Transcript: City Tackles Development Charges Crisis - 2026-03-30 - Finance and Corporate Services Committee Part One | Summary 86

City Tackles Development Charges Crisis - 2026-03-30 - Finance and Corporate Services Committee Part One

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to this meeting of finance and corporate services committee. Uh I will begin the meeting by asking if there are any disclosures of interest. Councelor stretch. Yes. So, I am declaring a conflict on item 8.4, the rental renovation licensing bylaw. Um, I have to declare a conflict on that because I own property and currently rent out two units. Okay. For the second half of this meeting then? Yes. Thank you. And councelor Singh. Yes. Hi. uh for the same item uh for the rental renovation licensing bylaw. As council stretch has mentioned, I also have declared a previous conflict uh related to again um other investment rental activity. Okay. Thank you. Just to remind you both to fill out your paperwork on that and thank you for the heads up. Uh so with that then first I will ask for mover of the consent items moved by councelor Johnston. Any questions or concerns on any of those? Not seeing any those in favor and that carries unanimously. We will get into first discussion item and that's the review of uh council policy. And Miss Androl, you're kicking us off. Go ahead when you're ready. My screen just went black as soon as I clicked your Oh, you're they're on there. Okay, you're good. Go ahead. Through the chair. Good afternoon, mayor, members of council. I'm here today to provide you a brief overview on the um affordable rental housing fee incentive policy and minor changes that staff are recommending at this time. So, uh this policy was first approved in 2017. It was part of the city's first financial incentives for affordable rental housing. It exempts not forprofits uh who provide affordable housing from paying certain planning and building permit fees. Um the minimum requirement is that 20% of the dwelling units must have rents at 80% of average market rent or less in order to qualify for the fee incentive program. So as a result of this policy, it's been in effect for nine years now. We've had 24 different housing projects um that have qualified for a fee waiver. There are uh almost a little bit over 1100 affordable units that are at various stages of the process. Some of are completed and already occupied. Some are currently under construction and others are in the application review stage. Um, many of these projects, as you're aware, are major development projects. And so it takes a number of years from project ideation when they make these applications to see them fully constructed. And we have had about $900,000 in application fees waved over that time period. Um, jumping ahead, I can share with you some uh, images here of some of the projects that have qualified. And these ones are um, built or under construction. So, YWKW, KW Habilitation, One Roof, uh, St. Don't know why this keeps jumping. St. Paul's Beyond Housing, St. Mark's Indwell project, Thresholds, and there's another Beyond Housing project on Frederick Street that's under construction. So, this is just a sample of a few of the um, projects. Um I'm really excited that over the nine years there's significantly more projects than the city would have expected um based on the years leading up to 2017. Um so in those previous years I believe there were seven affordable housing projects that were evaluated in creating the program and now we've seen 24 applications to date. So the annual budget for this was increased in 2023 from $30,000 to $130,000. Um the in actual incentive that's available or that's paid annually varies um depending on the number of submissions what kind of applications might be coming through the process. Um staff resources were also increased with the introduction of project managers to help support all the affordable housing projects that the city um that have been built in the city and provide a concierge service to support those moving quickly through the process. And many of those are also supported by other um funding whether it's municipal grants that are made uh possible through the housing accelerator fund as well as financing from other uh levels of government. At this time we're only recommending some minor changes to this policy. Um we do recommend uh amending the definition of affordable housing to include affordable lodging units that would have rents at 60% of average market for a one-bedroom apartment. that's consistent with the property tax exemption program that's administered by the region that the city participates in. We also recommend removing the requirement that the development must be within 450 meters of a transit corridor to help support affordable housing um in all neighborhoods. So the transit corridors are not just the ION rail, but it's also other major regional roads that have higher transit uh frequencies on them, but we'd recommend uh removing that requirement. We've had had for instance um rel institutions that have in more suburban areas that have not been able to qualify for the fee incentive. Um, and other examples. And we also recommend adding two other new two new fees that did not exist in 2017 or weren't would not have been applicable to this uh type of application. So, cash and loop payments under the public tree bylaw as well as zoning occupancy certificates. Um the changes that we're recommending are going to help modernize the incentive program, capturing new fees that did not exist in 2017, help to encourage affordable housing um not for profofits in particular throughout the city and in different various forms to meet the evolving needs of our community. So we're recommending that the um policy be updated uh as recommended and I'm happy to answer. Thank you. Sorry, just waiting for my screen to change here. Oh, just came back. We're good. Okay, questions on this. Councelor Singh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think these are some positive directions and movement uh to incentivize more affordable housing. The program commitment is for five or 10 year on affordable housing through the chair. There is not a agreement or anything that we enter into for this. So there isn't a specific commitment. These are not for profofits who have housing as part of their mandate. So um they're long-standing organizations typically that go through a review process um with the board to make sure that the housing that's being provided is affordable. But unlike our grant programs, there is not an um an agreement that we enter into. Okay. They're typically so they're on their own commitment to maintain 20% at 80% of market rent and for lodging 60% of market rent. Okay. Right. That makes sense. And would you be happy to receive a commitment if somebody wanted to give a commitment? Many of them do apply for other grant programs where there would be a commitment. They also would apply for the DC exemption where there's a 25-year commitment as well. So in most of these cases they apply on their own there would have be another mechanism to secure that. Okay. Excellent. And additionally the the tree cash and loo I mean the occupancy per certificate it's fairly small but uh the tree uh bylaw can be substantive. Uh so that exempts them from that as well. Is that does that include if a tree boulevard tree needs to be cut or removed? I think there's a new policy that came in uh and I think there was some commentary given by council. Does that take this into account through the chair? Yeah, that's exactly the purpose. So that if there was um an instance where there was a compensation payment required, it would wave that payment for the qualifying project and the cash and loo as well at the cash and loo. Yeah. Okay. So you guys directly heard from council and you guys made this change. Who says that staff don't listen in the council? It's not me. I never say that. Thank you. That's very supportive in this direction. Thank you staff. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see one else in the queue. Just a couple questions. Uh thank you councelor Singh for noting that. I remember that was a concern of a number of us at budget time and at least certainly being addressed for affordable housing. Uh my question is just regarding the um like the lodging house inclusion. I guess I'm just raising that as a concern uh because that can have more of a disruptive uh impact on neighborhoods. I'm just I'm curious on staff's opinion on whether, you know, that was a concern that they've shared or if they think this will uh significantly uh impact the number of lodging homes that we see, especially since we're also wiping the um proximity to LRT, which I'm obviously in favor of through the chair. Um like for other qualifying project, it would have to be a not for-p profofit. Um the ones that we've seen that have been interested are more um lodging houses that would be like a congregate living where people are living in a supported type of a setting where they're renting a bedroom um sharing a kitchen. In some cases it could be uh seniors living together, sharing uh a space but not qualifying as a residential care facility or in other instances where um people who you know are living independently in the community but require some supports but might not want to have an entire apartment. So, those are the types of um lodging houses that would qualify as a lodging house, but it's more of a congregate kind of living um scenario. Okay, that that's helpful. Thank you. Councelor Stretch, you have a question as well. I have comment. Well, comment. Uh I do not see anyone else in the queue. So, actually, can I get a mover for this move by councelor Singh? Go ahead, counselor stretch your Thanks. Yeah, I it's just a quick comment and I'm just really happy to see the opening of more locations being eligible off of major transit areas or cor corridors. That's a that's a move in the right direction, I think. So, well done. Thank you, Councelor Initis. Yeah, thank you, Chair Davey. I'm I'm surprised that we did this in 2017. It seemed a lot sooner than that. So, uh, considering, you know, it was a great great show of a lot of examples of all the things that we've done. So, it it's it was really good to see. So, thank you for sharing that and shows that we we are committed to, you know, providing affordable housing units in our community. So, thank you. Thank you. Time certainly flies. Councelor Andis, uh, councelor Singh. Yeah. Just something else came to mind. Um, I I've specified this in the past, too. We we rarely, you know, beat our own drum about all the successes that we've had and the good work that we're doing. And I think this is one of them. This is kind of that little secret that we've spurred up that amount. If there's 900,000 that's been given away in grant relief, I can only imagine how many units that was. Could we have that larger promotion through a website through media uh like you know posting about all the number of units maybe an annual update affordable housing units that have been incentivized by the city of Kitchener and that's what stimulated that affordable housing development for those number of units because we are really operating outside of our legislative authority and we're committing tax dollars that um are for a larger public benefit and we need to take credit especially when people say what does Kitchener council do towards affordable housing which is a lot. Thank you. Thank you. And Mayor Revenovich, thank you. Thank you very much. And uh thank you to staff for uh for the report um because it is very much a a good news story as uh councelor Singh just pointed out. In fact, um the uh the report references that um the 900,000 represents 24 affordable housing projects with about,00 units um being waved. And I I think that uh that certainly speaks to a lot in terms of the the commitment of of our council to to trying to take steps towards uh assisting with uh the housing uh situation uh in in in a lane that's appropriate for us. uh recognizing that much of it is uh a regional responsibility in our two-tier system with uh funding um capital funding from the federal government and operating dollars from the provincial government. But I I think there is a really good story to be told here. Um, you know, when I think about the work that um other parts of the planning team have done in terms of looking at our processes and being one of the leading uh municipalities around um you know changing processes to make it more efficient for um builders to to move forward with their projects. When I look at this in terms of the the waving of fees and so on, I think all of that collectively um all those chapters put together makes a a really good uh book uh a really good story to uh to tell. There's obviously more work that needs to be done. Um you know, just uh today we and I think this is a theme that will carry throughout a number of the items on today's agenda. Um the the federal provincial government um announced a number of other things. We don't know what they all mean yet. Uh but some of those things um include um a some adjusting of of development charges um going forward for a short period of time. Um there's the the waving of um HST uh which was announced in the uh in the provincial budget. Um and the uh the province this afternoon separate from this morning's federal provincial announcement uh announced more work that's going to be done um around uh some of these processes and so on including looking at the uh the Ontario building code um and how you know more efficiencies can happen in that regard. So I think you know Kitchener has led the way on a lot of this and uh uh the group in in this room as well as folks uh up uh in the in the Berlin Tower uh have played an important role in that and I just wanted to acknowledge that. Yeah, I think at the risk of repeating it's yeah just another example of um I'd put Kitchener up against any especially as a lower tier municipality in terms of a response to affordable housing. So thank you uh Miss Bamonte, Mr. Reeman and your team because you you've done great work and continue to do great work uh in one of the most important uh areas that we need to address. So with that it's been moved by councelor Singh. Uh those in favor and that's that's carried unanimously. Uh up next we have uh the development charges financial update and I believe Miss Fischer is going to be walking us through this. You promise to treat the messenger nicely. Sorry, I can't quue you in. My screen's off over here. There you go. You're good to go. Thank you, Chair Davey and members of council. Uh, and for the warm intro and welcome on our topic of development charges that we have today. Um, so first a brief over Thank you. Uh I'm sure you're all familiar with what development charges are, but a quick reminder. So development charges or DCS, as I'll refer to them, uh for the most part, are onetime uh fees associated with uh new residential or non-residential developments. They're uh paid to municipalities and school boards on those new buildings. They cover the capital costs of infrastructure needed to service the new growth. So this ranges from roads, waters, sewers, uh water lines, sewers, new libraries, recreation fees. There's traditionally been a growth pays for growth mentality. Um dating along long-standing history uh with the idea that the cost of this new infrastructure at the uh outset to get ready for the new population doesn't land on existing taxpayers. And so this likens development charges traditionally to more of a user fee than a tax. the in the city of Kitchener, we have two different DC rates depending on the location um that the development resides in. There's the suburban area and the central area and so those are highlighted on this slide here. Uh whichever area we're in uh as seen on this slide, our DC rates remain quite competitive com compared to our local comparators. You might have also heard of certain municipalities who have reduced their DCs through temporary incentive programs. um those are marked on this slide with an asterisk. And so even with their incentive programs applied against their DCs, so the city of Kitchener, our rates remain competitive against those. And that that just demonstrates our overall commitment ongoing to maintaining affordability, balancing all the components between existing taxpayers, new home buyers, and the development community as a whole. So what uh why we're coming today, our DC bylaw is set to expire in June 30th of 2027. So it's about a year and a bit away. It takes about that amount of time to undertake a new background study and bylaw. And uh that involves a lot of different work around the growth forecasting, the alignment of our capital plan against that growth. Um and so usually we would be coming to you around this time to get direction to recommence our background study and launch into that new bylaw work. However, at this time as you're aware that we're facing significant uncertainty with the growth forecast uh today. So there's been more recent slowdown in building activity, changing in population estimates from foreign student changes and most recently the water capacity constraints um impacting those forecasting and and the certainty that we have around that uh not only on the growth but also what capital projects do we have to align with that. And so staff are recommending that we uh extend our existing bylaw for another uh five years. that would extend it to the maximum life of up to 10 years, which is now legislated. Uh back when we did the bylaw in 2022, the max life was five years. It's since been amended. And so the recommendation is to take um advantage of that through this time of uncertainty to provide better stability for our local developers knowing that our city DC rates would stay intact and we would not be uh undertaking a background study at this time. And that uh recommendation is supported by our DC consultants Hson as well. So there as noted there have been a lot of uncertainty around DC's um and that's impacting our ability to collect on our cash flows for our revenues as well. Most recently there's been a lot of changes to the DC legislative framework that we've now had a few years of experience to start realizing what those impacts are to our cash flows. Uh even As of November 2025, there was newly introduced the deferral of residential DCs to occupancy. Uh that's commonly cited as bill 17 that was introduced in 2025. And then shortly thereafter, there's the timing um of development associated with the water capacity constraints. Uh that's also impacting our estimated cash flow timing moving forward into the future. There we go. Sorry about that clicker trouble. And so this slide presents an overview of the DC legislative changes that have been introduced in the recent years uh ranging from deferrals which impact the timing of the collection of DCs discounts and outright exemptions that uh would mean that there would be no D uh DCs collected on those types of exempted units. To illustrate how these have a significant impact to the city's cash flows, we take an example. This is a 100 unit um development in the central neighborhood. And so with today's DC rates, that would equate to about a million dollars in Kitchener development charges. And so if that was done today, with today's rates, but without the legislation legislative changes, we would be collecting about a million dollars upfront before the building permit is even issued. Now, with the rental discount, it ranges from 15 to 25% depending on the number of bedrooms that is associated with each unit. And so, on average, working out to about 20% discount, that's about $200,000 that would be taken right off the top of that development in less DC's to the city. With the deferrals for rental developments, they are deferred to begin paying at occupancy and then for six installments thereafter over the next five years. And so breaking that reduced amount now over that time period means that we won't see uh any DC collections until year three in this case. Construction can take upwards of two years on average for a larger development. Uh so we would see about 143,000 being collected annually for years three through to year eight. And our full DCs wouldn't be collected until then by year eight. And so you can see how this can have significant impacts to the timing of the city's cash flows and the amount of our cash flows where we previously would have collected about a million dollars upfront in year zero and now we will be collecting 143,000 per year only beginning in year three. This this is just one example and it it helps explain how the city's DCs have been uh impacted in terms of the actual amounts that we've been able to collect. On this graph, the black line there represents the DCs that were forecasted from our background study. And that's the amount that would be needed to be achieved in order for us to pay for our capital plan. The blue bar is the amount of that our DC revenues would be if it weren't for the exemptions, discounts, deferrals, all of those components. And so you can see there's some variation year-over-year, but overall, um, we look, you know, some years above, some years below. Overall, we're about achieving that black target line. The green though is represents the actual amounts of DCs that we've been able to collect and it's been on a decreasing basis uh as more legislative changes have taken place over recent years. Looking at it a different way, this graph shows the same information on a cumulative basis. And so here you can see that that blue line really trends very closely with the black line and that's in line with you know we've been hitting our housing starts and other announcements out of cross growth at the city of Kitchener here. that green line, that gap has been growing on a cumulative basis um each year and it totals now 69 million over those four years is that gap. To this point, the city's been using debt financing, seeking grant funding, deferring the timing of some projects. However, that's as that gap continues to grow, it becomes increasingly unsustainable. As noted, the DC shortfall over the that time period is 69 million. 47 million of that relates to exemptions and discounts. This is amounts that the city will not collect um even into the future. The remainder 22 million, those are amounts that are deferred to occupancy and beyond. Um and so we will eventually collect those but over the years into the future. And those deferrals add up. They cumulatively as of December 31st, 2025, it's 31 million is what is outstanding on the city's balance sheet for as a receivable. In addition, we have about 7 million 7.2 million outstanding on the property tax roles. Um, and that's based on amounts that became due but we were unable to collect. We do have collection issues. It's estimated about 50% of our DC's amounts that are due to be collected in the future. will see some level of collection challenges and so a portion of that likely will also be transferred into the onto property taxes in the future as well. Now with the uh water capacity constraint in the Manheim service area that will also be impacting our forecasted timing of DC revenues as well. Uh the region has indicated that sustainable operations will not be restored until approximately 2027 and that will see limited building activity where approvals haven't been in place already until that time. And so just with the compounded with the DC deferrals, that means if we have a one-year um one-year gap in building permit issuance, adding the timelines of collecting those DCS once it actually reaches occupancy would mean two to three years from now for non-renal residential and up to 10 years for rental residential for us to actually collect those DC revenues. Putting all of these pieces together, staff have reforcasted our DC revenue cash flows uh into the coming future. And so on this chart, you see the actuals that we presented earlier on that declining basis, but now combined with the uh water capacity constraints and the deferrals and the other discounts and exemptions, we're we're forecasting um constrained revenues over the next three years. Even looking into 2029 and beyond as you see a recovery there there remains a lot of uncertainty and risk associated with those largely based on the timing of the water capacity constraints. If we were to use the that revised revenue forecast with our existing capital plan, uh we can see on this graph that the gray line is our revised DC reserve fund forecast and it goes into a significant negative balance or deficit balance into the future and it doesn't recover from there. Uh this graph, the uh gold and green lines were previously presented to council in September at the time that bill 17 deferrals to occupancy were announced. And so we did see, you know, some decline, some impacts, but that it was forecasted to recover into the future. Um, and that gap between the green and the gold were the estimated impacts of that bill 17 at that time. Now, coupled with these revised forecast and the timing and uncertainty associated with the water capacity constraint, we aren't seeing that recovery with the revised gray line. To mitigate these impacts, staff have already engaged our consultants Hempson to develop detailed revenue forecasting that will help us model the re in more detail the revenues into the future and help us uh prepare a detailed DC financial plan. Through this work, it will be used to inform the 2027 budget, and we will continue to assess the timing of the various developments with our DC cash flows, review the timing of projects in our 10-year capital plan to ensure they're aligned with our forecasted revenues, review projects that have been approved but not yet started, and continue to pursue grant opportunities. As noted, this work will inform our 2027 budget and it will support the city's growth and development in a financially responsible way that keeps taxpayers, residents, and development community stakeholders in mind. And with that, I would like to thank you for your time and would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you for your presentation, Miss Fischer. As soon as my screen comes up, I'll see who has questions. Oh, councelor Sing. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I think you started off this with saying you said it in justest, but I think it needs to be repeated and uh and emphasize that we can't uh we can't shoot the messenger. This is not the fault of our staff. This was not anticipated in any way in a previous bylaw review for DCS and projections. We thought and we've always been very proud of this that we were in a very sound financial position when it came to long-term planning of capital projects that is paid from our DC reserve and now with this report it's seeming that we are in a very different junction. Um this is to say this is critically concerning is putting it very mildly. Um I mean we we we we're facing the the collateral damage of Bill 17. The province although I'm quite favorable of what the government has done to support rental housing and much of the activity we have in our city with all the cranes that are around are primarily focused for rental development. But the province and the premier also committed is a promise that they would make us whole. Where is that commitment? Where has that promise gone to? Through through the chair. Uh the province's comments around making us whole were largely around the phasing of DC's uh the phase and discount back in uh when our bylaw was introduced in 2022. Um there they have focused their efforts on making whole uh on grant opportunities and the city has continued to apply for those. um and continue to advocate for those. So am I correct to read the graph that we are we are projected towards in 2035 of $175 million deficit approximately because it was between 150 and 200 line through through the chair that that is correct if we do not mitigate the impact. So that is based on our current capital plan which also we do need to adjust the timing for in light of the water capacity constraints as well. Right. Could it be higher than this in light of the water issue through the chair? It could based on the uncertainty associated with developments. U this is modeling approximately a one-year um capacity constraint impact from the region. So again, no one really perceived the water issue uh being a problem. Perhaps our deficit may not have been as bad as it is, but even if the the the slowdown in development hadn't happened, we were already projected towards a significant uh decrease in our reserve or a large deficit related to the the uh collection of DCs through rental deferral program. Correct. Yes, that is correct. any bit of funding that we received from the fund. I'm not trying to be sounding too critical. I just want to get to a point where we are collaborative partners with the province which city of Kitchener has continued to be and figuring out the right solution to this. Um any commitment or funding we received from the province has fallen short of where we would have come to some sort of balance and those deficits related to those deferral payments. Thus far through the chair uh the funding that we've received I think is made note in the in the report um we've received funding for the cow and recreation center and through the building faster fund. Most recently we've started to allocate those fundings to the development charge projects. Um I I think we have to be conscious not to relate all of that towards the DC deferrals or the impact of bill 17. uh because some of that we would have gotten irrespective as we are trying to build a massive facility for a city our size and other cities have been eligible for funding irrespective of any DC related issues. Right. Okay. Well, I I do have a lot of the questions and I have a couple maybe suggestive questions that I want to get more clarity on. Thank you. Certainly. Please queue back in. Councelor Deno. Suggestive questions. I'm not sure what that means. Uh thank you. Thank you, Chair Davey. Um, so you mentioned, you know, the city's going to apply for grants. Have we been successful in any grant applications, Mr. Lenbach? Go ahead. So through the chair, um, the grant opportunities that the province has introduced have been application based and so we have applied when those opportunities have come forward. So that focused on uh water infrastructure, sanitary infrastructure, storm water or roads. Uh we have not been successful in receiving um funding through those grant programs at this point in time, but there's multiple intakes that get announced every year. Uh so there was uh I think multiple intakes on the on the water and wastewater side, which we were not successful in receiving grant funding. However, having hit our housing targets in two years in a row, we did receive building faster funds um which was approximately 24 million that we've received through that program. 10 million of that we have put to a DC eligible project because we have recognized the challenges that we're starting to see obviously with um with our DC revenue as a result of these changes. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Chapman. No, I'm not done yet. Oh, sorry. Pause there for a second. Sorry. I was thinking reset my time. Thanks. Um, was there any consultations with municipalities prior to Bill 17 through the chair? Not that I'm aware of. They do have various informal consultations through advocacy, but there is not formal uh that I'm aware of prior to the announcement of it. Okay. Is sorry, Mr. Lock want to add. So through the chair, um there is an opportunity every time there's a change in legislation for municipalities to comment on the changes and so I believe that did happen on both of those bills. Uh in in one scenario, I believe the changes came into effect before the commenting period had closed. Uh but that has typically been the way that the province has saw feedback in terms of um those changes that are proposed through legislation. Thank you. And my last question is, is this something that um we can make a uh when we go to AMO, is this something we can push into our our our meetings that like this has serious consequences not just for the city of Kitchener but across the province instead of Yeah, Mr. Chapman. Sorry, I clicked the wrong chapter. Mr. Chapman, go ahead. Uh three, Mr. Chair, yes, this is one of our top advocacy priorities and I can assure council that we have communicated this message directly to the minister of municipal affairs. He's well aware of it and and uh and so yes, we're advocating strongly for uh for funding. Um but as I say, some of this is in relation to legislative change. Other components are in relation to forecast development in part due to the to the uh the water challenges we're facing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Chapman. Sorry for making you click in twice. Go ahead. Um, thank you and thank you for the report. It is quite concerning, right, to look at these numbers in the the graphs that you've presented, but thank you. Um, I just wondered um is it possible to to increase the the the rates that we currently charge to somehow offset a bit of the the deficit that we've got? Uh through the chair. Uh so increasing rates would involve a full background study uh which is staff at this time are recommending that we would maintain our existing rates and extend the bylaw due to the the level of uncertainty around the growth forecasting and all the inputs needed timing of capital that would be involved in doing that background study. It is quite an in-depth project to approximately one year to do alongside consultants. Um and it is looks at service levels and the future growth projections and marries all of those together. Uh so that is what would be involved if if there was a direction to proceed that way um to increase the rates. So you can't just do it based on the the other rates around the province. You can't just say well do it. No. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Um, yeah, just a couple questions myself before I go into the second round. Uh, yeah, this is a very, very serious situation. I'll make my comments afterwards about how disappointed I am. But, um, my first question is this, uh, I guess the writing was on the wall, but it's still coming as a bit of a shock. And my question is how this relates to other municipalities. Are we expecting to see um other reports coming out from other municipalities? And if not, why not? I guess uh through the chair um the as noted in the report, the city of Toronto did defer I believe it was 1.9 billion um going off of memory here from the report um as part of their 2027 capital budget. And so you are seeing similar impacts in other municipalities. Um different municipalities would have different timing of capital projects, priorities, um different balances in the reserve fund. I think one of the things that uh made the city of Kitchener a bit unique in this regard is the timing of our capital projects had already put some pressure on our DC reserve funds uh and moving into all of these legislative changes and it a lot of our capital projects were early in the stages of our background study timeline that modeled it over 10 years with a plan to recoup then those uh capital costs that were incurred early through future revenues. And so just that timing realignment um we got a bit caught there I would say with uh we've spent on some capital projects and now would be looking to recover the revenues and the legislative changes alongside the development uh impacts at this time are impacting that that revenue recovery. Yeah, thank you. So yeah, the the province did take a a copy and paste approach to how they're addressing this. So, I guess in our in our advocacy, do we have like is it purely a cash flow issue? Like if we got a one-time um even even like borrowed cost. I guess my question would be what is what is the advocacy ask then of the province in a perfect world uh through the chair. We we're continuing to look at what grand opportunities uh are out there, applying to those, advocating for those. I know um even today the province is uh making some announcements to that regard and so we're we're staying very afoot on all of those changes that are coming out and continuing to advocate within our specific circumstances as well because often grant funding is tied to future capital works or works that are shovel ready. Um, and sometimes that isn't quite fit what our need is if it's for projects that we've already undertaken and built but now are paying for today. Um, like paying the debt for, for example. Uh, and so we continue to inform and communicate with the government on our specific circumstances and how we can uh go from here to be made whole or to achieve this uh sustainability. uh at the same time looking forward in our capital plan to see what can we do to align the timing with the developments and help alleviate some of these pieces as well. Okay. Thank you. And my last question is I want to make sure I want to impress upon committee the um the significance of this. Uh so can you like help uh quantify or give an example of what this actually means in terms of um the capital forecast andor potential levy impacts if we do not get any help from other levels of government. Uh so modeling with the reserve with the capital plan if there is no extra help from levels of government um likely we would see multiple years of capital deferral uh as noted in there's about three years forecasted here that have very constrained revenues. The recovery from that point is um a bit uncertain as well with the timing of the water capacity constraints. In order to recover, we need a period of time where our revenues exceed our our expenses to to bring us back out of that uh deficit position. And so if there's three years of constrained revenues, likely it would see mean capital deferrals of five years. And so that is the type of work that we will undertake with this DC financial plan. We're beginning with uh better modeling on our revenues, working with Hempson um to develop a a revenue modeling tool that will look at timing of developments that are in the pipeline, what is actually proceeding, which ones would have rental discounts, which ones would be deferred to occupancy as non-renal, which ones would be deferred longer terms as rental. So, we want to do a lot more detailed revenue forecasting, whereas what was prepared so far is at a higher level. and and that will help inform then how much do we need to go from here to address it. Um and so all of this work is uh being undertaken now will be prepared through the spring so that we can inform our 2027 capital budget. Okay. Thank you. And again the last question just like um sorry just stemming from that previous one was with all the and I know the work's being done now. We don't have exact figures or answers, but is it safe to assume um if we do not get assistance from other levels of government that there will be tax levy impacts to address this through the chair? Um actually Mr. Lock wants to take that one for you. Go ahead. So through the chair, um relate to that question, I think there's still work that we need to do to understand the issue more. And so that's what we're saying in terms of the work that's underway with Hemson. I I will say that this is an issue that other municipalities have flagged that if development charge revenue isn't the way to fund this infrastructure that that then there would obviously be a tax levy either impact depending on the service or potentially a utility rate impact. And so that could certainly be in the future something that municipalities will have to deal with, not only Kitchener, but I think other municipalities as well. Um it's too early to say what the impacts will be over time because we do want to have a more detailed look at the forecast before we come to any kind of conclusions in terms of how do we address this long term. But as um Miss Fischer indicated, this will require us to to look at timing of projects and make some adjustments within the capital forecast. And so we know that's the first step that we need to do as we head into the budget. and we'll have a better sense when we get to that point what kind of the longer term impact might be in terms of you know the funding aspect of it. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh for sorry councelor you haven't asked any questions on this yet. Have you go ahead? I had the same understanding as councelor Singh that the province was going to make us whole and uh it doesn't seem that that doesn't seem the case. So how are we how are we looking at this in a different way because from the way I see it we we're looking at apply uh trying to apply for some funding but we're not getting it. So is there another alternative like maybe borrowing from from the province or something like that that with favorable rates where they could. Is there anything else that we can do then other than just uh looking at uh you know applying for applications uh through the chair. I think that is part of what the work ahead of us will undertake. And so we will begin with better clarity on what our revenue forecasting looks like, what those impacts might be. And part of it will involve strategies for options that are ahead of us and not only deferral of capital. What are the and what are the grant opportunities but what what are other strategies and ideas that we have to help balance um because this is a becoming a bit more of a a trend as Mr. Ladenbach said. Okay. I guess whole I guess I guess my concern is how are we going to look at this when uh on a bigger picture with regards to let's say the new hospital like how how is this going to affect that project because to me it sounds like we won't have any funding for anything to to to even give funding for that like we're not we're losing our a revenue source and then they're going to be coming asking for hundreds of millions of dollars for a hospital that So I I I'm just I feel like we're I don't know. I just feel like it's in a position where we're in a lose-lose no matter where we are with this. Mr. through the chair. Um I received word from staff who were following today's announcements that the province has made it clear and there's been a shift in tone that municipalities will not be made whole and it's expected that municipalities will bear some of the cost associated with these changes and I think it does reflect the position of the province that housing is unaffordable and that their goal is to reduce the cost of of new housing for people buying housing. Uh at the end of the day, if these are costs to service housing, if it's not coming from development, it will need to come from existing taxpayers and rateayers. That's why we understand the province likes the service corporation model for municipal utilities for water and for sewer, but for tax supported services, it would need to come from existing taxpayers. The other point I wanted to make in terms of the question around debt is that what you have in front of you today is a cash flow projection, but this already assumes significant debt being taken out within the DC reserve fund. And it's only a few years ago that our history as a city to issue no debt for development charges funded projects. It was a pay as you go philosophy and the report identified a forecast of up to $200 million of DC funded debt uh over a five-year time frame. So you can see in short order how there's been a fundamental shift in terms of how growth will be funded. And so at the end of the day I think it's fair to say that if we need to if the city will be growing and expanding and there's a cost of service that growth um existing rate payers existing taxpayers will be incurring some of that cost going forward. How much remains to be seen and that's the work that we want to do through our consultants to develop detailed model to forecast that. Okay. Well, thank you for that. To me, it seems like a huge contradiction uh with the way the province is working with this because if you're looking at creating more housing, but at the same time, what this is creating is people that are buying these housing will be able to to pay for the taxes to to keep these these properties. So it's this is rather a confusing bill to me and it anyways and through the chair if I can just add to that I think the unintended consequence may be that the city may actually be unable to support a capital program that extends water mains and extended extends roads and services new development because we don't have cash flow within DC reserve to do that the consequence of that will be existing land and development will become more valuable and that will drive up the cost of housing and so um yeah like I am concerned counceloritis about the impact of deferring our capital program for lack of cash flow that it simply will change land economics in Kitchener. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council. Councelor Johnston, I have I have a comment comment. I'm going to get you to queue back in if you don't mind. Uh who hasn't asked? Councelor Schneider, go ahead. Thank you, Chair Davyy. Um, one of the comments that I've heard from, uh, out there is that, well, city shouldn't complain because once the buildings are up and occupied, you're getting that tax revenue. So, how does that work into the equation? Like, I'd like to get educated on that a little bit. Yes. Through through the chair. So the assessment growth, the taxes that a new homeowner uh would be paying cover the operating costs associated with that. So as we grow into a new area, we've built a new park. You know, over time we have to then add staff to maintain that park, plow those roads. All of those costs escalate, you know, not just by one house, but over time as we as we continue to grow and develop. And so the taxes that they pay pay for those services, the operating costs. What the DCs were intended to pay for is the initial imp placement, the initial building of that capital infrastructure, the initial purchase of that park, the initial building of that water main road to service that house. Okay. Appreciate that distinction. Thank you. Thank you for second rounds. Councelor Singh. Yeah, I think councelor U Schneider raises a good point and I think this is something that we need to really be more specific on in our strategy as we look at the overall way of us trying to come out of this hole is not all developments the same. So to conne all development when it's infill a lot of that already exists. So does that mean that we should be more encouraging and specifying growth along a transit nodes and corridors where grass growth can be it can be easily absorbed as opposed to continue to see some of the growth happening in a suburban area through through the chair. As I noted with the comparator graph, we do have two rates currently, suburban and central. And so that was done historically to reflect um the builtup area versus the more traditionally green field area. Uh to differentiate instead of roads, water, sewer, storm, we have an intensification allowance in in the central area. At the same time um with the water capacity constraint we can see how even with intensification there are hidden growth development costs as well. Adding new populations in an already existing play space may add more constraints on parks and so forth as well. That's I I I'm I'm not trying to be argumentative but it's sideswipes question. I think it's is it are you saying they're comparative? Are they the same or is there a drastic difference between cost related to growth in an infill as opposed to suburban through through the chair? Greenfield development is traditionally more expensive to service than an infill intensification. Is that your question? Yeah, we've looked at some of these numbers in the past of seeing I think thousands compared to hundreds. Is that the case in growth related costs for infrastructure through the chair? I I wouldn't be able to comment on the level of differentiation but yes the intens intensification is a cheaper alternative to green field development and I think a reminder of some of those cost differentials would be helpful as we are carrying on some of this dialogue. Just as a quick refresh, I think our DC bylaws is a single family or semi- detach and a suburban is 31,000. City of Kitchener for central is 21,000. So there's a 10,000 difference really. But comparing to other cities in the region, Cambridge, they charge 42,000 for their single family or semi- detach and they're substantively a lot more than what where we are compared to our suburban. Okay. So that being said, sorry, Council Sing, you want to chime in? Yeah. Uh I was just going to mention with uh fill in like infill situations uh it's generally cheaper until you have to rip up a whole road that already exists and then it becomes way way more expensive. Uh we just have to do that less and that's part of the reason that the it is cheaper generally but on a specific project it will be way more expensive and at a given time we would have had to at some point in time rip up that road anyways. Correct. It's not that just because it's infill that road will never be required to be redone. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. I think that's important to to preface that as well. I think the suggested questioning was really coming towards how we can advocate as a council and not to be confrontational with the province. I think we're all in the same sandbox and wanting to see more housing being built. Uh some and the direction I was going really I think it's been referenced by counceloritis is potential loans from the province. Same way they told us to further DC's don't charge interest. Can we advocate to the province? Give us the money, loan us the money, don't charge us interest. Is that potential advocacy that we may consider through the chair? Uh it it pushes the problem down the road, but it does but still advocacy that yes, we can consider. Okay. The other Sorry, Mr. Lbach want to add. Yeah. through the chair. What I would add to that is we've already in taken on significant amount of debt on our own and we have capacity to do that. I think the challenge is we don't have the revenues to support the servicing of that debt. So whether that's the province or whether it's our own um option to do that, it's still a challenge to make sure that we have that revenue coming in to to cover that off. Try to get really fast in 28 seconds. We have a policy that we passed for a waiver of additional dwelling units which were for ADUs. Early on, we were looking at just backyard suites, which was the ARUS, and then now expanded the definition of exempt ARUS, resulting in a second and third uh ADU or ARU being exempt compared to other cities who don't have that early exemption as us where they're only exempting the first and the second ADU. So, we're really relieving almost 35,000 in an infill project. Could we look at that and be on a even playing field so that maybe that exemption is not necessary anymore because the bill came a after our initial exemption and now the province has really mandated that on the second and the third units you can't call charge additional DC it needs to be absorbed in the initial charge typically in a single family or semi- detached dwelling I know there's a lot of nuance in that question but hopefully staff got the gist of it Mr. Re, you want to take that? Yeah. Through the mayor and or through the chair. Um the uh we've created a a community improvement plan for the fourth unit and so the DCs are being offset currently with federal uh housing dollars through that program. But that's only a 100. What I'm saying is we we are letting go a lot of DC revenue because we brought in rightly so an exemption before the province mandated it. What I'm saying is do we really need that that exception on it separately where we're discounting the third ADU where other cities are only discounting the second sorry the first and the second. We're giving a bigger relief right now where it may not be necessary because the province changed their bylaws on DC related legislatively. This is something maybe staff need to address and bring as a commentary back towards council meeting because that might be something we need to look at through through the chair. If I may clarify by third unit are you meaning the third ADU? So it says here exemptions additional residential dwelling units ar au exemption expanding the definition exempt aru resulting in the second and third units exempted. As an example, someone has a single family home. They demolish it. They build a 4-unit building. Right now, because of our initial ARU exemption, we're exempting the second, third, and the fourth unit. Whereas other cities are not. They're only exempting the first and the second ARU. So, the additional dwelling units, we're giving an extra exemption outside of CIP program. It may be a lot to discuss this here. Perhaps staff can answer that through email afterwards. Yeah, I was going to say this sounds like a conversation best picked up. I agree with you. I'll just uh key back in through comment. Sorry, comment. So I have a lot more to say. Uh councelor Deno. Thank you chair. Thanks chair Davey. Um and so maybe Mr. Mr. Haggy mentioned this. Somebody mentioned it. Um when looking at capital deferrals, is that something normally council would be um consulted on? Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah, Mr. Haggy, I was going to say yes. And through our past the most recent budget process, we already started a bit of a deferral. Uh it was brought up during the capital budget presentation a little bit seeing where things were going. We started to do that. We're saying what we did was, you know, a good start. It needs to be way more aggressive assuming that uh, you know, this framework stays in place. Thank you, Councelor Chapman. Thank you. Um I noticed in the um graph we're the only municipality that has two different rates. Is that because the others just weren't captured or is it that we are the only municipality? Uh through the chair, other municipalities do have um area rated uh locations. So, uh, a name isn't coming to mind of an example, but I know some have largely in that green field development. Um, so they might have a more core DC and then a small subset of their municipality that is pure green field, pure expansionary. They might have an additional rating for that one. Uh for simplicity on this graph, we did not show those um just to keep it more of what is a standard or typical um DC. In all of those cases, they would add to the rate, but it's only for a small area within that municipality. So the the rates would be that we see on this chart, are they the higher rates or the lower rates? The lower rates. The lower rates. And if you were to if we look at our chart the chart that you've provided um what percentage well maybe it's maybe it's already I can't I can't find the graph now um are the are are do we mostly take in um DC charges from the urban or the the rural or the the center or the suburban areas? the suburban right uh through the chair mo most have one core DC rate and that's what's reflected the the additional rate as I mentioned that would just be for a smaller um kind of outset outskirt location I think the question councelor you're asking what the what the split is and revenue between suburban it's in the chart right oh yeah um so my other question has to do with um would we have to go do a full stud study just to move our lower rate up to the higher rate like not not adjust the whole thing but just adjust the the one rate and put it in in in par with the other rate. I mean that again might give us a bit of leeway. Yes. Through the through the chair we would have to undertake a new background study for for that area to to be able to increase its rate. And so if we don't start a background study now and we defer it to 20 um 32 as you're suggesting then we've lost all that time to to make any adjustments right so would it not make sense to start looking at this now uh through the chair the report does uh say that we do not need to wait the full five years to undertake a new background study we're we're proposing to extend the bylaw for the maximum aotment to give us flexibility because we don't know how long this period of uncertainty will be and so we will continue to monitor. We could undertake the background study in in one year, two years at any time just ensuring that we have that bylaw in place by 2032. And so it it does give us allow that flexibility that if council wanted to direct staff to report back um in a certain time period, we can do that. And given the current situation, if you were to do a a prediction of what the rates, how the rates would change today, um do you think they would be higher than what we currently charge or lower? Through the chair, uh the province would love to see the rates be lower. Um and meanwhile the background study, it is very mathematical based looking at service levels and the the upcoming projects. And so there's the desire that we might want to see the rate um alongside what the math might tell. Um and it's hard to predict where that exactly would land then factoring in all of those pieces. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Oh, Mr. Lock you want to add? Yes. So through the chair um the one thing I would add to that would be part of the reason we are recommending extending the bylaw is because of the water capacity constraint provides uncertainty around the growth forecast in terms of what we would need to actually update the DC um bylaw uh through a DC study. Um what you are seeing across the province is and even at the federal level is the request for miss to to reduce DC's. And so there's a big push to reduce DC's by 50%. Uh um or or another percentage. And so our approach to this in terms of bringing back the bylaw is really to say we're providing certainty right now that we're not going to be increasing our rates at least at this point in time. We still have the flexibility to do that. If conditions change, we can come back and we can update and and engage in a DC study earlier than 2032. But at the same time, uh, we're not looking to, um, uh, you know, increase rates when we when we hear the calls from the federal and provincial governments that they're looking for misspell actually decrease DC rates. So, I think we're taking a reasonable approach here in terms of how we're approaching the bylaw, but it is a necessary step because we don't have the conditions to actually engage in terms of doing a study right now given the water capacity constraint issue at the region. Okay. Thank you, Mayor Ben. Question or comment. You'll be the last question if you're asking questions. Why I'm asking? It's maybe a little bit of both. Sorry. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. I had to step out to deal with an with an issue. Um I I guess my question is and I apologize if you already covered it off. Um, but if we adopt this recommendation today, um, I'm not sure if this question, Miss Fischer, for Mr. Lenbach or who, um, how do we potentially deal with the announcement from the feds um, and the province that happened earlier today? And we we obviously don't have the details yet and we don't know fully what it means other than it will likely look for some municipalities to do a a decrease. Um, and so do we need to word our motion in a in a way potentially that would not require a motion to reconsider or you know just looking to staff for some guidance on that or alternately is there any harm in deferring just deferring this to council Mr. Lenbach. So through the chair uh in terms of the recommendation in front of you it's to extend the expiry date in the bylaw. I don't think it necessarily indicates that whatever the parameters of a program is that is announced by the province that we couldn't come back and report to council in terms of what steps we would need to take if we um were interested in engaging in in some kind of program. Uh really this is this is a change to the bylaw that is allowed based on the most recent update to legislation which allows you to extend the expired date of your of your bylaw. So we don't see any risk or harm in terms of doing this because we still have the flexibility to come back at any time in the future should council want to revisit kind of looking at the whole DC bylaw itself or if there's a program that requires something from council in terms of approval to to make some kind of change. Okay. Well, that's that's encouraging then then I would say um I'm I'm not sure that we would need to reduce it. In fact, I sorry that we would need to not to defer it because I think actually extending the current date provides some certainty at least in the meantime both from committee and and ultimately when it comes to council obviously in the coming days uh we'll have a better understanding of what um the full extent of of the announcement has been um but you know what I would say is that you know As as was pointed out, there is a a desire by the province to see a reduction and by the federal government and I suspect that some infrastructure money uh that was announced today will be contingent on that. It it does seem um and again until we we get the details, they have said that they will only be looking for reductions from some municipalities. So that signals to me that perhaps the message that we were delivering is, you know, you can't treat everyone equally because even some of those municipalities that have been praised for going to 50% of their their previous DC, they're still higher than than us at our full DC. Um and and so you know we kept saying to to government like you can't treat all of us equally because you're you're going to create an unfair um playing field and it seems that that message maybe has has made its way through. Um okay so that's that's been helpful and and and so I I'll just say if if I c can since I have the the floor now I'll say I mean I'll certainly support this. I think this is a prudent recommendation um at this point in time based on on what we know, but we're obviously going to have to do more work in the coming weeks based on today's announcements. Thanks. Thank you. And we are in uh comment. Uh next up is councelor Singh, but I know you had a quick clarification. No, I think uh councelor Chapman asked hers. I was looking to see if we could look at some segment of the bylaw, but it seems like it's a full review irrespective of if it's a small portion or all of it. That being said, I think m uh Mayor Venovich has raised a good point. I think it costs relatively the same to build a fireh hall, a library, a community center, a large recreational facility in Markham uh as it would in city of Kitner. I think where they are able to charge significantly lot larger DC rates and gather tremendous amount of reserves or towards their DC uh commitments is because the land valuation dynamics are very different from there to here. They could have double the DC, but in portion of overall what the house costs at the end to the end homeowner, the percentage is small. Compared to us, it may look the same, but they're bringing in double the DC, building very similar infrastructure where we're building, but it costs us all the same. So, that being said, I'm going to use some gentle language. I don't feel gentle right now because this is really unfortunate where we are because this is going to be something that we're going to grapple generationally to come out of a $200 million hole. is there's more than one way to slice an onion. Uh if the province and the feds are looking for us to slash a DCS, it doesn't have to happen in a suburban area. It can be along our MT MTSA zones. It could be in our high density zones where development can easily be absorbed where we have existing infrastructure where we have the fire halls, community centers, recck association, wreck halls already built which allows us to get out of that hole much quicker. So I think we do need a review much sooner than perhaps the five years or uncertainty of when we will be looking at this. I think we are going the right way of going through consultation but um I don't know if that amendments really required or not but I would hope that some sort of um look back as to where we are at the end of 2026 uh with the new term of council is advisable. uh that allows us to see exactly where we are in place with the uncertainty of the water issue in the region. The fact of the matter is any deferrals we do to make ourselves in a better financial situation, deferrals are a capital forecast. What it does, it sounds right. It sounds like the responsible financial decision to do. But what we're not realizing is you defer capital project of a water man of a pumping station. Guess what? 10 years from now, you can't build that community. we're not going to get those DCs. So, we have a future problem. It may take forever for us to get out of this without the support of the province and the federal government to bring in those critical dollars. Looking at the announcement today, and this is CTV news, and everyone can make their own judgment the way it's presented, but Prime Minister Carney is committing $4.4 billion over 10 year through build community strong fund and the province is committing to match theirs, which is fantastic. But on the same breath, the premier is saying um he he has said that uh they're looking to have municipalities slash their DC funds potentially by up to 50%. And those that do it will get the money that those that don't potentially might not. So we we are in a curious situation. We're required to reduce our DCs to see more growth happening which we would be happy to see but I think it's how we see that development. We can't have significant growth in our urb suburban outlining areas where I think DC's are not comparative to other cities here. Even regionally, I referenced the city of Cambridge and city of Kitchener are the two cities, two larger cities that have large development land still left for housing outside of our urban core and theirs is almost 10,000 more than more than ours. So, I think we do need to have that look that we're in a in an even uh playing field. We need to do a larger advocacy. I'll just end it with this. I think there's a lot of incremental advocacy we need to do as a council working with staff to the province. We can't just sit idle and hope that they make the right decisions because this is we there's a lot of collateral damage that our community will face if we don't find a way out of this. I wouldn't say mess but a problem that needs to be resolved for for large dollars. Um the last bit I want to really add a comment there it was part of the report that outlined $31.8 million of estimated um deferred DCs. we may have a challenge but that's going to go on the tax base. Um those tax base when it's put on the tax base we're able to collect a lot of interest. So I would hope when we're looking at that calculation we take that into stride so that what that overall number looks like as a deficit we are more realistic and we are more concise with the nuance of how we can recover it how we can manage that debt perhaps to offset it because we are going to have it towards a tax base as a as a debt that we we're charging a large interest on. And I think we may be able to make ourselves whole. Overall, I think there's, as I said, we we do need to work with the province, but we also we need to work in the smart way. We can't look at slashing of DC's across the board, but I think we need to look at it in a in a more strategic way of development happening in the right corridors. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Stretch. Thank you. Happy to support um extending the bylaw um further. And you know, I'm hearing just so many questions and so much uncertainty. Um trying to trying to predict what's coming down the pipes. Um I see the transition from growth pace to growth pays for growth transitioning to everyone pays for growth. And you know, even even saying that it is I am unsure um of the collaborative damages that that come with that and what does that look like for our residents. Um, but happy to happy to keep learning and as we all watch and I I actually am really curious to see if it is cheaper to build in MTSAs than than not. You know, we are currently in the middle of a a water crisis with the region. So, we are learning that infrastructure needs attention even in areas that are already developed. And so, um, I'm looking forward to the report whenever we feel it's appropriate and we have enough information to move on that. So, thank you. Thank you. It also occurs to me too. We don't think we have a mover for this. Councelor stretch. Thank you. Uh yeah, so that looks like everyone's comments. Um yeah, I'm going to comment like first and foremost, I think the message was received by um council that we're going to have to be extremely cautious uh in our spending going forward because this is a giant question mark on our future. Um and that's really disappointing. And I guess the only other thing I wanted to relate was how disappointed I am like on a personal level because I and our members of council for a long time and obviously the heavy lifting by staff was to get the city of Kitchener in a strong financial position and we have had remarkable success in that. Uh you'll probably notice and later in the finance committee uh you'll see that you know we've posted we used to have deficits more than a decade ago constantly we posted 10 years of surpluses ex uh co years we've paid down our EDIF debt like our debt our our tax supported debt the debt that our taxpayers should worry about uh was paid off um to to a large degree there's still a little bit there but I mean it's the trend has been fantastic and to see this happen two issues conspiring unintentionally against us on development charges which is supposed to be an entity unto itself that funds itself um potentially put us at risk of this um massive thing that could end up falling on the taxpayers without any control from this council whatsoever is extremely disappointing. Um so we we are we are staff's going to do their work but as others have mentioned we have to have some significant advocacy on this uh to make sure that um the the province is aware of what they've done uh and again perhaps unintentionally that we all want to build more housing but some of us are much further behind the eightball than others. Uh so with that it's been moved by councelor stretch. Uh those in favor and that carries unanimously. Uh we do have one last item should be quick. Uh Mr. He there's no you don't have time to speak to this. Okay. Um any questions or discussion on the final item it's just the moving of uh some DCS around moved by counceloritis. Any questions? Not seeing any. Those in favor and that carries unanimously as well. And that concludes this portion of finance and corporate services committee. Um we have to go into special counsel right Mr. No we don't. Oh that's right. Okay.

Full Transcript