2026 Development Charges Update Study dated January 30, 2026, included as Attachment-1 to report 2026-76 - 2026 Administrative Development Charge By-law Update…

1:26:35I'll then turn it over to Shana to provide an update on what other municipalities are doing with DC incentives

1:26:41So over the past 20 months or so there have been three major pieces of legislation that have impacted the DC act

1:26:51There are bills 185 bill 17 bill 60

1:26:54If you recall our DC by-law was last updated in November 2024 for some of the changes made through bill 185

1:27:01That had a special transitional pathway in timeline

1:27:04The remaining change related to updating the rate freeze provisions is being made through this update as it was not included in that previous

1:27:11special process

1:27:12The second item is bill 17 which received real assent in June 2025

1:27:16This was followed by an order in council on October 23 for changes in effect as of November 3rd and

1:27:23The impact of this was a deferral DC payment timing from building permit issuance to occupancy

1:27:29Then lastly bill 60 which received real assent in November November 2025

1:27:33While while there are a few administrative updates that go into effect right away most of those changes

1:27:39And impacts require some future work ahead

1:27:42So the DC by-law update before council for approval today is administrative in nature

1:27:50It primarily includes changes that align our DC by-law with legislation

1:27:55Some minor housekeeping items to clarify definitions and it does not alter growth forecast capital requirements or any DC rates

1:28:02The first change is related to bill 185 which limits the timeline for a DC rate freeze to 18 months

1:28:08Prior to this DC rates were frozen at the time of a complete site plan application

1:28:12We're zoning by-law amendments and they're frozen from two years from that date of application approval

1:28:18Going forward. They'll be frozen for 18 months interest continues to accrue on the frozen DC rates from the time of the planning application

1:28:24And that has not changed and really the objective of this change is to speed up development once planning approvals are in place

1:28:31The second and biggest change was from bill 17 which has updated the timing of payments from building permit issuance to occupancy

1:28:37And this will have a substantial impact on the timing of our DC collections and we'll look into that estimate of this impact on the next slide

1:28:45It's also important to note as interest is no longer to be charged from the DC's owing from building permit dates to occupancy

1:28:52We see the time value of money also erode from this change

1:28:55Nevertheless the building community strongly advocated for this change as it will reduce the carrying charges

1:29:00They have on a development's ultimately improving the proformers

1:29:03So looking at the financial impact at payment at occupancy. There's several items to note

1:29:11The delayed payment timing will result in cash flow pressures for the city

1:29:16Decrease present value of our DC revenues loss interest earnings or greater interest costs from increased requirements debt finance and greater uncertainty in time

1:29:24your receipt

1:29:25For this analysis the finance team were closely with the building team to pull data on the average number of months between building permit issuance and occupancy

1:29:33For residential development at the city by type

1:29:36So the first table on left shows that the average range is for from nine nine months

1:29:4117 months and 14 months for low medium and high density respectively

1:29:44We then apply this data to the forecast DC collections, which was prepared previously when collection was at building permit issuance

1:29:52So with the chart you see what they tried on the right you'll see that this estimated impact

1:29:56Will be in the range of 10 to 20 million over the next three years

1:30:00Staff will continue to track and report on this impact through a quarterly budget monitoring reports

1:30:05But it's very likely that additional capital deferrals will be required through future capital budget updates in order to manage these impacts

1:30:11And then lastly we'll look at bill 60

1:30:17So there's two changes

1:30:19Effective immediate immediately upon royal assent and these are primarily related to reporting an oversight

1:30:24So firstly there's a new requirements have the annual DC statements go to council by June 30th and submitted to the minister by July 15th

1:30:31Secondly the minister may request copies are DC bylaws and background studies at any time

1:30:36Overall happy to report these changes are not a concern as we're already producing these documents within those required timelines

1:30:42So we have no problem submitting them to the province through the required deadlines

1:30:45And then there's two major changes or sorry two main changes that require some future work ahead for the city

1:30:51First local service policy or LSPs

1:30:54So bill 60 introduced a requirement to include LSP as part of the DC background study

1:30:59While some municipalities don't have LSP in place

1:31:02Well, DC background study does and only a minor only minor updates would be needed to bring it fully into compliance with the new requirements

1:31:09However, the city's last major review and update of the LSP occurred with the 2018 DC background study

1:31:15So staff I recommend a more fulsome review and update to be completed and brought back to council for approval by May

1:31:212027 and that timelines in alignment with the transition timelines provided for in the legislation and

1:31:26Really this review would help identify any opportunities to improve clarity and predictability around the LSP and ultimately support the next

1:31:33comprehensive DC background study update, which is currently planned to begin in 2027 for council approval in 2029

1:31:40Secondly it's an is a new land acquisition class

1:31:43So bill 60 and introduced a requirement to separate land costs

1:31:46Into a separate class of service in DC bylaws and as part of this to remove land values from the historic service level standards for each individual service

1:31:55And the transition timelines require this work to be done as part of the next comprehensive DC background study update

1:32:00Which as mentioned slated to begin in 2027 and coming to council in 2029

1:32:06And with that I'll hand it over to Shannon for the last few slides

1:32:14Thank You Justin and good morning council

1:32:17So these days there is always a lot going on with development charges and that includes legislative changes

1:32:24Lobbying by the building community

1:32:26Analysis being undertaken by think tanks and initiatives being undertaken by municipalities

1:32:31So while we're in front of you on this topic. We wanted to take the opportunity to update you on what we're seeing out there from other municipalities

1:32:47So last year we brought you information in the March housing and wealth semi-annual update

1:32:52About what some municipalities had done with respect to providing discounts or exemptions from DC's

1:32:58Since then some of those discounts have been expanded and others have begun to explore incentives

1:33:04For example last year we reported to you that Mississauga had partially discounted their DC rates

1:33:09And since then they have expanded that to a full grant in lieu for some types of residential building

1:33:15Peel region has matched this initiative with both set to expire at the end of this council term

1:33:20The city of London is currently in the process of exploring a community improvement plan to provide support for first-time home buyers and

1:33:27Last fall the city of Burlington directed

1:33:30Their staff to bring back options for DC incentives

1:33:34These approaches vary in scope duration and fiscal exposure

1:33:38Some have funding commitments from other levels of government to support their changes and others do not

1:33:44We are providing this update to let you know that we are monitoring what others are doing and why we do not recommend going down this path in Guelph

1:33:57As a reminder DC rates are set to recover the capital costs of infrastructure that support growth within

1:34:03Legislated constraints

1:34:05The rates are a mathematical calculation that spreads the eligible capital costs across forecasted growth

1:34:12Providing an exemption from paying DCs creates a gap because it does not make the infrastructure cost less

1:34:18It simply provides less funds to pay for it

1:34:22The exemption gap must be filled and municipalities have very limited options for how to do that

1:34:27namely property taxes and utility rates

1:34:31Guelph has highly prioritized growth enabling capital works in our capital budget and forecast

1:34:36Even in the face of low DC collections using debt financing and inter-reserve fund borrowing

1:34:43This means that the city is committed to DC debt payments that non-eligible capital work has been deferred to accommodate

1:34:50Inter-reserve fund borrowing this puts pressure on older infrastructure and increases the risk of service disruption

1:34:56And that is a trade-off for moving infrastructure that supports growth forward in the face of limited capital funds

1:35:03There are also significant statutory discounts and exemptions already required

1:35:09Targeted at development that the province has prioritized

1:35:12Rental housing affordable and nonprofit housing and additional dwelling units

1:35:17Making up for these exemptions is already diverting a significant amount of property tax and utility utility rates supported capital funding

1:35:25to help pay for growth

1:35:27The development community has been very

1:35:30Active in advocating for DC related changes and reductions and have become very effective at it

1:35:36They recently successfully advocated for moving payment of residential DCs from building permit to occupancy as you just heard from Justin

1:35:44This has been in place since November 3rd, but so far we have not seen this result in increased building permits

1:35:51We are hopeful that will change

1:35:59Zeroing in on Burlington for a moment this slide shows what services are included in Guelph single-tier DC

1:36:06Versus Burlington's lower tier and Halton's upper tier DCs

1:36:10Burlington has not finalized their direct direction forward at this time

1:36:14But one option that was moved forward at a vote of their committee of the whole in February was a broad-based residential DC exemption

1:36:22Earlier this week they voted instead to direct their staff to pursue a potential CIP option

1:36:28With funding from another source aside from property taxes

1:36:32While Burlington's ultimate decision on this matter is uncertain

1:36:35We wanted to show you some of the differences between Guelph and Burlington a

1:36:40Burlington exemption would only apply to the lower tier portion of the DC

1:36:45The Halton region DC would still be applicable to development in Burlington and even with a full lower tier exemption

1:36:51The cost of building a single detached residential unit in Burlington would be just under

1:36:57$7,000 less than the undiscounted rate in Guelph

1:37:00The other thing to point out is that some of the core enabling services like water wastewater and storm water

1:37:06Would not be impacted as those services are provided at the regional level

1:37:11So what if Guelph did that?

1:37:14Based on planning application status there are 654 units ready and fairly likely to move ahead to building permit in

1:37:212026 and

1:37:23171 more units with the potential to do so if

1:37:27Guelph implemented a blanket residential DC exemption similar to that which Burlington was considering at one point

1:37:34That would require municipal tax and ratepayers to make up for over 46 million dollars in DC exemptions a

1:37:40Property tax impact of 8.85 percent

1:37:44plus increases to water rates and that would be in addition to the nearly 18 million of

1:37:49statutory DC exemptions and discounts that would already need to be funded

1:37:54For the rental and affordable or nonprofit units included in those estimates

1:37:59So this is a chart that you've seen before and this version was updated for us last August by Watson and Associates

1:38:11The green arrow shows you where Guelph's residential DCs are in comparison with other municipalities all in including the school board DCs

1:38:19We felt it was important to show this given recent inaccurate reports that Guelph's DCs are at the higher end

1:38:26That is simply not true

1:38:33The reality is that limited municipal revenue tools combined with high a high level of responsibility for infrastructure is

1:38:41creating an untenable financial situation if

1:38:44DCs are reduced the city's options are to defer growth

1:38:49Infrastructure investment indefinitely

1:38:51constraining growth and working against our responsibility to build infrastructure to enable

1:38:56legislative growth targets to be met or

1:38:59To remove amenity based infrastructure from our DCs and only deliver core infrastructure

1:39:04Which puts pressure on the municipal infrastructure that makes a community or?

1:39:09Shift additional cost to the property tax and rate base

1:39:13Over the past several years the province has made dozens of changes to DC and planning legislation

1:39:20Every time it requires analysis

1:39:23Quantification of impacts reporting communication adjustments to financial strategies

1:39:29adjustments to administrative processes and systems and bylaw updates

1:39:33Every time there's an announcement from any level of government about an intent to look into or do something related to reduce DCs or

1:39:41Other changes to make development conditions more favorable

1:39:45The effect is to freeze up development plans until that policy is either implemented or determined not to be moving forward a

1:39:53New approach is needed

1:39:55Attempting to incentivize development through constant legislative changes has not had the desired effect

1:40:01We need an approach that is administratively efficient and does not place all the risk and financial burden on municipalities

1:40:09We need new

1:40:11Stable predictable funding for growth infrastructure from other upper levels of government

1:40:16I have emphasized or underlined the word new on the slide

1:40:20Because I don't mean the repurposing of existing infrastructure funding such as federal gas tax

1:40:25Which we already rely on for capital infrastructure renewal work

1:40:30Stable and predictable means a long-term commitment to annual allocations that we do not have to submit applications for

1:40:37With uncertain outcomes and unknown approval timelines

1:40:41Upfront means that upper levels of government do not require municipalities to take on risky decisions to provide

1:40:48time limited exemptions

1:40:50Underwritten by property tax and ratepayers and hope for that money to come

1:40:56It means new dedicated funding for growth infrastructure that municipalities can count on

1:41:02With that kind of commitment we could update our DC study

1:41:05Reduce DC rates without jeopardizing our capital plans and without pushing the cost on to property taxpayers

1:41:13so that's

1:41:14everything I have to

1:41:16Share and we're happy to take any questions from council

1:41:22Thank you so much for that presentation and that call to action for for legislative stability was really really hit

1:41:28It was I'm glad you added that to your slide as

1:41:32a call to action at the end

1:41:34Before we go to council questions, I recognize councillor Allt as the first question

1:41:40We are under a public meeting under section 12 of the development charges act

1:41:45So I do need to call for anyone in the audience

1:41:48If you are here to delegate and there will be a number going up on the screen if there's anyone watching from home

1:41:54Who would like to delegate on this matter now is the time to call in so we'll take a

1:42:00few minutes to pause and wait for any

1:42:04Calls to come in is there anyone in the gallery who wishes to delegate on this item?

1:42:09Seeing none, we'll just wait one moment

1:42:12We've had no incoming call. So we're going to move to discussion

1:42:50Councillor Allt you have the floor

1:42:52Thank you very much chair Caron

1:42:55through you to to our staff and in particular to

1:43:00Mizzow Dwyer with first of all a shout out

1:43:03I want to compliment our staff and particularly Mizzow Dwyer on perhaps the most blatantly

1:43:11Political financial report that I have ever seen at City Council and one that is both direct and forthright and founded in fact

1:43:21Mizzow Dwyer, I think you might be my first financial being counter hero

1:43:26It's something that we need to hear and it's something that every municipality in Ontario needs to state

1:43:33Because Doug Ford does it again with that I'd like to go to some of the particulars

1:43:38I originally only had one question

1:43:40But as the as the report went on more grew first of all, I'd like to focus on bill 17 and interest versus carrying

1:43:48Charges some comments were made about capital deferrals and this strikes me as a vicious cycle that we're now entering into

1:43:56Could we please comment on what kind of capital deferrals we might have to address?

1:44:02Will these be infrastructure and will these interestingly enough therefore lead to fewer building permits possibly being

1:44:13Approved because we just don't have the infrastructure. I don't know whether that's to our

1:44:18Financial staff or whether our planning staff needs to address it

1:44:24through the chair, I'll start

1:44:26and so I think

1:44:28the level of deferrals of

1:44:32Capital works through the next budget cycle and future budget cycles will really be dependent on how those estimates bear out in reality

1:44:40in terms of the

1:44:42Delayed collections and how that impacts what we had projected

1:44:47And so we will take you know the usual methodical approach that we take to updating the capital forecast

1:44:54We'll update those projections. We will

1:44:58make other changes if we get any

1:45:01Grants or if we end up closing out capital projects at under budget and are able to return money to the reserve funds

1:45:09So all of that will factor into that next update

1:45:12And then we will rely on our capital prioritization framework

1:45:16to figure out which

1:45:19projects to

1:45:20push out

1:45:22Thank you. I wanted to comment on what I consider to be the incredible irony that this could actually

1:45:29lead to a

1:45:32Hesitation of builders to actually consider large-scale developments because the infrastructure or

1:45:39Other amenities just aren't there. Is that a correct assumption and is the the promise of the three million homes actually

1:45:48That we've heard

1:45:50Really just dust in the wind

1:45:55Thank you through the chair. I'll start and then others to my left may have thoughts on that

1:46:00I think that absolutely that there's a cycle there to look at with infrastructure

1:46:08We need to build enabling infrastructure to allow development to happen and we're doing our best to move that forward

1:46:14In the face of all of these changes recognizing the need for that development

1:46:19But there is a time that will come that that high priority items

1:46:24We are we have we've deferred all the medium priority

1:46:28We started to defer some of the

1:46:31Medium-high priority last year and so there's not that much further to go in the future

1:46:37Besides high priority deferrals. I think so there there's absolutely a circular effect that will will happen now

1:46:44We do have our

1:46:46Municipal service and financing agreements policy in place so that if we've deferred

1:46:52Infrastructure out in our capital budget, but a developer is ready to move something forward

1:46:57ahead of that timeline there is a pathway for them to do that and so

1:47:02So we've we've tried to balance that impact

1:47:05Are there comments from the other side? I don't know I can't see

1:47:13Through through the chair, I think I just say that

1:47:17In terms of the prioritization already done we were prioritizing city-wide projects that would

1:47:24advance city-wide growth

1:47:27Rather than site specific and so

1:47:30I think that that would be the first place that you would that we would see a bit of a change is that we would

1:47:38We would

1:47:40Potentially be impacting specific developments if we had to go any further than we are right now. So hopefully that that helps

1:47:48Kind of round out the the question

1:47:51If I might carry that on then

1:47:54Quite often there are

1:47:58I'm chair quarterbacks, I guess I'll say who are constantly talking about libraries and rec centers

1:48:05We're not talking libraries and rec centers here. Are we we're talking about the very foundations of building it? Are we not?

1:48:15Through the mayor or sorry rather the chair

1:48:18we are talking about all of the

1:48:22Infrastructure that supports growth and so there's different priority levels for different types of infrastructure and that enabling infrastructure as

1:48:31CAO Baker mentioned that serves the whole city

1:48:35such as water

1:48:36stations

1:48:37Waste water facilities that are needed that would constrain growth across the whole city if they weren't moved forward is what we've prioritized

1:48:46Thank you. I think that's very important for people to hear

1:48:49I want to go to bill 60 land acquisition

1:48:53Class the new class system

1:48:56There's a

1:48:57It's implied and I think that you stated it that there is a reduction of the cost to the actual

1:49:03Builders and developers and that this is going to be passed on to the to the taxpayers

1:49:09Do we have any idea because this is a huge issue?

1:49:13We have a you know an 8% or more tax increase this year

1:49:18What you're telling me is that the new normal is 8% and beyond and I was wondering if you could comment on that please

1:49:27Through the chair, I might have to help you might have to help me parse that question apart a little bit counselor alt

1:49:33So the land acquisition class

1:49:36So that is that essentially will take land costs for growth and separate them out of the existing

1:49:44Services like services for a highway or recreation and parks take those out and put them in their own class

1:49:50And so the impact of that overall is we don't know what that is at this time

1:49:56We don't expect it to be a very significant impact actually because we still will be able to

1:50:02Collect DCs for land

1:50:04But we have to do that analysis and that will happen through the next development charge background study update

1:50:11And thank you essentially you answered the question

1:50:14I'm a little relieved by your answer to be perfectly honest because I'd expected it to be greater

1:50:21So again, thank you very much to our financial staff for this and I I cannot

1:50:28Say anything more than

1:50:30Residents concerned about taxes need to remember Doug Ford does it again

1:50:36Thank you counselor out for your questions. I have on the speaker's list counselor busatil and goller

1:50:43That's a busatil. Thank you through the chair

1:50:45I have most of my questions have been asked by a counselor alt

1:50:49But I do also want to say ditto in terms of appreciation

1:50:53For the staff this report was excellent in in fact really making the connection between

1:50:58The centralized provincial kind of regulations and the impact locally

1:51:03Tax base and our capital planning

1:51:06As well. I did have a question and it's a clarification

1:51:10I wasn't clear in the report for mr. Way when when we talk around bill 60 and the reporting cycle

1:51:17I know we do the reports here at city council, but I'm curious about whether or not or not

1:51:22This is a new centralized requirement to report to the province

1:51:28Because I don't recall that

1:51:30Yes through the care. I believe it is a new centralized

1:51:34Report and requirement to the province that being said there's been no

1:51:39Details fully released yet as to how we submit our reports

1:51:44But we are confident that you know within those timeframes we already generate those reports

1:51:48So as soon as we know when and where we need to submit it, we'll do a no problem

1:51:53Thank you. And if the chair will allow me a comment, I you know

1:51:57Uh

1:51:58Just from other areas

1:52:00In the in the province. I guess for me this is where is this trend line going in terms of centralization and planning in the g

1:52:08RCA environmental protection and so on this reporting and I and I come from a highly regulated

1:52:14ministry of education where

1:52:16Everything is centralized and improved from capital to everything else and as we see the

1:52:22Infrastructure pilot project happening next door with brampton. I'm concerned about the centralization

1:52:28And the increasing control and monitoring

1:52:31Not only downwards in terms of the regulation in the acts but upwards in terms of who determines

1:52:37What are the priorities here in guelph? What are the capital priorities as we heard and so on?

1:52:41So just a little bit of concern about where is this trend line going? Thank you

1:52:46Thanks, councillor Busuttil. Uh, councillor Goller over to you. We don't have the recommendations on the floor yet

1:52:50Would you be willing to place us on the floor seconded by

1:52:53councillor hauser

1:52:56Floor service. Uh, thank you and through you chair Caron

1:52:59Um, I really appreciate this report and the explanation you gave that it is very clear to me

1:53:05I do have one outstanding question from some of the the

1:53:09One letter from the the constitution that wrote in and some of the messages I've received from the home builders

1:53:16Um, you sort of debunked the idea that if we lower these things we would actually see more builds

1:53:22But just so that I fully understand if we were to reduce or eliminate

1:53:28Development charges for residential and if they were to be those those buildings that are built

1:53:34um, I understand that

1:53:36The argument that they're making is we're losing that potential

1:53:40Additional tax revenue from those buildings if they're delayed for a few years

1:53:45How many years would it take for for a bill to sort of make up the development charges?

1:53:51And just at a high level and then also if we were to

1:53:56You know based on on the approvals of this year if we were to have no development charges for next year

1:54:02What would that require of the tax impact?

1:54:05To to the taxpayer so that I can understand that that level of impact

1:54:10Through the chair, so I'll start with the first part

1:54:14That's a complicated question

1:54:17and so the the

1:54:19Assessment growth revenue is what they'd be talking about and there's there's that side of the equation

1:54:24Absolutely, but the other side of that equation is that growth comes with new expenses

1:54:29That have to let new services expanded services to serve additional residents. And so it's not just a net

1:54:37New impact the other thing is that that assessment growth revenue also builds the capacity to renew

1:54:44the growth the infrastructure that is built with development charges

1:54:48Upfront down the road as those that infrastructure ages that contributes to the renewal dollars

1:54:54So that is why there is a separate revenue stream for building that growth enabling infrastructure

1:55:00So to to suggest that assessment growth revenue should be used for growth enabling infrastructure

1:55:06I think is is not quite correct

1:55:09Um, and then can you repeat the second part of your question for me?

1:55:12If we were to have no development charges say in 2026

1:55:17What would be the impact to the taxpayer because as I understand that we would still have to put in the infrastructure

1:55:22We would be spending the money to to

1:55:25To build that infrastructure

1:55:27What might that impact be to the taxpayer?

1:55:29Next year if we were to do that just so that I understand that a high level, you know, what level of impact this would make

1:55:36Sure, so we tried to quantify that by looking at the planning applications that are in progress and what the status of those are

1:55:45And so I had mentioned on one of my slides that um, I think there's over 600 that are

1:55:51ready like ready to move forward and then there's 800 and some more that are

1:55:57Potential in 2026 and so we quantified the impact of if there were no residential if they were exempted

1:56:05Not deferred but exempted then that would be about 46 million dollars

1:56:10Which is over 8 percent and I don't have that slide right in front of me right now, but oh 8.85 percent tax levy impact

1:56:19Plus an impact to water wastewater and storm water rates

1:56:24Okay, okay. So so if if next year tax levy were to be like five percent on top of this it would end up being like 13 percent

1:56:31Is that roughly correct?

1:56:33That's roughly correct. If that that development all moved forward. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. That really helps me understand the

1:56:41Um, how much we're being asked to to put up uh from the taxpayers. Thank you. Thank you councillor uh chair karana

1:56:48Thanks, councillor councillor hauser

1:56:51Thank you and through the chair um

1:56:54Following up I had a very similar question but to follow up on that

1:56:57Are these conversations? I know that it the province changed from permit to occupancy for the dc charges

1:57:02Are these conversations helping or?

1:57:06like

1:57:07Causing a greater destabilization because we're now waiting now builders may be waiting for are they going to do waivers now instead?

1:57:14Are they going to waive them completely or eliminate dc charges?

1:57:17Or do you think could that be contributing to the fact that there hasn't been an uptake?

1:57:23Through the chair, I do think so. I do think that every time there's a policy that's announced

1:57:29Or a potential consideration of of a policy by upper levels of government or any level of government

1:57:36That that potentially has a freezing impact on development because there's the potential to have a more favorable condition in the future

1:57:45If you wait for that thing to materialize and so I do think that that has to be a part of what's contributing to this

1:57:55Thank you

1:57:57Councillor Chew

1:58:00Thank you through you, madam chair

1:58:02Um, I'm just looking at that letter as well that was sent out by the constitution and they mentioned barry

1:58:08as an example of the dc waivers

1:58:13Being as a correlation to the housing starts that they had in that municipality

1:58:17And uh, I'm just wondering based on your knowledge. Um, if not, it's okay as well

1:58:22What are kind of the conditions that kind of allowed them to kind of take that gamble?

1:58:28um in barry and what are the constraints that we may have in doing something

1:58:35similar or modest

1:58:39Uh through the chair, so I don't actually have specifics of the barry situation to

1:58:44Explain what they've done or or how they're paying for it. Um, but

1:58:49There's different arrangements. There's different grants that

1:58:53Have been provided to various municipalities from upper levels of government that they're using for some of these initiatives

1:58:59And some are not doing that and I'm not sure there there some are taking on a risk

1:59:05And so that's why we tried to quantify that risk for you to show you what that could look like based on realistic

1:59:13planning like development that could move forward

1:59:17If you were to consider such a

1:59:20Policy

1:59:24Thank you

1:59:26Any more questions or comments on this item from members of council?

1:59:30Um, I have a quick question. Um, you know when in the development industry

1:59:34You know, they have a pro forma that they work with and and

1:59:38ROI return on their investment as part of that pro forma and rightfully so any developer or home builder

1:59:44They've got land acquisition carrying costs

1:59:47There's lots of reasons, uh, you know that their costs are escalating and they they want to return on investment and deserve that as well

1:59:55In the current, uh legislation and in any of our policies, however

2:00:01When a waiver is embedded in the cost, uh of dc's for any form of building, there's no

2:00:08Condition that we can impose that forces a builder to pass that savings on to the purchaser

2:00:16Um, is that is that correct in other words?

2:00:20You know if they're a market housing builder, they're selling their product at market

2:00:25We don't see that dc waiver embedded in that because we don't have a condition that requires it

2:00:32Uh to the chair, that's correct. We have no way of of um

2:00:37Ensuring that any discount is passed on to the end purchaser

2:00:41Thank you. And um your final slide again

2:00:44I applaud you for adding that because advocacy is certainly part of something we as a team along with staff and city council want to do

2:00:51Um, although it's not one of the recommendations, um, would it be helpful for council to be able to

2:00:57pass either this this today or at council, uh at the end of the month?

2:01:04a motion

2:01:06that

2:01:07We write a letter to the province asking for a legislative moratorium on on

2:01:12Planning changes and dc changes because we we want to let the dust settle and see how our building starts

2:01:19Pan out in the next 12 18 months if we have a period of legislative stability

2:01:25Would that be helpful to staff?

2:01:28Us I certainly don't think it could hurt. We do take the opportunity to um provide that

2:01:34Um recommendation whenever we respond to an ero

2:01:37When when draft legislation is um provided to comment on so

2:01:43I I think that would be fine. Thank you

2:01:46Great. Thank you. I know your ero responses on the info sheet seem to be

2:01:51More and more and more it's almost a you know five or six per info sheet

2:01:54You're you're responding to legislative changes. So I appreciate the staff time that goes into that

2:01:59So we have six recommendations on the floor unless anyone wants them separated

2:02:03I'll I'll call the vote on this item. Is there anyone opposed to the six recommendations on this item?

2:02:10I don't see anyone opposed so that is carried. Thanks again to you and your team

2:02:14Moving on to the next item. It's our property tax policy. It's that time of year. I think it's every march