Assumptions contained within the 2023 Development Charge Background Study are adopted as an ‘anticipation’ with respect to capital grants…

2:34:04We have items for discussion with the first one

2:34:06being the development charge background study

2:34:08and the by-law adoption.

2:34:10We do have one delegation.

2:34:12It's Susan Watson.

2:34:14And is Susan Watson joining us by phone

2:34:17or supposed to be in person?

2:34:23Okay.

2:34:23Well, Ms. Watson's not here.

2:34:25So we will just continue then.

2:34:28And there is recommendations

2:34:30for this background study adoption.

2:34:32And there's several motions there.

2:34:35Maybe we can have them.

2:34:36Do you have them ready to go up on the screen?

2:34:38If you could put them up on the screen,

2:34:39I would appreciate that.

2:34:42I am gonna just read them out because that's the job.

2:34:46That the assumptions continue within the 2023

2:34:48development charge background study be adopted

2:34:51as an anticipation with respect to capital grant subsidies

2:34:54and other contributions.

2:34:56That the approach of calculating the development charge

2:34:59continue to be on a uniform city-wide basis

2:35:02for all services classes of services.

2:35:05That the capital project listing set out in chapter five

2:35:12of the development charge background study

2:35:14dated September 27th, 2023 as amended be approved.

2:35:19And subject to further annual review

2:35:20during the capital budget and confirmation process.

2:35:24That the development charge background study

2:35:26dated September 27th, 2023 be approved as amended.

2:35:30That in accordance with the development charge act,

2:35:331997 as amended council determined

2:35:35that no further public meeting is required

2:35:37in respect of the proposed 2024 development charges bylaws.

2:35:41That the development charge bylaws

2:35:43with the bylaw numbers 2024 to 20866 to 2024 dash 2088

2:35:49set out in the bylaw section

2:35:51of this meeting agenda be approved.

2:35:53And that a new development charge reserve fund

2:35:55for long-term care be created

2:35:58and that appendix A of the general reserve

2:36:00and reserve fund policy be updated accordingly.

2:36:05Can I have someone move and second those for me then?

2:36:09Yeah.

2:36:09Point of order.

2:36:10Point of order.

2:36:11Yeah, I see it.

2:36:12Oh, perfect.

2:36:13I see it.

2:36:14It's all good.

2:36:15Seconder for that please, councillor Chew.

2:36:17Okay, now that that's been on the floor,

2:36:19I do see Ms. Watson has walked in.

2:36:22And so we went over you

2:36:24because you just weren't in the building yet

2:36:25but you're here now, so come on up.

2:36:32Thank you for coming.

2:36:40Anyway, so I'm just gonna have to wait.

2:36:41That's okay.

2:36:42And you got five minutes as you know

2:36:43and no warning for me,

2:36:45but you heard the 30 second warning bell, okay?

2:36:47You go right ahead.

2:36:48Yeah.

2:36:50So the thing that I really wanted to underline

2:36:52for everyone is when you're looking

2:36:54at these development charges,

2:36:58it's actually the shortfall

2:37:00that has a direct link

2:37:02to the tax increase that you just approved.

2:37:07So for instance, what you don't see on this chart,

2:37:10so the new rate is gonna be 64,813,

2:37:14but there's an additional public contribution.

2:37:17So for 20 years now, since 1997,

2:37:21when the development charges actually limited

2:37:24what municipalities were able to recover

2:37:27from development charges,

2:37:28we can't recover the full amount.

2:37:30So this represents, what I put up was the 20%,

2:37:34which has been there historically.

2:37:37Kevin actually told me that those ratios now

2:37:40are more like 25% from citizens

2:37:44and 75% from developers.

2:37:47So that figure would be over $20,000.

2:37:50And so the fact that we have been giving that subsidy,

2:37:54that's per detached house.

2:37:57So even if Bill 23 isn't on the scene,

2:38:00we are contributing $20,000

2:38:03for one privately owned home.

2:38:06Now if you bring in, and just imagine,

2:38:09so $20,000 and then you approve 100 houses,

2:38:12that's $2 million of subsidy for 100 houses.

2:38:16Now if you bring in the waived development charges

2:38:20from Bill 23 and you add what we're already contributing

2:38:24to the development charge that is waived,

2:38:27it's going to be more than $85,000 of public money

2:38:34that is going to subsidize one individual house.

2:38:40So the reason we already have

2:38:42a province wide multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit

2:38:47is because public funds have been siphoned off

2:38:51for 20 years now,

2:38:53instead of going towards that infrastructure.

2:38:55And my next slide, how do I get there?

2:38:59I don't have the ticker.

2:39:01But what I put up was a quote,

2:39:03now you got to meet with Mr. Scanlon before he retired.

2:39:08And in the workshop, he said that he had never

2:39:13in his entire career seen a drop in DCs or lot levies

2:39:18translate into lower prices for home buyers.

2:39:22So my question is like exactly who are we subsidizing for?

2:39:27Because recent stats show that only 25% of Canadians

2:39:32can now afford to buy a detached home.

2:39:35It's not gonna be, I'm paying the tax subsidy on this,

2:39:40but my kids, my young adult kids

2:39:42aren't gonna be able to buy these homes.

2:39:44And so maybe it's gonna be up to core development group

2:39:47that the Toronto Star says is coming to Guelph

2:39:49to buy up single detached homes

2:39:51to add to their rental portfolio

2:39:55so that they can renovate them and jack the prices.

2:39:57And we can see rents go up even more.

2:40:00So I'm actually not doing a happy dance

2:40:03when I find that when I hear

2:40:05that we're getting the accelerator fund money,

2:40:08because in my view, it's an accelerator program

2:40:10for tax increases.

2:40:12And it's an accelerator program for personal bankruptcy

2:40:16and for municipal bankruptcy.

2:40:19And so I'm at the point, like I've been,

2:40:21I would say outraged about this for a couple of decades

2:40:24and now I'd borrow the mayor's word of being livid

2:40:27that I actually feel like I'm living in a kleptocracy

2:40:31where things have been structured legally

2:40:35to siphon money out of citizens' pockets

2:40:39to basically enrich developers.

2:40:41I mean, I don't know if there were any Manila envelopes

2:40:44involved with Bill 23,

2:40:46like there were for the Greenbelt carve outs,

2:40:48but this was one massive Christmas gift

2:40:51for developers coming out of our pockets.

2:40:55So my last slide if I can click ahead.

2:40:57So call them best, who is the president of AMO,

2:41:01said that ultimately members of,

2:41:03he was presenting on Bill 23 in November 22.

2:41:06And he said, ultimately members of the legislature

2:41:08must choose between serving the interests

2:41:10of the development industry

2:41:11or serving the interests of taxpayers.

2:41:14So I think the same thing comes down to you on council.

2:41:18I find it ironic that some of you who identify

2:41:22as fiscal conservatives are the ones

2:41:24who are putting the pedal to the metal on housing

2:41:26and it's just gonna mean increased taxes.

2:41:31Great.

2:41:32Sorry, you do have about 20 seconds left.

2:41:34Okay, we're back to that.

2:41:35Okay, the warning bell.

2:41:37Okay, yes, I've made my point.

2:41:39Okay, all right, thank you.

2:41:40And councillor, all questions as a follow up.

2:41:43Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie.

2:41:45Just a question, I don't wanna do it

2:41:47as a point of personal privilege.

2:41:49You made reference to the term kleptocracy,

2:41:52which basically means that a government is stealing.

2:41:55I'm assuming that you're not referring

2:41:58to city council as stealing.

2:42:01So no, the provincial government has set up a structure

2:42:07where citizens are subsidizing private assets,

2:42:11privately owned assets.

2:42:12We don't have a choice about that.

2:42:14But through the DC Act of 1997

2:42:19and now through bill 23,

2:42:20that we are enriching developers.

2:42:24We are enriching developers.

2:42:26What do citizens actually get for that money?

2:42:28And it blows my mind,

2:42:31like it's gonna be what, $23 million this year.

2:42:34We have $100,000 in the Affordable Housing Reserve.

2:42:37We have people sleeping in tents, in frigid weather.

2:42:40We have $23 million to give

2:42:43to middle and upper income home buyers

2:42:45and the core development group.

2:42:46But we don't have money for rent,

2:42:48geared to income or supportive housing for people

2:42:50who are living outside.

2:42:52I mean, it's just, it's perverse.

2:42:55And I feel it has been struck.

2:42:57I feel that the provincial government, yes,

2:43:00is stealing from Ontarians to enrich developers.

2:43:03And it's a legally structured.

2:43:06Thank you.

2:43:07I'm fairly sympathetic to the arguments

2:43:08that you've presented with regards to the ratio

2:43:12of funds coming from residents versus from development.

2:43:15But I think I'll probably ask staff one simple question.

2:43:20What is our alternative?

2:43:21And I'll ask that later on.

2:43:22So thank you very much.

2:43:24And a Councillor Ororak, please.

2:43:27Thank you, Mayor Guthrie, through you to Ms. Watson.

2:43:29So we sat on the DC peer review together, right?

2:43:33You've articulated that the exemptions brought in

2:43:36by the province, the city has to comply with, right?

2:43:40The shortfall in revenues is following

2:43:43what's in the DC bylaw, the latest Development Charges Act

2:43:48and their changes to it through Bill 23.

2:43:50So just for clarity, do you feel that Mr. Scanlon and staff,

2:43:56like they have maximized the collectible DCs

2:44:00that the city is allowed to collect?

2:44:02Right, do you, are you comfortable with that process?

2:44:04Yes, I appreciate that.

2:44:06And also Councillor Ororak, I will give you credit

2:44:09for advocating for inclusion of fees

2:44:12for more long-term care in that.

2:44:15Like I know that's something that you have been carrying

2:44:17caring for a long time.

2:44:19What you do have control over,

2:44:21not all municipalities signed the housing pledge.

2:44:25They said, we can't afford it.

2:44:28And Collingwood and some other municipalities

2:44:30put in interim control bylaws.

2:44:33They said, we don't have the money

2:44:35for the infrastructure required for growth.

2:44:38And there was also a decision I understand last December

2:44:41where there was a change from employment lands

2:44:43to housing zoning, which is just gonna jack up

2:44:46the amount of housing.

2:44:47So the more, like you just need to be really clear,

2:44:50the more you accelerate housing,

2:44:52you are accelerating tax increases, right?

2:44:56And so you could say to the province,

2:44:57you could actually represent people of wealth

2:45:01to the province rather than representing the province

2:45:04to the people of wealth and say, sorry,

2:45:06actually we're stopping development

2:45:08until you change this because we can't afford it.

2:45:11And please stop asking the province to make you whole

2:45:15because that's still my money.

2:45:18And it's still developers who are getting off the hook

2:45:21for growth, paying for growth.

2:45:23Growth needs to pay for growth

2:45:26and it needs to be incorporated in the price of the house

2:45:29that's on the market.

2:45:30And maybe it means that the developers

2:45:32take slightly less profit because Mr. Scanlon told you,

2:45:35we give tax reductions of like HST and DC

2:45:43and lot levy cuts and incentives.

2:45:46And how has that ever, ever translated into lower housing

2:45:50prices for private, what ends up being a private asset?

2:45:54So the definition of insanity is continuing

2:45:56to do the same thing over and over again

2:45:57and expecting a result.

2:45:59So we've learned over 30 years that the private sector

2:46:02is not going to solve the housing problem.

2:46:05And that whole issue of supply and demand

2:46:08in the current context is laughably simplistic.

2:46:12Okay.

2:46:13Thank you.

2:46:14Seeing nothing further, thank you very much.

2:46:16Thank you.

2:46:18All right, so we have the motions already on the floor

2:46:22and is there a follow up question to staff keeping in mind?

2:46:29This has, I'll recognize you councillor all in a second.

2:46:32So we're keeping in mind that we've had multiple

2:46:36like dedicated meetings to this up until this moment.

2:46:39So councillor all to you.

2:46:41Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:46:42It actually comes from the presentation of Ms. Watson

2:46:45and the reference was made to a 75, 25 split

2:46:48for development charges, 25% being paid by current residents,

2:46:5475% by developers.

2:46:56And there's two parts to that question.

2:46:58I was wondering if you could comment on those numbers.

2:47:03Is that percentage correct?

2:47:05And what has been the increase as a consequence of bill 23?

2:47:27Through the mayor, my name is Byron Tan.

2:47:29I'm a representative of Watson and Associates

2:47:31and consulted for the city.

2:47:33So in terms of the 75, 25 split, I mean, right now

2:47:37those numbers are again estimates at the end of the day

2:47:40on the total cost of growth.

2:47:42If you take a look at the development charge study

2:47:44as it's formulated dating back to 1997

2:47:48with all the iterations that have come to date,

2:47:51there's been a number of reductions, deductions

2:47:53and exemptions that you must adhere to,

2:47:56you know, in order to conform with the development charge act.

2:48:00So those exemptions and discounts ultimately

2:48:04have to be funded from other sources that are non-DC-able.

2:48:09Now, in addition to that, there's been some changes

2:48:11as well that we had dealt with the city

2:48:13dating back to about 2020 with bill 197,

2:48:17where it ultimately isolated the number of services

2:48:21that you can collect for at the end of the day.

2:48:24So while you may have a total portfolio

2:48:28of growth-related infrastructure and works,

2:48:30you can only collect up to a maximum

2:48:32of 20 different services at this time.

2:48:34So when you're looking at it from the broad spectrum

2:48:37of those services, that's where everything starts, you know,

2:48:40reducing from that 100%.

2:48:42And as of right now, again, the numbers will change

2:48:45depending on what type of building activity you'll receive.

2:48:48If everything's a single detach,

2:48:50there may not be that many exemptions,

2:48:52but the moment you start going into the more high density,

2:48:55that's where more exemptions potentially could take place,

2:48:57and that percentage may change.

2:49:00Thank you.

2:49:00And the last question, another comment from Ms. Watson,

2:49:03I think is quite challenging for us.

2:49:06The more you accelerate housing,

2:49:08the more you accelerate tax increases.

2:49:10I was wondering if someone could please comment on that.

2:49:13Is that an accurate statement?

2:49:15I think it probably is.

2:49:22So through the mayor to Councillor Allt.

2:49:26I think that's a really complicated question,

2:49:30because our estimates in the DC study

2:49:33in terms of, you know, the costing and the growth forecasting,

2:49:36like it really comes down to the growth forecasting

2:49:38and then the types of development too.

2:49:41And so that's why when you look at our budget,

2:49:46the budget for the cost of Bill 23 is not in alignment

2:49:51with like that 10-year estimate that we suggested

2:49:55or we were able to cost out through this DC bylaw update.

2:49:59And so I would say that there's a lot of factors in this

2:50:04when it comes to tax and rate increases,

2:50:07and especially to the timing is really important

2:50:10because the phase in is a big cost of that.

2:50:14And that's only for the first four years

2:50:15and it's kind of phased out.

2:50:16So I have a hard time answering that in the moment

2:50:19because it's a complex, there's a lot at play.

2:50:23But overall, I would say like, you know,

2:50:26based just jumping off of Mr. Tan that we have

2:50:33like the DC act itself and the changes made Bill 23

2:50:38has reduced the amount that we're able to collect

2:50:42since the last study.

2:50:44Sorry, I didn't hear the last part.

2:50:45Are able to collect from?

2:50:47Collect from DC since the last study.

2:50:49Yeah, thank you.

2:50:51All right, thank you.

2:50:53Is there any other questions at this time?

2:50:55All right, question from Councillor O'Rourke.

2:50:58Thank you, Mayor Guthrie,

2:50:59through you to our staff or to Mr. Tan.

2:51:02So Mr. Calandra has said they are gonna look at definitions

2:51:08phase in perhaps changes to Bill 23.

2:51:12So I'm wondering what is the mechanism

2:51:16in the next year, three years, five years?

2:51:21If those definitions change, what's the mechanism

2:51:23to go back and take a look at the DC bylaw again?

2:51:26Because it would potentially change that shortfall, right?

2:51:32Through the mayor, excellent question.

2:51:34So just for those that don't know

2:51:36what Councillor O'Rourke is referring to is

2:51:38province did release a statement essentially saying

2:51:42that they would be reviewing some of the items

2:51:45within Bill 23 and this came out actually

2:51:47around December 13th of last year, 2023.

2:51:50And of particular note, they would examine

2:51:53not only definitions but also the mandatory phase in

2:51:57as well as other items such as the inclusion

2:52:01or at least the eligibility of studies.

2:52:04As of right now, we have worked with staff

2:52:06and external solicitor as well in order to examine

2:52:11the structure of the bylaws as they're formulated

2:52:13tonight in front of you, where a lot of the items

2:52:16are referencing the Development Charge Act.

2:52:20So if any of these items that fall within this category

2:52:23would be changed from the provincial level,

2:52:25your bylaw is set up in a way that it is pointing

2:52:28to how the act structures these changes.

2:52:32So for the most part, some of these changes

2:52:34may not require you to have to revisit the bylaw

2:52:36because it'll be an automatic adoption

2:52:39to your current charge.

2:52:40If there's anything that'll be more specific,

2:52:42we'll have to examine it at that time.

2:52:44And you have the ability to open up your bylaw

2:52:47at any point in time.

2:52:48You don't have to wait five, 10 years.

2:52:50If you wanted to open it up in six months, one year,

2:52:53you have the ability to do so.

2:52:57Thank you.

2:52:57And then just through you, Marga, three to staff.

2:53:01Ms. Watson is right about the impact of the phase in,

2:53:07of the exemptions and the cost to the taxpayer.

2:53:10I mean, we talked about that all the way through budget.

2:53:13But for the purposes of this decision tonight,

2:53:18for the comfort of the public,

2:53:20I'm wondering if staff would comment on their comfort level

2:53:23in terms of maximizing what is permissible under the DC bylaw

2:53:29and that the decision we're making tonight

2:53:31is highly prescribed under provincial law

2:53:33and that we have undertaken the required studies.

2:53:36What we choose to do in terms of growth

2:53:38would be totally separate.

2:53:39But can you just give us your level of comfort

2:53:42with the comprehensiveness of the work

2:53:45to bring us to this evening?

2:53:49So through the mayor to the councillor O'Rourke.

2:53:53So yes, thanks for the question.

2:53:56I wanted to say that the decision before you tonight

2:54:00is really about executing or creating

2:54:03and maximizing a revenue

2:54:06that is meant to reduce tax and rate burden

2:54:11for the cost of growth.

2:54:12And what we've done as a staff team

2:54:14and with our consultants and a staff team,

2:54:16and I talk across the whole city

2:54:17in terms of comprehensiveness,

2:54:19this has been over a year and a half process.

2:54:22We've had multiple peer review meetings

2:54:25with both development and non-developer

2:54:29representatives, including some members of our council.

2:54:35And we've done the most comprehensive review that we can.

2:54:40We've added new services where we can

2:54:43to increase the collections.

2:54:45We've protected and we've revamped,

2:54:47and I would say we're one of the first in the province

2:54:50with the new bylaw structure to protect

2:54:53with changes in the future in terms of the act

2:54:56and the phase in and the changes in the services.

2:55:00And so we're pretty proud of all of that work.

2:55:03And it's highly prescriptive,

2:55:05very highly prescriptive by the provincial legislation.

2:55:09And so we have worked within that methodology

2:55:12and those boundaries and provided council

2:55:16with the best product that we can

2:55:17that maximizes those revenue streams as much as possible.

2:55:23Great, thank you.

2:55:24With that, I'll look to call the vote then.

2:55:27Anything further?

2:55:29Seeing none.

2:55:30Oh, sorry, Councillor Gibson.

2:55:31Did you have a question or comment?

2:55:33Yeah, thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:55:35So my questions were largely answered.

2:55:37Thank you, Councillor Ruck for asking those questions

2:55:39about reopening bylaw in the future if things change.

2:55:43I guess from a strict sort of procedural perspective,

2:55:47that would be a simple vote of council to reopen the bylaw

2:55:50or would there be a requirement to do a reconsideration

2:55:53of the bylaw?

2:55:55Again, just so I know process-wise moving forward.

2:55:57Or could staff simply take it on

2:55:58and reopen the bylaw themselves?

2:56:04So through the mayor, after the certain,

2:56:07I believe it's one year,

2:56:08we may have to get back to you fully just to clarify this,

2:56:11but it would likely not be a reconsideration.

2:56:14It would be based on new information at the time

2:56:16that we would look to update the bylaw.

2:56:20And so staff would advise you of when we believe

2:56:25that would be the right call

2:56:26or at any time council could speak to us

2:56:29and we could provide you with that advice,

2:56:31but I don't believe it would be a reconsideration.

2:56:34Okay, thanks very much.

2:56:38Great, thank you so much.

2:56:40All right, I'll call the vote then.

2:56:42Is anyone against these recommendations

2:56:45for the updated DC bylaw?

2:56:48And that's unanimous, so thank you very much.

2:56:52And now we're just going to the bylaws that we have,