is a a general answer every situation is different but broadly speaking it has become more challenging and and to the uh answer I provided to councelor McMaken before I think going forward and and this isn't every situation we will probably see more projects that are scaled at a different level and part of that is the risk profile and part of that is uh to secure financing and this is beyond on Hamilton, but I think the era of 60 70s story towers in Toronto and Vancouver may be over. >> Yeah, I would agree with that summation. Um, are you aware of the city of Hamilton's policy to require um developers to upfront the costs for external infrastructure and later to be re reimbursed from development charges >> through the chair? I'm aware of the program, but I am not an expert on the program. So, depending what your next question is, I will do my best. >> Um, my next question would be more of a homework question. Would you mind reaching out to your membership and get a report in terms of what's going on in that regard? What I am hearing is that the banks are not willing to finance external infrastructure costs being paid by developers when it's the city's program. So, the city should pay with their DCs. I'd like to hear if that's an actual issue or just an anecdotal issue >> through the chair. I've heard that anecdotally, but I don't have the data to provide a substantial answer. >> If you don't mind, that would be very helpful. Thank you, chair. That's it for me. Thanks, Councelor Clark. Now to councelor Wang. >> Thank you, Mike. >> Just waiting for him to finish writing. I want to make sure that he's actually documenting. >> I am writing that down. >> Councelor Clark's question. >> Sorry. >> No worries. >> Don't be sorry. Thank you. Uh Mike, in the report uh specifically item H in the recommendation says that developers receiving reduced development charges under the program be required and it's bolded to demonstrate that the associated cost savings are transferred to home buyers or renters through reduced purchase prices or rents. I want to just get a sense from you about how likely that is because as much as we're requiring that as we know sometimes it doesn't work in practice. So >> through the chair I I think there's work that can be done to um create a legal framework to require that pass through. Um we're going to work with um city finance and city legal um in terms of the next couple of months in the negotiating process with the federal government. Um there are other municipalities um that do have a legal framework in terms of the uh agreement of purchase and sale to demonstrate that that has been passed through. Um the provincial government just this spring passed legislation um where there are additional um transparency and disclosure requirements required through an agreement of purchase and sale. In the past, a lot of builders and developers did this anyway, but it wasn't across the board. Um but in an agreement of purchase and sale to actually have the individual line items of um what the taxes are. And there would be um should the city proceed with an application and should the provincial and federal government accept that application and there be a reduction of x% um that there could be um work done to ensure that agreements of purchase and sale that the lawyers and the consumer would see um would have the original DC price what the reduction is and ensure that that is fully passed through. So, it strikes me that you're still putting a lot of that work on our frameworks. I think I'd like to just get a better sense from you as the association how you might help us with ensuring that these savings are passed down to the consumer at the very end of the day >> through the chair. Um, that isn't necessarily work that the city has to do. that that would be through the the actual legal agreements um in the agreement of purchase and sale with the builder developer lawyer, the consumer lawyer, and there is now a provincial framework um in new legislation that was just passed in the last couple of months that did not exist previously. Uh and those are now legal legislative requirements. Um that being said, beyond that, um with the GST HST, we've seen everything being passed through. There are different price lists going out. Um, look, if we were in an environment where we were in rapid escalation of housing prices, I could see a situation in which things aren't necessarily passed on. Our members generally aren't selling units. Uh, they are laying off staff. Uh, the only way that we're going to be able to move product and keep people employed is to reduce pricing and this program will help us do so. >> Thank you, chair. I might not be um in chambers at the time when this report comes forward. So I hope I will uh encourage any one of my other committee colleagues to potentially sus this part out. It strikes me that there's there's an opportunity here to really see that we are affecting the prices um through this program. And I do want to protect homeowners and ensure that they are or protect potential homeowners and ensure that they are getting the the best sort of reductions in prices for those first for those homes. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Council Wang. And that is the end of our speakers list. Thank you very much, Mike. >> Thank you very >> Oh. Oh, sorry. Councelor Pauls is indicating on the big screen. Go ahead, councelor Pauls. >> Thank you. And thank you, Mike, for coming. Um, I just uh heard you say about the labor. The skilled labors are moving on. They're doing other things because obviously the industry is not um where it's at right now where we're building. And I'm wondering at the end of it all, it will probably cost us more money to bring them back. What are the builders, the the uh doing about it and the developer to keep them to keep them interested in that industry? Is there anything that they can do? because I I find that if we lose uh all the skilled labors and they're doing other things, it's going to cost the builders, the developers, the city more money actually to get them back to start building where we could get our tax money with the apartments, with housing and all that. So, what are they doing specifically >> through the chair? Um we do have a number of member companies that have been frankly building at a loss over the last uh year just to keep good people employed. Um there are companies that any job loss is tough. Um sometimes the newer people are are the first off unfortunately but we have companies that are just trying to keep people that have been with the company for 10, 15, 20 years employed. and I do know multiple members that are currently building at a loss um building inventory homes and and hoping for the best. Um more broadly speaking, we're certainly engaged with um WHBA directly with with Mohawk um other associations and industries quite involved in different apprenticeship programs um working with the province and the federal governments. Um certainly controversy over the program, but there are some aspects of the skilled development um fund that uh has been used for um for training. Um my hope is that this does not persist and that some of the fears I articulated early um earlier do not um do not come forward in in a broader sense. But it is tough. People are losing their jobs. >> Thank you for that. And I'm glad you said that the province is doing something to entice them to stay to to to stay in the skilled jobs. Um uh in your opinion, are they doing all they can? Like I I I know there's programs out there to keep them, but if there's no work, I understand why they're leaving. So, uh, do do you write to the province to make sure, um, that's your, you know, organization making sure that these skilled workers not only stay, but they take the courses that they, the future looks good in the, uh, if they do that. >> Through the chair, um, we've certainly been involved in discussions with the province. Our provincial association, the Ontario Homebuilders Association has a has a whole arm that is very focused on education, um, skilled trades, uh, future labor force. Um but it is a tough situation and you know some of the programs that the province has right now are about skills retraining and um it's unfortunate that people may be exiting the industry but the bottom line is that we're trying to ensure people are gainfully employed and sometimes being retrained and having an opportunity elsewhere is the best short-term answer um for individuals and their families. >> Thank you Mike. Thank you for your delegation. Thank you. Okay, that does exhaust our speakers list. Thank you very much, Mike, for being here and for sharing your knowledge and experience. Appreciate it very much. We'll need a mover and secondary to receive the delegation, please. Councelor Wang, Councelor Tatterson. That's a show of hands vote. All in favor? And that carries. And I'll acknowledge that councelor Nan has joined us during that delegation. Good morning, Council Nan. Moving along, that brings us to 6.2. delegations respecting 2026 city-led projects recommended for climate change reserve funding. That's item 8.5 on the agenda. Please note that we will take one vote at the end to receive both delegations on this matter. First up, we have Carl Andress, Hamilton Community Benefits Network in person. And Carl is making his way down to the podium. Um, good morning, uh, members of the general issues committee, chair, staff, media, and those in person or at home excited enough to follow municipal politics on a Wednesday morning. I'm still Carl Andress, executive director of the Hamilton Community Benefits Network. Furthermore, although several important items on today's agenda have been withdrawn and I will be brought to a future general uh and will be brought to a future general issues committee, there are three I wish to speak to today. Uh um including the one in which I signed up for. So I'm asking the chair for a small amount of grace in granting me maybe seven or eight minutes. I will try to keep to a quick pace. >> Okay. Okay. Well, we will need is a motion to extend the time. Councilor Tatis will move that. Councelor Cooper to 8 minutes. All those in favor is a hand vote. >> All those in favor, please show of hands. Okay, that carries. Go ahead, Carl. Thank you very much. Um, and why does this always happen to me? Uh, the first thing I wanted to talk about today caught me by a little by surprise actually. It's TRC26-002. I was not expecting the transit area uh rating committee which has struggled with quorum and frankly has been a massive contentious subject since amalgamation to meet again this terms of council. Congratulations. I was uh quite shocked at that meeting. The committee, which had not met since April 11th, 2024, made a major and very practical decision that option one respecting moving the transit levy to the general levy as outlined in the alternative sections of report FSC 26016, options for area rating of transit services be removed from consideration. This was a good governance choice that balanced the needs of the cities, urban and rural areas. Like Ottawa, which has an urban and rural split for transit, this is a good compromise to ensure rural areas that may not see any form of even limited ondemand transit for a decade or more. Do not pay for non-essential services they will not receive. As I said, as a transit activist, a regular public transit user, and someone who has a member of the Hamilton Transit Writers Union, I could not agree more. Rural residents should not pay for transit they won't get. However, the two options presented at the subcommittee are very limited. Furthermore, basically, there's a choice that says, as I said, should not exist, and another choice which is not going to make things more than incrementally better. Two options as presented see a reduction paid by urban transit users in the old city of Hamilton and an increase for urban transit users in areas we should really stop calling amalgamated because it has been almost three decades. Wards one A through eight and parts of 14 will see a $37 a year on average uh charge come off their property tax phased in over 5 years. That additional tax will will be spread to the urban areas of the new city of Hamilton like Grinbrook, Ancaster, Dundas, Stony Creek, and Flambor. >> Carl, just going to pause there for a second. You're you're speaking as decisions have been made. Um there were no recommendations approved, so you're talking about hypothetical. So, if you can just speak in that sense. Thank you. So um as I as as as was presented at uh committee um so we see how the um the the transit levy could look using uh jurisdictional kilometers to pay per service. Basically it doesn't uh end area rating it um it could continue the same broken system since amalgamation. But but as we know buses no longer end at the old city of Hamilton. People in urban areas make trips across the whole city, not the uh the old borders broken at amalgamation. If you look at the 2033 model shown here, the old city of Hamilton, wards 1 through eight and parts of 15 could potentially lose service um hours based on payments. Sure, potentially less taxes, but more people live in WS 1 through 8 and 14 and could potentially see less, not more, transit service than they should. The proposal looks to my mind to lower the transit area levy for urban areas. So, all urban areas are the same, not to bring all urban areas up to Hamilton urban transit levies, which would could inject new dollars and kilometers into the system. slides. These next two slides present the two options uh that were shown to committees. Option 2 A or 2B uh transit served from a jurisdictional kilometers or trans uh transit versus transit served to general levy. Both see a decrease in taxes and services for the old city of Hamilton. The option not shown um was to give um the option not shown was to keep um the old city of Hamilton rate and equalize the urban transit area rating. Uh this council should ask staff what a 5 to7year phase in would look like to bring everyone up to the old city of Hamilton urban transit rate. Um which currently for this year is 0.168% for Hamilton. Imagine how much more service potentially Dundas, Stony, Clique, Flamro, Glennbrook, Ancaster would have if the number of service hours were tripled or quadrupled over a 5 to sevenyear period. This option I did not see was considered. Instead, we have a potential equalization of urban transit rates. >> Um, point of voter has been called. >> Councelor Clark, what's your point of order? I I appreciate the delegates interest in transit, but he was supposed to be speaking to the cityled projects recommending climate change. At least that's what I understood. And this is not before us. We have no documentation before us. It's not an item before us. So, >> it is on the agenda today. There is a report. >> Okay. >> I just >> Okay, you can continue. Thank you. Sorry. So, as I say, the the current uh levy rates for Hamilton is 0.168 for transits. Um urban rates um are appear to or potentially could be uh given the report that was presented to the subcommittee um lowered for the urban area of Hamilton and then slowly increased for the other urban areas of the city of Hamilton. So, um Ancaster, which currently pays 0.06 061% for transit, Dundas 0.57%, Stony Creek 0.56% etc. We'll see those rates increased as Hamilton's rates decreased potentially. Rather than that, I would like to ask this committee to consider um as they move forward on this on this project and on this um discussion um to potentially look at a plan that would over time see the uh tax rates raised equally for all Hamilton residents to the same rate that the city of Hamilton pays. So rather than a decrease in potential taxes for the old city of Hamilton, rather we would see an increase in service across the city. And as to um the through the chair, the councelor's point, I'm sorry I did come here to speak to two other quick things. Um the one is of course the vacant unit tax and congratulations. Um I wanted to come out today and really say to you counselors that this report is excellent. The 2024 report is finally before you and despite some in the media, online commenters and blogs, it's doing exactly what it was meant to do. It's putting 8.35 million into the affordable housing uh funding program. And not just that, but 98.5% of the owners submitted declarations. Kinks were worked out in the reporting citizens citizen understanding improved. In 2025, over 66% 288 units of properties that were declared vacant were the prior year were reported as occupied. That's new housing you created while collecting $8.35 million. So that's almost magic. Often I do not get to delegate to congratulate counselors on a working policy. But when you face voters, especially critics of taxation, you should all proudly defend this program. The vacant unit tax forces empty units to be rented and provides income for affordable housing for folks who choose not to comply. Finally, and with the last of my quick uh um time to uh through the chair to councelor Clark's um point, I did come here today to talk about the peed 26087 uh city-led projects recommended for the climate change reserve. Buried in that report is a small funding request for $120,000 from the Health and Safe Communities Division to continue the vital work of implementing and testing the community benefits framework. I'm sure many of you will remember me appearing time and time again to talk about the importance of implementing community benefits here in the city of Hamilton. Well, in July, work started back in 2018, delayed by the pandemic, of course, a and will hopefully with your approval um uh city um once presented by city staff will present a pilot of a community benefits framework uh to the subcommittee and then later to this committee here at GIC. This funding request from the climate change reserve is key to advancing that work without adding additional budget pressures. The important work started eight years ago at the council's direction uh framework that many municipalities across Canada have already implemented will of course continue. This funding is key to advancing that project. I only wish the reserve funding could have covered 50 rather than 33% of the cost of that initiative. I am however so excited that this project is moving forward and I cannot wait for the staff report in July that will bring forward the proposal for a pilot for a community benefits framework. Thank you for your time and for your understanding and me ramming three topics into one. >> Okay, thanks Carl. I'm looking at the speakers list. I don't see anybody at this point in time. Thank you very much. So I need a mover and seconder. Oh no, we have a second delegation. Uh, next is Miriam Sager in person. >> Morning, Miriam. Go ahead. >> Good. Good morning uh chair, mayor, members of the committee and staff. Uh my name is Miriam Seager. I live in Ward One. Uh I have written in um to express my support for the recommendations uh for the climate change reserve. Um so I won't say much about that. Uh but those recommendations um it it's the repo the proposals are such an interesting document really uh they reflect the the breadth of the impact of climate change on so many parts of life in the city and of course not uh only locally. um one of which is climate justice. How people who um are have contributed the least are contributing the least have the least means to contribute to climate change uh are suffering the worst consequences and will do so even more in the future. Uh and of course that's is expressed in various issues that have come up before this committee uh or before uh council and the city uh very in very recent days such as the um heating uh potentially to be caused by data centers, the issue of the maximum heat bylaw for tenants. Um and I am concerned about the extreme heat. Uh we are anticipating um and have come to uh discuss or request attention from the committee on issues related to transit. So the city has some cool places. Uh there's a nice map on the website uh telling people where they can go. But there are some problems with that. uh one is uh how people are hard to get there on extremely hot days. So you know we've brought be forward before a proposal for um the option of not paying um transit fairs on extremely hot days. So that's still an option although progress has been made with fair assist which I appreciate uh reduction of fairs. Um, but now I'm I've been thinking about people with serious mobility issues. Darts users. Darts uh cannot very well be booked on the same day and what are people to do if they need to get out of um overheated apartments and they can't get transportation. Uh it's been suggested to me by a couple of uh staff people across the corporation uh that I might might be that council might be able or the committee and council be able to to direct DARTS to start thinking about advanced planning for extreme heat days. I don't know if it's an option for darts to reach out to regular users because some people won't even be aware of the danger uh to to their health and life uh in extremely hot days. Um and to plan ahead how are they to get to cool places. Uh another transit related issue is training for drivers who the HSR drivers are generally wonderful. I'm a regular user. I see a lot of uh patience and consideration towards the public. But there is stigma. There are confrontational issues. Uh people who are street involved who are not um clean who are uh perhaps drug users have been we've heard stories people being treated badly by by drivers. Um and those are the people who are the most in need like to get away from overheated sidewalks for example. Uh and the buses themselves are mobile cooling units. Uh people need to get away. Uh there's been some erosion in access to libraries which are presented or central library presented as a cooling place. Um, so I I think that some thought needs to be uh put to climate justice and just equity and people's um emergency health and survival needs. Um so uh mainly I ask that you direct DARTS transit staff to provide services specifically for extreme heat like advanced planning for cooling center transportation and driver uh training. Thank you. >> Thank you Miriam. I'll have a brief pause just to see if there are any questions from Canadian members and I'm not seeing any. So thank you very much for your delegation. Appreciate it. So now I will take a mover and seconder to receive our delegations. Council Wang, councelor McMin, that's a show of hands. All those in favor and that carries. Thank you. We are we are moving on to item seven on the agenda which is items for information. If there are no objections, may I please have a mover and second to put items 7.1 to 7.3 on the floor as a group. Councelor Spataphor, Councelor Nan. Are there any discussions on any of these items? I'll pause as the speaker's list is populated. We'll start with councelor Bey. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. Just to um reconfirm, you're doing 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 lumped together, >> correct? You can speak to any of those right now. >> Um thank you. uh at the appropriate time I may ask for a separate vote on 73 but I do have some questions that I just want to ask of staff. Um the report um through you chair makes a comparison to uh Windsor and Sue St. Marie. I'm talking about 7.3 that unit tax update just so that we're all on the same page. The report speaks to and and cites uh comparator municipalities including Windsor and S St. Marie. um Sue St. Marie and uh Windsor uh unlike Hamilton where we use a negative billing scheme that assumes all properties are vacant, they are uh complaint driven. So uh a a a property is uh submitted and then verified to be um vacant. I believe that Hamilton's I'm going to kind of I'm going to jump to the end. I'm going to work my way back. So the the question for staff and I just want to verify the number that's embedded in this report. I believe that I've read in here that Hamilton has a declared percentage of.17%. I believe I pulled that right out of the report. If I could just verify that the actual declarations as a proportion of the total number of units is 0.17%. Sure. >> Okay. Question. Director Pereira. Maybe >> true to the chair. Good morning. Clayton Ferrer, director of revenue services. Um.17. Sorry, just to quote that uh council be just want to confirm. >> I believe I pulled it from the report that the actual declared units, so the units that we have a signed declaration from the property owner as a percentage of the total number of units in the city of Hamilton is 0.17. I believe that's in the report. >> To the chair, that's correct. >> Okay. Um, so I want to for the benefit of committee compare and contrast that Hamilton has a 0.17 actual declared units as a proportion of the total number of units in the city. Windsor uh using their scheme which is complaint based has a 0.196. I would say that that's on par. That's very similar. uh 173 verified units out of 88,000 approximately. Sue Staint Marie 91 verified properties out of 27,420 um which comes in at 337 about double uh the declarations as a percentage of the city of Hamilton. My next question just pertains to the auto withdrawal program. Uh right now property owners in the city of Hamilton can set up an auto withdrawal process to make payments on their property tax where the city goes into your account and and subtracts the money withdraws the money directly out of the bank account. Um I just want to verify that that's correct. And then what are the options uh for frequency of those withdrawals? Out of curiosity, >> to the chair, um the for those that for those customers that are set up for pre-authorized and the vacant unit tax uh charge uh is in play, um a letter is provided to them in in December uh of the previous year that the withdrawal will be starting from January to uh June. uh it now depends on the pre-authorized uh plan program. There is a 10-month program and a 12-month program. So accordingly, the amount would be withdrawn in either uh 5 months for the first half and then 5 months for the second half or six and six. >> Okay. And this this system continues in perpetuity until the property owner makes a a change. It just automatically continues to withdraw withdraw withdraw in perpetuity until terminated by the property owner. Correct. >> Chair that is correct. >> Okay. And if for some reason the property owner failed to make the declaration and through whatever reason uh the penalty would be applied directly to their tax role and then it would be captured in the auto withdrawal. So that penalty would be auto withdrawn from their bank account. to the chair the um so just to clarify uh if they on a pre-authorized program uh there is no penalty and interest the 1 and a4% but if you're making reference to the late charge that would be a one-time charge that would be added and then uh withdrawn on a pre-authorized basis. Sorry, I'll clarify and and I know that I've reached the end of my time, chair. Um, what I mean is, um, let's use an example of a senior that didn't understand how the process worked. They didn't send their declaration in or the declaration was lost through Canada Post, which has become more frequent. the penalty amount is put against their tax rule, three, four or $5,000, whatever it is, and that amount could be auto withdrawn in the next cycle of uh along with the property tax payment. It's all kind of taken out of the account at the same time. That possibility exists is what I'm trying to verify. >> TR the chair, that is correct. uh and um it is in a very similar manner to the property taxes that's taken out. Uh I will say that we have refined the process where uh in the scenario that you have presented where uh a senior may have uh mistakenly uh not declared. Uh we have refined the process that once the appeal is in place, we pause the pre-authorized until the uh staff have had the opportunity to review uh the uh the appeal supporting documents and and at that point the uh VU charge uh if successful is reversed and the uh pre-authorized payment is reverted to just the withdrawal for the property taxes. >> Okay. And we charge a fee for that appeal process. Correct. >> Uh to the chair, yes, we do. >> Okay. U I'll go on as a second. >> Okay. Thanks, Councelor Bey. Uh councelor Nan is next. Go ahead. On this item, >> thank you, chair, and thank you, staff, for the report. Um I would agree that there is substantive um evidence now right in terms of what was projected as conservative estimates and what the roll out of the program in the first year has actually amounted to. So, I want to acknowledge the $8.35 million being transferred to our affordable housing fund program, but more importantly, the statistic around the 66% of previously declared vacant units being returned into occupancy, that is 288 units, which is quite significant. And um those units range in size and I was wondering if staff could comment on do we have any data on the breakdown of the 288 residential units that have been brought in? Are they apartments? Are they homes? Give us a paint us that picture if you could please. >> To the chair. Sorry. Just give me one sec. I do have that information. Okay. Um so we had about 47% of those identified properties as single family detached. Uh the next highest would be condominium at 27%. Uh the next highest uh would be multi-unit residents up to six units. >> So 47% single family detached, 27% condominions and then what was the percentage for the multi-res? >> Uh 8.8%. >> 8.8%. Thank you. Um and if I could through you chair uh little just wanting to pick up where my previous colleague um left off. Um I'm not sure councelor Bey referenced Windsor and another municipality. I didn't see that in the report. Sue St. Marie. Okay, it is in the report. Um, and if staff could just uh clarify, previous to establishing the vacant unit tax here in Hamilton, we did have a complaints based process that essentially just allowed those who are aware of vacant residential units or homes in Hamilton to report them through uh bylaw. Um, could we just outline a little bit again? I know this is like prev, but if you could um what was the result of residents complaining about the vacant units? What happened when they ended up on a registry where they how were they dealt with >> through the chair uh Mike Sar general manager finance corporate services I'll jump in as that report uh predates director Pereira joining the city of Hamilton uh at the time when staff uh surveyed different opportunities with respect to a vacant unit tax implementation the vacant unit um registry was identified as an option. Some of the shortcomings of that approach is it is not a comprehensive registry as it relates to residential properties and again complaintbased and does not capture the full spectrum of potential vacant units. Uh and again uh staff did not recommend that as a um as a potential approach for those reasons and other reasons. uh again so that work was undertaken as part of the investigation of potential implementation models. >> Yeah. So I recall that chair as as it being a pretty comprehensive review um by our staff to look at the um spectrum of options and the failures or the shortcomings of a registry in addressing the actual concern that we were noticing in our communities in terms of the scale and magnitude of vacant residential units compared to what this process has allowed us to do. uh for the bulk of those who have declared that is excellent right declarations people who are saying yep I have a vacant residential unit they're operating with a lot of um integrity and ethics and I deeply appreciate those who are declaring on an annual basis but then there are those who um have become deemed vacant and there can be a multitude of reasons why those folks are choosing not to fill out their declarations some of which include because they have vacant residential units that they don't want to go through and declare. Um, and so I think it's really important that we see the merits of this. I think the outcomes here are really important for our community in a housing crisis. To have 288 units back online and occupied is a significant uh outcome that we should be celebrating as a city. And then the $ 8.35 million uh going towards building more affordable housing during this housing crisis is also a achievement that we should be celebrating. Thank you again to staff for all the heavy lifting on this. Thanks, Councelor Nan. So, we'll keep going with discussion on this item. So, if you're on the speaker list for a different item, if you want to remove yourself and we'll come back to it. But next is >> Okay, I just changed the list. Uh, next is Councelor Clark. Thank you, Chair. Um, I'm trying to understand why we would why the city would in their report here indicate deemed vacant eligible properties seemingly as revenue. Although you've not received the revenue and you've not gone through any sort of appeal process. truth the chair. Uh firstly the classification for deemed is that uh a declaration was not made and therefore up until the point uh appeal documents have been provided uh that uh we would then change the deemed to >> I understand that I'm trying to under explain I'm trying to understand how we could report in a financial document revenue you that you have not received. Simply by deeming something vacant does not mean that it it will be vacant. Until the end of the appeal process, you do not know. But in this financial document, we seem to be including deemed vacant properties as though it's just revenue that we're going to collect. And that's not an accurate statement to the chair. uh the the deemed properties uh were identified uh in December that the vacant unit tax charge uh would be in place uh for uh this year. And as part of that process, there were several deemed properties that submitted their appeal documents and were successful. There were also several deemed properties that paid the vacant unit tax without uh uh submitting uh the documents. The trigger for the vacant unit tax in the absence of not having the information previously to declare uh the trigger would have been the vacant unit tax charge and uh this year as the final attempt for the appeal process. the accuracy of um whether it continues to uh have any potential revenue erosion. Uh there is a possibility but it the probability gets lower and lower as time has passed where there has not been any sort of indication from those that have yet to submit appeal documents to uh dispute the charge. and and uh to council's approval process, we have extended the 2024 or year 1 uh appeal process till end of this year. So, we certainly have an opportunity to continue to receive uh uh appeal documents for for those properties that are deemed uh vacant. But as mentioned the probability of them appealing it gets lower and lower as just passage of time. Thank you. I'll go on from there. Um the number of staffing that is on the program. So it indicates in the report uh that the audit two auditor positions and one senior policy advisor positions have been approved but their hiring has been delayed to manage the program costs while ensuring the right expertise is needed. Are you not already auditing the program >> to the chair? We have started that process already. >> You have started the auditing process. Correct >> to the chair. That's correct. >> So, have you hired the two auditors? >> Who's doing the auditing? >> To the chair. Sorry, I got interrupted. Uh, do you mind repeating the question again? >> You've indicated now to us that you have started the auditing process. I'm asking who's doing the auditing given that you have not hired the two auditors. through the chair. We have started the process through reviewing the internal uh interdep departmental documents and highlighting the ones where there are anomalies between what was declared uh by the property owner as well as what we are um witnessing to uh either tips that have come in from the public uh as well as uh what has been as an example uh been identified through the vacant uh registry. Uh and then finally also looking at any sort of uh fines that may have been placed for uh weeds that are too long or uh or in information that can uh that can help us gather the information to start the process for um reaching out to those uh particular property owners. >> Okay. So are you reviewing the program or have you actually started an audit of the program? >> To the chair, we have in fact started the the review of the program, but the identification to the uh property owners has not begun. >> Do you have any final question? You're at time. >> Um, thank you. I'm trying to understand, have they hired the two auditor positions? >> True. to the chair. Yes, we have. >> And why in the report does it say they have not been hired? >> It to the chair. It was just the timing of uh when the report was authored versus uh uh the current state. >> Well, when were they hired? >> Uh to the chair, uh the uh offer letter was provided to them earlier this month. >> Earlier this month. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the report is incorrect. It's before us. Do we did you include the value then of those two audited positions in this report? >> To the chair, the ex salary expense would not have been uh identified because they have not been incurred. So uh as of right now the uh the salary and benefits would uh not be reflective at as of this stage. I guess what I'm trying to understand, chair, is it >> Mr. Clark, you're at time. So, if you'd like to go on for a second time, you can do that. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker, Councelor Francis. >> Thank you, Chair. And before I get into the substance of the report, I do have a question for staff. Um, why is it that the bylaw is being brought forward in July when last year it was brought forward in the fall? I believe it was later in October. Uh, the program doesn't roll out until midFebruary. um wouldn't waiting until later in the year give council uh more time to evaluate the first year of the program because right now we're dealing largely with projections and uh and the appeals still do remain open till the end of the year. to the chair. The the first year of the program was obviously uh prolonged by virtue of the fact that uh there were extensions that council uh approved as well as uh uh ensuring that all property owners were educated. Now that we are in year two, uh we have identified a process opportunity where every year should council approve the vacant unit tax program, we would be providing an annual report around this time every year and then subsequently we would be looking to approve the bylaw and by virtue of doing so, it allows time to uh get staff ready as far as uh updating the portal and having it ready for December which is when we opened up the declaration portal for year two. Uh again allowing for a lot more time for declaration uh between December and uh midappril which was the case for year two. >> Okay. Thank you. I mean for me personally having more information available to me to make that decision um given the fact that the project or the um appeals remain open till the end of the year is important and making that decision in July doesn't give me that opportunity. Um but my biggest concern with the program remains the method in which the city is collecting revenue. I I know staff they didn't recommend a registry but staff also recommended against even doing the vacant unit tax in the first place. So, uh, and what we do know is approximately 179,000 homeowners are required to complete declarations while only a very small percentage of properties, they they ultimately become subject to the tax. So, and that's the question I keep coming back to personally. Is it reasonable uh to require virtually every homeowner in Hamilton to prove each year that they live in their own home in order to identify a relatively small number of vacant units? And so, that's why I'm not convinced. and and I continue to believe that there's um more targeted ways to potentially um find vacant properties, whether that's through uh information available to the city like our prop property tax information, property standards complaints, water consumption data, which we now have um complaintbased investigations and and already having a massive data database with this very program. So, you know what concerns me, however, is the burden that this is uh placing on our residents. I I and I'm not just talking about seniors who are are struggling or newcomers that are struggling um with the website which but by by the way when I went to do my own declaration this year the city's website crashed. I had to email it in and I had to wait several weeks for confirmation that that actually was received. Um but the worst examples though was not from the form itself. it's the reverse billing that uh residents did not consent to and and I've had seniors for example call me in tears like several times and that they had missed the declaration including one example because Canada Post made an error and suddenly they found themselves navigating an appeal process that not only did they not understand they went to their bank accounts and they were in overdraft and if you've gone through this situation trying to help out those residents that money isn't easily reversed It does take some time and and and during that time residents they can't pay their bills, they can't buy groceries, they can't make ends meet because of this predatory reverse building process. And there's a real human impact to this. I've seen it firsthand and I don't like it. And we're placing an administrative burden on 99% of homeowners to identify roughly 1% of properties. Until we have the final results, until we know whether this program is actually increasing housing supply, and until we can demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the burden that we're placing on residents, not we are, but council who pro actually went and and passed this program. Um, I'll be consistent with my position. We need to fix this process if council wants this program to continue. Thank you, chair. >> Next up, councelor Cooper. >> Thank you, Chair. Um when it comes to um revenue recognition, are we using generally accepted accounting principles? >> To the chair, that is definitely our intent. Um so I would say yes, that's correct. >> So just to put a point on it, $ 8.35 million. We got to that number by using generally accepted accounting practices for revenue recognition. Is that what we're saying? through through the chair Mike Ziger. Yes. Uh I I do want to point out that the report does not recommend transferring the funds to the reserve subject to the completion of our financial statements. Uh with respect to the revenue recognition, while staff are projecting approximately $10 million in proceeds, uh we have realized approximately $5 million in proceeds. And I appreciate that information isn't in the report. uh but with respect to uh what will come forward through subsequent reporting uh we will reflect both the receivables and uh the funds that the city has collected and realized. Thank Thank you. And so going forward, every time I see this number for vacant unit net revenue for 2024, the number will be 8.35 million or higher, not lower because we will have reserved against that and we're saying this is this is earned revenue >> through the chair. uh it uh the number is an estimate based on projected uh appeals but staff have made assumptions as it relates to successful appeals in that projected number. Uh so uh to the best of staff's ability, this is what we are forecasting as it relates to uh projected realized revenues for year one of the program. With respect to future reporting, as the city continues to collect vacant unit tax in the same manner as it collects collects property taxes, we will reflect actual revenues realized as well as the receivables similar to how we uh report with respect to property taxes in that once these uh once a vacant unit tax is transferred over to property taxes, it is collected in the same manner as property taxes. So, so then just so I'm clear, the 8.35 we've said is generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition. It has been earned and and we're confident about that because when you see the word projected, you know, you don't typically see like earned revenue with the word projected. That sounds like more like a forecast than it is to be like uh a solid number, right? Like and so, but you're saying you're reserved against it and this is the net number >> through the chair. Yes. uh why projected because there's still one final appeal process and so while staff have made assumptions uh and those assumptions are reflected in the number with respect to the risk of that figure uh it is relatively low in that the vacant unit tax is treated in the same way as property taxes and registered against the property >> and that final appeal um how could this number be swayed by that final appeal? Are you expecting it to change at all? to the chair. Uh the expectation is low. Uh we have until December 31st of this year. Um so yes, it could change but the probability is very low. >> Okay. Thank you, chair. >> Okay. Next speaker, councelor Wang. Go ahead. Just on that topic of appeals, a question around how many appeals have we received? Um how many have we granted? Um so I just want to understand that success rate there >> to the chair. uh 57% of the uh deemed uh vacant properties appealed and uh roughly about 90% of those that appealed were successful. >> Okay. So it was remind me in the numbers again. So uh 188 vacant units so 57% of those and then appealed and of those 90% have been successful to >> ch that's correct. >> Okay thank you. I I also appreciate the consistent um review process because if we are able to always be retroactive and essentially this vacant unit is always after the fact. So it does give us a chance to really refine the process. I will say that I truly appreciate the autofill feature on the portal. um how do we engage on that continuous improvement on the customer service aspect of it? Um, my office did receive several complaints about long wait times on the phone and and so how do we talk about that pro like that process on how we are consistently re-evaluating and reviewing the customer service aspect of it? >> True. Mr. Chair, um the BUT team have uh already done one engagement with the council offices >> uh this year. Uh and uh as part of our due diligence and continuous improvement initiatives, uh we will look to have another one should council approve the V uh V program for next year in preparation for uh the declaration period in December. Uh at this point, you know, I do want to uh highlight uh council Tatterson's uh initiative on the autofill uh that uh was uh was taken in stride and as well as uh given the opportunity to imple be implemented for year two for that very reason uh increasing the the speed of declaration. >> Excellent. >> And uh GMC Garrick is going to add to that answer. Council Wang >> through the chair. I appreciate the opportunity to jump in cuz um I need to recognize director Pereira and his team and uh the team of elected officials, your offices throughout the year one process. You would have seen communications from staff on a weekly basis as it relates to the roll out and how staff were continuing to improve the customer experience and uh noting uh opportunities to improve that customer experience either through communications from your offices or uh directly from constituents. So, just needing to recognize director Pere and his team and your teams uh for uh the input and for for all the work. Um and just as examples of what that represented is there was engagement uh out in the community. The team got out to the community to various city facilities with tablets in hand to uh to help facilitate the completion of the declaration forms. uh our staff at the municipal service centers who were supportive of constituents coming in uh your staff and so just wanting to recognize the collective effort that went into the year year one and just uh reflecting back on all of the work on a weekly basis that reflected continuous improvement. Thank you. >> Thank you for that GM. I will also commend because um the VU team did do a lunch and learn with our with our teams just so that they could answer questions directly. So I thought that that was particularly helpful and especially with the added communication where we're all speaking the same language. Thank you. Those are all my questions. >> Thank you. Next speaker, councelor Pauls. Go ahead. >> Thank you. And uh by now you know where I stand on this. I've always said the implementation is wrong. People are still saying every year I have to do this. The burden is on the residents. Uh I think we have to look at a better way to implement a tax that uh people are uh expected to declare in order not to pay for it. There's many ways. Councelor Francis said it right on. the burden is on the residents and I think the city should do a better job of implementing something if they want to get tax money do it a better way but anyway besides that I just have one question the question is that we had really only 372 homes that were declared we're assuming that the first that were 6,49 homes but through the appeal We had only now assuming 3,651. My question is this. When you somebody does the appeal, how much money are we charging them? >> True. Chair, the uh if you're making reference to the vacant unit tax, it would be 1% of the assessed value. >> Mhm. >> And and and the appeal charge uh was $500 uh for year one, >> $500. Someone that is struggling at these days have to pay $500 to fight to say my house wasn't vacant. I think that's putting the burden on the taxpayers that they don't they don't want that $500. I had somebody say I have to pay $500. So my second question is if they want the appeal you said 90% it was you know that their appeal was approved that uh they didn't have to pay the vacant tax. Did we get that $500 back >> to the chair? the uh for just for clarification on the first question by virtue of the uh extensions council uh afforded uh residents that had not declared there was no fee up until uh the last declaration which would have ended in November of 2025. So anyone that did not declare subsequent to that would have been charged the $500. Now to answer your second question, if uh once the appeal was uh determined as successful and therefore occupied uh the uh the charges that would be reversed would be the vacant unit tax charge and any penalty and interest, but the fee if applicable in this case of $500 would still remain. So, how much money in total do we collect from 3, what 400 homes that were uh deemed not vacant? I'm just saying this because people are saying is that's how the city wants to do to collect money to tax 500. How much money do we charge the 3,000 whatever the amount is 3,000? It was 6049 and now we have 3,651 over 3,500. How how much money did we collect through the chair? Uh while staff are collecting that uh maybe I'll jump in and try to provide uh some response to the question. Uh earlier I made reference to the city's realized approximately $5 million as it relates to year one of the program. Uh I believe of that five sorry $5 million with respect to year one of the program I believe that uh that represents approximately proceeds from approximately 1,400 deemed properties. So what that means is 1,400 properties were deemed vacant and they paid their property taxes and they paid the vacant unit tax. And so that is represented in that uh that figure um that's been shared with committee uh recognizing it is not in the report today. >> Thank you for that. I just I just have uh residents uh that did not declare uh for their reason and you know that what the reasons are because you've had 90% um uh success in saying no their house wasn't vacant. uh some of the reasons you know more because you've uh did the appeal. They did the appeal and and you said, "Yep, we won't give you your your money back." So, people are concerned about that. I'm not saying I don't like seeing vacant homes. I don't. But when we penalize uh people, even if they weren't vacant, $500, I think people are struggling. We have to know that they cannot pay their tax bill. And to me, unless we have a clear the implementation of the vacant tax, I'll be voting against it. It has to be uh more clearer to people. It has to be done. It's only 98% I heard 98 what 4% that declare what happened to the other ones and we are only having 372 declare. So something is not working. So for that reason, I'll be voting against it. Thank you. Okay, next speaker is uh Mayor Horvath. Go ahead, Mayor. >> Uh thanks very much. I apologize for not being able to join in person today. Um I have a just a couple short questions. The first is just a clarification. This is an information item, correct? >> Truth chair, that is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so we I don't know who could answer this. Perhaps um GM Mater actually do we still have a housing crisis in in Hamilton? >> Through the chair, Grace Mater um general manager healthy and safe communities through the chair to the mayor. Yes, we do. >> Thank you. And do we still have a lot of homeless people in Hamilton? >> Uh through the chair to the mayor. Yes, we do. >> Thank you. Um and and so do do you think it's Well, okay. So, what I would say is this. We just don't care. We can't just ignore those things. We have to find solutions. And I get it. People don't agree on what the solutions are. But this report definitely says that this is a viable solution that is working. More people are being housed. There are fewer vacant units. The revenues are coming in to pay for even more affordable housing. It's a matter of connecting the dots. I get it. People might not, you know, like it for one reason or another, but they certainly don't like encampments in their parks. We certainly don't want to see people in crisis on our streets. We don't want to see some of the things that people don't want to see whether when it comes to other solutions around how uh people who are having a difficult time uh are accessing things like uh uh things like uh safe supply etc. we have all of these debates around this table and and and yet somehow when the solutions are working, we don't want those either. So, I'm finding it really a little bit difficult. I get the politics of it all. I do. Uh but we also have to recognize that we we have to solve some of these challenges. This is what the people of Hamilton expect of us. Uh and so I would I would ask this last question and uh I'm a bit scattered so I apologize for that, but I would ask this last question. Um the net revenue in the report uh is 8.35 million which goes to affordable housing right uh which we're building by the way uh either have built or uh or in or in the process of building building some 2100 units in this term of council whereas last term of council I think there was 50. So I know there's concerns around that too. People don't like the housing secretariat but the evidence is clear uh that it's another program that's working. Uh but but I just want to say on the 8.35 million and I don't know who can respond to this perhaps uh is JM Zaric um what would have been 8.35 million in terms of the um uh the increase in the levy percentage you know every year we we say you know uh we're going to cut this much out of the budget or or we're going to add this much to the budget and each 1% is a certain millions of dollars. Could could you give me a sense of what that is? Uh Jim Ziger, please through you uh chair uh chair Casar. >> Through the chair, it would equate to approximately 6% of a residential property tax increase. >> Okay. All right. So, we're solving we're we're Yes, we're gaining revenue. It's going to affordable housing. Uh yes, we have a housing crisis and a homelessness crisis. Uh and we don't want to see that continue. We have a a responsibility to uh uh to find solutions. This solution is working on all the fronts. Uh yes, there are some challenges that people are facing. Uh you know, anything new is hard and difficult and uh people don't like new things and people don't like changes. And look, let's face it, people don't like taxes, but neither do they want to see uh what we're seeing on our streets and what we're seeing in our community. And yes, if the other orders of government came forward with the kind of funding that we should be getting, as was reinforced by Ontario big city mayors last week, uh we wouldn't be in this situation. But we're left with these challenges on our doorstep. We're left with this crisis to deal with. And we we have to take some responsibility for that. We all do collectively, not just the council, you know, but but but pe the people of Hamilton have obviously some conflicts around all of this. People don't want to pay taxes, but people want to make sure we're we we we're fixing the housing and homelessness crisis, even though it doesn't belong on our our our financial back. I again, I apologize. I'm not in the best uh physical shape right now in terms of my head cold, but I I just wanted to make those points because I think they're important that it's our job to find solutions and they're not always going to be uh ones that everybody likes. uh but but we do have that responsibility and I I want to say uh that I I I believe this was the right uh uh program. I believe it's the right approach and I'm just really grateful for uh uh for staff for uh for bringing it uh uh for for implementing it in a way that has been so successful. Thank you. Those are my comments. >> Okay. Thank you uh first time speaker councelor McMakin. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Thanks, Chair. I um I I agree entirely with the mayor's remarks. Thank you, your worship. Um we asked the province to give us this tool. Uh they considered it at some length. Um they granted it contingent upon are using it to reduce our pressures on housing and uh I know it's an information report. We're not actually voting on it. I don't think if I'm correct, chair, is that right? It's just to receive the report. Um, but I think we'd look pretty pretty darn foolish if we were to come back now and say uh anything other than uh thanks u this is helping. And I think Carl Andress made the point uh earlier that this is something that uh he believes and his judgment is often pretty good. We we can go to our people and and uh and brag about this is uh you know people who are are perhaps buying homes and waiting to knock them down to build condos investors. Fair ball. Um but we've got we've got a multiplicity of housing and uh on unhoused challenges. So uh I think we stay the course on this. In fact, I think we might even want to look at uh we've had some talk about this before even increasing the fee. Those are my comments. >> Okay. Thank you. We're now on to second time speakers. First, councelor Bey. >> Thank you, Chair through you. Um just for reference, the uh report on page 4 of 27 is where I pulled out the references to Windsor and Sue St. Marie and I thought that they were actually really reasonable comparators. The document also mentions uh Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa. Uh I think that there are outliers in those communities which make them difficult for comparison sake, but I think that Windsor and Sue St. Marie Steeltown and uh and a manufacturing hub town um very good comparators and I'm appreciative that they were included. Um and I just want to remind folks that the dollar values here are projections. They are all projections. It's not real money yet until it's received, until it's actually in the account. It is a projection. I think that we've heard and maybe uh chair I can just get this reaffirmed. Um money is removed from the bank account through auto withdrawal and then we charge them a a fee to appeal in order that they may recover that money back into their account. If I could just get clarification from the director on that, that is what I heard. True. The chair, uh, the reference you're making is, uh, the late appeal fee. So, if a homeowner discovers that they have been erroneously penalized, then money has been autowithdrawn in the form of the vut is the tax amount, the 1% has been withdrawn or a portion thereof. In order to recover that money, get it back from the city after it's been erroneously withdrawn, they will be charged a $500 appeal feel of appeal fee, excuse me. To the chair, if uh if they were deemed vacant, yes, they would be firstly charged the VU. uh then uh if they are on the pre-authorized uh the withdrawn uh withdrawal would be uh made as mentioned previously. Uh once the appeal uh fee and the supporting documents are provided the uh and and if they're successful, if they're determined as successful, the reversal will be for the vacant unit tax charge and any penalty and interest. But the appeal fee of $500 would remain. >> Okay. And I think we heard the figure of 92% of appeals are successful in that ballpark >> to the chair. That's correct. >> Okay. Um and I think it was asked by councelor Paul's maybe um maybe I didn't hear it correctly, but is there a line item for how much revenue has been collected in terms of that appeal appeal fee? uh a total amount of revenue generated through those $500 charges >> through the chair. Uh yes, there is. Uh so those that uh uh did pay that fee was roughly about 450 uh uh property owners that uh appealed it after uh council provided the extension until the end of November of 2025. and and uh so they did incur the fee and paid the fee uh to reverse the charges. So that translates to about 200,000. Okay. So we've collected revenue from people that have appealed in the ter in the tune of $200,000 and 92% of those were deemed to be um erroneously applied. So they were deemed to be occupied, but we kept the money anyway. So 92% of that 200,000 was collected from people whose homes were not actually vacant. >> Sorry, was there another follow-up question there? Sorry, I was just verifying that 92% of the 200,000 in appeal appeal fees, I don't know why I'm struggling with that word, 92% of the 200,000 was collected from folks whose homes were not vacant. >> To the chair, that is correct as they missed the opportunity to declare the late declaration in year one. And uh in in that instance, yes, it was uh collected. Uh it also gave them an opportunity to uh correct uh correctly declare for year two in a timely manner to avoid the uh necessary documentation and appeal fee. Once again, >> okay, I've got 17 seconds to try to jam in a comment here. Um, page one, we we talk about this in terms of trying to reduce the number of homes that are unoccupied and sitting empty and make them occupied. We have changed and we've pivoted and we are now talking in terms of revenue sources. We've we've changed the plot on this. We're no longer emphasizing trying to reoccupy unoccupied homes. the way that this is being pivoted. I even heard the term revenue erosion used just moments ago. We've changed our language on this. We are seeing people as revenue sources and I think that that is shameful. >> Okay. First time speaker councelor Tatter. >> Um just I'm going to take a little bit of a different focus. Uh I'm trying to improve the VUT process for um our residents. So can you highlight how the process and the form has evolved and improved to become simpler online so that it's not as confusing and timelines are shortened up for people's investment in time in filling it out >> to the chair. Uh there were several opportunities as a as a learning exercise from year one uh specifically for the portal. Uh the the feature that enabled those that declared uh uh through the portal in the first year uh enabled those now to not necessarily complete the entire uh form online as it would be in an autofill feature. Therefore, all their information would be prepopulated and they would just have to check off and complete the declaration for year two. Okay. So, I'm assuming then our compliance rates based on people being you know erroneously charged would be higher the second year than the first year. Is that something that the data that does that show in the data or are we still awaiting that data? >> To the chair, the the the data we have right now is only for 5 months for year two. Uh and as and as it stands in comparison to year 1 which was prolonged over 14 months we achieved a 98.5 in 5 months. In year two we had 97. >> So very very close. >> Okay. So So thank you. But it is an improvement and if we continue to improve we might get that much closer to 100%. Is that correct? >> To the chair. That's that's the goal. Uh knowing very well that there are vacant properties. So we won't get to 100%. But uh the it it has certainly improved and the uh a third of the time that it took in year 1 has resulted in a higher declaration. Uh but we're still not there yet. There are roughly about 170 property owners in year two that assumed that they did not have to declare the second year. That's a small number, but still a number that we anticipate sorting itself out as part of the appeal process this year. >> Okay, thanks for that information. And again, I am anticipating positive results for this. And down the road, I I still would like to see the complete data that um I think councelor Francis has uh cited and councelor Bey because for them it's projections and and um I understand their want to see the actuals. So, thank you very much for the work that you've done and the the evolution of the forum that has improved its I guess acceptance uh somewhat amongst my residents in Glamrech. Thank you. >> Uh Councelor Clark, second time speaker. >> Thank you, Chair. Just going back to my earlier line of questions, I'd like to ask GM Zagger statement about the $5 million uh being revenue. Would that be classified as gross revenue or net revenue? >> Through the chair, gross revenue. >> And so when I'm looking at this chart here, and I get it, this is not a financial report per se. it's not following the the typical rules. The 5 million being gross would then you would subtract out the 2.02 million and possibly even the capital cost although I think that would be allocated in a different financial report. So we're looking at approximately 3 million in net revenue currently based on this report. Can I ask it? It's a little bit challenging in reading this report. It says original forecast then as of October. It it doesn't come in yearly reports. It it it are we going to see actual annual financial statements for this program >> through the chair? uh we can absolutely take that away as uh future uh amendments to the annual reporting. This is our first cycle uh 2025 was a interim report and then this is being the final report and in the future we can incorporate uh year-to-ate taxuals with respect to the revenues received and the amounts that are receivable. >> Thank you. And I and I think that's a better way of of declaring it in in a report than in the manner that we have before us right now. Um chair, if I can change tracks just quickly. Um I'm hearing from developers that they're being build vacant unit tax on properties that they have consolidated for development. Is that true? >> True. to the chair. Um I'm not I'm not uh hearing anything that has come to developers. Now we do work with developers uh extensively uh especially with the changes uh uh that we made as far as exempting them for new inventory. But as part of the consolidation, there's nothing that has uh been brought to my attention. So when when they're buying properties and they buy 10 single family homes that they're going to either turn into town homes or multi-residential, when they buy those properties, the people who previously owned them have a time frame in which they have to vacate that property. They keep that property vacated because they want to be able to proceed with the development as quickly as possible. I'm being told that they're being charged vacant unit tax which can be very expensive for them. So is that included in the exemptions or not >> through the chair? I'll I'll start and then staff if there's uh subsequent information um to be shared I'll invite staff to to share it. Uh I do want to uh recognize staff did work with the development community in year one of the uh program and what we implemented in year was an exemption for model homes. Any homes that were developed and not inhabited. So those properties are exempt. Uninhabitable homes are not exempt. However, if the developer has a home that can be occupied and is awaiting future demolition and redevelopment, uh again the condition would be they would have to be deemed uninhabitable and that is through collaboration with our building department as to that determination. So, we're taxing them a new tax because they own single family homes or town homes that are vacant, deliberately vacant, so that they can build multi-residential housing. And that's seen as a good thing in the city of Hamilton. through the chair. Uh we are in the context of this program as which is intended to improve housing supply and occupancy for housing uh with the exception where that stock or that home is uninhabitable. No wonder the developers have so many frustrations with the city of Hamilton. Um chair, I'm just making the notice. I'm going to vote against receiving this report. It doesn't have the actual revenue as per what GM Ziggger has provided. It also had uh inaccurate statements in terms of the number of vacant you uh sorry the number of uh FTEEs on on the program. Um so with that I I just can't receive it. Thank you. >> Councelor Cooper, you have the floor. >> Thank you, Chair. And just to um what councelor Clark was talking about just taking a little different direction. So, when someone builds a new set of units and uh in the market we're in now, not always occupiable because of some of the market conditions, what point does a vacant unit tax kick in on those uh empty units? Trare in the scenario where uh it was uh a brand new home that was built and at some point it gets transferred over to a new property owner. uh 6 months of that uh time frame uh in our current bylaw would be exempt from the uh vacant unit tax. So technically if a property is say um ready for occupancy uh this month it would be uh there would be no vacant unit tax in place. uh as well as uh we would then review that at the point when our records are updated with the property owner details for the following year. So really it would be in place starting next year. >> So thank you for that. GMZ Garrick was gonna add as well. >> I was through the chair uh not correcting anything director Pereira said it's effectively one year. >> They they receive six months uh exemption 6 months from the um from the occupancy permit. >> Okay. So, so if for some reason the builder couldn't sell it and they're still sitting beyond that 6 months or a year, wherever that falls, would would the builder then be getting the um faking unit tax on that new unit? >> Should the chart so in in in the scenario where if it was uh ready for occupancy this month, >> yes, >> uh it would be uh reviewed a year from now >> as part of the process. And at that point, uh, the vacant unit tax would then be applicable. >> Okay. So, just one more scenario. So, um, I was talking to someone the other day. They had 30 units were sold and they ended up the 30 units back for various reasons, financing and and, uh, the market changed and people walked away. So, they end up back with the person who built the building. Going through that transaction where the 30 units were sold, they're now back with the builder. At that point, is the builder now also responsible for those as vacant units? uh through the chair. We we uh uh Jim Ziggar and I are just fighting to uh answer. So um the the uh the response in this case would be that um we would have to look at that on a case-by case basis because uh while that situation may be the case that have that you you have heard it's not a situation that we have encountered as of yet. Uh but we would honor uh if this is uh if this is very much the case where uh it is right back into the developer name. uh therefore the transaction was nullified for whatever the reason may be uh the rules would still be in place. >> Okay. See and and this is one of the challenges I think a lot of people trying to develop in our community and build homes in our communities having with different levels of government is this sense of uncertainty. we have a federal government comes in say we're going to wave the HST and then people go to buy the homes and program's not set up and people get nervous for good reason because it's a big 13% is a lot more to finance at the bank and they walk away and and you know similar here at the municipality you know when we these guys are coming in these re real world scenarios we haven't really we don't really seem like we have an answer for this and it creates uncertainty and then you know I hear from people all the time they don't want to build here because because it's just too challenging it's too uncertain And so when when neighboring municipalities have these things figured out and we don't or maybe they're not doing vacant unit taxes and we are this is a differencemaker for whether people invest and where they build homes in Hamilton. So chair I'm going to request that we have a recorded vote on this today please. I'll be voting against it. >> Yeah I think that's already been asked so we will be doing that. Uh next councelor Jackson. >> Thanks acting deputy mayor Casar. Can you hear me please? >> Loud and clear. Thank you, acting deputy mayor Casar. I just have some comments. Uh I've been consistently opposed to the vacant unit tax. I want to uh commend uh councilors um Bey and Francis Cooper, Clark, and Paul's for their pinpointed questions and remarks. Um especially councelor Bey with that $500 uh reconsideration fee that people have to pay when there's a dispute. Uh, I had a few seniors who swore they had filled in their declaration form, were told they hadn't. Uh, the penalty had started. I, um, I advocated on their behalf to staff. And staff basically said, "Counselor, it's in the policy. The $500 reconsideration fee has to be paid." And I think at some point in time that really needs to be taken under advisement by um by the by director Pereira and general manager Ziggger both now and possibly in the future. I think what um I want to say um acting deputy is this. The optics in the community that I represent is that there's taxes, there's higher than average taxes this term of council. And when you add on a vacant unit tax and when you add on a potential rain tax, the optics of it is not good. It's not favorable. And we can and those who believe in this vacant unit tax. By the way, we disturbed 178,000 people in 2024 to get 379 declared vacant units. We disturbed 179,000 people last year to get 306 declared vacant units. The average everyday taxpayer looks at that and says, "Why is this division of new full-time employees set up? Councelor Jackson, what's the need of this?" and and those who want to celebrate the projected uh 8.3 million that's not even in our bank yet but it's a projected and want to celebrate that we've got 379 declared units 306 here's the problem further acting deputy mayasar every time healthy and safe communities our general manager and director uh Mater and Baird report when we ask them in public session on average they keep saying we have roughly 2,000 homeless people. We have 300 people roughly still that are in encampments or living in public spaces across our city. My community wants to see with the extra taxes they're paying especially during this term of council acting departur. They want to see tangible results. So some of my colleagues can speak to yes we still have a homeless problem. Yes, we still want to get people out of parks. We want to get people out of encampments. But that number, the needle never seems to move downwards. And if the needle could move downwards, and please I understand there'll be a reasons given why that needle isn't moving downwards. But if that needle was moving downwards, then my community could potentially accept the fact that their hard-earned tax money is going towards tangible results. But when you're adding the optics of additional taxes, you get 379 declared units one year, 306 and almost 180,000 uh homeowners, hardworking taxpayers trying to just make a living, keep their kids in school and programs. They're tapped out. This is why this type of program receives the negative results it does. I'll be continuously voting against it. Thanks, Acting Deputy Mayor Casar. >> Thanks. Uh we do have more speakers on the list. I'm just going to pass the chair to councelor Tatison for a moment. So through you um just I heard a few minutes ago what I would categorize as an accusation of staff. Turn your mic on. There you go. Uh an accusation of staff or council of you know changing the policy and questioning the integrity of saying it's moved from uh creating more housing to generating revenue. So I would just like to ask through you has the policy changed since it was implemented um between >> uh which point of order sir? >> Uh I think that my comments were miscar >> I'm going to allow the questioning to continue because I think it's about >> Can I make can I explain? >> Yes, go ahead. >> Thank you. Um I I believe that my uh comments were miscatategorized. There was no accusation that the terms of the policy or the program had changed. My comments were pertaining to the language has changed and that's the language that we're hearing around this room. I never called into intent that the formal decision had been made from a policy level to switch from reducing the total number of vacant units to trying to generate revenue. I'm saying that the language has changed in this room >> and a clear definition of what you mean by the language has changed. >> Try it again. Um, we've pivoted from a discussion around reduction in vacant units and to increase the housing supply into a revenue conversation at this stable. And I think that's how the counselor or the chair is framing his question without any intent to slander. You is >> accused accuse. >> I didn't accuse staff. >> Okay. Uh, councelor, do you understand the counselor's point and can you proceed in a way that um alleviates the situation and and and would make the group of us more comfortable in the way that you're asking that? >> Yeah, of course. So, when the policy was approved by council, was the intention to both generate uh more housing, so get vacant units filled, and to generate revenue for affordable housing? through your chair through >> through the chair. That's correct. The intent of the program hasn't changed and the policy hasn't changed. >> Okay. So my comment would be the report has come before us as an information reported on housing that's been provided and on revenue that's generated which is part of the policy. The questions have been about finance and staff have answered them. So you know we are generating the conversation asking those questions. So, I'll leave it there and I'll take back the chair and council Tatterson, you have a question. Go ahead. >> Yes. Oh, sorry. Um yeah, I just want to kind of address again this this issue with um and I and I and I accept some I I I do accept the comments from from my colleagues uh that that have reservations about this, but again, I'll stress that everyone wanted us to do something about the housing crisis. And I don't know that it's I I guess it's an inconvenience. Yes. and it's and it's a disruption but spending five minutes a year collectively if all of us to you know bring a couple hundred houses back online which it has shown that we've done I do think that that's slanting towards success. So my other point too that I wanted to address and councelor Clark had raised it about the developers when they buy homes and this is an inconvenience to them. What I think the vacant unit tax does is it puts a bit of pressure on developers, speculators, corporations that when they do purchase homes from residents that they can actually leave those residents in place. And I know of situations in my area where the previous owner who now becomes who now becomes basically a tenant of the new owner, they've been allowed to stay in homes up to 3 years. Well, those homes have been waiting to be developed or development to come because again, there's lots of times when um people buy or not people but developers and and corporations, they buy properties and they have no intent of making that development happen for 5 to 10 years. We have situations like a corporation in council Nansswward that left five or six totally viable houses empty and boarded up. And those houses could have remained viable units on the market or or just in place housing people, but they were boarded up because of what councelor Clark said. They they want to move the process faster and faster. I don't see leaving people in their houses as slowing down that process. um when you can make arrangements creatively to overcome paying the vacant unit tax. So I think it's important that we put a little bit of pressure and I would like a balanced approach when we look at this um in the sense of it's it's collectively again I know I hear complaints about why do I have to do this? Why I I like what councelor Bey brought forward about Windsor and Sue St. Marie, and perhaps at some point this can evolve into that complaint driven um or I guess hotline driven uh entity as opposed to just being, you know, where we're putting it on people that have lived in their houses for 40 years. And I do hear that often, but when I do take the time to explain the situation at a wider angle, people are generally agreeable to it, even though I know that there's resistance. Uh so, thank you. And that's my point of view. and I just will continue to support it at this time. But again, I am still waiting for those actuals and um hopefully we can get those before year end. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh first time speaker, Councelor Wilson. >> Thank you. Um I hope my question is in order because I've heard a number of statements uh that um rightly or wrongly and in the perspective of the individual I trust they believe it's rightly so um make some correlation um on the vacant unit tax and its effect on supply and the housing market. So my question through the chair is um to GM Mater if I may. Will there be a soon upcoming report? Um could you remind me please when the upcoming report is on the from the housing secretariat um and included in that perhaps some reflections on what's going on in the housing market through the chair. >> Uh through to the chair to the counselor um there'll be a couple of reports upcoming in in July. will be bringing a report about our shelter transformation and about our housing and homelessness action plan. Those are both coming in July which will also help to give some context around the current state of homelessness in our community. And then in the fall we will be well probably be into Q1 based with the um provin or with the municipal election upcoming that we will bring an update on the housing secretariat and a update on our road map successes. >> Thank you. Um, so, uh, just this spring, a Montreal private equity firm bought up $500 million of vacant condos in Toronto. And I think I would argue that on the matter of DC's, I've been pretty consistent in bringing the issue of uh, the need to bring supply on and looking at the burden of taxation on new properties. But what has been always absent from that conversation is a discussion about demand and perhaps conveniently so the capacity of people to afford and what's going on in the housing right now in terms of shifting uh why condos aren't selling. So, if if we're going to bring in comments or I've heard that from the development community, fair game. But I think it would be very beneficial for us to have some sort of report on the housing system and the things that are going on macro and micro in affecting that system now. Um, and whether in fact a vacant unit tax is actually material. um when we're talking about $500 $500 million in vacant condos. Thank you, >> Council McMe for a second time. Yep. Go ahead. Thanks. Um I think there's a justice issue here that we we need to clarify. Um, I support the vacant unit tax. I would be open to reviewing it with uh the idea of increasing potentially. We've talked about that before given its purpose and given the province has been on side with encouraging us to embrace this tool. But the the the concept of someone making an appeal which is seen to be valid then having to pay a fee to refund it. the the the the vacant unit dollars that they paid, but they have to pay a fee um to to go through the appeal when they're I get the impression practically uh in pra practical terms innocent of any any wrongdoing. Just seems wrong to me. So, I'd like to to suggest that um there are some potential, you know, somebody once said to me, you want you want to be be good public servant, tell the people what's broke and how you're going to fix it. I think I think we owe it to the uh to uh all of those who were privileged to represent to take a look at that and see if we can fix that problem because that's just not fair. seniors who for whatever reason or combination of reasons are deemed to uh be charged a fee um to which they shouldn't have been charged shouldn't have to pay $500 to make the point that they're refunding money that they shouldn't have paid in the first place. That just doesn't make sense. >> Okay, Council Sphapora. >> Thanks, Chair. Uh I have a few questions. Um I don't know who wants to answer but through you chair. The um homes that are now occupied that I guess were vacant and now are deemed occupied that changed from the first year to the second year. Do we know if they're actually occupied by individuals or if they're just paying or just saying that they are occupied? Like we how would we we don't have proof of someone actually living in the home. They could just declare the house occupied through you, chair. Or maybe we do. I don't know. I'm asking the question. Maybe we do know if people have actually moved in hopefully through you, chair. To the chair. Um, if the properties were deemed vacant and then they went through the appeal process and provided supporting documentation, that supporting documentation would be uh several pieces of information that substantiate that firstly that they're living there, but secondly living there does not necessarily mean that they're occupying it or actually using the property. That would then look at uh data such as um having a phone bill in that area. uh uh having uh power consumption uh throughout the year, water consumption uh and gas consumption uh and a combination of all of those uh is what has been provided to support uh the occupancy uh information perfect. So we we're when someone let's say year one deemed it vacant, year two they deemed it occupied, we're confirming through those actions that that house is actually occupied. They're not just trying to skirt around having to pay the vacant unit tax. Is that >> so to the chair again? It's it's for those that have appealed and are providing that documentation. But if through the declaration period that they just uh identify that they're occupied until we complete an audit of those where we randomly select uh through various means that's when we would uh look for additional documentation. Okay. Again just for clarification what you're asking is those that are have gone through the appeal process and are providing that supporting documentation. >> Yeah, I'm I'm good with that. And I was also asking like so if year one they were I I declared my home to be vac uh vacant. Year two I send in a second declaration now I've declared my vote my home to be occupied. Until we start auditing we don't know if that second year of occupation is actually true or not because I could just write on my declaration I've occupied. We don't have any auditing or enforcing that's happening currently to actually know whether or not I've either moved in myself or rented it or given it to my kids or whatever. We don't have that mechanism as of yet. >> To the chair, that is correct. >> Okay. So, that we don't that's we need to know that because some people want to get around paying the vacant unit tax currently. You can just say in the second year I live there and we don't have any way currently to say >> no you don't or you need to provide this. The only time they provide the documentation is through the appeal process. That's when we as a city ask for that information. It's only during an appeal not when they just do a regular declaration from year to year through you chair. >> To the chair that is correct and that's the structure we have in place to essentially go through the process. um once um uh once we have identified uh what that would look like. >> Yeah. No, I and I just that was more Oh, sorry. >> Yeah. and James G to help answer as well through the uh through the chair just to repeat something director prayer said in the case where someone declared their property vacant for instance year 1 and declared their property occupied in year two staff will undertake take a sample of these properties and audit and review whether in fact they are compliant and they are occupied in the same means as we do through an audit or through an appeal process >> that just just to clarify Jim And that hasn't hap. We're we're starting that process now because we just brought the auditors. I believe councelor clerk said we just brought them on this month. So we haven't started that process but that's the goal is to start that process >> through the chair. That's correct. That is part of the program. >> Thank you. Um I mean everybody knows where I stand on this so I'm not going to get into I'll be very careful because the last time I spoke on this report um I was um forced to apologize and I think some of the comments that were made today were similar to what I was trying to say but maybe uh my language and fact that I don't speak well um is the problem. I will say that it's concerning. Um like I think a couple and I won't name you guys in case you get complaints as well. Um you know I think the the report needs to be much more detailed. I think we flushed out some some questions um in regards to the $500 appeal and if we should be gi excuse me giving that back to um residents when they're found um that they have occupied and maybe we got to reduce the fee. I'm just saying I I think details like that are important. I think gross over net it's a big difference. you know, you're we're you know, we had a delegate come and talk about transferring $8.3 million into the housing reserve. Well, that's the GM Zer just, unless I'm wrong, and please correct me. I'm I'm trying to be good here. I I don't believe that's happening. I believe the GM said that's not happening yet. We've collected $5 million gross. We are going to minus our expenses. that will give us a net revenue of maybe $3 million or 2.9 or 3.1. If we're going to have an information report that is going to go out to the public and we want to praise our work, the numbers got to be, I think, net, not gross. Um, I think it's important. I How am I supposed, you know, if I have a resident come to me and say, "You made 8.3 How would you You made $8.3 million." Well, no, we didn't. We're projecting to make 8.3. We've only collected five. We didn't take our expenses off it yet. It's $3 million. To me, it's a big difference. I'm sure if someone's property tax bill went up $100 or $500, they would consider that a big difference. We're talking millions of dollars. It's a big difference. So, you know, I think if we're going to bring reports back on success stories, I think we need them to be as detailed as the reports we bring back when we're crying about mistakes. They got to be detailed. Let's get let get let get let get let get let get let get let get let get let get let get let out of the gross and get into the net. Like that's important. It's important stuff for everybody. So when we're doing something good or trying to tout that we're doing something good, the numbers should be the same as they are when we're coming back saying, "Look at how bad the province and the fed and the feds have affected this file for us. Here's the detailed numbers." But then when we want to project that we're doing something so good for the city and look at the benefits to this program, we want to use the gross numbers so it looks better. Let's be consistent in how we report. That's all I'm saying. We made 3 million or just under. That's the number that should have been in the report today. There shouldn't have been a talk of $8.3 million projecting being delivered to a reserve in the housing. We've spent $160 million on housing. The homeless numbers up. We haven't housed that many people. Like we're going to be Let's talk reality on both ends, not just on one side. Not just This isn't the greatest thing in the world. Are there benefits? Sounds like there are. I don't believe bothering all our residents for this in my opinion when we can especially now with the hub. We got the new Hamilton utility billing. We do our own water billing. We got all the information we need. We should be able to just go and search especially now we got 300 properties. Go search the property. There's no water usage. Well, that tells you it's vacant. Tells you there's a problem. Go and do it. But we don't need 16 or how many FTs to do that that process. So for me the biggest thing chair um the report we just got to get more detailed on it. Let's get away from the gross and get back into the net. Thank you. >> Okay. I believe the speaker's list is now exhausted. There was a request for a separate recorded vote on this item. So I think it'd be appropriate to do that now for >> Oh. >> Okay. Yeah. So we'll come to the other information items. We'll just go to the separate recorded vote. It's going to be electronic vote as per the request. So this is to receive the information in 7.3 >> just 7.3 >> 7.3 we'll get to 7.1 and two on discussion on any of those recorded vote to receive the information in 7.3. >> So we have two counselors who put forward the request to >> Oh so I'll move her in second. We need a move in second here >> for that specifically. Okay. Councelor Nan councelor Wang. Okay. Okay, we will go to that electronic vote. >> A question on the vote. >> Councelor Tis, >> just something that councelor Spataphora brought up that if this if we accept this, it's the numbers aren't going to be changed. It's just accepting that it's a conjected number, not an actual number. >> This is just accepting the information report. and any followup you would like to have with staff on feedback or amendments to policy or anything you would be separate. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, we will now go to the vote to receive the information. The vote is up. Thumbs up from councelor Thomas. Just waiting for the vote to tally. And that receipt of information is defeated 7 to 7. Okay. So we are on to the other two items in the information section. 7.1 7.2 too. So, if you'd like to speak to those, you can populate now. Starting with council >> 7.1, please. And I hope that it doesn't generate too much talk, but I wanted to um I wanted to thank the um the facil energy facilities director Parish's team on this report. I'm very thankful for this uh annual report. Just wanted to get a sense as to um how much of an opportunity does the HCE folks participate in bringing down some of our energy um costs here. It's in the report um on page 10 where there's one line that says uh that sites connected to the district energy system are also included with electricity and natural gas costs provided by Hamilton Community Enterprises and reported under the respective utility category. So, I just wanted to it's all interwoven in there, but I think that I would just really like um perhaps an a comment from director Perishev about how much of an opportunity or how much of a how much of a savings and I'm apologize to director for not briefing her ahead of time because these are probably numbers that need to um kind of be pulled. through the chair. Daniel Alparaski, director of corporate facilities and energy management. >> You could just move the uh microphone closer so we can hear you properly. Thanks. >> The numbers are consolidated. I don't think we have a breakdown but we can provide later on. >> Thank you. I think I just wanted to just highlight that um HCE is a wholly owned city of Hamilton um company and they do provide a significant amount of value and operational um efficiencies to our buildings specifically on the district energy loop that's in the downtown core here. I think we have 21 buildings that are on that loop. they do participate in bringing down the heating costs, the cooling costs for heating these 21 buildings. So, I just wanted to just kind of put it on public record that HCE is a value and a benefit to our sort of bottom line when it comes to how we look at energy. But hopefully at some point in the future, we could have it uh broken out so that we can see that value in real numbers as opposed to having them all be sort of amalgamated into this big report. So hopefully that's a bug in your ear, director, and then at some point in the future, we could potentially see some sort of memo or some sort of document that kind of talks about the value here. Thank you. Okay, councelor Wilson. Uh, chair, my question was with respect to 72. If if you've exhausted 71. >> There are no other speakers on the list, so go right ahead. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, appreciating we've had some full agendas. Let me just say I'm um I'm disappointed uh that a presentation uh which is noted here was withdrawn for 7.2. I think uh the integrity of our public uh infrastructure assets is top of mind for residents. Um and um to that end, if I could just receive a high level summary of of what this information is saying uh with respect to the annual update through the chair. >> Certainly. Who would like to speak to that? Director Wright. >> Thank you through the chair. Director Wright, corporate asset management. Um we had a presentation that's still attached to the agenda. Um however that was adjusted due to the size of today's agenda. Happy to introduce though today the annual asset management report. This is a legislative update here um that is in front of you. If you recall, the last update that was provided uh proposed level of service asset management plan uh came before you July 11th, 2025 and then we held a special GIC meeting October 15, 2025 to discuss that further. In front of you today in our report there are three appendices. Appendex A provides a corporate level overview of the asset management program. This includes the process's key initiatives, barriers, and priorities, as well as updates on the city's long-term infrastructure funding strategy. Appendix D B provides a detailed service area summary explicitly aligned with the regulations annual reporting requirements. This outlines progress, challenges, and mitigation strategies across all service areas. And appendex C expands on the regulatory requirement to consider climate change within our asset management plans and provides an update on how climate mitigation and adaptation considerations are being integrated into asset management practices, decisionm and long-term planning. Overall, the report is demonstrating a continued phased implementation across people, processes, and tools for our asset management program. And in terms of financial expenditures from 2020 to 2026, not accounting for growth or for inflation, our investments in transportation assets have increased from 59 million a year to 88 million a year, representing a 48% increase. Our water and wastewater and storm water systems have seen an annual investment increase from 119 million a year to 169 million a year, representing 42% increase. And our non-core assets have seen an increase in investments and funding from 32 million a year to 52 million a year, representing a 61% increase. And we're available if there are any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Um I appreciate that summary. I just would like to underscore something um because I it's just my opinion. It's really um important. In appendix A, as you stated, since 2020, annual discretionary funding for transportation asset renewal has increased from 59 million to 88 million uh between 2020 2020's budget and 2026 budget. That's a 48% increase for uh water, wastewater, and storm water. The funding jumped from 119 million to 169 million. um that's a 42% increase. Um and for non-core assets, the increase uh between those two budget periods 2020 to 2026, uh the increase was 61%. What I I do need some clarity on is the role of the regulation in informing those decisions. Was it the regulation um that caused us to have a reckoning and deal with this deficit or or is it both? Did we have to do that or uh was it a discretionary decision of council to do that in the budget process through the chair? >> Thank you. Thank you through the chair. I'll hand it over to uh general manager Mike Ziger. >> Thank you through the chair. U the regulation does require municipalities to have a financing strategy but does not prescribe that financing uh strategy. It is the discretion of council as it relates to that financing strategy. And what those figures represent was not only a um investment to offset inflationary pressures over that period of time, but a in an intended investment uh as it relates to state of good repair or an investment towards our existing assets. So, if I've understood that correctly, we were the former Premier Wyn introduced asset management requirements. Premier Ford uh kept to it because of the pandemic. The schedule for the information had to be delayed. We had to daylight the status. We had to account for and then daylight for the status and condition of each asset. And then as a council, what was our prerogative was to determine the schedule of payment and the level of whether we were going to accept the condition of the asset. Uh can I I just want some clarity because where I'm going with this Jim Zagar just so that you know I'm trying to understand the relationship of this information and how it is and will inform our budget decisions going forward through the chair >> through the chair. Appreciate the the follow-up question and the opportunity to provide further clarity. The regulation requires for a full assessment of the state of assets. Uh the regulation requires a financing strategy as it relates to uh those assets and bringing those assets to a state of good repair. What the regulation does not require is the pace of that investment as it relates to those assets. What council has endorsed in the past is with respect to core assets is to move towards a 10-year phase in bringing the financing strategy in alignment towards that objective for core assets. For non-core assets, uh what council has endorsed is a 25-year phase in strategy with respect to non-core assets. So the regulation does require a financing strategy but but does not prescribe the terms of that financing strategy. >> Thank you. And if I have time for an additional question. Um when we when a future council deliberates the next budget and the budget after that, does it account for where we are in our capacity and our objective in meeting that say 10ear schedule and the outcomes through the chair? >> Through the chair. Uh yes, that would be a factor as it relates to council's deliberations, but I would extend it out to staff as well. Staff are reviewing uh given that we are still in the early days of our 10-year strategy with respect to our core assets uh just reflecting on where we are with respect to being able to implement and execute on that strategy. And so that is work that staff are undertaking as well. >> Thank you. One final question. um our water rate uh we I thought committed to again a 10-year schedule as you stated. Um is it fair to conclude that we were able to address a core asset in the form of our roads as a consequence of that rate enhancement? Like is one tethered to the other? road reconstruction and water rate uh setting >> through the through the chair. They're coordinated. It wouldn't say that the water rates uh determined the investment in the roads project and that it's not a determining factor as uh but recognizing that both our roads and our underground infrastructure we coordinate those projects. Uh so again they are a factor. staff uh work across divisions, across program areas to coordinate those projects, but one does not dictate the other. >> Do I have time for one more question? >> If you can go on a second time, we do have another >> I just have one more question on uh just so GM and Mr. Wright know uh on the non-core asset number. Thank you. >> For now, we'll go to Council Clark. >> Uh thank you, Chair. Um two questions. Uh I recall when we were dealing with the asset management um reporting on the numbers um staff presented basically flags. There was a green flag that they felt really confident that the number was an accurate number. There was a yellow flag, maybe an orange and maybe a red. Um, as we move through this process, will we be getting more accurate in our estimates? It's challenging when you're trying to estimate a cost 10 years out um on the accuracy. Can you just speak to that please? >> Uh through the chair. Amber Derer, senior program analyst, corporate asset management. Uh so we do have continuous improvement items identified in each of our asset management plans. Uh and these CI items or continuous improvement items were largely centering around data confidence concerns. Um which is what you're talking about. Uh so we are working on a three-year improvement plan with our service areas. Uh and we're prioritizing asset registry improvements, condition assessment improvements, life cycle management, and levels of service. And we also anticipate with the implementation of the enterprise asset management system and the enterprise resource planning system that we will see um data confidence increase before the next asset management plans. Thank you. >> Thank you. And uh the second question and I appreciate that. I I really do. Um the second question is with respect to who pays uh in the past um before Uh, Premier Wyn, uh, governments of Ontario gave municipalities money for roads, regional highways, um, bridges and now that seems to only apply for the most part to the northern and rural communities and not the large urban municipalities. Um, have we seen any change in the policies from the provincial government in terms of assisting with roads and bridges of municipalities or assisting with asset management um costing and um expenditures >> through the chair. Um to the council's question, it's principally local taxpayers and rateayers who pay these investments. And while there are funding programs, the candidate community building fund, the provincial uh gas tax uh sharing with respect to transit, those amounts have not increased substantially. They've increased by inflation. Uh but inflation as determined by senior levels of government, not actual inflation numbers. And so it uh the the pace of the investments that were referenced previously were principally paid by local taxpayers and rateayers. >> Thank you. I appreciate that clarity. >> Okay. Uh don't have any further speakers on the list. So we need to receive those these two items 7.1 7.2. Did we get a mover and second? No. So we need a mover and seconder for that. Council Wang, Councelor Spaphora. Let's just show of hands to receive those items. All those in favor? And that carries. Thank you. We're now on to items for consideration. 8.1 is PW26058, corporate energy sustainability and commodity policy citywide. Could I have a mover and seconder to put that item on the floor? Councelor Spataphor. Councelor Wang. Is there any discussion on this item? I'll pause for a moment. Not seeing any. Okay, we will need an electronic vote uh to approve the item. Please, the vote is before you. It was item 8.1. >> And that carries 12 to zero. As noted earlier, 8.2 has been withdrawn. So we're at 8.3. It's report PEED26035A, the waterfall destination master plan. Could I have a mover and second to put the item on the floor, please? Council Moren Wilson, Council Wang, any discussion on the item. Councelor Wilson, >> just a comment from me. U wearing two hats as a board member of the Hamilton Conservation Authority. I really appreciate the time um that um director Abbott and team came out and gave a thorough presentation and I think it it was uh very wellreceived and and very welcome that you took that time. Thank you. >> Okay, not seeing any further speakers. Uh we'll need an electronic vote to approve the recommendations. The vote is before you. and that carries 12 to zero. 8.3A is correspondence respecting this report uh that we need to put on the floor. Could I have a mover and second for that please? Councelor Spataphora, Councelor Wilson, is there any discussion on the correspondence? Seeing none, uh, a show of hands to receive. All those in favor and that carries. Thank you. We are on to 8.4 report TRC 26-002 transit area rating review subcommittee minutes dated June 2nd, 2026. Is there any discussion on the items? Okay, I guess we'll need a mover and seconder. Councelor Nan. Councelor Wilson and discussion. Councelor Wilson. >> Uh thank you. Uh appreciating that we had um a delegation on this matter earlier today. I did read the the minutes in the presentation. I just want to make sure that I'm clear on what the direction was given at that time and the consequence of that for the remaining term of council if any. Thank you. GM Zerk >> through the chair. Uh staff presented to the subcommittee reported back to the subcommittee with respect to previous direction from the subcommittee. Um principally around the methodology as it relates to area rating for transit as well as information as it relates to two um two options as it relates to methodology. One is applying transit on the general levy, meaning all properties within the city of Hamilton paying for transit. The second methodology is uh those properties that fall within the transit urban boundary uh being levied for transit services. direction coming out of subcommittee is uh with respect to the option of funding uh transit area rating it against the general levy all properties in the city of Hamilton was not supported and the direction was not no longer to pursue that option. Thank you. So, full disclosure, I didn't watch the tape. I only read the materials. Um, so just so I understand, when you were before the subcommittee, there was no recommendation report. It was you you just delivered options and the consequences of those options through the chair. >> Through the chair. That's correct. Staff were directed to report back with information as it relates to the current methodology and those two options. uh staff presented that information and the direction from subcommittee was to no longer pursue the option of applying it across the general levy in recognition that would capture the rural properties within the city of Hamilton and that was a direction from the subcommittee. >> Okay. So, um obviously it's not my intent to be uh divisive, but this is uh and and there will be no further action taken on this this term of council, but um I I if if reelected or as a a resident, I think this is uh got to be a full conversation um going forward on the viability of transit and our capacity in which to uh fund and feed what I deem to be a pretty essential service that upholds um multitude of uh citywide objectives. Thank you, >> Councelor Jackson. Go ahead. >> Thanks, Acting Deputy Mayor Casar. Just uh just couple of comments. Um, I've been part of course of councils since amalgamation and I have as part of past councils been chastised for not solving the area rating of transit services across our new amalgamated city. I was very sensitive and attempting to be thoughtful to especially uh past suburban colleagues all knowing that the amalgamation of the city of Hamilton in 2000 created much backlash and resentment mostly in the former towns. Um, so all those years, all past terms of council, colleagues of mine said that this was just too contentious, too difficult an issue to both resolve and to explain uh to their constituents as being part of the new city of Hamilton. And I'm amused and find it interesting that with a greater number of progressives on this council, I say this respectfully, I thought that possibly uh this council with this progressive majority would find a way to resolving area rating of transit services to those areas that do not have uh conventional public transit. And I can see that this term of council has landed exactly as previous councils. Thanks acting deposar. >> Okay. Uh not seeing any further speakers. We have a mover and seconder. So we'll need an electronic vote to approve the recommendations. >> The vote is up. Councelor N. >> Thank you. I just need to seek a little bit more clarity because now I'm confused based on uh previous comments. So if I could through you just clearly understand the motion that was moved at the subcommittee was to remove the option of considering the um area rating of transit being applied to all properties across the municipality. through the chair. That's my interpretation of the direction in the minutes. >> And so what remains as the outstanding decision of the subcommittee going forward? >> What's the >> chair to the chair? I don't know what uh with respect to the subcommittee. I don't know that there is anything remaining in terms of direction to the subcommittee. The subcommittee is still an active subcommittee uh for the purpose of considering area rating in the context of the delivery of transit services. And this report was in the context sorry the presentation and and report to the subcommittee was in the context of HSR next and the time horizon uh going out to 2032 in the context of of that program. And so then the last question I have is um in the likelihood that this subcommittee is not going to meet again for the remainder of this term that the subcommittee would be struck new in a new term of council that subcommittee would carry on its area rating work. If that subcommittee wanted to look at other options they could direct staff to do so through this subcommittee >> through the chair. Uh yes, and just as a reminder to committee, the area rating of transit uh falls within our tax policies and the tax policies come before committee each year uh at the end of our uh budget process for approval from committee and council. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So it's Thank you. So just so I'm clear uh what this is this would maintain is this asking us through this to maintain area rating for transit with this vote through the chair >> through the chair uh committee and council uh approved maintaining area rating of transit through the adoption of the 2026 tax policy report. So that decision was made earlier that uh earlier this year uh with respect to the recommendation from committee going forward if there's any consideration in terms of amending the methodology that is used for uh area rating of transit services the direction from subcommittee was not to pursue the option of a general levy. So in in non-financial language then what you've said and I don't mean that um disparagingly just tongue and cheek uh through the chair um a decision to continue the area rating in transit was made uh via our tax policies. This decision is to is stating that the next time you bring a report with respect to tax policies, it has to be based on uh a non- levy to rural properties and therefore it would necessarily continue an area rating of transit through the chair. So through the chair again the purpose of the report was to respond back to direction in terms of providing information to the subcommittee on on those two options. Uh the report and the recommendations in no way impact how uh transit is funded as it relates to area rating that that decision was made earlier this year through our tax policy report. In future years, uh if there was an interest by committee and council to amend uh the area rating of transit, it would have to occur prior to the adoption of the tax policy report. So any future work in as it relates to area rating of transit would have to occur prior to uh Q2 typically in a year to uh or Q1 typically in a year to inform the tax policy report. >> Okay. So in summary this is not that through the chair >> through the chair that's correct. >> Thank you GM sig. Okay. So now we have to do we the vote is active yet or do we have to >> vote is still active and everybody's voted. >> Okay. So we've already voted. Don't need to do it again. We'll process that now. Processing and there it is. Uh that carries 10 to two. Okay. So, at this point, I'll pause to see if committee has an appetite to proceed knowing we'll have to uh take a break by one o'clock or would you like to take a lunch break now? So, I'll entertain a motion if you'd like to move for lunch. Councelor Wang, Councelor Spataphora. So, we'll take um come back at 1:00. >> Okay. All those in favor? Show of hands. That carries. We'll see you at one o'clock. Okay, welcome back everybody. Moving on our agenda, we are at 8.5. Uh, but we're first going to go to councelor Morin Wilson. Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. Um, I apologize being a few minutes late. I had an appointment. Um I was uh before we immediately broke there was a report on with respect to the minutes of the uh transit uh area rating transit and I was asking some questions and during my break I thought about it in terms of principal and I would like a request to see if we can return to that item but I believe I need twothirds majority in order to do that so I can recast my vote. >> Okay. So the request on the floor is to go back to 8.4 to do a revote and that records requires a 2/3 majority to be able to do that. So let's move by councelor Wilson seconded by councelor spataphora. Do we is it a show of hands or recorded vote? >> And so it's electronic vote question from councelor Clark first. Go ahead >> to verify this is not opening up the debate again. It's just having a vote. >> Yeah, just to revote not opening up the debate. Thank you for the clarification. I'll support it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, we're going to get an electronic vote up for that momentarily >> and it requires two/3 vote. >> So, yes is to go back. >> So, thumbs up from council >> spaphora. Thumbs up from council tatter. >> Okay, we got you councelor Jackson. Thumbs up. Okay, that carries 10 to zero. So, we are just back temporarily at 8.4 forward to revote on the recommendations in this report from the transit area rating sub commmittee. So any mover and seconder again we had >> let's have new ones. >> Let's have new Okay, I'll need a mover and >> seconder. >> Council Patterson >> seconded. >> Okay, I will second it. Okay, so that vote is going to come up electronically. >> The vote is up. Okay, that carries 7 to three. So now back to 8.5. It's report PEED26087206 cityled projects recommended for climate change reserve funding. Could I have a mover and seconder to put the item on the floor, please? Councelor Nan, Councelor Wilson. Any discussion on this item? I'll pause to wait for the speakers list. Seeing none, we will then go to the electronic vote to approve the item. The vote is up. Thumbs up from councelor Tison. >> That carries 9 to1. Uh that takes us to 8.5 corresponding correspondence respecting this report. Uh I need a mover and second to receive that correspondence. Please councelor Wilson. Councelor Nan. Any discussion on the correspondence? Okay, that's a show of hands to receive them. All those in favor and that carries. Thank you. Okay, moving along to 8.6 report FCS 26063 Federal Provincial Development Charge Reduction Program 2026 to 2035. Can I have a mover and second to put the item on the floor? And we'll go to GM Zagaric for an overview. Uh councelor Spataphora and Councelor Bey and GM Ziggger to introduce this item. Thank you through the chair. Um I want to acknowledge that this report was delivered just last night. So I appreciate the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the report. But before I do so, uh I want to recognize the cross departmental effort that was required to complete the work necessary to meet the program requirements and to deliver this report to committee and council which was within a very aggressive timeline. Uh so I extend my appreciation uh to all the staff uh involved some of which are in the room today some who are participating virtually but some who are not able to join us today. So my appreciation to all the staff that represented um which represented staff from across every department within the city of Hamilton. I won't try to attempt to name names as I'll inadvertently emit someone uh which would not reflect uh well relative to the collaborative commitment demonstrated across the city. So with respect to the report that's before uh committee the principal purpose of the report is to seek committee's authorization and ultimately council's authorization to submit applications to the federal provincial development charge reduction program. I'll refer to it as DCRP. The DCRP is a joint federal provincial initiative providing approximately $ 8.8 billion over 10 years to support housing enabling infrastructure. The program is intended to accelerate housing construction and improve affordability by reducing municipal development charges. Applications are due June 19th, 2026, this Friday. uh hence the need for a special council meeting after committee today uh in order to allow municipalities to uh submit applications and municipalities are permitted to submit up to five projects. Uh some of the key requirements is that municipalities are required to reduce development charges by 30 to 50% for a minimum of 3 years. Providing more than a 50% DC reduction can strengthen an application. It's part of a competitive scoring factor. Municipalities must fund at least 10% of eligible infrastructure costs from nondc sources and program funding can cover up up to 90% of eligible costs. the the principal purpose uh for the program and for the city's uh application is to affect in a positive way housing supply but as well to support broader economic factors uh such as local labor force and affordability. Uh through the chair if you just give me a minute. I've just lost my my spot. >> Yeah. Just while you're doing that, I'll take the opportunity to also uh thank staff and acknowledge the very short timeline. This was introduced I think at the beginning of the month and is response is required if an application of great detail by June 19th. So appreciating that there was a very short timeline to get to today and then to get council's feedback and ultimately hopefully a recommendation but we'll determine that shortly. Hopefully I bought you enough time. >> Yeah, thanks chair for filling that space. Really appreciate it. So, uh, with respect that the approach that's before, uh, committee for your consideration, staff are recommending five housing enabling infrastructure projects that align with the program criteria. The report before you identifies a series of DC reduction strategies using tools such as developer grants, DC rate adjustments, or ex or or exemptions. staff's preferred strategy is a residential DC grant, but that will have to be confirmed through the negotiation process under a grant option based on the projects listed in appendix A of report FCS 26063 which is before committee and again assuming a granting funding uh approach and reflecting the 90% of eligible growth related infrastructure costs. that are reflected in the appendix as being uh funded by senior levels of government. The city of Hamilton could support a 100% DC reduction for residential development charges for the required three-year period. So I'll repeat that under a grant program and given the projects referenced in appendix A, if all of those projects were supported as reflected in appendex A and reflecting a 90% level of support from senior levels of pro of government and assuming a granting program and this would represent creating a CIP area and having a CIP program, the level of financial support would support a 100% development charge reduction over the required 3-year period. Any funding commitment below the level that's reflected in appendix A would require a proportionate reduction in the extent of the DC reduction over the same period. It is staff's intention subject to deliberations at committee and a decision at committee and council is to apply for the projects and to uh identify a 100% DC reduction over the required 3-year period. The recommendation before you requires developers to demonstrate the cost savings as passed on to purchasers or renters and there was some discussion uh in regards to that during the delegations today. We would look to work with the industry as it relates to how to implement that requirement. understanding that other municipalities have had success in implementing this and this requirement has been demonstrated uh by the industry as it relates to the HST credit that senior levels of government are offering the uh in terms of financial impacts to the city uh estimated municipal contributions uh are reflected as per the requirements of the program of 10% and with preliminary information. Staff will report back once the negotiation process is completed and once there is uh agreements are finalized as to what that financing strategy would be. Uh it would be likely through the 2027 budget process, but we would report back uh sometime either after the August deadline for negotiations uh or soon after. Some of the risks of the program is that revenues lost from DC reductions uh can only be offset from external funding meaning that they cannot be borne through other forms of development charges. Uh they must be offset from nonDC revenues and that would uh typically be through reserves through tax property taxes through water rate revenues. Um with respect to cost overruns and construction inflation, those are risks borne by the municipalities, those are not shared with senior levels of government. Uh important to note that the information that's in appendix A uh before you today represents the estimated costs of the projects as of today. They may be different than the estimated costs in the development charge background study, but we're adhering to the program. The program allows municipalities to uh put forward the cost of projects as staff understand them today. And so just identifying that uh as an opportunity and uh city staff have um have leveraged that opportunity as presented in the appendix. uh some of the requirements of the program uh do represent a risk in that projects uh must be uh initiated and completed within the timelines of the program which is 2026 to 2035. Uh with respect to the report that's before before you for consideration, uh staff have tried to align the strategy with council priorities of increasing housing supply and affordability, leveraging external funding from growth infrastructure and supporting economic development and our construction industry. Uh with respect to next steps, uh submission of applications uh are required by the end of this week by 10 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on uh the 19th. And if successful, any negotiated transfer uh payment agreements would be reported back with a financing strategy to committee and council. So through the chair, I appreciate a brief summary of the report and happy to uh answer any questions that committee might have. >> Thanks James Garrick. That was really helpful given the short timeline of availability of the report. Uh I'm sure it answers some questions, but I'm also sure there are many more. We'll start with councelor Clark. >> Thank you, Chair. Um so we have an existing background study for development charges. Are applications numbered one through five all in that background study >> through the chair? Yes. It's a requirement of the program that projects have to be within the background study or a capital uh capital budget or capital plan. >> Thank you. Um can I ask when the next background study begins? Have we set a date for that? through the chair. I don't believe that we've set a date. No, we have not. >> Thank you. Um, so I'm trying to understand the overall gist of the program is to lower DCs utilizing the grants that are to be received from the federal government as the offset, the financial offset that is required under the DC act. Sure. That's accurate. The the intent assuming that the city has the authority to uh to um implement a DC reduction through a grant program, we would apply the proceeds as the funding source for the grant program for for 90% of the grant program. So if we receive these grants, there would be a set reduction in DC's across the board >> through the chair. Uh no. uh the grant would be an offset uh that would be applied to the development charges. Uh a few points, I appreciate the question. A few points for for for clarification. This is uh intended for residential properties only. And so uh staff have approached it in a way that focuses on residential properties only. And so the intent of the grant would to be to provide an offset to the development charges for that class of property. Okay. So it it's for residential properties only. So the question I have is on application number five. It's really an application that is citywide. So everybody in the city will be paying DC's on that for any new residential housing that's constructed. But when I look at the other items, they're more specific to certain neighborhoods. So developers who wish to develop property um along Barton Street where we've been trying to get the external infrastructure to be paid for by the DCs. um they would see a reduction in the DC's for all of the value of any grant that's approved or would they only be receiving a reduction in the DCS for the project that is specific to their development >> through the chair uh house staff have approached uh the the grants and again this would be subject to provincial approval of a grant program is that it would be a citywide program. We would have to um come before committee and council to have a SEA citywide uh community improvement plan area designated and then have a CIP grant program uh supported. And so with respect to the the DC uh discount or relief, it is not project by project. It is the bundle of projects. And if through the negotiation, we are only able to negotiate on some of these projects, we will report back as to what that would represent in total financial support and what that would correspond to in terms of a DC reduction. So as presented before committee today just the value of the grant would sufficiently fund a 100% reduction. >> Okay. So the total value of the grant that is being requested is a little bit over um 500 million 561 million. And if we were to get re approval for that total, so for all items 1 through five, what would be the corresponding reduction in development charges that we would be offering developers? through the chair. If the city was successful in uh realizing approximately $561 million, that would be uh sufficient funding to provide a grant of equivalent to 100% reduction for the required three-year period. Um can you put me on for a second time because that last just kind of smacked me in the forehead when I think about that one. >> I thought I heard something. Yes, sorry through through the chair while while the counselor is thinking let me just expand on that response and because this this is very technical and so if if uh if I can just have the latitude just to provide some further context what staff have uh undertaken is uh staff have developed a forecast in terms of what the development activity will be in terms of being successful in unlocking development over the required three-year period. And so if you uh apply the $561 million against that forecasted development, that is how we arrive at a 100% reduction. And so uh again, those are the the factors that we've had to uh to establish in terms of estimates and uh how we've arrived at that 100% grant opportunity. Uh those are the two primary factors is the level of funding against the forecasted level of development. >> Thank you if you put me on the second time. Thank you. >> Yeah. And just as chair to help bring in some more clarity because there was a question around project base and we heard it was not project based. So I think is it true then from a council perspective and from a ward perspective the location of the projects in the appendix aren't important because the benefit would affect the city housing projects within the city across all ws is that I think you said GMC Garrick >> yeah through the chair uh yes and and I appreciate uh the the question and comment uh so staff looked at the criteria of the program the project has to be construction construction ready. It has to have all necessary approvals uh in place. Uh the intent of the program is to unlock housing. The sooner that that h housing is unlocked, the more favorable the the proposal uh is and uh and a series of other criteria. Uh but those are some of the main criteria through a full assessment of all the projects in our DC background study. And important to note this funding is only available for growth related projects not available uh in the context of our earlier agenda item around asset management state of good repair not eligible uh it has to be growth related projects so I'll give an example of what staff uh considered if a project was for instance 15% growth related and 85% benefit to existing staff did not put that as a high priority because that would leverage very little provincial and federal funding. The objective is tried to leverage as much funding as possible. So we were focused on projects that were principally 50% plus growth related to try to maximize the u the potential for funding and flow that through in terms of a reduction to development churches. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Councelor Bey, >> thank you, Chair. Um, I want to ask a question of of clarification if I can. Um, there's five projects listed here. Some are very W specific. One in particular has a a major major impact on the board that I represent, but I thought I just heard a moment ago that um, it's actually not W specific um, and that maybe the details don't really matter. I wonder if we can get a little clarification because I wanted to ask some pinpointed questions about item number one. It's very very impactful on the board that I represent, but I also don't want to waste committee's time if if we're not here to actually ask questions about these project. How does this all actually translate into plain language? If I may through the chair >> through the chair. Um so so the projects uh the appendix does include WS but W specific is not a a factor in terms of what the federal and provincial governments are are looking at in terms of projects for for consideration under this program. What they are focused on is you'll see in the appendix the second column from the right in part what they're focused on is what housing is going to be unlocked in the near future. They're very much focused on the next 3 years, what projects are going to unlock housing in the next 3 years. And so that information is is referenced in the appendix as it forms part of the application and part of the criteria that will be evaluated by by the provincial government. Okay. Um so the projects are very specific but we're looking at these projects from a citywide view. We're not necessarily assigning them in any way to specific wards even though some may fall into specific wards. Is that a fair >> to the chair? Yes. The reference to the wards is just as a reference point in terms of where that project principally resides. >> I can still ask questions though on the specific ward as it relates to the importance to the city of Soul. I'm not trying to end up being parochial, but I I still want to ask a specific question on item one. I can still do that. We can still have that conversation. >> Sorry, through the chair. I I apologize. I was talking over the counselor. If the counselor could repeat his question. >> Sorry. I apologize. I just want to ask a question about item number one. Can I do that? Is it relevant? >> Yeah. Uh, you can ask a question. Go ahead. >> Okay. Not that you >> Oh, all right. I'm gonna run out of time here, I'm sure. Um, okay. The first one that's listed is the Barton and 50 Road project. It's part of the Stony Creek urban boundary expansion, otherwise known as Scooby, part of the Fruit Winona secondary plan that has been on the go for 30 years. Uh this is a pre-approved shovel ready roads and service project that will lead to as listed here 467 units. So we apply for 46,00046 million692 for the project. Um the normal DC reserve and developer contribution would be 58,737600. Um we would assign that $46 million against that and then I believe the additional 12,45,600 would be paid through existing DC reserves. Have I got that right so far? >> Through the chair. I'll look behind me to uh Supervisor uh Gillies for an answer. But uh if the 12 million is the outside of the grant eligibility, it cannot be funded from DC reserves as DC reserves represent development uh developers proceeds. It would have to be funded through nonDC revenue sources. >> Okay. I'm just trying to look at the appendix that you've given and it says funding source growth share DC and developer local share 58737600. We've applied for a grant for 46 9200. And what I'm assuming is we're subtracting one from the other to offset the requirement that the developer would still be on the hook to contribute to see these services and road networks put in. So through the chair, my name is Lindsay Gillies. I'm the supervisor for development charges programs and policies. Um much like the counselor has a lot of confusion over this program, so do staff. There's a lot of unanswered questions from the province that we hope will be addressed through the transfer payment agreement. Um so related to the question about I'll just say 58 million in the growth share and the grant requested is the uh 46 million. So the program has identified some ineligible costs that had to be backed out. Once we arrived at what the eligible costs would be, that is the 52 million that you see in the table prior to the 47 million. Um, so the 47 million represents 90% of the 52 million, which is what the grant would be eligible to cover in terms of the growth funding. The municipality is responsible for covering 10% of the growth funding considering what is being put in the application. any growth costs outside of that or any cost overruns could potentially be funded from the development charge reserves for the portion of those overruns that are growthrelated. Hopefully that addresses the question that was being asked. >> Thank you. Final question. I think um we would normally go out as we we build out this infrastructure. We put in the roads and the services. We upgrade Bon Street and 50 Road which enables finally after 30 years the Frill Winona plan to be implemented and new homes get built in that district. However, we're going to apply this granting program. The developers of those 467 units would then apply for a grant to receive up to 100% discounts on the DCs for those homes being built in that district. >> I don't think that's the case. Jim's going to give another shot >> through the chair. Uh, no, the DC grant is not a um by neighborhood or by community or by project grant. It is a citywide grant. It will be. So again, if you keep in mind, it is eligibility is you must pull a building permit or get approvals to proceed within the next 3 years. Whoever pulls a building permit irrespective of where that building permit is pulled across the city of Hamilton would be the beneficiaries of a grant program if we are successful in negotiating with senior levels of government. >> Okay. So then um this project bundled with the other four lead to an application for the 500 million total from the program that is applied uniformly throughout the city to offer up to 100% DC credit for all new builds that come forward regardless of where they're located. They don't have to be tied to specific areas >> through the chair. That is what staff are envision envisioning. If we have support to offer a grant, we would uh create a community improvement area citywide to administer that grant. >> Okay, I'll go on for a second time. Thanks. >> Okay, next. Mayor Horvath. >> Uh, thanks very much. I just um there's just a couple of things I wanted to um kind of make sure that I'm getting right and I don't know if it'll be helpful or not. I hope so. But um the what you're proposing through you uh chair Casar is the um that this 10 years of $ 8.8 billion worth of funding that is on the table from the federal provincial program is a there's 10 years worth of infrastructure funding that's available and the way that we will unlock some of that money for us is through the proposal that's in front of you. However, the catch is that when it comes to the uh the DC relief for developers, that DC relief is a three-year program. And so that some of these programs in our five uh will be funded. Um if we get the package of everything, let's just say, then then we ha we will be assured that we have uh the 561825517. we busily get on with getting these projects underway as much as our capacity is to be able to undertake that. In the meantime, for the first three years, um throughout the whole city, uh housing will be built and those developers that pull permits and and start building will get the 100% DC investment and so or a DC uh reduction and so therefore the um incentive for the developers is to actually get shovels in the ground and build the housing. The incentive for the municipalities is to provide the DC relief. So that the but but our benefit I guess technically is getting the uh capital excuse me the capital funding um to help us realize these projects uh over the next 10 years. Is that does that makes is that is that is that correct? More or less >> through the chair. Yeah, through the chair, uh the mayor's, uh description is correct. Um again, what we've presented is the scenario of all of the projects being approved. If through the negotiations, the city were to only be successful with respect to one project, just just referencing the top project as it was previously discussed. staff report would report back and advise that level of funding may only support a 6% DC reduction and then we would provide recommendations whether or not to proceed with a DC reduction and to participate in the program. So today committee is being asked in principle to support the five projects to allow staff to complete the applications. uh we will complete the applications as we understand the process. There's a negotiation process that leads to ultimately an August delivery date. We will report back with respect to the outcome of the negotiations. But uh through the chair, I would I would suggest the city's ability to offer deep discounts is contingent on senior levels of government providing significant financial support as outlined in appendix A. >> That's great. Can I continue chair? >> Please go ahead. >> Okay. So that uh so um the the next question might not be uh for today but it might be for when the um report comes back in terms of the success or not not success of the uh of our of our negotiations or you know where we end up in negotiations. But I would only um hope that when that happens, we perhaps can get a sense of um is our capacity as a city to push out permits quickly over 3 years to get the housing built. So there's there's this piece of the puzzle which is getting the infrastructure built which you know is also a challenge but you know we have some some pieces that we are well underway on but there's also the challenge of getting the permits through the system and um perhaps you can speak to the amount of units that we we might be targeting in terms of the um of the uh three years how many units we might expect to be built and that will kind of give us a sense of what kind of capacity we need to ensure is in place to facilitate those units uh actually coming to fruition over the three-year period. Do you do you understand is that too do you understand what I'm getting at through you chair? through the chair. Uh I'll ask acting director Fayback to make her way to the chair. And uh the question as I understand it, uh Madame Mayor is uh based on the city's projection of uh housing units, do we have the capacity or will we require any additional support or resources to be able to facilitate the projected growth? >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Anita Fayback, acting director of planning and chief planner. Um, so in terms of the targets that um, we've incorporated or considered in terms of this project. Um, looking at this year, I would say that this year is probably a little bit more conservative just sort of based on the market conditions and what we're seeing. But the the goal is with the incentives that are being proposed that it would spur development. And really what we'd be um hopeful of is it would spur the projects that have stalled that were moving through the site plan process that had site plan approval that needed building permits. So that's really what the hope is is that in in the shorter term the focus would be on those projects and then over the next two to three years then focusing on those projects that maybe just came in with their application or would be coming in with an application and ensuring that those projects could move forward. The ultimate goal would be to um achieve our official plan annual per unit targets which is 4,100. So we were there a couple of years ago. It's dropped off the last couple of years but the goal would be um with the incentives here to to get back on target to our um official plan annual targets. Thank you. >> Uh thanks through you chair. Thanks very much. That's exactly what I was looking for. And we and we do have some improvements coming to our systems and our processes as well through tech change and processing process changes that uh are increasing our capacity to to get uh approvals out the door uh more quickly as well. So all of these things are kind of lining up very nicely. Um can I ask uh I don't know how much time I have left but I I just have maybe um one more question and that well two more uh and that would be um it's my understanding through the uh through the delegation that we heard earlier that they uh development industry writ large um is very supportive of our uh of our initiative here and and do they understand the the kind of the the bones of it? Maybe not the details, but the bones of it in terms of it being like a broad number of uh of uh specific like a broad number of of um infrastructure projects not specific to any particular development that it's not um devel that it's not you know tied to any particular development but that it's infrastructure at large that over 10 years they'll come into play and that for three years the DCs will go down uh based on uh citywide uh applications. ations for permits, etc. Uh, is that is that well understood? Can I ask >> through you, Mr. Chair? Chris Phillips, director of government relations and strategy. Um, short answer, yes. Uh, Madame Mayor, the uh uh WHBA and the other stakeholders are are well aware of the program. Uh, they've seen and reviewed the guidelines themselves. uh they've also had back channel discussions with provincial officials as well to better understand it. Uh they are aware that there's a DC cut proponent part of the of it uh which is over the three years. They're also familiar with the fact that um all of the projects put forward here are uh hard infrastructure and that they're directly tied to housing starts and housing unit outcomes over a 10-year period. uh and so they're very supportive and I would I would say that um their delegation here this morning was uh part and parcel of some of the conversations that have happened with the industries over the last 10 days >> and GM's going to add to that >> through through the chair I'll just simply add what we've heard is they're interested in deep development charge relief they are not um uh providing opinions with respect to the projects but are just supportive of the magnitude of the city's ask and what that would potentially align to in terms of deep development charge support or relief. >> Okay. Thanks very much. And I I understand the issue of the um of the current uh cost or the current u forecast of the cost of these big infrastructure projects. Uh just wondering if there's any way we could add into the negotiations contingency costs for uh uh for the increases over time over the 10-year period because what's uh you know what what cost uh 561562 million today is going to cost a lot more in year eight. >> That's all. Thank you. through through the chair. Um soft costs are an ineligible expense, but what staff have tried to capture are today's costs, not necessarily the costs in the development charge background study representing what costs may reflect today relative to when the development charge uh background study and policy were approved. >> Okay. Um thank you, Mayor Horvath. If you have more questions, we'll put you on for a second time. Uh Council Me Wilson next. Thank you, chair. Uh, thank you for all the work that's been done. I I um I'm not going to pretend to delve into the the mathematics and the details, but I my first question is who is the negotiator? Who's negotiating on behalf of the city if I could ask? >> So, through the chair, uh to be frank, we haven't got that far yet. where we've gotten to is by the end of the week having the resources in place to complete the the applications and to get our applications in uh and then I would expect at senior leadership team we would have a conversation around uh the capacity and ability uh to support the negotiation. I would uh I'm just reflecting on my past experience well over a decade ago around transit. We went through a similar uh process around transit and it was a cross departmental uh team who were part of that process uh that uh that was a quite active process through the summer at that particular time. >> Thank you. Um my second question is this is a a federal program partnered with a provincial program. So our competitors are presumably but we don't know for sure 444 other municipalities. Is that correct >> through the chair? That's it's that's correct. Uh so it is a partnership program. Federal pro province of Ontario. So Ontario municipalities are eligible. Those municipalities that have development charges would compete and I as I understand it there's a separate allocation for those municipalities who do not have development charges. Okay. So, we're asking for um 500 million >> 56 five60 million and the total amount that's on the table is 8 billion. My quick math is we're asking for 6% of the total and we represent 1% of the Ontario population thereabouts. Could you help me figure that one out? >> So through the chair appreciate what the counselor is trying to do. Sta staff undertook that consideration as well. If we're 3% of the population, should we be targeting $300 million of the 8.8? uh but we didn't limit uh the approach to a population in that it is not uh per capita uh based um I will also highlight is our uh Woodward wastewater treatment plant is is one of the five projects it has been a priority of this term of council and has been submitted through other programs this is the only program staff have identified that this project is eligible under. And so to ensure continuity that this is a priority uh project for the city of Hamilton, it meets the criteria of the program in general. For that reason, it has been included by staff. >> Yeah, I you're in a bit of a bind. I understand that. Um I'm only reflecting on I don't even know to say this previous conversations with people uh other intergovernmental relations people. I they they have expressed frustration that we often ask for everything. Um and um when it's not when we when we clearly um know that the pot is only so big and so that kind of sometimes legs or weighs down our capacity to negotiate and finalize things. Um I guess my other last question in terms of methodology, um how many projects did you start with and then um was there any competition on the last five or was it those last five they clearly were the ones that when you applied your criteria came out >> through the chair? through the chair. I'll start and I'll invite any any staff to uh provide further uh reflection in terms of the process. So these were the highest ranked projects given the criteria of the program uh especially as it relates to unlocking residential development not only in the media three-year term but as well over the 10 years of the program. So short answer these are uh the highest projects or highest ranked projects. Uh staff have reviewed projects across all the various eligibility categories and these were the highest ranked ones. >> And thank you if I may just on the last question about um this morning's delegation just so I I'm clear on the answer. I think it is important for us to be aligned in this case with the people who are actually charged with building the housing. They didn't see the list. They're just supportive in principle of our participation in the program. Just want to make sure I'm clear on that. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you again for the work >> through the chair. Uh I'll start and then I'll invite Director Phillips. Uh they they have chosen not to provide opinions on the list, but they are supportive of the magnitude of the ask and what that would leverage as it relates to development charge support. >> Okay. Uh Councelor Jackson, you're up. Thanks uh acting deputy mayor Casar. Appreciate the report general manager zeric and from your multi- departmental team like councelor bey. I'm just going to delve in there even though it's not supposed to be sight specific. But on appendix A, first of all, a typo under BCS uh F um project number two, Rhyal Road and Garner. The Garner portion is shown correctly as to wards 12 and 14, but the Riml portion from Upper James to Dartull, there's no ward indication. Could you please Elsie Kelsece and GM Garrick for your records put down six slash7 and slash8 please to cover off Rhy from upper James to Dartnull. Um, I'd be grateful. And secondly, uh, obviously I'm extremely pleased. Um, this is part of the the Rhyal Gardner is part of the the Rhyal portion especially as part of the blast network, the S network. Uh, it's going to create multimodal transportation. It's going to help with further development along a growing area of the South Mountain. Uh, as you know, council acting deputy mayor Casar last year uh by a 13-3 vote uh supported uh the expansion of five lanes on Rhymal Road. much needed especially to offset any congestion on the link and uh uh to MPP Monica Cerello's credit in case the rest of my colleagues are not aware an appeal had been filed late last year and the MTO ministeria had dismissed the appeal just this past February through the great work of MPP Monica Cerello and the overall project cost within our capital budget is 88 million. I'm hoping, fingers crossed, that provincial dollars will be forthcoming. So, all of that to say, um, in terms of a maximum effect, maximum benefit, uh, I'm really pleased to see the Rhyalgar uh, expansion and urbanization is underway. And again, acting deputy mayor Casar, if the three wards could be added under the um, column, I'd be grateful. Thanks so much. Thank you, Councelor Jackson. Um, I think we've gone through all first-time speakers, so I'm just going to take the opportunity to pass the chair to councelor Tatison and ask a couple of questions. Uh, first question is around it's on page five under the background section paragraph three. It talks about to be eligible municipalities must commit to reducing development charges by a minimum of 30 to 50% of the rate and this is the key part that was in effect on March 30th 2026 for all residential development and must maintain those reductions for at least 3 years. In previous discussions I had recalled or I recall that we just already had to have made some reductions between 30 and 50%. I read this as an additional 30 to 50% which would be significantly different financial implications because that's where I'm going is what is the do we have a sense of the potential impact to taxpayers on this because it sounds like if we get the grants great for development charge reduction spurs home building but then the other side of the ledger is what does that mean for taxpayers so with as much as we know now understanding it's not clear first how do we interpret that language that I read and then do we understand financial impact to the general levy and and the rate? >> So through through the chair uh I'll start and then I'll invite supervisor Gillies to to add um to the response. uh if the city chooses to participate uh it is tied to the March 30th, 2026 date. And so um one of the factors that uh would have to be captured is the previous decision to index and to uh to increase the temporary discount would not come into effect because that decision was made after March 30th. With respect to the 20% temporary discount, uh it's not clear how that would uh affect uh or be affected if the city chose to participate. Our hope would be uh one opportunity would be to phase out the temporary discount. um if we weren't successful to negotiate 100 to negotiate the amount of funding as per appendix A and to pass on a 100% uh development charge discount. Um also just to highlight that temporary DC uh applies not only to residential and non-residential. If we were able to phase out the 20% residential, um, staff would report back as to whether or not to continue to proceed with the non-residential, recognizing non-residential are not eligible under this program. So, I'll I'll invite Supervisor Gillies in case she has anything further to to add or to clarify. >> Thank you, Mike. Uh, so through the chair, Lindsey Gilly, supervisor for development charges, programs, and policies. Um the piece that I'd like to touch on is the specific request related to the taxpayer rateayer implications as a potential of this program. Um so the general approach that staff have taken is to balance the funding request with the cost of the 100% exemption that would be provided. So in terms of that aspect, staff's goal is to have that have a net zero impact to tax or rateayers. Uh, one of the pieces of this program is that the municipality does need to step up and cover that 10% component whereas the grant is covering that 90% component. In terms of determining how to cover that cost, the municipality has options and we will be reporting back with the financing strategy. Um, one of the options is that the municipality currently does budget significant funding for development charge exemptions. If this program were to go through and the grants were to be covered from the grant funding received from upper levels of government, it's likely that that funding could be reallocated to help offset that 10% cost. >> Okay. Yeah, that's that's really enlightening and appreciating that this is happening very quickly. We don't have all the answers, but their staff are contemplating ways that it's not going to have a negative or financial impact to the rate or tax budgets, which I know we're all concerned about. So, at this point, then we are making an application to see what we can get and then there's negotiations which then would come back to council for any final decisions of what we implement. So, there's no commitment here. We're not we're jumping off not a cliff not knowing how deep the water is. We're just putting in a start to the process and there'll be opportunities later this summer or later this year to make some decisions. Is that fair through the chair? That that is and to be clear it would be this summer as as the expectation uh under the program is that agreements would be executed in August. >> Okay. Okay. And I think the rest of my questions were more or less answered. So I'll take back the chair and we will go to second time speakers. Council Clark. Um thank you chair. Can I ask how much cash does the city have sitting in development charge reserves currently? >> Through through the chair. I think our last reported was just short of $700,000 or $700 million. Um just just uh so so to the previous question, uh some municipalities are asking the province to amend legislation to allow municipalities to use DC reserves. Right now, municipalities cannot use DC reserves as a municipal offset. Um, so apologize not not knowing where councelor clerk was going with the question, but uh that is something that municipalities have considered requesting for a change in legislation. >> Thank you. And you are psychic because I was going there so I'll tick that question off. Um the next question I have is um there are developers who have paid development charges currently. I think of multi-residential de development where um they have deferred the development charge until occupancy begins and they've subsequently been paying their DCs. Do we reimburse those developers or is there a a very clear unequivocal cut off as to what we have to reconcile to >> through the question or through the coun or through the chair sorry uh I'm getting ahead of myself uh if the city chooses to participate the program has a March 30th, 2026 effective date. So any permits issued after March 30th would be eligible for the grant. And so it would take administration, additional administration, hence the reference in the report. Uh for additional FTE subject to approval is uh we would have to administer uh rebates or credits for any residential developments that had a permit after March 30th, 2026. >> Thank you. um more generic um if we get a 100% reduction in DC's as approved. Um if they come forward and say, "Well, we're not going to agree to all of the grant requests. We're going to agree to a portion of it." Does that then reduce the DC reduction with >> Yeah. through through the chair? Uh great question. Um it would uh and as referenced in the report if the level of support support is less than that uh identified in appendex A we would report back as to what the proportionate reduction in development charges would be. >> Thank you. Um, have we established um is there going to be and I think it's very similar to what councelor Casar was asking. Um, right now in our background study, we put together what the DCs are for new development coming in based on the need for external infrastructure. There's always a community benefit portion which is what the existing taxpayers will pay for for having access to that additional service. So, have we assessed if there's going to be any impact on our community benefit amounts that we agreed to in our background study >> through the chair. I'll I'll start and again I'll invite supervisor Gillies to provide clarity or expand. We are consistent with the background study in that in the appendix you'll see a reference to benefit to existing. So this program only applies to the growth component of projects and so we would continue to bear those costs as we would have prior to this program. Uh and so uh again we are consistent with the the development charge act and this program in that this would only leverage funding for the growth component of a project. Uh and any component of a project that benefits existing is ineligible. So in layman's terms, the development charges would get 100% reduction in development charges for because of these five projects and the city will still continue to pay the community benefit portion of those development charges >> to the chair. That's correct. plus the 10% of the growth related component that the city is expected to participate in. >> Last question and again to councelor Casar and I don't think it's resolved. Maybe this is something that's going to come back but would this put into obeyance all of the DC exemption programs that the city currently has? And we have quite a few of them um until after this program is completed. uh through the chair short answer. So recognizing we've had two weeks to to understand interpret this program do the prioritization of projects prepare the report that was only delivered to you last evening. So appreciate all the need for for the questions uh and get clarity. Short answer is it would be a factor. It would be considered but it'll be subject to the negotiation process. I'll give a hypothetical. If the city was able to negotiate 50% of the value of the ask and assuming that corresponded to a 50% development charge discount for residential, we would staff would review existing uh development charge exemptions and to see whether or not there's a rationale to continue or to amend. uh assuming there's a a rationale to continue uh important to highlight that a 50% grant would be stackable. So if you are in the downtown community improvement plan area and eligible for that discount uh you would be able to stack that over and above the 50% with respect to the temporary 20%. That's something we want to take away to better understand if we are leveraging funding to provide a 50% how we can potentially phase out the 20% for residential. >> Um just a a quick question. I would hope that our staff is looking at staffing up um both the building department and the planning department to handle the increase in applications that'll be coming forward specifically for site plans. Thank you. >> Through the chair, I'll just highlight in the report. We do identify that as staff uh identify the need for any additional resources. Something else we've considered is if we need to wave any policies or expedite procurements that is information we would come back with as well. >> Okay. Thank you uh council Francis. Thank you chair and just trying to stay at a high level here and under uh in appendex under application three and should we be successful in our bid here the Queensson road diversion sewer project is identified as a 2030 construction project and given obviously the LRT work occurring in the Queensson corridor before then I just want to know if the city has uh discussed coordinating or advancing this sewer project with metro links to avoid reopening the corridor and duplicating disruption through you chair Three Mr. Chair to the councelor Binu Korea director of growth management and chief development engineer. Um councelor we are actually currently working with Metroinks and Metroinks is actually going to deliver this project for the city as part of their works. >> Okay, that's great. Thank you. >> Okay, we are on to second time speakers. Councelor Bey. Thank you chair and youu just picking up on where uh GM Zarak left off from the line of questioning with councelor Clark uh talking about stackable DC credits. I'm going to make the assumption that we would uh have stackable DC credits but they would not exceed 100%. I'm guessing that we're not going to start incentivizing to the point of 120% for example and I'm being a little facicious. I just want to understand that it wouldn't exceed 100% if we were able to uh to go there. through your chair. >> through the chair. That That's not staff's intention, and I'm not sure how we would provide credits, but that's not our intention. >> Okay. Um, councelor Clark also asked a good question about what happens if we get less than 100% funding. And um, forgive me. I I wondering if you can just restate. Um, 100% of funding based on the application that we're about to make could lead to 100% DC credit. Would a 50% funding then is that directly relatable to a 50% DC credit? Is it that simple? >> Through the chair, not having done all of the modeling, I would say it is proportionate. And so we would report back if if it were to be 50%. And if it would be less than a 30% factor, we will report back on options and whether the city chooses to to participate. Okay. Um my last question and and this might be it might be the new question. I don't know. Um the going back to the specific Barton 50 road project, I see that it is listed as a 2027 to 2029 uh project. the the start time anyways that is currently a little faster moving than I understand the project to be and I'm very happy to see that um are staff envisioning and this could be applied broadly to other projects as well if there's timelines that need to be accelerated I guess my first question how would you go about accelerating those timelines and are staff in general envisioning accelerating timelines in order to fit some of these projects into the window to ensure compliance and that we're we're meeting the mandate of the program. >> Three, Mr. Chair uh to the councelor. So if you look at the application number one, it has two projects. One is the Barton Street project from uh Futland to 50 road and also if you look at the Louis road actually from highway 8 to Barton Street. These projects are as as you know very well about this project the Louis road already we completing the uh 90% design and the developer actually supposed to start in 2026. However actually uh due to the financial restrictions they couldn't proceed with the project so we will be implementing city will be implementing that project in 2027. the Bon Street is actually concerned. We are currently working very closely with the uh with the other city staff including the engineering services. We'll be fasttracking the detail design and construction if this funding is available. >> Okay. So, I'd leave it open then uh Benu if there's something that I might be able to do in my capacity as word counselor to assist with any of those things. Uh these are of great interest specifically to the community, to the city in general, but specifically to the community. I'd love to coordinate with your office and any other office to ensure uh that we get them moving. Thank you. >> Okay. Next up, Councelor McMe. >> Yeah. Thanks, Chair. Um, I'm listening to the conversation and I we heard the presentation from the West End Homebuilders this morning and I'm be interested in knowing whether we've had any conversations directly with them and what if if we if we buy into this which I I hope we do what the direct economic impact is on the blue cover jobs that they seem so anxious to protect this this morning's presentation. what's the economic impact uh on the industry itself which we're is what we're trying to incent who would like to answer it. So, so through the chair, um, to the council's question, uh, there has been some engagement. Uh, I was invited by acting GMhan to present to the building community, uh, Monday morning of this week and I provided a just a general overview of the program and just provided a sense that the city was going to be uh, ambitious with respect to its application process. Um, as I understand it, uh, the West End Homebuilders Association may have some of those tools that identify what the direct and indirect benefits are as it relates to employment and well, as well as economic uh, stimulus. So, so happy to work with our colleagues in economic development and ask whether or not that's information the West End Homebuilders uh, association can generate and share. Uh and finally, I'll just say I also delivered the message that uh seeking their support and advocacy as it relates to the city of Hamilton being a priority municipality as it relates to this program and their support for the city's application. >> Thanks. That's that's helpful. I I I sense that there's a very good chance that regardless of what we do here, there there may be some inquiries from those we're privileged to represent. And I think that kind of information, um the end goal, the uh the end benefit, the economic stimulus, the jobs that are created, the kids that get to go to university because they're folks, they've got jobs, all that sort of stuff. would would be a helpful piece to to share with with our citizenry. >> We're not just stand we're not just giving money away and standing at this standing still. We're actually making some discernable gain that is in the best interest of our of our great city >> through the chair. We're happy to take that away. Again, as I understand it, that modeling, that skill set, uh, may be available to West End Homebuilders Association and to see whether or not they can provide that information to, uh, further supplement the city's ask and to uh, to provide further weight to the city's request. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Okay, Mayor Horvath, for a second time. Go ahead. >> Uh, thanks. I just have one thing to um kind of uh tease out a tiny bit and that's the issue of um the competition that was talked about a little bit earlier uh in terms of our application being kind of not um reflective of the percentage of population that we have etc. Um and I'm wondering if there's been any discussion with other municipalities at the staff level uh about this program. I I I remember very clearly uh when this first came to light uh conversations both uh with the uh interior big city mayors uh uh chair um Mayor me Ward uh as well as the big city mayors at large uh as a group and as well as Marco the mayors and regional chairs of Ontario group. Um and and those conversations again uh before very many details had really come out. Um there was a a sense that not all eligible municipalities would be uh applying and in fact that there were there were several municipalities just in those two um organizations that were indicating that there's just no way that they would be able to u engage in this particular program. So I'm just wondering is it now that it's been a couple of weeks is there anything that you're hearing um in that regard from a staff level in terms of the potential competition just out of curiosity >> through you madame mayor. Yes, I can share uh generally totally correct all the conversations including the ones you were involved in at Ontario big city mayors big big city mayors of Canada Marco all the other uh different organizations I think everybody across the province is somewhat in the same space a not a lot of details of this program um devil will be in the details B not a lot of time to put together u a a very diligent process Um, Steve, thankful to both the federal and provincial governments for listening to the idea of offsetting the amounts. Um, little bit uh uh in the idea of um once the applications go in the whatif scenario. I will say at the beginning of the conversations kind of the the uh our counterparts at a staff level were skeptical of the program. I think most municipalities have come around to similar to where we're landing today, which is it's better to apply apply in principle. I will say the province actually did offer that up that municipalities can apply in principle and then knowing that the de details will come in the transfer payment agreements. The last piece going back to Madame Mayor what you said maybe to give just some clarity on uh on the dollar value in the projects as uh GM Zerig said staff went through a process to prioritize the projects. The wastewater treatment plant is a is a big project in and of itself. I think we did work though under two key premises. First of all, province would choose if they wanted to smaller projects or a larger project uh if they did not fund them all. Secondarily, to the mayor's kind of point, not all municipalities may opt in that so therefore the per capita amount. And lastly, um the province made it clear that they are looking to target more than a per capita amount on those municipalities that housing growth and housing units can actually be impacted more. So you take all those things into consideration, we believe that Hamilton's best positioned in order to achieve those those housing targets. And therefore we think that uh um that that we could actually be in line for more than our per capita share. >> That was all chair. Thank you so much. Uh thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Spora. >> Uh thank you chair. My question is I guess a little bit further down the road. So if it's not something we want to talk about today, I'm uh glad to talk about it when the report comes back. Um there was a lot of talk around our ability to deliver um on applications timelines, how long it takes. It's always something that we talk about around here. Um and other people like to comment about maybe our speed um or difficulty to be able to develop in our city if we get approval for this whatever it is that's going to come or part of it. I heard uh conversation around having to add additional staff to take on the capacity of what's coming forward. Um I'm hoping that tied to the additional staff that we are going to have to add, which again I'm a little concerned with, but I would rather change the process as opposed to add the staff and make the process better so the um delivery of applications go quicker. But I would hope that when it comes back with the ask for additional staff, tied to that will be timelines and the expectation on how quick we are going to be able to do this because the quicker we can move the applications, the quicker we can utilize this and the quicker we get shovels in the ground and people moved in, the quicker we collect tax revenue. So, I don't know um if someone can answer that for me, but if we're going to come back and ask for FTEES, I tied to those FTEEs, let's ensure that there's also timelines on how quickly or more quickly we're going to be in regards to the applications that are going to come forward hopefully with some of these infrastructure projects. >> Yeah. Well, the question is definitely in order, so we'll see what kind of answer we can get at the moment. >> Through the chair, I'll start. Uh the placeholder for the report is exactly for for the intent of the council's question or request. In order to minimize or reduce the risks associated under this program uh and ensure that projects are delivered in a timely manner and uh reduce and minimize any risks of cost being ineligible, we would report back as it relates to that strategy and if that requires additional resources or effort, we would identify what that represents. I appreciate that because like I said um adding additional resources if we are pumping out development I think it's easier to accept those additional resource because our tax revenue starts coming in that much quicker. It's when we're adding resources and things are still the same is when uh my concern come again and this is not my opinion it's the opinion of a lot of people our development is slow. Um whether that's true or not, I think it is, but hopefully that will be tied to the report and I appreciate uh the answer to the question. Chair. >> Okay. Thanks, councelor. Councel Clark. >> Uh thank you. So I'd like to speak of tax assessment and tax assessment growth. When I'm looking at the estimated residential units, it totals up to roughly 114,000 units over three years. That would mean the municipality would need to get 38,000 new units built and over the the timeline of the 3 years. It seems like an unattainable goal. Can I get comments I guess from planning and building? How would this be possible? the the these would be numbers that the city of Hamilton has never hit in their lifetime. >> Yeah. Maybe starting with confirmation of the numbers used >> through the chair, I'll I'll invite uh staff to speak to um to past experience and the capacity to deliver on the residential units. I'll just highlight the information that's before you. We are not restricted. The application while uh has an interest on the 3 years also has an interest over the 10-year period. So these numbers don't necessarily represent the number of units in the immediate three-year term. It includes a longer time period, a 10-year time period more specifically, or beyond. So just to add on uh through the chair Nick Winters, director of the Hamilton Water Division, um there is a there are different uh levels of ability to predict uh housing starts and unit creation between the projects listed in the appendix. So for the road works uh applica road uh water main sanitary sewer works in applications one two and three there are direct known uh development applications associated with that work needing to happen to support those developments uh going forward. And so it's very easy to say this work uh applications 1 2 3 is going to open up and allow for these development applications to move forward. For applications four and five uh the greenhill water pumping station and the Woodward wastewater treatment plant uh these are facilities that support broad areas of the city. Uh and so the same ability to tie uh known development applications to the service that's going to be provided uh from those facilities is not there. Uh so in order to communicate to the province why these projects are eligible eligible um we have looked at broader population trends associated with the growth in the city um and how these projects are going to uh support that growth um both in the near future but also building out to the 202051 20 excuse me uh growth horizon. uh and we've used some uh factors to identify what that capacity increase would look like from a housing unit perspective. So apologize it's a really long way of saying that while we're reflecting significant growth that will be realized uh by these projects particularly applications four and applications five. We are not suggesting that there's going to be 114,000 residential units uh shovels in the ground in the next 3 years. Um those numbers are as GM Zerk said over a much longer period of time. I hope that was helpful. >> Um I I I my question still stands. The province knows what the history of the city of Hamilton's annual builds have been. They know exactly how many units we have built and got permits out the door and got them approved and occupied. And if we're saying here it's 114,000 residential units, whether it's 3 years or 10 years, um they're going to want to have an explanation as to how we are going to achieve that given that we have not achieved it to date. So I'm just cautioning us. It's one thing to file these things as an application and I support what you've got before us here, but we're going to need to be able to demonstrate to the Minister of Housing that what we're saying in terms of the capital projects we can accomplish and that we will get those residential units built. And I would dare say at the moment, even over the 10-year timeline, those numbers are projections are very, very high. >> So, just be prepared to explain how we're going to make it happen. Thank you, >> James Garrick. >> Yeah, through the chair. I I do appreciate the question and uh maybe I'll ask uh acting director feedback to repeat while while I appreciate committees getting a lot of information maybe to re-emphasize information that uh that Anita shared we are being relatively conservative with our year 1 forecast and then aligning with the growth plan by year three. But I'll I'll ask Anita maybe to to expand on that >> through the chair to the council in addition to what GM Ziggger noted. I think it's important to note that we do have a pipeline of units uh that's around 33,000. So I think um to you know understanding where you're coming from and and if we're asked being able to defend what it is that um what our um I guess our methodology is agreed and I do think that there is our pipeline and then in terms of the annual units that we're looking at it's it's it would be essentially uh getting back to where we were a few years ago before the economy changed in terms of meeting our official plan targets of four 4,000 4,100 units per year. >> Okay. I don't see any further speakers. So, we have a move in second, I believe. Yes, we do. Okay. So, we just need to have a electronic vote to approve this item and the recommendations therein. So, we'll go to that vote now. The vote is up. >> And that carries 13 to zero. Again, thank you to staff for working so hard in such a short timeline to bring that before us. Unanimous support. 8.6A 6A is correspondence on this item. So I'll need a mover and a seconder to put the correspondence on the floor. Council Spataphora, Councelor Bey, any discussion. Seeing none, show of hands to receive. And that looks like everyone. Thank you very much. Okay, we are now on to motions. Section 9. 9.1 is funding support for Boots in the Creek 2026 Stony Creek Business Improvement Area. Councelor Francis, could you do introduce your motion and your seconder? >> That was uh interesting. Uh therefore, be it resolved, oh, sorry, moved by myself, second by councelor Beatty. Therefore, be it resolved a that the following costs associated with the delivery of Boots in the Creek 2026 to support the Stony Creek BIA be funded through the GFO royalties reserve number 117036 at an upset limit including contingency in HSC not to exceed $36,4616 with the items listed below. And I just want to speak to this very briefly. This is the uh third iteration of this. It's been um or sorry, fourth iteration now has been very successful um very well received by my community drawing a lot of tourism closing down that uh downtown uh Stony Creek BIA corridor from Lake Avenue to uh further down towards almost New Mountain uh with vendors all across there. It's a great event and I hope the rest of the city comes out to check it out. Thank you. Okay, I don't see any speakers on the motion, so we'll go to the electronic vote. The vote is up >> and that carries unanimously. >> So, moving from Boots to the Creek, we're going to light up the creek. 9.2 2 is funding support for autism sensory friendly light up the creek December 2026. Councelor Francis again your motion and your secondary. >> Thank you chair. It's by myself seconded by councelor beatty. Therefore, be it resolved a that the purchase of autism sensory friendly lighting and holiday displays for the autism sensory friendly light up the creek 2026 event to support the Stony Creek Business Improvement Area and the Canadian National Autism Foundation be funded from the GFL Royalty Reserve number 117036 at an upset limit including contingency and HST not to exceed $10,000. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, we'll go to the electronic vote. >> The vote is there. >> That carries unanimously. Okay. Uh moving on to notices of motion 10.1 is vacant building enforcement at industrial properties in the city of Hamilton. Councelor Mor Wilson, would you like to introduce your notice? >> It's just staying as a notice. Okay. Very good. Okay. That takes us to 11, private and confidential. I'll need a mover and seconder for committee to go into close session pursuant to section 9.3 subsection C and K of the city's procedural bylaw 21-021 as amended and section 29 392 subsection C and K of Ontario Municipal Act 2001 as amended. as the subject matter pertains to proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for the city or local board purposes and a position plan procedure criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiation carried on or to be carried on on behalf of the municipal municipality or local board. So that's moved by councelor Nan seconded by councelor Tatison. We'll go to an electronic vote. The vote is up. That carries unanimously. Members of the public are advised that during the close session portion of the meeting, the live stream will broadcast the close session in progress screen. The broadcast will resume when the close session portion of the meeting is complete. As we're now moving into close session, I would ask all members of the public, delegates, and external participants to please exit the WebEx meeting and council chambers. As well, any staff that are not directly related to the ENC camera items are now asked to please exit the WebEx meeting. I'll also remind members of council that as per section 8.7 of the procedure bylaw, the use of personal electronic devices during closed meetings is strictly prohibited. However, they can be you city devices can be used during closed meetings limited to text communications only and not to be used as a telephone recording device or camera. Staff from the office of the clerk are exempted from subsection 8.7c when using electronic devices for recordkeeping purposes. I understand that is not thrilling reading, but thank you for your attention. Okay, welcome back everyone. We're at 11.2 peed 26134, redevelopment of property in the city of Hamilton, W 3, an outstanding business item. May I have a mover in second on the following, please? that the directions to staff in close session respecting report PEED26134, redevelopment of property in the city of Hamilton be approved and B that the complete confidential report peed 26134 redevelopment of property in the city of Hamilton remain confidential. Moved by councelor Nan, seconded by councelor Tatterson and that'll be an electronic vote. The vote is up. >> Correct. >> And that carries 12 to zero. Thank you everybody. And there being no further business, this meeting is adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Thanks everybody. Have a great day.