Regular Meeting of Council – February 17, 2026

Regular Meeting of Council – February 17th, 2026

Transcript

00:00:47

Good morning everyone. My name is Maryanne me Ward, mayor of the city of Burlington, and I’d like to call to order this regular meeting of Burlington City Council for Tuesday, February 17, 2026. I’ll now read a safety notice for all those in council chambers. In the event of an emergency, please evacuate the council chambers by the nearest exit staircase, which is located through the doorway marked with the exit symbol. Once you’ve evacuated the building, please gather in Civic Square outside of

00:01:15

city hall. I’ll now read a land acknowledgement. Burlington as we know it today is rich in history and modern traditions of many First Nations and the Matei. From the Anesnab to the Hneson and the Matei, our lands spanning from Lake Ontario to the Niagara Escarment are steeped in indigenous history. The territory is mutually covered by the dish with one spoon wampam belt covenant, an agreement between the Irakqua Confederacy, the Ojiway, and other allied nations to peaceibly share and care for the resources around the

00:01:48

Great Lakes. We would like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is part of the treaty land and territory of the Missagas of the Credit. I’ll now ask all those willing and able to please stand for the national anthem. Oh Canada, our home and native land. True patriot love in all of us command. explore. God keep our land glorious and free. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. City of Burlington committee and council meetings are live webcast and archived

00:03:28

on the city’s website. Today’s meeting is being captioned digitally through our agenda management software. And I’d like to remind participants attending virtually to use headphones uh or a microphone and all of us to speak clearly so our words can be captured accurately. We do have rules of engagement in council meetings and we ask everyone to be respectful while others are speaking. Listen as you would want to be listened to. By way of introduction of our members, our first order of business for today’s meeting is

00:03:59

to conduct a roll call. I’ll turn it now to the city clerk who will take attendance of members present and confirm quorum. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor Mid Ward. Councelor Gre >> present. >> Councelor Karns >> present. >> Councelor Nissan >> here. >> Councelor Stoalty >> present. >> Councelor Charman >> here. >> Councelor Bento >> present. >> Mayor me >> present. >> There is a quorum. Excellent. Staff joining today are our

00:04:23

chief administrative officer Kurt Benson, our city clerk Mike Durand, clerk’s assistant Debbie Hordike, audiovisisual specialist David Thompson and Richard Belme, and other staff will be introduced as their items are discussed. Our meeting is scheduled today until 12, reconvening at 1 and going till 4:30 should we need all of that time. Is uh does anyone have a hard stop prior to the end? Uh, councelor Karns, go ahead. >> Hard stop at lunch for a constituent meeting. >> Okay, thank you. Any other uh Go ahead,

00:04:56

Councelor Nissan. >> Um, I don’t know if it matters, but I’ll be at um I’ll be serving pancakes first show of Tuesday at 5:00. So, there you go. >> Okay. I hope we’re done by 5. We’re scheduled till 4:30. Okay. Uh, we do have a late request, uh, two late requests to delegate. uh David Barker regarding options for the temporary elimination of development charges, DGM326, and Shannon Gillies uh regarding heritage response to Bill 23, phase 2, short list of designation candidates. Uh

00:05:31

we do need to move um wave the rules of procedure to allow these two to speak. So I would ask councelor Dalty, would you like to move that we hear from them? >> Yes. >> Question. Okay. Uh well, let’s get it moved first. Are you okay? Councelor Chararma, would you like to second? Okay. Um you had a question. Go ahead. Uh councelor Stoalty. Yeah, I had a procedural question for the clerk and it was in regards to some information that was shared uh over the course of the long weekend about um when

00:06:09

the agenda for today was uh made public and how that may have impacted residents ability to delegate and I think it’s relevant in the request today to for a late delegation that now requires us to move on that procedurally >> certainly through you Mayor Midward. Uh so yes, the agenda was later than um than obviously we would have liked it to be on Friday afternoon and because of the holiday Monday yesterday, the uh the delegation deadline reverted to the Friday at noon. So the agenda was issued

00:06:40

after the delegation deadline, which is obviously not ideal for us. Uh so um any any requests that did come in uh throughout the weekend, we did forward to council and let them know that um let the delegates know that uh there would be an opportunity for council to wave the procedure bylaw to have them added. But um yes, going back to Friday, it was issued later than we would have liked it to be. >> Just so as a point of clarity, uh was there a messaging put on the city website along with that agenda to let

00:07:05

everyone in the public know that there was the opportunity to come to council and register late >> through you, Mayor Me? Uh no, there wasn’t. That’s uh certainly something that we would uh do going forward. So the delegates who are here today requesting to delegate with a late request are only because they happen to know our procedural bylaw and that that’s available to them but the general public wouldn’t have known that >> through you mayor meard. Uh yes I think that’s fair to say.

00:07:33

>> Okay thank you >> councelor Kren uh through the mayor. Thank you councelor Sulty for some of those earlier comments. My hand took a minute to be recognized. Um my question is to the clerk. Is this the complete list of the late registered delegates? Um I believe there might be one more and I just want to be certain that we’ve captured everyone or that this amendment uh allows everyone to speak who wishes to speak. >> Three Mayor me. Uh this is the late this is the list that was submitted to the

00:08:03

clerk’s email uh after um Friday afternoon. >> Okay. So maybe I will do a followup then. I do have an email here saying hello. Yesterday morning I sent the delegation form for DGMO306. Uh I will be there in person. I don’t have slides or notes. Can I be recognized? Can is that person here? Do we know? This was sent to the clerk’s mailbox. >> They’re coming later. They’re coming for >> They’re coming later for 10. So if we pass this uh procedure bylaw amendment, does it allow everyone who

00:08:35

wants to speak to speak or just those on the script? It would be that’s through your mayor me board. It would just be the people that um are mentioned in the amendment to or the the request to wave the procedure bylaw amendment. Uh I think that we could whether the add the third person to the motion uh just to be safe to have them delegate, but unfortunately we didn’t we didn’t receive that. >> Okay. Would you like a minute to check the clerk’s mailbox to see if there’s

00:09:02

anyone else or would you like the name of the individual that’s asked to be added to the list? Uh we’d take a minute to uh check the mailbox. >> Okay, we’ll take a five minute recess. >> Thank you. >> Reconvening at quarter to 10. All right, folks. We are back from our recess. I will turn it to the clerk and then uh go to the two hands that are on the board. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor Midward, and through you. Uh so, there was a we didn’t receive a delegation request over the

00:15:25

weekend, but we did receive an email this morning noting that uh a person would like to delegate or looking for a follow-up. So, not too sure what happened there, but um if council would like to let would add Lynn Crosby to the list of other the other two uh late uh delegate requests, uh I think that would be appropriate. >> Okay. Thank you, clerk. And that is to uh to what item? >> That is to the report DGM-03-06 development charges. >> Okay. All right. Uh so that um delegate

00:15:57

has been added. Councelor Nissan. >> Yeah. Thank you uh through the chair uh your worship. Um I’m glad that we can add that person. I’ll support uh all all the late delegations obviously. Um however, I I would just like to read 46.1 of our procedure bylaw. It says request to delegate at a committee meeting and council must be submitted to the clerk’s department prior to noon the day before a meeting. If the meeting is held on a Monday, delegations must register by 12:00 p.m. the Friday before

00:16:29

the meeting. Obviously, today is Tuesday, and I recognize that we don’t want our staff working on the weekend, but the procedure bylaw does not take that into account. So, um I I would like to I would like to understand why we didn’t allow these registrations. And basically there there could be people who thought they they would delegate but um weren’t given the opportunity because the agenda wasn’t uh released in a timely fashion >> through you uh Mayor Mid Ward my apologies. My understanding what the

00:17:07

procedure bylaw was it did revert to the Friday on a with a holiday Monday. Um but I the warning the wording is uh at very best not clear there. So that I I tend to agree that um in that with that wording that maybe that delegate should have been confirmed uh and listed. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for saying that and um welcome Mike. Um it’s going to be that’s an interest. Yeah, I mean what what can I say? Um my my concern and it’s a concern to ask uh Blake Hurley, our commissioner of legal

00:17:39

services, is we’re supposed to be approving a zoning uh bylaw today. And I want to confirm that uh we are not this might have to go into a close. I hope not. But that we’re not exposing ourselves here by not having provided uh the correct the agenda in a timely fashion and correct notice for delegations on our zoning bylaw. Uh kind of a big deal. So >> Blake, go ahead. >> Uh thank you and uh through the chair to the councelor. Uh the short answer is uh no. we are able to proceed today with

00:18:10

respect to that uh with respect to the larger picture of the procedure bylaws as this council knows it’s uh we’d like to treat it as a a living kind of breathing document that uh makes uh amendments over time to improve the process and this is certainly something that we’ll take back so we don’t find ourselves in this situation again. Uh it’s striking that balance between uh getting the agenda out uh at a a reasonable time to allow people to review it and uh request uh to delegate

00:18:39

before this council and on the flip side internally making sure that any additional information that needs to be provided uh to uh council um that was requested from committee there’s time to to produce that information. So, it’s it’s a balance. Uh, and I think we we fell a little bit short on the uh on the public access side of it, but I think there’s tweaks that we can make to the uh procedure bylaw to improve that, and that’s something that we’ll take away and and bring forth in the future. Thank

00:19:07

you. >> Okay, Councelor Karns. >> Thank you very much through the mayor. Uh, so I wasn’t going to ask this question until I was alerted and alarmed by uh the clerk indicating that the the delegate did indicate that they’ve filled in the online form but didn’t receive a confirmation until an email followup. So, how ought we know if there’s other people who filled in the same form and then didn’t receive a confirmation and are unable to delegate today. Uh, we do, as councelor Nissan

00:19:37

mentioned, have some very serious issues on the agenda today uh that would require public engagement. So, uh, complemented with the late agenda notice and a failure for, uh, confirmation of delegation registration, how ought we know that we have all of the community’s voice here with us today >> through you, Madame M or Madam Chair. Um, it we could do a backend check of the website. Uh that would take would probably require another recess to do that but um I think probably maybe 5 minutes but uh at at through that or

00:20:13

that would be the only way to um to truly know. >> All right, let’s take five minutes to do a double check on our IT to make sure that everyone who wanted to delegate uh was able to delegate. So we will come back at uh 9:55. Thanks. All right, folks. We’re back. Uh, and I’ll turn it to the clerk. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor Meard, and thank you to members of council and the public for, uh, bearing with us while we did this. Uh, confirming that there are we, uh, we did not receive a request, uh, through

00:25:24

Lin Crosby. The last one received was from David Barker who is on the list and I’m satisfied that there are no other delegates wishing to uh delegate today. >> Okay. Councelor Stoalty. >> I just want to comment and express my concern um comments made by our legal um commissioner. Thank you. Which were I understand totally appropriate. But just the the very comment to say we fell short on the public access side of it. That is the truth here and it makes me feel entirely uncomfortable that we’re

00:25:56

moving forward not having I mean the ability to fundament a fundamental aspect of democracy is to notify the public in an appropriate manner to allow them the opportunity to create a delegation and come forward. So I would have felt much more comfortable if on Friday knowing that we had a late agenda that we had posted a notice online to say that the ex you know the deadline to register was extended that I know that we’re going to do that moving forward but that doesn’t change the fact of what

00:26:21

has happened for this meeting today. Uh I just want to register that I’m very uncomfortable moving forward. I think we’re pushing things through on a very heavy agenda making big big decisions potentially today without having the had the opportunity for everyone who wanted to delegate to be able to do so. So, I just wanted to register that. >> Councelor Nissan, >> yeah, I agree with uh councelor Stolty. Um even if this was a light agenda like we had in previous months, I wouldn’t be

00:26:47

supporting uh this. I’m not sure we should even be going ahead, frankly. Um I’m not sure how to deal with it, but here we are. Um it doesn’t meet our our own standards. I I understand that the procedure bylaw is a tweak is a living document, but it’s really an amendable rule set of rules that we live by here. So, um, in terms of engagement, not following our procedure bylaw is problematic. Um, it’s not a tweaking it’s that’s not a a tweaking matter in my in my opinion.

00:27:19

And, uh, we don’t know if there are other delegates who would have wanted to delegate today. Uh my question for for staff is why didn’t the agenda come out in a reasonable time on Friday? What was the holdup that forced the agenda to come after uh any reasonable time? What what was staff doing? Thank you. >> I don’t know if that was for Kurt or for you, but go ahead. Uh >> yeah uh through you ch um through you mayor um council will recall at committee last week um there were

00:28:00

several requests for additional information that we were compiling. We wanted to make sure that uh we were compiling that information and responding to the nature of requests in a comprehensive manner. I believe is part of packaging that information. It took a little bit longer. Uh that delayed the release of the agenda. Um and that was you know the circumstance uh uh in this case. Um I I I think there are lessons to be learned. I think the the statement around the fact that uh we do need uh to

00:28:34

build in uh these circumstances uh and address them in future updates to the procedural bylaw. and always be airing on the side of being more open, transparent, and uh inclusive to public perspective is fundamental. Um and that’s something that uh we don’t take lightly. We will take away. >> Thank you. My second question, uh >> sorry, Blake had his hand up. Do you want to hear from Blake first? Okay. Uh go ahead, Blake. >> Uh thank you, uh mayor and through the through the chair to the counselor. Uh I

00:29:08

also just want to make sure that uh council is aware that the procedure bylaw requires that delegates uh request to delegate must be submitted to the clerks prior to 12 p.m. one business day before a meeting. So the fact that we were late on the in the day on Friday and providing the agenda was that in of itself was not the issue. Uh the issue was that the Monday was the holiday and we have a a couple of times uh I think over the last number of years uh ran into this problem where council followed

00:29:43

on a Tuesday after a holiday Monday and that’s where we’d find ourselves in an issue in providing that access and I think as I mentioned previously there’s opportunity to address that uh both when we look at setting the meeting calendar in advance for a following here and making any adjustment to the procedure bylaw to address those circumstances where we have a Tuesday council meeting following a holiday Monday. So in the normal course um uh there would have been uh an opportunity to provide those

00:30:15

requests for delegations even with the later uh opport the later uh release of the agenda on Friday. Uh we have and it’s been this council’s practice to allow late delegation. So there is that opportunity. I think that’s uh uh how we’ve operated here. But bringing it back to the point of is there a concern from a municipal uh municipal act perspective in terms of council’s decisions here? Are they invalidated in some manner because we haven’t followed our procedure bylaw to the letter? The

00:30:48

answer to that is no. council can move forward today with uh its items on the agenda uh without uh being concerned that there’s a municipal act issue. >> Well, I just want to apologize because I was looking at uh the procedure bylaw through uh Google search. I don’t know if you guys realize how hard it is to pull up our procedure bylaw, but I pulled it up through through Google appeared to be the latest version. So, I do apologize for that uh one business day um before. There’s nothing wrong

00:31:18

with our procedure bylaw in that regard. Actually, the problem is the agenda didn’t come out uh in a timely manner. And so my second question is, was it or was it not the strong mayoral direction that came out? We were notified Thursday morning, the day before or the day, isn’t that the day of the agenda? Was that not the holdup? Not the other elements which were very short reports relatively speaking. uh through the uh mayor uh through the chair to the counselor. Uh the strong mayor direction along with a another uh

00:31:56

further request for information to committee to be provided before council. Uh those items uh took us later into Friday uh than uh we’d hoped for. Again, we’re trying to strike that balance of getting the best information before uh council to council with providing that uh opportunity for the agenda to be adv advanced uh as as early as possible. So uh that that’s the reason for the delay. >> Okay. Well, your worship, I just want to clarify that when I requested more information on the financials act

00:32:28

committee, which was not necessarily supported it, but I made a request for it. that request. >> Are you commenting now? Sorry, counselor. Are you commenting on the motion? We can >> comment. Go ahead. We’ll time we’ll just time you. >> All right. Thanks. Sorry about that. >> Yeah, we’re weaving between both. We’re just trying to keep track. Go ahead. >> Yeah. I just want to I just want to comment on what was stated there because I asked if there could be any more

00:32:50

information provided before council. Um and I want to just be clear that I understood that not everything could be provided in that time frame and I just wanted anything that could be provided. I certainly was not implying that that report should be held up and cause the mess that we’re in uh right now. And I’m quite confident that that report could have been concluded if we hadn’t gotten this strong mayor direction and have many pages of information. I don’t know how staff put together what they did put

00:33:21

together. That was phenomenal by uh the CFO’s team to do anything and there are still lots of gaps in that information. But procedurally, I believe that’s that’s what caused us to be in this situation. And I I think we’re in a real muck now. >> Thank you. There’s there’s no demonstrating. Thank you very much. Uh we try to make sure that we respect everything everyone has to say whether you agree or disagree. So I’d ask you not to do that again. Um I saw your hand

00:33:50

councelor Chararmad. I don’t know if you wanted to speak. Okay. I I wanted to jump in for a question, a first time question, then I’ll come to you councelor Karns. So, um I’m just wondering in light of the concerns that have been expressed if council can stand down this entire meeting and reconvene a special council meeting and what notice would be required to do so and then I will look to a mover and seconder to uh make that happen. Councelor Charman is willing to move. I’m sure there will be

00:34:16

a seconder. Councelor Bentania, thank you. Um I guess that’s over to you Blake. How much notice do we need to uh rec to convene a special count to deal with everything except I would suggest the recognition of the teacher who is here? I think we can deal with that and then every other item uh there’s there’s quite a few that that folks are interested in uh would go to a special council meeting to be convened. >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you mayor and so I I see the clerk is is looking up the details on

00:34:48

that right now. I would note that we are we have convened this meeting this this council meeting is uh is before you. There is an agenda that’s before you uh and you’ve already proceeded with some of some of the items on that agenda of the pro procedural in nature. Uh so we’re already there. If we’re going to um uh adjourn this meeting and not uh take a look at the other items on the agenda, uh I think if I I’ I’d feel more comfortable if we take a look at that. We adjourn. Once again, I I understand

00:35:19

the that is uncomfortable and and a bit not very smooth, but I think it’s important for council if they’re wishing to consider this that has the best information before them. >> Okay, let’s take five minutes. Uh is will that be enough time to consider the uh the the request to potentially adjourn the balance of the meeting? >> Uh thank you. I I’d suggest 10 is appropriate in this instance. >> Okay. Before we do, uh Councelor Stoalty has a point of order. Go ahead.

00:35:48

Uh thank you. I’m certainly uh was just about myself to put this question before our clerk or our legal department. Um my concern is that we do have a couple of delegates who made an effort to come in in person today. So what I’d like to know is an advanced version of this question which is can we go so far down in our agenda as to make sure we honor the fact that we have delegates who did come forward today because I don’t want to put them out and have them have to come back again. Maybe they can’t come

00:36:14

back again on the date that we reschedule for. So can we hear the delegates who’ve come forward today and then adjourn the meeting so that those who wish to delegate and we can get proper information and proper engagement from everyone. >> Uh thank you uh councelor and through the chair. Uh that’s something we’ll look at uh over the break. And as I say this may be as simple as uh deferring items to a special council meeting. um deferring the items that uh council wishes to defer to a special council

00:36:42

meeting proceeding with uh the parts of the agenda that they they do wish to uh proceed with. But uh we’ll take a look at that and come back with that advice. >> Okay, great. We’ll take 10 minutes and sorry uh okay, go ahead, councelor KS. >> Uh thank you very much. So with my point of order, I do want to ask if there’s an option to allow the delegates to speak today if they wish or if they can defer their delegations. And the second point of order would be uh I’d like a

00:37:11

correction to the procedure bylaw where clapping is in fact allowed in chambers. Uh it’s a gap in our current procedure bylaw and it’s fully allowed. So I’d just like that correction to be made. Please, >> councelor Charman, go ahead. >> Thank you very much. I just want to make the comment that uh that we do have an agenda. It’s a legal meeting. We have people who’ve shown up here to attend this meeting and they’d really like to see the work getting done today. I

00:37:37

appreciate we have this uh procedural matter. Um but there’s real work to be done by this council and uh and if we could get through that, that would be really handy, but I’ll leave it to staff to figure it out. Thank you. >> Okay, we will take a 10-minute recess and reconvene to see where we’re going for the rest of today. So, we will be back at uh 10:17, folks. All right, folks. We’re back. Uh before I uh give the the lay of the land, I’ll turn it to councelor Stolty for a

00:49:45

question. Go ahead. >> Thank you, mayor. So, my question is to uh likely our city clerk. Sorry, Mike. I know you’re being tested today. And you know what? My my apology to you is genuine and my apologies to the rest of the staff as well. I know that the reason the reasons for the late agenda that is resulting in us having late registered delegates and possibly some others who would like to delegate is partially due to uh staff needing to get reports out and information back to us that we sought it. And I just want to

00:50:18

apologize to staff to say that is really unfortunate and puts you in a really difficult position to give us what we are asking for, but then it results in us having issue with the fact that the agenda was late. So what I’d like to um now comment on is to say that I’ll be putting forward and I will re reiterate this in a notice of motion. I did have have the opportunity to have a conversation with uh some of the clerk staff during the break to say is there anything within so sorry this is my

00:50:43

question to you Mike. Is there anything within the municipal act or a procedure bylaw that prevents us from bringing a motion forward to change our calendar? Because up until two years ago, we had a buffer week between C committee and council and that we didn’t run into this. So, is there anything that prevents us from reorganizing to give staff the time to give us what we’re asking for to give time for agendas to come out in a timely manner and for residents to be able to read it, register to delegate and avoid this come

00:51:08

the future >> through you um Mayor Me Ward? Nothing in this block that I’d be aware of and I don’t believe there’s anything in the procedure by it’s standard for council to amend a um uh or a committee calendar committee and council calendar throughout the year. >> Okay. Thank you. So, just as a heads up to my fellow colleagues, I’ll be putting forward a notice of motion that I will be looking to do that because this is this is absurd on so many levels that we’re pushing things through. We’re not

00:51:34

giving people the opportunity to read. We’re not giving the opportunity to delegate. We’re putting staff in a very difficult position. If none of that is necessary, then I think we need to fix it. >> Councelor Karns. So since I have the ability to comment, I would just like to um bring everyone’s mind to a reminder that when the procedure bylaw amendments came forward, I flagged that there were major deficits and it wasn’t viewed as a complete document for these reasons. One was

00:52:01

demonstrations. Two was holiday Mondays uh and there was a number of other ones including speaking time and there were gaps that were unclear also including how the code of conduct is embedded within the bylaw which it should be a standalone policy. Um, and I was told that that was very insulting to staff and that I shouldn’t be making comments like that and criticizing staff for delivering an incomplete document were my exact words. We’ve now had two now mo notices of motion about amendments on

00:52:30

the fly to the procedure bylaw. Not a complete review of the procedure bylaw which is overdue for its complete review as are many policies which we didn’t get a date from the acting uh CEO on the committee of when those policies would be brought in or prioritized. So uh we’re really doing some poor work on the floor here by peacemealing amendments to the bylaw when it needs to be looked at as a whole. We just heard one issue which was demonstration clapping which is allowed in chambers because of that

00:53:00

gap. Um and so my my idea is maybe we could go back and look at the procedure bylaw in whole so that we don’t find ourselves winding up in such an embarrassing situation as we are today. Uh and that we don’t peacemeal individual little pieces of the procedure bylaw by amendment by amendment because let’s not forget every time we amend a bylaw it’s subject to appeal. So now we’re going to be in a never-ending cycle of appeals. So that’s my comment and I also need to know if

00:53:27

we’re going to be my second question is can you please make sure we have clarity on how we’re treating the delegates today procedurally. >> Thank you counselor. I don’t see any other questions. So I will now uh answer that question by way of uh bringing us back to where how we’re going to proceed today. So the motion on the floor which we will need to vote on is to allow the late registered delegates to speak. Our next item is approval of the agenda. So during approval of the agenda, council

00:54:02

has the ability to take out all some of the items that we are going to deal with and refer them to a special council meeting to be called by the mayor in accordance with the rules of the procedure which at this point the earliest we could do that would be next week or it could be tucked into committee but we don’t need to land a date. Uh so when we get to that uh once we vote on this and when we get to approval of the agenda, we uh do have a motion from councelor uh Charman and Bentania to uh refer any items council

00:54:36

wishes to a future meeting. And so we can go through uh item by item. There may be uh several, there may only be one, but that will be uh that will be our opportunity to uh to deal with that and see what we want to deal with today. Uh so I’ll turn it over to the city solicitor. Go ahead uh Blake. >> Uh thank you uh chair and I just wanted to uh through you in response to uh councelor Kern’s question I think as we uh consider this motion to weigh the rules of procedure. She had a question

00:55:06

with respect to delegates. Uh so a delegate who is registered to speak today uh can speak today even if the item that they are looking to speak to is deferred to a future meeting. So their their comments would still be heard there. If the delegate decides that, you know what, I’d rather speak at the meeting this item is going to be called at, uh, they can register to delegate at a special council meeting in the normal course. I hope that answers your question. Okay. All right. I don’t see any other hands

00:55:45

on the board. So, uh, I will, uh, simply say that I I’m always appreciative of council. Uh, our track record has been to always hear from anyone who wished to speak. I can’t think of a time that we, uh, didn’t um allow people to speak for whatever uh, reason they couldn’t register or they they were late. So, I I do really appreciate that. I will also note that some folks uh that who were given an opportunity to speak said they would rather simply submit their information in writing. That is also an

00:56:17

option. We did get a number of pieces of correspondence. So really this is for uh residents to be able to engage uh sorry this is comment now on the on the late registration. So time it. Thank you clerk. Um so there’s really many different ways that residents have to share their views with us. uh you don’t have to come to a meeting if that’s not the the way that you wish to uh to give your information but you certainly can and we have had a number of uh individuals submit information in writing. I will say uh

00:56:51

with respect to the uh the the late agenda and the information provided that uh my initial thinking before issuing the strong mayor’s uh powers was simply to ask the questions on the floor of council. uh I as is my normal practice I give staff a heads up that the questions are coming so that they can be prepared and due to the nature of the questions felt that that was uh it was important to issue a mayor’s direction in full transparency so that that could be posted the answers could be available to

00:57:21

everyone in advance uh rather than doing the questions on the floor. So um and as noted it was all the questions of committee not just that that led to where we are today. So certainly we can uh we can deal with um with all of that today and uh and we will. Councelor Nissan, go ahead. >> Thank you, your worship. I I’m will not allow a strong mayoral direction giving two days notice to be considered a matter of uh transparency and giving staff time. If this was really about giving staff time, then this item would

00:57:55

be deferred to a future council meeting that was voted against at committee. Uh but that’s exactly what needs to happen. That’s why the despite uh all of this being caused uh by a lastm minute mayoral direction that is mandatory to respond to. That’s how we got here. And as a result, the the the staff did their best, but they couldn’t even provide complete information. How did we go from a committee meeting where I was being told that this was no big deal and that that the CFO had already given us what he

00:58:28

could give us um according to members of committee to to multiple pages of questions and expecting a response within 24 hours. That’s not even fair to staff, never mind to the public. So that’s why this item, frankly, going to special counsel is a start, but there are there are legal questions that are unanswered in that report. There are financing questions that are unanswered in that report. So, I’m not going to sit here and be told that this is this was a good thing that occurred. Far from far

00:58:58

from it. That’s why we got all these people, many of whom are being paid right now to be here to deal with this on a matter that frankly shouldn’t even be here because we couldn’t even get delegates in time. So, I’m sorry, but this is not right. Thank you, councelor. Our bylaw does not allow disruption, so I would ask you not to disrupt the uh the speaking and I’ll go to councelor Benavania next. Go ahead. >> Point of order. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. I’m not aware of any ban on

00:59:35

on that in our procedure bylaw. Could you point to the section, please? >> We have the public here. They’re here to respond to us. I’m not saying that clapping is ideal, but at least they’re getting their they’re getting their say in some fashion. through you uh Mayor Mid Ward. The bylaw, the procedure bylaw doesn’t allow unreasonable or uh offensive conduct and dis uh means conductive or statements that can be considered disruptive. That’s the the the best I can do without

01:00:16

uh a recess to to determine further. >> All right. Uh councelor Benane, you go ahead. Thank you, mayor. I’ve been listening uh pretty intently here. I’d like to um rewind a little bit here. We we start talking about procedural bylaws and so on. And we talk about the cart before the horse here. This is all here. We’re here discussing this because we’re saying that mayor’s powers did what they did and I understand that. I personally commend the mayor for asking those questions. The timing was

01:01:03

maybe not the right timing but they were very very important questions. Our meeting was on Monday. We have been discussing this topic for six months. I sit and listen to the P-tope committee meetings and we’ve been discussing it there for quite a while. Frankly, and I got to be careful what I say here. When I read the responses to the mayor’s questions, I was upset. I was upset because that should have been brought forward within that six-month period of our discussions. And I’m just saying that’s just me.

01:01:57

The questions, the answers were valid and they made a lot of sense. We were going to make a decision today based on information that we didn’t know that we got answers for, which for me is very important. So I’ll leave it at that. And because of that now we again I’m going back to the beginning we start talking about procedural bylaw. We wouldn’t be having this discussion whatsoever if we were giving information along the way whether it be legal, operational or planning and everything be hunky dory. Thank you.

01:02:44

All right. Uh, speaking to the late registered delegates, uh, councelor Karns for a second time. Go ahead. >> Uh, thank you. I just wanted to widen the scope a little bit on the conversation that we’re having today about late notice and um, it is not just the the matter of the development charges. So, I have a number of uh email communications and an in-person delegation who only received a notice regarding heritage designation on uh February 11th and were given until February 6th at committee to respond.

01:03:17

You can obviously know that those dates don’t line up. Um and maybe some of them are here today or some of them have written. uh we’re not sure the root cause of that uh delay in notice, but this is another item that I was going to be intending uh to seek a deferral on uh to another committee cycle because of the late notice for the community uh to understand what the city is doing and what the impact is on their property or on the policy. So, we’re we’re really in a bad spot today. And and that’s going

01:03:47

to be one of the items that I was either asking for a referral to another cycle. Uh asking for a root cause and corrective action or understanding more about what we’re doing to appropriately notify the community so that they can appropriately delegate and understand uh the matters before committee. So, um the notice of non-desation for new designation heritage properties was going to be another item. So I just wanted people to understand this whole delay is not scoped to one item. This is starting to become a behavioral trend

01:04:16

that needs to be addressed. So I just wanted to add that clarity to the reason why we’re having such a difficult start to this morning. Okay. Thank you. I am not seeing any more hands on the board. So we will vote on the item to allow the late registered delegates to speak and then give the uh delegates the option to speak or not as they wish. So uh we will turn to the clerk for the recorded vote on that >> through you uh Mary. I just want to just um mention that is I meant that this is

01:04:52

considering all three names including Lyn Crosby. >> Yeah. So just uh for clarity, David Barker regarding the uh item on development charges, S Shannon Gillies regarding the heritage item and Lynn Crosby regarding the development charges item. So three delegates in total who will be given the choice to delegate. >> Yes. Okay. Thank go ahead. >> Councelor Greath >> support. Councelor Karns >> support. >> Councelor Nissan >> support. Councelor Stoalty >> support. Councelor Charman

01:05:22

>> support. Councelor Benta >> support >> and mayor me >> support. >> That’s seven in favor. >> And that does carry. Okay. Before we hear from the delegates, we still have to deal with our agenda. So this is the option where uh we can go through item by item uh to see if there are items that council wishes to refer to a separate council meeting to be called uh by the mayor in accordance with the procedure bylaw. So, I would suggest that we go to the recommendations from

01:05:54

standing committee uh and we can uh see which ones we want to move out. Uh councelor Stoalty, go ahead. >> I’d like to put a motion on the floor in regards to our agenda moving forward. um for us to now go through the agenda item by item, we’re presupposing and assuming what members of the public would have wanted to delegate on had they received information in a timely manner and had they understood that the delegation opportunity to register for a late delegation had been extended. So I want

01:06:24

to put propose that we move the whole agenda to a later date. >> Okay. Um, we can. So, does that include the recognitions and achievements, the ceremonial items, or just the business when we get to the recommendations, which is item 13? >> Just the business. It I wanted to have this put on the floor before we start going through item by item. >> Okay. So, now is the time because we have we’re in the approval of the agenda. So, we are dealing with what we’re going to deal with today. So, uh,

01:06:54

so fair enough. speaking to the approval of the agenda. Um, councelor Karns. >> Uh, thank you. I’ll seek some procedural guidance. I’m in the same thought. I only want to hear from delegates today and the special presentation and I’d like to see everything else moved. >> Uh, solicitor, go ahead. >> Uh, thank you, uh, mayor and chair. I will leave that decision for uh council to make. The only thing that I would raise is that uh there are a number of confidential items on the agenda today

01:07:31

uh including uh a number that were instructions are sought. Uh I would recommend that we proceed forward with uh getting that approved by council today as a number of those instructions are time-sensitive. In terms of the councelor’s concern with respect to uh uh public delegations, obviously the members of the public would not be delegating on those confidential matters in any event. Uh so I don’t think the concern uh impacts those items. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Nissan. >> Thank you worship. Uh, no. I have no

01:08:07

concern about the closed session being uh dealt with today as um public engagement is uh limited through the municipal act on that matter. So, I have no issue with that. Um I would um say that I’m not interested also in going item by item. I think we push it all um just in case uh because the there’s been a real process uh problem here uh that can only be resolved that way. Finally, I’ll just give you a heads up your worship. Um, I do not have any gaps in my calendar for the next two weeks. I’m

01:08:42

I’m representing Halton Region at an FCM board meeting. Um, the the exception to that is the actual timing of our committees committee of the whole which is only two weeks away. So, literally less than two weeks away. So, I would ask that we deal with the timing of this here in public with everyone here because the rule of procedure says that if you have a quorum, you can go ahead with a meeting and that could lead to a distortion of our electoral process by only having four people. This has

01:09:14

happened to me on several occasions due to my obligations with FCM where a special council meeting was called for a time where I’m not available and I’ve I’ve raised those concerns uh with the office of the clerk. So um I want to get ahead of that now and we all have committee of the whole on the Monday in our calendar. If other if committee of the whole items in March get pushed to that to council in March that’s perfectly acceptable and and with plenty of precedent. So um that will be my uh

01:09:43

motion at the correct time your worship is that we move everything to the 2nd of March. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um we’re just go ahead uh councelor Charman. Well, thank you very much. And I think there were consent items that we all approved as well, and I’m not too uh bothered bypassing those. Uh I think there is work that we can do realistically today, and I think that uh we should I will not be supporting a move a movement uh to defer the entire meeting. I I’m happy to see a few

01:10:11

removed. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Council Garworth, >> I will also not be supporting a full agenda move. I think we’re all here today and there’s several items uh that we can deal with. So, I’ I’d prefer to deal with as many as we can um today uh and then uh move the one or two items that are more time-sensitive to a future meeting um within the next couple of weeks. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we do need to get a motion on the floor relative to the agenda and there may be additional modifications.

01:10:44

So, councelor Stolty and councelor uh Nissan, I will leave it to you to move and second something. Um, so you want the entire business moved, councelor Stolty, and perhaps we can get that language up on the screen. And councelor Nissan wanted it moved to the um uh previously scheduled council meeting date, which is March 2nd, I believe. Uh, but we’ll get that clarified and we’ll get the language up on the board. Have I understood your intent? Yes, I agree with the March 2nd date and I uh would

01:11:16

like to propose that we move the entire agenda following proclamations, recognition and achievements and the opportunity for our registered and late registered delegates to be able to delegate should they choose to delegate today. >> And what’s on the board is the dealing with the confidential items. >> Sorry. Yes. And the confidential items as well. >> You’re okay with that? Okay. and we’ll need uh future special counsel uh to be changed to the date of committee as

01:11:46

requested by councelor Nissan. So we’ll put that in uh Debbie and then open the floor if there are additional changes that committee wishes to put with respect to that which could include the consent items or other items that count that council wishes to deal with today. >> Councelor Nissan, go ahead. Well, I’ll just wait for this to be uh up on the board. I’m I I just wanted to second um just as a point of order. I think the title is the old title at this point. So, and uh I just want to confirm

01:12:20

that only a majority is required versus 2/3. I’m actually not 100% sure, but I think that’s the case. Three. Mayor Maidward. Yes, just a majority to defer items. Okay. So, that is the um that’s the motion on the floor. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion? Any changes to the motion? Okay. Going to the clerk for the vote. Go ahead. C. >> Councelor Stoalty. Sorry, just was rereading. I was mistaken the February 17th. Okay. Thank you. >> Councelor Nissan. >> Thank you. I’ll just make a quick

01:13:14

comment before the vote. Uh I want to thank councelor Stoalty for your support on this and to my colleagues um who might be on the fence or or otherwise. Um I think this fixes it. Um I think that you know if it’s an issue that you feel passionately about, you would want to hear from the public on it as well. um uh that’s how I would approach it. Anyways, speaking for myself, I feel passionately about several items on the agenda here and um one in particular and uh I would not want the public to be cut

01:13:44

out of the process, which is what we uh are nearly about to do. So, uh with that, um I would just ask for your support. Thank you, >> Councelor Stoalty. Yeah, I just want to follow that up just by commenting that I certainly take what staff have um gratefully uh brought to our attention that there are some time-sensitive matters in our confidential agenda that we should go through with today. The rest of the agenda is not time-sensitive. Whether it waits a couple of weeks in order for proper due

01:14:12

diligence and proper procedure bylaw and proper uh engagement of the public to happen, I think that’s the right thing to do and I think pushing things forward unnecessarily today is just reckless. Councelor Karns, >> I just want to thank everyone for their um amanability to to move this. This is the right thing to do. Uh we’re in the midst of doing our engagement charter again, and this is a great example of how we take the priority of having the community’s voice at the table here in

01:14:41

this horseshoe. Uh this is the right thing to do. It might be uncomfortable, but uh sometimes doing what’s right is uncomfortable. I look forward to um more engagement on the very very serious and very very expensive matters that are in this agenda. Um as well as making sure that we we get things right the first time which I mentioned a deferral uh about like failure for notice. We don’t know why yet around a very serious heritage matter as well. Um, so I’m looking forward to having this supported

01:15:10

and um, you know, I’m hoping that within this there is a communications plan uh, to let people know about some of what’s going on and how this has been deferred. So uh, I certainly want to hear from the delegates. I I don’t actually know if that’s procedurally okay, but I’ll go with your word. Um, I want to hear from the delegates today. We want to do the special ceremony. Uh, but I have no interest in going peace meal item by item of what is in and what is out. that is not respecting the community voice or

01:15:38

our commitment to engagement. >> Councelor Charman, >> I want to start off by thanking the mayor for the uh for the strong mayor power document that was gone that that actually s stimulated a significant piece of work that should have been done months ago. I I agree with council benta. Um I do agree that it was tight coming in on the timeline and that we’re ending up in a tight in a in a position a day later. um where we’re making adjustments. Um so I’m completely in support of deferring that matter. Uh it

01:16:11

needs to have the uh the light of day for the members of public to see it and comment on it. Um and I and I and sincerely uh the motion that we put forward to change the procedural bylaw to accommodate the the uh the the the degree of uh discipline that two of my colleagues have been asking for around strong mayor’s powers all along is now dealt with. and you did that that strong man power um uh motion in that context. So kudos to you. Um and I I strongly believe that there are items in here

01:16:44

that should be dealt with today. Uh they’re not contentious. I I you know I will never support a heritage designation force designation. So I absolutely agree that if we need to do that deferral I am okay with that. um as well as the DC uh the DC charges um and the um the zoning bylaw. Uh everything else as far as I’m concerned can be done. Thank you. >> Uh councelor Nissan for a second time. >> Yes, exactly. Thank you, Chair. Um since it’s been brought up more than once and

01:17:15

this might be the last chance to address this. Um there I’m hearing appreciation for the new information and I’m hearing an implication uh which others are welcome to say that’s not the case but let’s just say I want to be really clear that this is not something that staff have failed to give us in the past 6 months or that you wish you had gotten sooner. This is the board of directors of this city. If we wanted it, we need to ask for it. And the reason why it didn’t come sooner is

01:17:42

because, frankly, it was outside of the realm of thought that we would be asking for a 2-year DC bylaw elimination without being made whole. I mean, if you go back to last fall, the the mayor’s motion was on the condition of being made whole. So, why would they why would they produce a long report on the financial implications when everything that they knew up until now until committee was that we would be getting made whole? to remind everyone that that amendment from the mayor, although thankfully came to council members

01:18:14

early, was not uh given to the public early to my knowledge. So that we can’t expect staff to read our minds. This is our job. We’re the board of directors. Um so I do not I would not agree with any implication. If there was any implication, which I think there was, that this was something that staff should have done sooner. Um that’s on us. This is a change. It’s a very last minute change. Um with uh with resp and also with respect to being so pleased about getting this information then you

01:18:47

know for the for those who voted uh against the two-month deferral why did you vote against the two-month deferral in committee then if you wanted that information cuz frankly you do not have complete information right now from the CFO and their team. There are clear gaps where they said they did not have enough time to provide that information. So, if you really want the information, you should be supporting a two-month deferral, not a two week deferral to a special counsel. If not, then there’s something else at

01:19:14

play. You know, uh, I’ll retract that. What I want to say is that there is obviously more going on than a question of deferrals and we need this time for the for the public to be involved. There are two things that are wrong with strong mayor powers. Number one, it’s not democratic. And number two, it messes up procedure. And this is about the latter. Procedure is getting messed up because unlike before strong mayor powers, a decree can be made at the last minute that forces staff to do things that they

01:19:48

cannot reasonably be expected to do. And that’s exactly what happened here. Thank you, >> councelor Stoalty for a second time. Go ahead. >> Thank you. I want to uh thank councelor Nissan for his comments and I want to add to them to actually it’s a question to staff uh when the conversation was had last week when amendments were put on the floor as far as requesting further time as councelor Nissan’s brought up in order to get more information about how this might impact

01:20:16

us in many different ways and impact the public and impact the budget and all sorts of different things. Would you have preferred for the mayor to have come forward today with an amendment to ask for that time, the valid amount of time in order to get this information to you? Or did you would you prefer the way it was approached as far as pressing the strong mayor powers to request two days to get that information to us? >> Uh Stephen, I think that’s over to you or the CFO. Uh Craig uh was a direction

01:20:49

to the two of you to answer questions. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you uh through the mayor. Uh thanks for the question. I mean I think at the end of the day we are we our staff are at the mercy of council. So we do our best to provide uh what we think is appropriate information. So while yes, it’s always good to have have more time and uh but we’ll do our best to answer questions as they come up as we’re directed to. >> Okay. So to follow up on that, I appreciate that was a difficult question

01:21:14

that I was asking you and I just want to concur with councelor Nissan that if this council and members of council and the mayor had wanted more information, there was opportunities given last Tuesday to create that opportunity in a manner that was more respectful of staff and more respectful of the public. So I completely disagree with the comment about the strong mayor powers being used in a way that was helpful. I think it was disrespectful. >> Councelor Benia, go ahead. And my last comment on this will be uh

01:21:45

we talk about the impact and again we can all cherrypick what we want to talk about. We sit around this horseshoe table and we talk about things and there are many many items that we discuss in terms of recommendations that we get from staff from the experts in the field. We are not and I’ll focus on this because I’m going to cherrypick for the first time. We are not legal people. There was some legal information that we received that perhaps in our discussions in the past maybe that comment that discussion

01:22:28

should have come up. Again, I’m not throwing anyone under the bus here, but I want to protect and respect what’s going on around this table. And had we had that information two months ago, three months ago, or four months ago, I may have had a different discussion on that specific topic because that information could have been detrimental in a decision making. and I work with trust and information and questions I may not necessarily ask but we need to know we need to know that information. Thank

01:23:10

you >> councelor Karns for a second time. >> Thanks very much. So imagine my shock when after being unwell for committee of the whole I come back and I see that we’ve now moved from what the original motion was which was this is around the development charges which was that the reduction was tied to some degree of achieving policy goals like purpose-built rental and market affordability. The reduction was conditional on being made whole and that the reduction would only apply to

01:23:42

projects with a certain definition of a start or completion. And then I find out to my discovery in response to the strong mayor’s uh request which staff responded three times due to limited time staff was unable to that is stated three times in the supplementary report. uh that it’s 100% it’s for everything including market rate uh including luxury condos uh and that it’s basically going to be pretty much immediate and we won’t know the effects until about 2027 and that we don’t have enough in our

01:24:13

capital reserves or tax stabilization reserve and that we only make about a million dollars in our surplus end of year which is not enough to cover the numbers that are uh contemplated which is between 6 and $47 million. So, uh, I was shocked to find out that that’s the trajectory that this conversation went on. And if I’m shocked, I have to believe the community is shocked or they just actually have no idea. So, I never saw a media release. I never saw a communication out to the public on such

01:24:45

a huge amount. Uh, when we talked about putting more money into the 2% uh infrastructure on top of your normal taxes, we put 2% on top to fund infrastructure. uh if we put another 0.5 that’s only $700,000 and we’re talking about the magnitude of six million to 40 something million. This is insane and to have this come forward on the Friday of a long weekend uh where even one of the counselors just by missing one day which is rare is completely blindsided. Um, I don’t commend the strong mayor’s piece

01:25:16

because I don’t think that the entire council was solicited to say, “Are there any outstanding questions you have that you would like included in a strong mayor’s directive to force staff over a long weekend to respond and leading up to a long weekend to respond to? Um, I think it was a poor use of the powers which I’ve objected to since day one. Um, and to say that this is commendable, it is not. It is very dangerous to be commanding our staff to do something outside of the purview of the CEO. This

01:25:46

bypassed the top of the organization and went straight to staff. That is not a healthy workplace. And I don’t commend this one bit. This is information that we should have had, ought to have had. And when the conversation changed so abruptly from what was first brought forward in October, even West End Homebuilders for their original communications in September asked for a reduction, not 100% removal. So that is a huge shift. I don’t I don’t I’m just flabbergasted we’re here.

01:26:19

>> Councelor Charman, go ahead. >> Well, thank you very much. And I think the uh councelor has just completely uh stated the concerns I would have and why I wish that matter to be deferred. So that solves that problem. Um the with respect to the numbers um I thought I heard staff agree that the initial numbers that were in the in the original um report went to Cal that there was no $40 million. There’s not that range of numbers involved. and in fact they agreed with the numbers we were hearing

01:26:52

from the uh from the um the federal government in terms of what numbers should be expected. It was dramatically less than any of those large numbers. Furthermore, the there is the cost associated with processing these uh applications um is is fully covered by the amount of work that our staff presently have on this table. um what we’re talking about is actually an adjustment of reserves uh rather than lost um revenue per se. Uh and this will all be accommodated in the short term. I I I totally agree that what has occurred

01:27:25

since committee um was was like sausage making. It caused us to ask important questions and I certainly agree that with the with the idea that we move our council to a twoe gap so that we don’t have to deal with nonsense again. um we need time in between. We need to have the opportunity to ask questions and get them answered and we need to have the uh the public available um to to participate in the process. Um anyway, I’m I’m thinking that we should take the vote, Mayor. >> Uh Councelor Nissan, you’ve spoken

01:27:58

twice. Do you have a question? Go ahead. Yeah, very direct question uh to our staff. Uh based on your uh updated report uh to our CFO, do you stand by your figures of a 16 to42 million estimate as provided by yourself in every report that I’ve seen so far? >> Sorry, I’m just I’m just going to pause for a moment. We are straying a wee bit away from what we’re getting into a bit of discussion of the item. I’m I’m okay to proceed. I understand there’s concerns, but we’re really only talking

01:28:34

about a deferral of items to another meeting now. And I know a lot of things have been said that have kind of brought additional items in. I’m just wondering if you can hold that question until we actually deal with the item. >> Well, I think there’s a there’s a problem here um which is that a council member has made assumptions about a staff position that I haven’t seen before. So I I would really appreciate if we could just clear that up very briefly and then get back right on.

01:29:03

Thank you. >> So you provided additional numbers in the memo. Do you want to speak to that uh CFO? >> Uh through through the mayor. Thanks for the question. I I mean I think it’s important to recall that this is the second report. There was a report that we did in October. >> Um and the information that we provided the range it’s a it’s a team effort. It’s the data was built on what’s in the pipe, what we’re aware of, but it’s a big range and I I think if anything, it

01:29:34

highlights how difficult it is yeartoear to forecast what’s going to get built and what isn’t going to get built. And I think to the best of our ability, that was our intent to convey through both staff reports. Um, so yes, I I do stand behind the range that we provided. >> Uh, councelor Stoalty, you’ve spoken twice. Do you have a question? I do and it’s in relation to the commentary that we were on right now about the finances uh with the comment that councelor Charman brought up about uh it not

01:30:04

necessarily in his belief being um revenue that’s necessary to be uh brought through taxes but use the reserve funds. If we were to use re reserve funds, is there not an opportunity cost of those reserves being available for other important business of the city? I know we’re straying a bit. Uh >> no, you guys did. >> Do you do you feel it’s best to deal with this when we get to the item or would you like to answer it now? It’s up to you. >> Well, if you don’t mind, I’ll answer it

01:30:42

now just because it’s we’ll keep things moving along. Um so at at the end of the day if there are no other revenue sources available to the city um and we do have to replenish those DC reserves there there will be some impacts. You’re moving from one reserve to another. So it will um cause us to have less funding for some other projects. Um and over time that you know the extent of the the exemption would would dictate what that impact would overall look like. >> Okay. Thank you.

01:31:14

>> All right. Uh any other speakers or questions on the deferral? Okay. I will take an opportunity to to make a few comments. Uh so um it is not uncommon, just so folks are aware, it is not uncommon for uh members of committee or council to have additional questions of staff in between or before meetings or after they see reports. And uh so that that is not uncommon. Um when the nature of those questions are determined by staff to be substantial, they will advise whether they wish that to be put

01:31:54

in a staff direction uh if there’s time at a committee meeting or in my case a mayor’s decision. And so the the questions were really related to um what were your assumptions before you put the numbers in the report assuming those assumptions uh were there. I was just asking staff to show the work and some additional questions. And I will say that for me the most important thing is ensuring that all of council has the information that it needs to make good decisions. That is the only and singular

01:32:27

motivation for me in asking staff. And in response to staff saying uh because of the nature of the questions, it would be best to put it in a mayor’s direction. staff also outlined who it would be directed to uh the specific uh staff that are uh being asked to answer. Uh that is why it was phrased that way. So we do work together staff uh and council to make sure that all of the questions that council might have that would be material to decision making uh that they are asked and that that information is provided. So, I’m glad

01:33:04

for at least some of council that that information was helpful. Certainly, it was eyeopening for me and I will continue to serve council and the community to the best of my ability in any way that I can to ensure that we have the best information when we make decisions. And if that’s by way of a staff a mayor’s direction as advised by staff, I will do that because what’s most important to me is making sure that we have the information that we need to make good decisions. I also think that

01:33:37

the nature of the discussion we’re about to have on several items is so significant that it’s important to take a little bit of time for those who have raised concerns about the time. uh I don’t want to argue over process. I think we need to focus our attention on the actual matter at hand. So I’m okay to defer. I’m okay to make sure that anyone uh who wishes to provide their feedback. And again, delegating is only one way. It’s not uh the preferred way of everyone. Uh but by uh by writing,

01:34:11

we’ve actually had more uh pieces of correspondence than we have delegation requests. So, uh, in the interest of of good decision-m, good information, and ensuring the community, uh, can participate, I’m okay to accept the deferral. Okay. Councelor Stolty, a question. >> I do have a question, clerk. >> Um, is there anything in the procedure bylaw that precludes uh, questions to other members of council? through you, Mayor Meard. Uh, nothing that I’m aware of. >> Okay. My question then is to yourself,

01:34:52

mayor, in regards to the comments you just made, if it was in fact your intent to have all the material available to council members in order to make good decisions, why did you vote against the amendment last week asking for financial considerations before this vote came forward? if that was information that your fellow council members were looking for. >> I felt that we had the information and you know upon reflection this is why we have twostep process. We allow ourselves time between committee and council to

01:35:25

consider all information and I spoke to that vote at at uh committee and I’m okay with uh with what we have in front of us today. I think uh if uh you know in hearing the concerns of all of uh council and uh members of the public that it’s important to take a little bit of extra time. I’m happy to do that. I will say we are in a housing crisis. We are in an emergency and every day that we delay is every day that potentially a new house isn’t getting built. So >> sorry, point of order. I’ve just asked a

01:35:58

question as asked and answered. Thank you. >> Sure. So, okay. Uh, councelor Karns. >> Uh, thank you very much. This is also a question to the mayor. If you knew one of your committee members was absent for illness and you were looking to make sure that you had all the information available as your number one priority to council, not the community. Um, why would you not circulate or pre-irculate the content of your strong mayor’s directive to say, “Hey team, do I have it all here?”

01:36:30

>> Thank you very much. That was that’s a great question and I did actually consider that and in this case uh speed was of the essence. I wanted to give staff as much time as possible uh and uh to to prepare the information and to get the questions. So certainly in future I am most certainly happy to circulate uh in advance uh when it’s necessary to issue a direction to get more information. Thank you for that. >> So just a follow-up question. So then it was to get your information uh because

01:37:00

you didn’t circulate it or was it to get the information that council wanted under a strong mayor’s directive? >> Thank you. I took into consideration all of the comments that were made by members of committee at the meeting including councelor Nissan. Uh staff chose to report that out in two separate reports which is totally fine but that was part of the direction and uh other items that were raised during the committee meeting by uh by members of committee who were present. All right, I’m not seeing any other

01:37:35

questions or comments. So, I think it is time for the vote on the deferral. I will turn it to your clerk. >> Councelor Gre >> do not support. >> Councelor Karns, >> support. >> Councelor Nissan, >> support. >> Councelor Stoalty, >> support. >> Councelor Charman, >> do not support. >> Councelor Bentania, >> do not support. and Mayor Maidward >> support. >> That is four in favor, three against. >> And that does carry. Okay. So, we will

01:38:02

deal with the other items, the ceremonial items, uh as well as delegation. So, turning now to declarations of interest. Uh since we have moved this item, I assume the declaration is no longer necessary, but I’ll turn it to the clerk. It is still necessary. Okay. Uh declarations of interest. Councelor Greath. >> Yeah. I’d just like to declare an interest with item 13.1 in the confidential the real estate matter. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh we do have two proclamations. Black History Month February 2026, uh

01:38:34

World Down Syndrome Day, March 21st, 2026. And a number of peer lightings. Uh there’s quite a few, so hang on. Uh February 13, lit red for where Canada wear red Canada heart disease. February 14, of course, lit red for Valentine’s Day. Feb February 15 lit yellow and gold for International Childhood Cancer Awareness Day. Feb 28 lit winter blue, warm yellow, and valley blue for the coldest night of the year. March 1st lit panone blue for liver health month. March 4th lit dark blue and yellow for

01:39:11

sudden unexplained death in childhood awareness month. March 7, lit yellow for endometriosis awareness month. lit eight, sorry, March 8, lit purple for International Women’s Day. March 14, lit blue for World Young Rheumatic Deise Day. March 16, lit lime green for National Poison Prevention Week. March 17, lit green for St. Patrick’s Day. March 22nd, lit blue and green for UN World Water Day. Excuse me. March 28, lit white for annual Burlington inmemoriam day. March 28, lit blue and green for Earth Hour. March

01:39:54

31st, lit pink, white, and light blue for International Dra Trans Transgender Day of Visibility. Turning now to recognitions and achievements, and I’d like to talk about the 2025 Governor General’s History Award for Excellence in Teaching. and thank you for sticking around uh with us. On behalf of the city of Burlington, it is my pleasure to extend sincere congratulations to Heather Howell. Upon receiving the Governor General’s History Award for Excellence in Teaching, Heather Howell is a teacher at MM

01:40:30

Robinson High School in Ward 3. Heather, your leadership in guiding students to cultivate a heritage garden using traditional methods. Growing the vegetables and herbs grown by Burlington families in the late 19th century, offers a powerful hands-on connection to our local past. This national award celebrates the efforts that keep our shared history vibrant and meaningful. Your project truly exemplifies that spirit. wishing you all the best as you celebrate this achievement and we want to thank you for all that you do in the

01:41:04

community for keeping our past alive through this wonderful project. I also want to thank the museums of Burlington for their close collaboration on this project and I note our executive director Kim Watson is here and thank you both for donating to the heritage garden donating the heritage gardens harvest to the Burlington food bank. So, we will now meet at the podium to present Heather with a certificate from the city of Burlington and take a picture with council. I also want to invite uh representatives who are here

01:41:38

to join in this celebration at Museums of Burlington. We have Miriam Martins as well and uh the chair and trustee from the Halton District School Board, Amy Collard. So, we will gather with all of council in the center here with the proclamation for a photo. Thanks. Can I get a couple people? Should you please look here this way? Thank you so much. And so you’re Thank you so much. All right, folks. Um, we actually have to vote on approval of the amended agenda, which we did not do. So, I will

01:44:22

turn it back to the clerk for that vote. >> Thank you, Mayor Mid Ward. Councelor Gworth, >> support. Councelor Karns, >> support. >> Councelor Nissan, support. Councelor Stoalty, >> support. Councelor Charman >> support. >> Councelor Bentovenia >> support. >> Mayor Mid Ward >> support. >> Seven in favor. >> And that does carry. I have a motion to approve the council minutes from councelor Nissan and councelor Charman that we approve the regular council

01:44:48

meeting minutes of January 26, 2026. All those in favor? Show of hands. Any opposed? Seeing none, that does carry. And we now turn to delegations. So, uh, our first pre-registered delegations, uh, delegate will be Michael Collins Williams speaking to item, uh, DGM 326, options for the temporary elimination of development charges, representing the West End Homebuilders Association. And you have five minutes to provide comments, and there may be questions afterwards. Go ahead. >> Good morning, members of committee, uh,

01:45:26

sorry, members of council, mayor, and city staff. Uh my name is Mike Collins Williams. I’m the CEO of the West End Homebuilders Association representing over 300 member companies across Hamilton, Burlington, and Grimby. I want to be very clear at the outsets. I’m not here to repeat anything that was already debated at committee of the whole. That work has been done. In fact, Burlington’s been deliberating development charges relief since September through the pipeline to permit committee, through full counsel on

01:45:53

October 14th, through multiple staff reports, through committee of the whole, and now here at council. We’ve been at this for 6 months. There’s no information gap. There’s no need for further study. What is required now is a decision. While the city continues to review, analyze, examine, and create procedural delays, the industry is hemorrhaging jobs. Trades people, planners, engineers, suppliers, Burlington residents are losing their livelihoods. These are your constituents. This is not theoretical. This is not

01:46:30

cyclical softness. This is a housing pipeline that is seized up completely and we debate procedures and circles instead of actually doing anything. When projects don’t move forward, development charges are not collected anyway, and the city loses far more in long-term assessment, economic activity, and workforce stability. Delay does not proce preserve revenue. Delay eliminates it. Council is being asked to act in a way that is temporary, targeted, enabled by provincial legislation, and responsive to

01:47:04

extraordinary market conditions. I want to explicitly state that WHBA is fully aligned with the city of Burlington’s advocacy strategy as outlined in the mayor’s correspondence to Minister Robertson and Minister Flack contained in today’s meeting package. We’re lock step on three critical points. First, the government of Canada must fulfill its commitment to cover 50% of municipal development charges reductions. That commitment has been made publicly. What’s missing is implementation.

01:47:31

Secondly, that the province step up with investments in housing enabling infrastructure. The building faster fund as currently constru structured has been underutilized because of market conditions have changed. A revised BFF framework can and should be used to support temporary DC relief where municipalities are showing leadership. Third, municipal action must be rewarded, not penalized. Burlington should not be financially disadvantaged for doing exactly what senior levels of government have been asking cities to

01:48:02

do. Unlock housing supply. WHB is already advocating. This is not theoretical advocacy. I was actually at Parliament Hill last week meeting directly with parliamentarians on housing affordability, including a direct conversation with Minister Robertson where Burlington’s leadership on development charges was explicitly raised. They take notice when you actually take action versus doing what every other municipality does, which is nothing. And immediately following this meeting, I’ll be seeing Minister Flack

01:48:31

at a housing event where the same issue will again be pressed. Although I’m now an hour and a half late for that, WHBA will continue to partner with the city of Burlington advocating for municipal finance reform, replacement funding, and coordinated action across all orders of government. Final point, I do appreciate the hard work that city staff has undertaken, but the revenue loss scenarios are extremely riskadverse and I understand that’s your job to be riskadverse, but there is absolutely no real world scenario where

01:49:02

3,359 units representing $42 million in DC revenue get going over the next 2 years. That isn’t even in the realm of possibility. I’ll remind council, our members sold four. I I’ll repeat that. Please pay attention. We sold four condo units the entire year across the entire city in 2025. The low-end estimate of 16 million was based on a three-year average of about 8 million a year. But last year was closer to 6.8 million and economic conditions deteriorated significantly through the second half of

01:49:36

last year and are even worse now going into 2026. I’m pleading with this council not to be distracted by wildly optimistic scenarios. Burlington’s willingness to act decisively on development charges is already being noticed across industry, across municipalities, and it’s being noticed at Queens Park and on Parliament Hill. Leadership like this should be reinforced, not stalled. So, I cannot express how disappointing to delays delay is. Council has studied this. Council has debated this. Council has

01:50:10

provided multiple opportunities for consultation at multiple engagements throughout the fall and into the winter. The time to act is now. This is time-sensitive. Jobs are being lost every single day in Burlington. Thank you. >> Thank you. You do have several questions. Councelor Stoalty, you’re first. >> Thank you, Mike. I appreciate your passion. I know you and I have spoken both in council and outside of council and I do not dispute the fact that we need to try to pull levers to get the

01:50:41

development community back on board and be able to put houses in the ground. I don’t dispute that at all. My question to you is, can you agree that the ideal version is that we find a balance and do this the right way? And do you believe that the development community will still come forward and be able to put potentially more houses and more homes into people’s hands if we create opportunities for housing that people can actually afford. When you speak about the four units that were sold last

01:51:09

year, those were market level units. Those were high-end units. If the if the development community were to come forward, and that’s my question to you, do you not see that we could achieve both? We could save jobs, we could support the development community and industry, as well as provide the type of housing that Burlington future and present Burlington residents actually need. Thank you for your question. Uh we’ll always work willing to work with the city on the full spectrum of housing

01:51:34

from below market right through. I I would dispute the notion that the four units are high-end. These are condo units and those are basically entrylevel entry level units for uh firsttime buyers. Um you know the below market uh housing is an important part of the housing continuum but that represents 5 to 10% of what’s built uh in Ontario built in Burlington. Most young Burlington residents do not aspire to live in government build social housing. Again it’s an important part of the continuum. a lot of our members are

01:52:07

working in that space. Um, but I I think the discussion today and the last six months has shifted a little bit more from what the specific housing product is. And it’s really about jobs. People in Burlington are losing jobs. And whether you’re a carpenter, um an engineer, um working on concrete forming, um whether that’s a market unit or a below market unit, what’s important to those families is that they have a paycheck at the end of the day and they can continue putting food on the table.

01:52:37

>> Okay, just a point of clarity, please. I appreciate that, but my question was not about um government built social housing. My question is about the type of housing that’s in our housing strategy, which is workforce housing. It goes, it straddles that middle section, but it is not supported housing and it’s not market housing. It’s that middle piece. And there’s so many conversations that we’ve had over the last number of years about opportunities like land lease, like so many creative options.

01:53:01

And I know you and I have had this conversation. And just what I ask is would the development community come forward and could there be the opportunity to save jobs and to create housing if we were to gear the development charge policy towards creating housing that the workforce housing that our community actually needs? Would the development community come forward and partner on that? >> I would say yes, but there is also through bill 23 there are no development charges currently today on below market

01:53:28

affordable housing. So if the city is to partner with the development industry um to produce below market housing to partner say with this new build Canada homes agency, you’re already there on the development charges. There are no development charges on affordable units. So the discussion today is about the broader market. And when you speak about workforce housing, I certainly believe that firsttime entry-level homes provided, you know, one one-bedroom plus den condos that might be built uh around

01:53:57

the go station areas. That is the entry- level housing for firefighters, for um people that work in the police force, for teachers, uh for nurses. Um that is the exact type of housing that we’re we’re trying to build. Yes, there is a component in Burlington that might be uh considered luxury, but that would be sort of be the more high-end single detached homes on a 40 or 50 foot lot, not those entry-level homes that we’re trying to provide that might be town homes or, you know, frankly small

01:54:27

condos. >> Okay, I have another question. I’ll get back in queue. >> Councelor Nissan, >> thank you through the chair. Thank you, uh, Mike, for your delegation. Um, just trying to put myself in your shoes here. So if um given how challenging the environment has been for your members, it like looking at looking at where we are and where you are, have you uh do you continue to take in the full membership fees or have you provided a discount to your members? >> Our memberships declined on account of

01:55:04

some companies going under out of business and some companies um not being able to afford the membership fees. Frankly, our our fees aren’t that high. Um, but yes, we’ve we’ve experienced changes within our membership due to the current environment and we’re expecting a pretty tough year going forward. >> How’s are we are you aware that um or I mean you you represent the development industry, not the construction industry, but I’m sure you know your construction industry

01:55:34

colleagues. We’re going to lose. Are you aware that we’re going to lose jobs if we don’t fulfill our capital program here in Burlington for construction workers and trades to build the roads that won’t be built if we provide a subsidy to to the to the development charges that is unfunded by the provincial and federal government? Is that a concern or is that not part of your mandate >> through the chair? Um, all jobs are important um, in the construction industry and there is some back and

01:56:04

forth in terms of the construction workers whether they’re working on public infrastructure projects or um, projects in our sector. Um, I guess I have trouble with the notion of subsidy when your revenues are crashing as it is. I think um, Mayor Steven Deluca and Bond said it best when he said he’d rather get, you know, part of something than all of nothing. um your DC revenues went down in 2025 relative to the previous couple of years. If you don’t do anything going forward, your DC

01:56:33

revenues in 2026 and 2027 are probably going to be a fraction of what they were before. And I’m also concerned about the city’s long-term revenues. I think that there is sometimes an overemphasis or focus on the money right in front of you that might be collected through a DC versus the long-term property tax revenue through assessment growth. Um, an example would be the Paradigm project that Vince Molinro uh built. I actually have the numbers right in front of me that the uh properties on Fair View Avenue

01:57:02

pre-development brought in $18,000 and $19,000 a year in property taxes. That’s about $40,000 a year. Post development, $1.5 million, not once. That’s this year, next year, every year going forward. There are two additional buildings under construction. Uh that’ll probably bring in another million dollars on an annual basis. So, >> if you’re looking at the fiscal impact, the long-term fiscal impact on the city is that if you don’t get the assessment growth, you’re going to be in trouble in

01:57:30

a few years. >> Thank you. And I’m going to ask a followup, mayor, because that went a little off off my question. Uh, and I’ll note that the our assessment growth figures could not be provided in time for this meeting. Uh, exactly the procedure problems that you you have so much disdain for in your delegation. Um, that’s what what do you think DC revenues are for? Do you think that they’re for us to go spend on new fresh things or are they to uh help connect people into their community for new

01:57:57

roads? Do you think that we’re profiting off of DC’s? Do you think we’re profiting off of assessment growth? Do you think that’s all like to to build new city halls or is it to actually respect counselor? I have 20 years of experience working through DC background studies. So I have a pretty good idea of what DC revenues go through. The act has been changed multiple times and the definition of growth paying for growth has changed def uh multiple times. There have been a series of changes recently

01:58:23

that filter um what is benefit to existing um you know long-term 10ear um 10ear service standards. So the definition of what growth paying for growth is is in constant flux. You do have a significant reserve um in the DCs that can be tapped into on a temporary basis. And the ask here is temporary. We’re asking you to provide relief on a temporary basis and then go back to the full DCs. Um the revenue is not coming in anyway. So in terms of your long-term capital plan, DCS have been part of that

01:58:58

in the past. They’ll be part of that in the future. We’re trying to get shovels in the ground to save jobs to deal with the crisis right now. And as I said during my delegation, we want to partner with you, with other members of council and the mayor to try to get every penny that we can out of the federal and provincial governments. As I said, there’s an opportunity through the building faster fund to potentially backfill some of that potential lost revenue. And I think there’s

01:59:23

opportunities from the federal government um to fulfill some of their campaign commitments um to provide housing enabling infrastructure. We’re there with you. We want to support Burlington getting as much money as they can. And I think that by showing leadership, you’re actually putting political pressure on those levels of government to do something. >> Chair, way off way off topic here. I’m sure he’ll get a chance to answer more later, but this that was not what the question was about.

01:59:50

>> He was asking the he was answering the question around what DC’s pay for. So, okay. >> Councelor Greath, you’re next. >> Thank you, Mayor, and thanks for being here today, Mike, and thanks for the delegation. Um, I’ve often been focused on the business community in Burlington and jobs uh with my support for the DC reduction. Um, you gave us some numbers uh last time uh with regards to Hamilton job losses last year. Do you have any update on on the Burlington job losses

02:00:22

last year and any any sort of outlook in the future about uh job losses in Burlington if we do not make this uh uh DC reduction incentive? I don’t have a specific number for you but I can say that um on uh roughly uh sort of national averages that uh there are 3.8 person years of employment provided po for ground oriented housing uh 1.5 person years of housing provided for um multi-unit high-rise. So with each decline in housing starts or if you don’t get a 200 unit building that’s 300

02:00:57

potential job losses right there. Um, and I think longer term, uh, you need to think beyond the actual jobs on site. There are a lot of suppliers and manufacturers, uh, in Burlington that sort of feed into that long-term supply chain. Um, you know, the numbers are going down with the housing starts going down. And I think last week at committee of the whole, it was a pretty sobering um, discussion from CHC in terms of the uh, the housing start numbers. But um to answer your question directly, I’ I’ve

02:01:26

got numbers per housing start, but not the specific numbers for Burlington. >> Gotcha. Thank you for that. Um a second question, um you just kind of mentioned it, but I I’m curious about the political pressure if we do this. Does this improve our chances of your advocacy work at the federal and provincial governments if we show leadership and and pass a DC reduction? Does this improve our chances in your opinion? >> Through the chair significantly. There’s 444 municipalities in Ontario. All of

02:01:56

you are fighting for the attention of Minister Flack and uh Premier Ford and um I think since 2018 when this election, this government was elected, uh it’s been pretty clearly demonstrated that they respond to political pressure uh and I think that by doing something unique, by doing something bold in which the risk is actually fairly low because the amount of DC revenue coming in is is falling off a cliff. So providing a temporary exemption is a low-risk opportunity to put yourselves at the

02:02:25

very top of the pile for um the provincial or federal government to uh look at uh additional dollars uh be it one-time grants or something special or through uh reform to the building faster fund. >> Thanks for that answer, >> councelor Bentovenia. >> Thank you, Mayor. And uh thank you uh Mike for uh for being here. I think we all understand where you’re coming from and I think for the most part depending again how we look at this thing. We’re with you. We want to partner as best as

02:03:03

we can. This weekend we talk about short term. I learned how to bring people into a phone call so we have more than one. So, I almost had a conference call with a number of people on this subject. My question to you, Mike, is did you get a chance to read the supplementary staff memo? >> They’re all in front of me. >> Okay. So specifically questions seven and eight that we have not discussed in in any detail as far as I could remember for the last six months with respect to bonusing.

02:03:43

Um that was a question that was brought up internally with people I’ve spoken to saying how will that affect this program in in that if we limit the dollars for example if we do a grant program or something and we run out of money that we have committed to I guess that’s something what give me some comments on that What can we do there >> through the chair? My concern with um an upside limit is that may prevent the dollars from actually completely flowing through to the consumer. Um

02:04:26

ultimately the big issue that we have right now is the resale value of any comparable unit in Burlington is below the actual construction cost to build and deliver. Just there’s a there’s a gap in the market. So the only way that we are going to be able to sell new units, get those units under construction and save jobs is to reduce pricing. Um and by lowering the DCs or you know, we’re also looking at the provincial and federal government in terms of lowering um GST or PST, we need

02:05:00

to bring those prices down. And if it’s built right into the DC bylaw, we can provide full consumer disclosure on purchase and sale agreements. they’ll see it right there in black and white that um there’s that $12,000 and change reduction and any of our builder members can reduce their prices accordingly. If it’s through a grant program and there’s an upside limit, so to speak, um folks in the building industry like like Vince can’t put it on their they can’t build it into the price in in their sales

02:05:31

program because they don’t know if they’ll ultimately receive it. That creates a lot of risk for the consumer that if they’re buying, I don’t know, a $400,000 unit and there’s going to be 12 or $13,000 off, um, it’s either built into the price right up front and they know with certainty what the price is going to be. Uh, my concern is if it’s through a grant program and it’s on the back end, um, there may be an adjustment on closing and that consumer would have to pay the

02:05:58

pay the additional $13,000 on closing if they don’t get the grant. Um, and depending on the bank, depending on their financial situation, nobody wants an extra $13,000 unexpected bill, and the bank may not close them on their mortgage if they can’t come up with that money. >> Thank you very much. That’s helpful. Uh, my second question has to do with, and I want to bring up the fact that you mentioned, and you know, we’ve talked about it, 100% of nothing is nothing. And last year we received from our

02:06:31

committee meeting $6.8 8 million in DC charges uh which included which I didn’t realize building permits and applications. So that’s uh the actual real DC charges is probably less from what I was thinking about before this happened. So our discussion on the phone was simple. If we don’t do this and this continues to get worse the situation, who ultimately is going to pay for the services that we have? Because that’s a big discussion we have. Our three $380 million budget is going to go

02:07:16

up next year. And if we don’t get DC charges, which we’re not expecting because nothing’s happening, that pie is going to get we’re still got to pay for that piec. So, we’re going to pay now or pay more later. >> So, through the chair, uh that’s that’s a great question that if the money doesn’t come in, what happens? So, um, your your neighbors just down the highway in Toronto are going through this cuz they’ve put, you know, they’ve expected multiple billions of dollars in

02:07:46

DC revenue, uh, coming in over the next decade to pay for a lot of TTC work, expansion, etc. Um, they’ve hit a wall in that the condo sector in Toronto is completely dead and they’ve come to the realization that there are hundreds of millions of dollars that are never ever going to show up. um as as the crisis warten’s buildings get cancelled etc. So the city of Toronto right now is going through an exercise where there are potentially going to be massive property tax increases to backfill the loss of

02:08:18

the DC revenue. Um long-term capital projects are getting cancelled. Long-term capital projects are getting delayed putting out a decade further. and they’re begging the province and the federal government to uh provide relief because Toronto put too many um too many eggs in the DC basket and the condo market does not exist. So, uh on a smaller scale, something similar could happen here where your options are to move it to the property taxes or um some of those long-term capital projects um

02:08:47

won’t happen. >> Thank you for that and I know the residents are listening. Thank you, >> Councelor Charman. Thanks for being here, Mike. Um, I’m just reflecting on the presentation that we got from uh Anthony Paselli from Canada Mortgage and Housing uh Corporation at Pipeline to permit and his comment their their projection is that the high for 2026 in Burlington is 500 new uh and the low is 300. Do you think those numbers are in the right ballpark or are they still too high or

02:09:26

what? >> They’re likely in through the chair. They’re likely in the ballpark, but you have to remember that the CHC numbers are for housing starts are based on foundations being poured. So, a number of those buildings are actually already have building permits pulled and are already under construction uh and are excavating. So CHC might have a more direct line of sight on that spec specific figure, which is a little different than what the city might be looking at in terms of um future

02:09:57

permits. Um so they’re they’re probably in the ballpark there. And um I believe 100 of those units in each of those figures was for ADUs. So in terms of the more traditional housing starts, be it singles, town homes, uh and larger buildings, etc., or it would have been 400 rather than 500. >> Thank you. The AR ARUS were an addition to that. By the way, I just picked the residential. What the question I have, if I might follow up, if you take out the ones the CHC would have seen anyway

02:10:26

because they were in process, then is there a further increment on top of those that that we you would expect that would get us into the kind of scale of the numbers that we were seeing being projected um in our, you know, years old uh assessments >> through the chair. That’s why I’m frankly a little confused when I see 3,359 units in the staff report. Um when CHC, which has a pretty good line of sight on, uh market conditions and what may happen are are at a fraction of that. Um you know, market conditions can change.

02:11:06

uh things could improve, but if they improve, it would be incremental, not suddenly everything in the world changes and um you know, we’re back to the heady days of a decade ago. And if we were back to the days of a decade ago, I certainly wouldn’t be here before council pleading with you to help save jobs. Um and there’s also a risk things could get worse. >> Thank you very much for that. If I my my second question is back to Anthony Pzerelli’s presentation, he pointed out

02:11:34

that the gap pricing gap between a new home and a an existing home or resale um for a town home is is like $500,000. So $670,000 for a re existing resale versus 1.1 for a new. uh which raises all sorts of questions about why would anybody buy a new home and is that and and yet recognize that retail is kind of a cat capacity. There are new there are no new resales. So is that what’s driving this issue that that we need to be cognizant of and that could require us to be um trying to stimulate the market even in a

02:12:12

minor tiny way >> through the chair. Fundamentally that is the crux of the issue. There is a massive delta right now between the market price of housing which is reflected in the resale market and what it costs to actually build and deliver a home with all of the taxes from all three levels of government involved. And you know, there’s work to be done on our side of the ledger in terms of sharpening our pencils to try to reduce our construction costs uh to make things more affordable, which would help with

02:12:42

the workforce housing certainly if we can bring uh bring cost down. Um and some of that’s on the material side, some of that’s on the labor side, although, you know, reducing labor cost also means people are making less money, which isn’t the greatest outcome if Burlington residents are having uh fewer dollars come in. But on the government side, that’s that’s why we’re here before you today. Um, this industry and the jobs we support are not going to rebound unless we can reduce prices.

02:13:10

Reduce prices for consumers. So I think that should give this council confidence that if DCs are reduced, if DCs are eliminated, 100% of that reduction is going to be passed on to consumers because if that doesn’t happen, nothing gets built. >> Along with another $175,000 of other government funds on top of that. Thank you. >> We’re we’re hoping for good news from the province soon. >> Councelor Karns, >> thank you very much for being here. I wanted to pick up on one of the comments

02:13:41

that you made related to uh an assessment on Burlington holding significant reserves and I just wanted to know if you were aware that um any offsets that are not picked up by the federal and the provincial government would have to come out of the taxpayers’s back pocket. This is what the taxpayers back pocket looks like. It’s a stabilization reserve fund where our target is 10 to 15%. As of September 2025, we held 6.3% of our revenues. So, uh well below that. That’s the first place we’re going to grab money from.

02:14:10

Next place will be our capital reserve fund. Um that too is underfunded as well. Um that would be depleted as well. First, we also put a 2% infrastructure renewal uh levy on top of the tax uh rate for the city this past year, 2026. Thank you for referencing Vaughn who had a 0% uh city tax increase. And then we would also go to our surpluses at the end of the year. And that traditionally looks like it’s appendix B of FIN 3625 1.1 to 1.4 million of of per year which is about.3 to4% of our gross budget. So

02:14:48

uh we have nowhere uh to pull this money from because we are underfunded in all of those areas and I’m just wondering um what methodology did you use to determine that Burlington has significant reserves >> through the chair? you do have a capital reserve in the development charges um reserve fund uh as do most municipalities across Ontario. And the reality is that the amount of money coming into that fund is going to be declining and there are going to have to be some difficult decisions made around

02:15:17

this um horseshoe whether or not you do anything with development charges going forward. Um the cash cow that development charges provided in the past is not going to look the same in the future in terms of your long-term revenue there. And every year when you’re working on your operational budgets and your capital budgets, um there is a certain degree of property tax assessment growth which I referenced earlier. That property tax assessment growth generally comes through uh new construction uh be it residential or as

02:15:46

well on the commercial and industrial side. And um if we’re not building then there aren’t going to be those additional millions of dollars coming in. So I can appreciate your concern uh regarding which bucket the money comes from. Um but the reality is that we are looking at a future in which there is less money coming into the various buckets going forward and unless this industry gets moving again um you’re going to have some serious financial issues going forward. >> Great. Thank you. My second question is

02:16:18

related to the province and so I assume you’re a lobbyist although I haven’t seen you registered on our lobbyist registry since 2022 but I assume you are. Uh in that regard how are you working with the province? When I look at the financial accountability office of Ontario and they’ve just released their winter uh outlook on February 11th, 2026 and it’s indicating a 7.6% unemployment rate which is up uh about half a just over half a percent from last year. Is that isolated to your

02:16:47

industry or are we seeing that across all industries and how vocal is your industry being with getting the support that we need from the provincial government >> through the chair? I think um it’s not even across all industries. I think there’s two industries in Ontario that have been severely impacted by the current downturn. It’s ourselves and it’s the manufacturing which certainly includes the uh the automotive sector. So, um there’s a lot of skilled trades in our sort of call it uh bluecollar

02:17:14

work. Um and and it’s targeted in certain municipalities. I think um h your next door neighbor in Hamilton certainly um feeling um acute challenges both from the construction slowdown and from some of the manufacturing slowdown. So those are concerning numbers going forward and certainly we don’t want things to get worse. uh in terms of our work with the provincial government um you know I I should have been uh with minister flack uh right now but um there’s a lot of work through our

02:17:42

provincial association and through ourselves happening uh with the ministry of municipal affairs and housing happening with the ministry of finance and a number of other ministries um we are very engaged in a lot of discussions related to housing enabling uh infrastructure uh water wastewater systems looking at different ways of funding uh long-term water and waste water to get them out of the DCs. Um I think the uh the public utility model uh is going to be piloted in um Peele region. There’s a reason why development

02:18:11

charges are only $22,000 in Calgary versus 100,000 plus when you add region and local in most municipalities across the GTA and they have an entirely different model out west. So um we are looking at what’s working in other provinces versus >> going to redirect you. I’m just wondering, are you having any success with the province? Because our first motion that was tabled 6 months ago almost really was contingent about being made whole on the province. So, if you’re a lobbyist, where are you on that

02:18:39

with the province? >> I would say that we’re making progress. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Those are my two for now. >> Uh I see it’s mostly second time. Speaker, did you ask a question yet? Yeah. Okay. Uh I’m going to jump in with the first time question. So, uh, one of the, um, uh, concerns, uh, certainly that I have is making sure that, uh, any benefit to reduction of price goes where most needed. So, not on luxury condos or homes, uh, not on high-end products. So, uh, had we dealt with this, uh, there I

02:19:14

can guarantee you there would have been an amendment to cap the per unit price and are what are your thoughts around capping that to an affordability uh, rate? >> Um, through the chair, um, depending what that cap figure was so that it captured um, enough of the broader market to actually um, get jobs going, get construction going. I certainly don’t have a problem with the cap to exclude um so-called luxury or higherend housing. I think that this should be focused on uh workforce housing or

02:19:47

housing that the the broader um you know that Burlington young Burlington residents uh folks moving here um sort of that middle inome market can afford. >> Okay, we’re on the same page there. Uh my second question is around the right tool. Uh and you touched on it in your delegation uh information around the difference between a community improvement plan, which is one tool that we have to uh do a grant program versus changing the DC bylaw. And the concern around the DC bylaw change is um as I

02:20:24

understand it uh but this is a question for you and whenever we get to the item two weeks from now, I’ll ask staff. that um the uh the concern that the DC regulations set by the province set the DC rate at site plan which is not yet construction not shovel in the ground not foundation like that’s what we really want to um pursue not uh you know permits people sitting on approvals and not actually getting shovel in the ground. So, do you uh do you have thoughts around how we might uh ensure

02:20:56

that this only goes to uh we’ve addressed affordability, but also to those that get shovel in the ground to actually build homes within the two years. Uh, so through the chair, I’m I’m in full agreement with the the city’s strategy and the city’s focus that this is a jobs first strategy to try to get shovels in the ground, protect jobs, and and to get that assessment growth so that um the the city does financially benefit in the long run. Uh in terms of the appropriate tool, I’m not

02:21:24

particularly thust on which tool is implemented as long as that there is certainty on behalf of the proponent. if if somebody’s going to move forward with a project, they have to have certainty uh as to the financial outcomes and financial uh exposure because ultimately if this is about reducing pricing and I think that’s what members of council and the city wants to see that this is reflected in the purchase price so that that potential buyer in Burlington is receiving the full 100% benefit. um

02:21:57

there can’t be uncertainty that when construction is completed that um the the so-called benefit of the the DC reduction um expires or or is revoked. So um it’s building a box uh so that there’s clarity on when you’re in when you’re out. Um and I understand the focus on construction and uh that there may be limited tools legally as to how you actually implement this. um understanding that um you know it gets locked in at site plan. Generally when people move to site plan they are

02:22:30

planning on proceeding with construction there can be a little bit of a lag. It it would be a lot um cleaner if we could do this at permit. Uh but if it is it is stuck on site plan that is still a project that’s moving forward. um just whatever the tool is that is ultimately landed on um that there has to be certainty that there is the path through the consumer and that there is no surprise as an adjustment on closing at the end because the grant or the CIP or the DC reduction was not ultimately

02:23:03

provided. Um anybody having a $13,000 surprise when they closed, that’s not a good surprise. >> Okay, thank you. Councelor Nissan, you’re next. Yeah, thank you. Actually, it’s related to that. Um, so you you’ve been advocating for the DCs obviously and that’s kind of the hot topic versus the grants, but um maybe we’ll take another look at grant at the CIP grant as well, but uh you mentioned that um like if we go through the developers that they’ll reduce their prices accordingly. But

02:23:37

there and you also mentioned that the cost of um building right now and and associated costs and fees is more than what it would be uh than than what you could charge for it. So you want the DCs to go down in order to uh get over the hump uh to make the cost uh of the house less uh than the price that you can charge for it into the market. So if we do the DC review, obviously um developers are not for-profit corporations. They need to make a profit. I mean that’s that’s why they’re here. So how do we guar doesn’t that

02:24:19

imply though? Doesn’t that guarantee that a portion of the DCs that we would be forgiving will go towards developers profiting >> through the chair? No. 100% would be passed on. Uh, and that would go the same for the provincial um um GST or or HST. And uh by way I’ll just a basic example. If it cost if the market’s at $80 and it cost $100 to deliver a builder, a developer cannot go to any bank with a proforma saying they’re only going to bring in $90 to build it. The banks generally expect

02:24:58

a 10 to 15% profit. um they require on the high-rise side 70% of units to be pre-sold. They’ve actually changed that to about n uh 80% because now residential construction is perceived to be so risky that a lot of the large banks won’t finance it anymore. Um there are a lot of projects that are in downtown Toronto that are underwater by hundreds of millions of dollars. So there’s a risk profile here. Um, but if the DC reduction brings you from $100 to $90, because it’s not going to

02:25:31

cover the gap, but it helps, that means that the builder or developer can go to the market at the $90 rate instead of the $100 rate and hope to move a few units. I’ve said before and I’ll say again today that what we’re discussing today is not going to solve the problem. It’s not going to completely cover that delta. There is a role there’s a more significant role perhaps for the federal and provincial government to step into this space and there’s a lot of advocacy being done at

02:25:57

the provincial and federal governments to take a hard look at GST and HST. At the end of the day, it’s going to take all three levels of government to um cover that delta. And if we get there, the end result is going to be more affordable housing, more of that workforce housing at the lower end of the market and hopefully more jobs. We we have a housing system that’s fundamentally broken because the cost to deliver exceeds what the market is and we’re trying to we’re trying to bring

02:26:26

the cost down. So if if we save five bucks from you that five bucks gets passed on. >> Okay. So I think we’re on the same page then which is you made an example where it comes down to 90 but actually they need to exceed that by 10 to 15%. They have to show the profit to go to the bank. So and and I and developers should profit. I mean, how else would it work in the in a in a market system? But doesn’t that show that a portion of our DC reduction and uh HST reduction, which I totally agree has to occur and maybe

02:26:56

more provincial support, federal support, that’s going to have to go into their profit. It has to to go to the banks. So, our DC reduction is going to go towards profit >> through the chair. I I I disagree with that framing because at the the $100 number that I said is as as an example that already includes that 10 to 15% profit. So if we’re looking at $100 markets 80, we’ll use round numbers. So $90 might be the pure cost to build, but the bank is not going to issue the construction financing loan unless you

02:27:28

pull in 100. So the price is set at 100 having built in that $10. Uh so the DC reduction comes off the top. If anything actually the DC reduction helps with the profit number because again using round numbers if the bank expects a 10% profit and if you have a $100,000 development charge which is what a lot of the rough math is for regional plus local. The bank’s going to expect to see a 10% profit on that $100,000. and the provincial and federal government because of the way that um the HST GST is structured as a value

02:28:05

added tax charges a 13% on that. So a $100,000 DC results in 13% interest. So that’s immediately $13,000 and then the bank is going to require as part of the larger envelope 10% profit on that. So you’re looking at $123,000. So, if you reduce your DCS by $13,000, when you run all the math, that might actually take 14 or $15,000 off the sticker price. >> Okay, fair enough. Uh my my second question, it’s it’s very related, which is um again 20 years experience. So, uh all this question about whether

02:28:43

developers are taking and again developers need to take a profit in order to work. So, I totally get it. They deserve a salary as well. But what if we did what if we sunk this money this 16 to $41 million into not for-profit housing? Then there doesn’t need to be uh that that profit margin in order to go to the bank. There’s there’s different banks. There’s the federal bank. So and and I assume some of your members are not for-p profofit builders. So uh would that also create the jobs

02:29:11

and allow us to um uh to deliver affordable housing >> through the chair? This is not going to cost 16 to 42 million. I think we, you know, there was the 6.8 million which was collected last year which already, I believe, included the building permit fees, etc., which we’re not talking about reducing. So, we’re talking about a fraction of that. Um, the money coming in in 2026, if nothing is done, is going to be lower than what it was last year. And council at any time is free to spend

02:29:42

tens of millions of dollars, should you choose to do so, on below affordable housing. But I certainly haven’t seen that in the past. So you can make that decision anytime you would like. >> I’m going with the staff first though. I just want to be clear about that. Thank you. >> Understand. >> Councelor Bentania. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I want to talk a little bit and going back to the uh supplement staff memo. Um I want to talk a little bit about the development charges and the the exposure assumption.

02:30:16

Question number one. I learned that what we’re talking about here is not just a two-year freeze because the two-year freeze actually is expanded to another 18 months and and it talks about I can read the whole thing but I won’t. but not only would it freeze uh to apply to the building permits but also to development applications and that that the reduced eliminate DC rate would effectively extend beyond the 2-year time frame. So, I mean I’m not sure I mean I get what this means. Is that mean that now we have 42 months

02:31:02

from the two-year or in my case I’m just going to ask you if we did one year and when would it be 9 months or 18 months? I wouldn’t know that. So, can you comment on on how that would work with >> trying to do here to help you >> through the chair? And this may require clarification from staff, but my reading would be you have to go through the door in the two years. And then if you’ve got the site plan within the two years, you have 18 months to start construction. But that doesn’t allow somebody to come

02:31:38

in on 2 years plus a day to walk in that front door. So, you’re still creating a structure where it’s it’s two years to um I guess hit that hit that mark that you’re in that you’re part of the program. Uh and then uh a period of time to to get the shovels in the ground. And I think what that helps do is provide certainty for proponents to be able to adjust their price lists uh and be able to sell those units to hopefully get under construction to sell those 70% of units or you know if it’s ground

02:32:11

oriented if it’s a town home it’s it’s much easier to get under construction. I mean, to be blunt, I’d be surprised if any highrises get under construction um through this program, but my reading of it is it is only a 2-year time period to get in the door, but once you’re successfully through the door, you’ve got a little bit of breathing room to get your affairs in order to get under construction. >> Um, and maybe in the long run, that would allow, >> you know, any financial exposure of the

02:32:41

city to actually be spread over a longer period than two years. Um, which doesn’t mean more money. It means whatever the exposure is, it’s it’s spread. >> Okay, I’m just going to pause us there. We we are at noon, but councelor Krenz, you had a point of order. Go ahead. >> Uh, my point of order, thank you very much for acknowledging, mayor, is in fact that we are at noon. Um, I did indicate at the beginning of the agenda that I had a hard stop, which I still have. However, I do want to be extremely

02:33:08

respectful of the delegates that are still in chambers and I think we may need to modify what was identified at the beginning for the hard stop. I’m happy to excuse myself to 10 minutes and then hand over the meeting to my office, which is not optimal, but it is workable. Um, and I just wanted to know if there is a requirement for a vote to do that uh by the clerk and that we can move through lunch since we have a number of delegates still to go. I would look to uh committee to determine whether you want to pause now

02:33:39

or you want to continue to hear delegations. Council >> I’d like to I think we need to take the pause. We’re this will happen uh this is happening again in two weeks anyways. Um if delegates uh would like to uh stay until 1:00 they can or else they’ll have later. The alternative mayor is to take a recess and and consult with the delegates about it. Thank you. Uh, councelor Stoalty, >> I too would advocate for the pause. I’m just realizing that I didn’t time the clock. I don’t know if the clerk can let

02:34:13

us know, but our very first delegate, we’ve been having a question and answer period for I’m going to say 45 minutes. There’s nothing saying that that also won’t happen with our other delegates. So, without taking lunch, we could be still here at 2:30. >> Okay. Councelor Gre, >> uh, I vote I vote to continue. I think uh this delegate being the CEO of WHBA obviously we have lots of questions for him so I would support continuing right now and if we lose one counselor then I

02:34:41

think we there’s still six of us >> councelor Charvin >> well I I think I’d like to finish the delegation from the current uh delegate um and then I think we should take a halfhour break uh no longer but I do think we need a break >> okay councelor Bentovenia I’d like to at least finish my second question and then we can do whatever the committee decides. >> Okay. Uh I uh unless somebody wants to put an alternative motion on the floor for a vote suggest we complete this

02:35:15

delegation then take a break for half an hour. So that includes you, but there may be other questions uh for the delegation as well. Okay. Councelor Karns, go ahead. >> Okay. So I’m going to put a I’m going to >> Okay. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So I want I’m just looking I don’t know if I’m allowed to speak through the chambers but like Shannon yours is a very fast delegation. Is that correct? >> I can wait till after lunch. >> You can wait till after lunch. Okay.

02:35:37

After lunch. Can I get a nod from Del Okay. So happy to take that break and go with with what has been said. So hear from this delegate and then a half hour break. >> Okay. Uh Angela the floor is yours for your second question. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh this was quite a contentious discussion on the phone and going back to the supplemental staff memo. Um it doesn’t mention in this in this supplement staff memo that there is $51 million in a DC reserve fund of the which was mentioned uh at the at the um

02:36:16

committee meeting on Monday. of the $51 million in the DC fund, 35 million of it was uncommitted. So knowing that we had $6.8 million in DC charges last year and in your delegation, you’re saying that it’ll be a fraction moving forward for 2026 and 2027 if we do the 100%. and it’s already in the reserve fund. Do you think 35 million of the UN uncommitted fund will be sufficient for the two years and then this way it doesn’t really cost anybody any money other than what’s in the reserve fund

02:37:05

and then once business kicks in they can rebuild that reserve fund through the normal process. Can you comment on that >> through through the chair? I I sort of look at this as as sort of the the opportunity cost and understanding that whatever the quote unquote cost of this is that the money is not going to be coming in in future years like it was in past years. So whether council chooses to move forward with an elimination of DC’s or whether council chooses not to move forward with an elimination of

02:37:39

DC’s, there’s going to be incredible pressure on that fund and there may have to be some difficult decisions made about long-term capital projects. I think on a temporary emergency basis, uh there’s the opportunity to dip into that reserve fund, keeping in mind that this is temporary and we’re in a unique situation. Um, but in the long term, I certainly don’t advocate for um council to utilize reserve funds. I mean, that’s what it’s there for. It’s collected money in the past for long-term capital

02:38:09

projects. Um and you know the next time you do the full um DC background study because of what’s happened in the last couple of years with the market there may be some different numbers in the long term going forward in terms of what are your realistic population projections. What are the realistic um pressures on long-term infrastructure because I think the assumptions being made today are different than what the assumptions would have been made when that DC background study took place. So

02:38:40

there’s less money coming in, but there’s also less infrastructure requirements on on the other side because of the speed and pace of growth. And we’re also in an interesting political climate where there are potentially going to be some major shifts proincially and federally in terms of infrastructure funding. Okay, just to follow up. So would you say in the next two years of the 35 million, what would you sort of reasonable guess estimate that we would need to pull out of there knowing that

02:39:13

we did 6.8 million last year? >> And that includes that would include building permits as well. >> Through the chair, you’re certainly putting me on the spot and I I I I don’t know the split between building permits and not building permits. Um now generally uh the buildings department is able to fund itself through permit revenue and they have their own reserve on on building permits um to ensure that you know wild fluctuations from year to year don’t necessarily impact staff

02:39:42

numbers. So sort of separating the two because there is a building I’m going to get the name wrong but a building permit stabilization reserve fund and then you have the DC reserve fund. I mean, if we get a couple buildings going, we could be looking at three or4 million dollars a year. But, um, you know, we’ve done our own poll of members to understand what may or may not be able to get moving. And there’s a couple buildings that if approvals go right, if the market turns around and they are able to

02:40:11

start selling some units this spring or this fall, at the back end of the two years, you might see a couple buildings get going. For the most part, I think what this um elimination of DCs might be able to do is some of the groundoriented product may be able to move more quickly um because you don’t have to pre-ell uh 70 or 80% of a building. Um and I I think that’s the challenge and that’s why we’re talking about 2 years versus one year that to obtain that bank financing you need a robust sales

02:40:41

program. So, um I hesitate to make a guess. It’s just it’s it’s going to be lower than the 6.8. and and lower than whatever the >> staff that question too. Thank you >> councelor Stoalty. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um so Mike, a lot of your delegation and your ongoing advocacy which I like especially given the fact my background is social work and I would love to save the world if I could. I’m sure charms I know I was waiting for that snort. Um the question I have of which

02:41:14

councelor Charman will appreciate I think because it goes down his track is when you talk about uh saving jobs of our residents do you actually have data regarding how many individuals whose jobs are at risk are actual residents of Burlington because as much as I would love to save jobs for everyone how much are we talking about actual Burlington residents and do you have data that supports that? >> In the residential construction industry we sort of talk about regional market areas. Um, so a lot of the data that we

02:41:40

have would be for the Hamilton census metropolitan region area, which includes your neighbor to Hamilton. Um, you know, borders of municipalities aren’t hard lines in terms of uh commuter sheds. So what is unique about the industry is it is a hyper local industry. Now that may bleed over to Oakville, Hamilton, Milton, and here, but it also works the other way around. There are residents of Burlington that work in Oakville, work in Milton, and work in Hamilton. Um, our industry is unique in that you cannot

02:42:11

export residential construction to a plant in China or a plant in Mexico. We are an on-site manufacturers and fabricators that homes in Burlington or the surrounding regions in which residents of Burlington may go to work on those sites are built and fabricated on site by people and the supply chains are generally local as well. So they may not be Burlington jobs, but any wood that you see going into a building is generally from the north northern Ontario. Uh and any of the concrete is typically from Milton, the Nelson

02:42:45

aggregate pit. And a lot of the bricks are um you know, for example, Bmpton Brick has a plant in in Bmpton and in Cambridge. So, um, to answer your question, the regional market area in terms of jobs bleeds across municipal boundaries, but you have to remember that those Burlington residents also go to work in Milton or Hamilton as well, but it’s it is a single regional market area. >> Thank you. Just to follow up to that, do you have an average salary for workers in the industry? Are they that would

02:43:14

certainly dictate whether or not they’re actually living in Burlington or Hamilton and reaches that are more affordable than here? not at my fingertips, but I can get you um Statistics Canada data um and and keep in mind that there’s a diversity of jobs. So, when we look at on-site skilled trades um they are generally paid above the Canadian average. Now, whether those people can afford homes in Burlington, that’s a different question. Uh we did a report with Dr. Mike Moffett uh focused on Hamilton um two years ago

02:43:43

that looked at the average salary of a nurse, average salary of um somebody driving a bus in Hamilton. a number of basic bluecollar jobs and we found that 101 15 years ago though it was called who will swing the hammer and that’s one of the problems that we have as an industry that increasingly the people who build our homes are not able to afford the communities that they actually build in. Uh and this is a problem that we have in terms of our workforce long-term that housing is becoming out of reach from the very

02:44:12

people who build housing. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I’ll jump in for a second time question before we go to third round uh with councelor Nissan. So I just wanted to draw your attention to uh attachment B of the response to the mayor’s decision um for additional information and table three the estimated DC revenues for 2026. So we had the the range that was provided based on uh thousands of units coming online. Uh and then we have the sort of the realistic projection. Um, so it it has uh single

02:44:47

and semis at about 128 units. Those are at the highest DC rate of 21,000. We’ve got estimated apartments at 77. Those are at 11,000 DC rate. And then apartments onebedroom or less at 115. Uh current DC rate on those is 8700. And then ARUS which don’t uh pay DCS at all. Uh nor should they. So um roughly 400 units in total of which about 80 are ARUS that are DC exempt already. So the the cost there being roughly 4.6 million in lost uh DC revenue nowhere near the 16 and and not even close to 42. So

02:45:32

given what you know from your uh members is that uh a realistic picture or is that even still uh an optimistic one? >> Uh so through the chair that gives me uh some relief that the numbers I provided the previous counselor were within uh the range on the staff report from the uh CHC numbers. Given that we’re looking at two years and the crystal ball gets more and more blurry the further away from today you get um I think that those are reasonable numbers um in the mid-range if if current trends continue those apartment

02:46:13

units certainly aren’t going to move forward but I think if Burlington makes this move and um if the provincial government comes through on um some things that were under discussion with them um that this becomes more realistic and then as you get to the tail end of two years that crystal ball gets a little more fuzzy. >> Okay. And then uh attachment C uh in answer to the third question in the mayor’s decision uh showed building permit revenue over the same period that would not be realized if uh applications

02:46:46

don’t go in at $2.9 million um against the 4.6 six and that doesn’t account for assessment growth. I think you mentioned in one building it’s over a million dollars in assessment growth year over year uh over year. So is that um and then you can see some of the specific projects that they’re basing the unit count on. Is that uh again based on your members do you think that’s realistic to come forward? >> Again the crystal ball is difficult. We’ve done some sampling uh with members

02:47:19

and you know even our members provide a number of asterises around uh if all things go right in the next two years uh a couple of them may be able to bring uh buildings forward. Uh, I appreciate your example from the building permit revenue because the buildings department has a building permit stabilization reserve fund to deal with this exact situation. And that’s what I’m asking for council to consider with the development charges reserve fund that we are in a unique situation where uh revenues falling off

02:47:50

a cliff and you may need to dip on a temporary basis into those reserves and then the hope is in 2028 2029 2030 um that that revenue starts coming back in in a big way. Um, and in terms of the assessment growth, I mean, we’re talking about different buckets of money here. And, um, you know, my my overall concern is all of those buckets are are going down. Uh, we’re in a situation in which revenue will be lower, whatever bucket you’re talking about, and we’re talking about trying to provide some relief in

02:48:23

one of those buckets that may actually bring you more money in the other buckets. So if nothing is done in the grand scheme of things, there may be more le there may be less financial resources available and we’re fighting over the one bucket and it’s you know my concern is sure you’ll you’ll save some money coming to that bucket but then you’re not going to have any money in the others. So, um I don’t know. It’s it’s it’s it’s a challenging conversation I understand

02:48:51

for all of you, but um the revenue projections in the other buckets aren’t looking very good. >> And just as a followup, you’re referring to Parkland dedication, community benefits, assessment growth, uh which are also in the in this in the uh response to the staff the staff response to the mayor’s decision what those amounts are. All of those amounts um are certainly of concern, but the one that I put the most emphasis on is the uh the property tax assessment growth. Um the parkland, the community benefits, all of

02:49:20

these things are important, but they’re also sort of the the one-time injection of funds. Whereas, you know, if if that building at Fair View doesn’t get built, you’re not just at 40,000 versus 1.5 million this year, you’re at that next year, the year after, and the year after. So, um, there are some real long-term consequences of whether buildings get built or not, or even when buildings get built. If a building gets built in 2027, because the city um eliminated development charges temporarily versus

02:49:53

that building being put on hold or cancelled, and sure, maybe it’s got the entitlements in place, maybe the market turns and it gets built in 2022 or 2030, you’re still losing that 1.5 million over 5 years. And that’s uh $7.5 million over a 5-year period that the city’s given up on potential revenue so that you could save money in one year on development charges. And the money in that assessment growth vastly exceeds the one-time injection in DC revenue. >> Thank you. Uh councelor Nissan, over to

02:50:28

you. >> Thank you. And uh I’ll use a little preamble for my question here to uh just caution my uh my colleagues uh in asking Mike to answer questions that may be outside of his expertise. Um we have a CFO who cannot clarify for you right now in the Q&A. Uh but if he could, I think he would tell you that that $4 million figure is for one year, not for two years. And 16 million is over two years. um and uh that our capital program will have to go down that this money may not be committed but it is going somewhere

02:51:04

and it is tax dollar money. So um Mike is a f is doing a fantastic job and he’s an expert at getting things done for the development industry. Um I’m sorry you missed your meeting. Uh but you are welcome to come back in two weeks. You didn’t have to stay. Um and uh please ask Minister Flack to make us whole. Uh, Hallet Holmes, uh, you’re just talking about a couple buildings. I’m getting confused because Howallet Holmes wrote a letter for council today, uh, asking us to do this. So, presumably, they plan to

02:51:37

take advantage of it. And for everyone’s benefit, Halllet Holmes is building the homes in Milcraftoft that this that, uh, council opposed uh, with Milcraftoft Greens. So, um, they’re asking for us to do this so they can build the homes. So I I’m suspect I just would like you to clarify because it sounds like those Milcraftoft homes are going to get built a lot faster if we do this exemption >> through the chair. I did say earlier that the lowrise had a little more predictability versus the high-rise. Um

02:52:09

when you’re building uh if you have a project and I’ll use round numbers again. If you have a project uh with a 100 homes and you’re building single detached homes, you can sell those one by one and build them one by one. If you’re building a town home block and there’s four town homes or five town homes in them and you’ve got a 100, you can build that four or five at a time. Soon as you’re talking about a high-rise building with 150, 200, 300 units, um you need to sell between 70 and 80% of

02:52:40

those units to get those under construction. So, um, if council does move forward with this, there’s a little more certainty, uh, when we’re making estimates and forecast going forward on, um, some activity on the low-rise side. With the high-rise side, it is it is more difficult to forecast because yes, the 13,000 or $12,000 reduction in the DCS is helpful. It’s not going to be enough to clear that whole delta. So there’s a whole bunch of other things that have to also happen um in order for projects to move

02:53:17

forward. So this is an important conversation that we’re having today, but we also need help from other levels of government and as I said earlier, we also need to sharpen our pencils on our side of the ledger. So second and final question. Um agreeing that the market is in a in really bad shape and it has been for some time. We still did pull uh I believe it was 6 and a half uh million dollars. I’ll get staff to confirm. I think it was 6.5 million in DC’s last year. Um there will be homes that are

02:53:53

going to get built either way this year even without this reduction. Right. As you said, it’s incremental. The only difference is we’re not going to be collecting those DCs now and we would have otherwise. So do you do you agree that we’re going to lose revenue that we would have gotten otherwise like or or please provide context to that. Thank you >> through the chair. In some cases, yes, you might lose some revenue you would have not gotten otherwise and in other cases you will enable some projects to

02:54:20

move forward that would have not been built otherwise and you will obtain the long-term property tax assessment growth that I noted earlier. Um, you know, this I feel I’m empathetic for staff. This is difficult to have a crystal ball to understand what every dollar here or there is going to do. Um, and we don’t have a crystal ball over what’s going to happen south of the border and that obviously impacts uh market sentiment as well. >> Some of the >> sorry >> some of the $6.8 8 million that moved

02:54:51

forward. Um, you know, some of those projects were able to move forward in a tough economic circumstances. And some of those other projects, some of the projects that moved forward may have sold most of their units in 2021, 2022 when the market was pretty good and still had an additional couple steps to go in terms of approvals or maybe they were at 60% sales and they needed to get those last few. So, um, housing starts, I always say, are a lagging indicator, um, because they they even though that’s

02:55:20

when the jobs are created, and that’s sort of the good news around this table in terms of the jobs being created and and the money coming in terms of DC’s um, from sort of the way that we look at things, those represent yesterday’s sales and my concern is looking at Urban Nation or Altus or Zonda sales numbers and just how much of a cliff they went off in 2025. So, as we look forward into 2026 and 2027, we don’t have the sales numbers that are going to generate those starts. >> So, quick followup, as the mayor noted,

02:55:52

table 3 estimated DC revenues 2026. That’s based that’s one year and that’s based on not doing a DC um reduction or exemption or elimination. And that’s $4.66 uh million of foregone revenue. Is that right? Maybe I should ask that for staff. Actually, I’ll retract the question. I I’ll let your staff get this right. >> Can I just through the chair, if you look at the trend line though, in 2024, you had 11.1 million in revenue and then it goes down to the 6.8 recognizing that

02:56:25

includes some building permit revenue. So, in one year from 2024 to 2025, your revenues dropped almost in half. >> I agree. I I don’t think DC’s are the best way to do this. >> We’re into comments now. Uh, councelor Stoalty. Thank you, mayor. Um, so actually I appreciate the segue of councelor Nissan’s questions because that’s kind of where I was headed to. Um, I think we all have a different perspective on what’s fair and reasonable, but from my perspective sitting in this seat on fair

02:56:54

and reasonable, I really struggle with that idea that the homes being built at Milcraftoft could avail themselves of a potential program as it was passed last week. And I’d like to get your thoughts on do you think it’s fair and reasonable to put a condition that the DC charge reduction would be applicable only on projects that have been approved by this city council and not on projects that have been appealed to OOLT against this city council’s wishes >> through the chair. Um I don’t want to

02:57:22

speak to individual projects because frankly there are a lot of projects that have had to go through the tribunal. Um some of those projects um this council opposed. Other projects there was no decision made in the appropriate time. So those projects uh may have been appealed due to a non-decision. So we’re really getting into the weeds there. Perhaps a solution to um that particular issue is the mayor asked a question earlier about an upset limit in terms of luxury versus non-luxury homes.

02:57:53

>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that’s where my last question was going to go. I just looked up Howlet Homes and they build uh their entire product as a luxury market there. So, uh, knowing that you know the industry and you know pricing, uh, do you have any thoughts for us what a reasonable cap might be or a range of a cap might be to eliminate entirely the luxury product uh, on Milcraftoft which which none of us want to see go forward for a whole bunch of other reasons, myself included. >> Through the chair, I I want to emphasize

02:58:28

that I am not commenting on a specific project. Um, but I I believe in the CMHC presentation last week, and forgive me, I don’t have it in front of me, but I believe that there was a number around the average in Burlington being around 1.75, 1.8, something like that. Um, and recognizing that yes, that does look like a big number, but that is the market reality. If you want to uh encompass uh middle class housing, that is what is being built in Burlington, perhaps that would be a fair number. Uh

02:59:00

that would encompass um most of the multi-unit uh including entry level and you know that move up where somebody is um perhaps in a condo, they’ve got a kid, there’s another one on the way, they don’t want to move out of Burlington, they want to stay in Burlington and be able to have that move up product and then perhaps that solves some of the optics or challenges around um the higherend product would then be excus excluded. >> Okay. And then my final question uh again based on your expertise around

02:59:31

what you know of your members and who’s building what and that lag from um that lag over time. Uh the the CMHC at pipeline to permit said 2027 is where things would really fall off a cliff. And I’m just wondering if the um what what you are hearing from your members around if if it’s 400 units and roughly 4.6 6 million exposure uh for next year and that doesn’t include all the revenues that would be lost as well if nothing gets built. Um what what does the picture look like for 2027 for you?

03:00:08

>> Do you know yet? >> Through the chair I mean it’s it’s pretty doom and gloom out there. Our members are laying off a lot of people. Um, we have some companies that are that used to do high-rise and low-rise and they’ve laid off their entire high-rise staff cuz they don’t plan on participating in that market segment anymore because they don’t see a future. Um, so the crystal ball is pretty tough. Um, the general mood is that 2026 is going to be worse than 2025. And um,

03:00:36

anybody that’s talking about recovery is talking about 2028, 2029 versus 2027. Um, I mean, I’m hopeful that we’ve hit bottom and we’re starting the the curve upwards. Um, I I hesitate to provide a projection on 2027 because um I believe that this council is going to do the right thing and and move forward with a temporary exemption to respond to the current conditions and then remove that exemption as things shift back to normal. And um I’m fairly optimistic um with the advocacy happening at the

03:01:12

provincial government that the province is actually going to do something um and that will hopefully um move the market, get some sales in the latter half of this year. And that’s why I appreciate that we’re talking about two years versus one year. Um for better or for worse, construction approvals, these kinds of things take time. uh and a and a 2-year window um perhaps even with that site plan that you get in the window, but then you’ve got a little bit of a gap to get your if there is an order in terms

03:01:41

of the construction um I believe is an appropriate window to try to deal with the issue at hand. >> Thank you, Councelor Stoalty. >> Thank you. Sorry, I needed some clarity on the answer that you gave the mayor. I wasn’t sure I was hearing correctly. So, I appreciate that your commitment earlier on behalf of your members that DCD reductions should be focused on workforce housing projects as opposed to luxury high-end. You did I understand you correctly that you think that the average home price,

03:02:08

new home price of 1.8 million should be where the cap is? >> I believe and I don’t remember off the top of my head, but the CHC presentation that we saw last week had um uh 1.8 8 is the average uh in Burlington, but I I don’t have the presentation in front of me. >> But that was the number that you were thinking the cap should be >> because that would cover the broader middle class to to get things moving again recognizing that this is temporary. >> Okay. All right. Not seeing any other

03:02:39

questions, so you are free to go. >> I’ll bring a water next time. >> Yes. Sorry. We should have gotten you a glass of water. I apologize. All right. Uh we are now in recess until 1:00 uh and back to hear from the rest of our delegations. Thanks everyone. Welcome back everyone. Uh we’re going to get started again after our um brief break for lunch. We still are continuing with some delegates. So, what I would like to do now is call up our next pre-registered delegate. Let me just

03:30:35

find who that is. All right. Jim Thompson, there you are. Thank you. Uh in chambers speaking to two items. You’ll have five minutes a piece. The first, you can do it in whichever order you like. uh one is the options for the temporary elimination of development charges and the other is regarding the council code of good governance and staff relations policy. So uh Jim, the floor is yours and there may be questions after. Go ahead. Sorry, your microphone. There you go. >> First of all, I’d like to say that staff

03:31:14

was working on the weekend. Um, I got a response from Debbie uh about my presentation being on the agenda that they had. So, thank thanks to her for going over and above. So, so good morning Maryanne and counselors. There is a crisis in the residential construction industry in the GTA and the golden horseshoe. This is largely because of provincial government policies about how development is funded in Ontario. There are problems with f federal policies as well, but they’re not impacting other provinces the way

03:31:52

they are impacting Ontario. I don’t believe it is the role of the Burlington Council to solve the industry’s problems by throwing money at them. I can support the city advocating on behalf of the industry to both the provincial and federal governments, but I cannot support the mayor’s motion to stop collecting development charges for a period of two years. Um, failure to collect development charges will result in inflated property taxes in future years. The money has to come from somewhere. As councelor Nissan said at

03:32:26

the committee of the whole meeting, this council has increased property taxes by 45% in the last four years. This is the affordability crisis that is affecting current Burlington homeowners. Giving a 200 a $20,000 gift to someone buying a $2 million home is not a means of improving affordability. I’m going to say that there’s also a problem with the development charge being suspended for two years. It’s not a cyclical problem in the industry which the two years seems to suggest. It’s a

03:33:02

structural problem. The way rental housing has been financed in the country for many years has stopped the development of rental housing which is the which is the affordable option for most workers. Too many people can’t afford a house because wage productivity has not kept up with the cost of housing. Housing has been turned into a financial asset, not a place to live. Uh so I can’t support this idea that Burlington won’t collect taxes so that it can assume a leadership position uh on the issue which is supposedly

03:33:46

going to benefit political pressure on the provincial government and federal government. That’s not your job. It’s not your job to use Burlington’s taxpayers reserve funds to put pressure on the provincial and federal governments. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. I will just look to the board to see if there are questions. You have two so far. Uh councelor Nissan, you’re first. >> Just one question to the chair. Thank you Jim for delegating first of all. Uh so if the uh motion were amended to say

03:34:22

uh conditional upon being made whole, would you be supportive of it? Uh as a as a Burlington resident, >> I I have no problem. if you can get the federal government and the provincial government to pay for it. But good luck with that because the federal government has got a $1.2 trillion debt and an 80 billion deficit. And the provincial government is approaching $500 million in debt and has a 13 to 14 sorry that’s billion dollars 13 to 14 billion dollars in deficit. So where’s the money coming

03:34:59

from? I any way that you go about this, it comes out of the Canadian taxpayer. >> Thank you, Jim. >> Councelor Karns >> through the mayor. Thank you for being here with us today, Jim. So, one of the things that the municipality has the option to do is to place a referendum question on the election ballot in October 2026. Would you feel that this is enough of a huge question like should development charges be eliminated uh for a referendum question for the public to vote on? >> That’s an engagement question. So I

03:35:45

understand why you’re asking it. And yeah, I think that you need to get public input when you’re looking at blowing potentially a $40 billion a $40 million hole in your capital projects budget. And I’d like to be clarify. I don’t think the property the fees for um permits are part of the part of the development charges. They’re a separate reserve fund which you’ve been drawing down on heavily. >> Uh correct. Thank Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. >> Councelor Stoalty.

03:36:24

>> Hi. Thank you again for your delegation. Um so question. >> Could the volume get raised a bit please? >> So thank you again for your delegation and a question in regards to um your statement which I fully agree with that we should be expecting the province or the federal government to make us whole. What would that commitment look like in your eyes? Are you comfortable with that being a verbal handshake or would you prefer to see a signed contract? >> Uh, the job’s not finished till the

03:36:49

paperwork’s done. Um, the mayor has made a point that stuff needs to get papered. Well, this is something that needs to get papered. Um, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well, George Bush had a good uh mistake on that one. He said, “You can’t fool me twice. You got fooled once on bill 23. Why are you getting letting yourself get fooled again?” >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> All right. Not seeing any other questions on this item. You can speak to

03:37:24

your next one, which is the code of good governance. You’ll have another five minutes. Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh, could I get my presentation up, please? No, that my presentation. It’s a PDF. My presentation was in on for the deadline on Friday. Why didn’t it make it into the minutes or the agenda? >> We’ll just give oursel a minute to find that and get it up for you. That’s the chart. apparently I submitted the wrong presentation. So, okay. So, don’t really need it. Um,

03:39:46

I would like to get what I did provide. What I did provide was a spreadsheet that shows the policies and procedures of the council that are out of date that haven’t been reviewed u many of them for years. And I my first slide was actually going to be the municipal act. And I’m going to just assume that you know it a little bit. The role of council is defined in the municipal act is to develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality to ensure that administrative policies,

03:40:24

practices and procedures and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council and in sub in a subsection to ensure the accountability and transparency of operations of the municipality including the activities of the senior management of the municipality With regards to development of policies, you have developed some new policies, but you’ve utterly failed to do your duty to evaluate the existing policies. Um, with regards to part D, there are

03:40:56

policies in place, but you failed to hold a sta staff accountable for following the policies. The data slide shows which the data slide shows that of the 79 policies listed on the city of Burlington website, 63 have not been reviewed in a timely manner. That’s 80% of the policies listed. At least two policies pertaining to the council staff relations policy aren’t even listed on the website. specifically the employee code of conduct and the respect in the workplace policy. Um, in addition, two policies are are

03:41:37

utterly lacking review by dates, and I didn’t have time to figure out how many of the job titles in the accountability and responsibility columns don’t correspond to the current organizational structure. The enterprise risk and government government and management policy indicates that it was supposed to be reviewed every two years. It was last reviewed in 2020. That’s six years ago. The IT security policy also hasn’t been reviewed since 2020. Given what happened in Hamilton, shouldn’t review of this

03:42:11

policy have been a priority? In my opinion, council needs to review policies at least once per term. This is implicit in the role of council to evaluate policies as prescribed in the municipal act. I note that when the audit committee updated their terms of reference, they added an as needed option, not not just a fixed review date. One of the needed changes that the audit committee made was to change the title of city manager to chief administrative officer. Major organization changes require a lot

03:42:44

of paperwork, not just an organization chart that has half the positions unfilled. Um, staff has been directed has been derelictked in providing timely reports. Council has been derelct in ensuring that management systems are working properly. These are two of the um these are two of the things that are in your council staff relations policy. Um okay, you need to do more than just add. It’s going to happen, I guess, but this needs to be a thorough review of that policy because you haven’t been doing it.

03:43:35

And The next slide was was in regards to the code of good governance and I’m not clear on what staff has been directed to do regarding this policy. At a minimum, I think it needs to be updated to properly document the complaint procedure. There is no form to fill out. It’s just an email to the integrity commissioner. I looked at the region’s code of conduct and it’s certainly more detailed than Burlington’s, but I wasn’t impressed with the clarity and of the way it’s

03:44:07

written and one of the points that the integrity commissioner made in her last report to council was that more explanation, examples, and commentary are needed to assist the reader. Um, I also believe the council needs to get an annual report from the integrity integrity commissioner. There hasn’t been one since 2023. and and that those are if there has been a report, it’s not put up on the website for people to see. And I also think that any report that comes from the integrity commissioner should be up.

03:44:44

>> Thank you. You are out of time, but I will pause to see if there are any questions from anyone. >> Councelor Karns, >> uh, thank you for being here today and for bringing this. Um I did receive a circular of this um PDF uh over the weekend. So thank you Debbie and we’re glad that it came up today. Um when it was asked about in committee um the acting CEO identified that um they heard about outdated staff policies and a plan was to be um prepared and brought back to council where quarterly reports will

03:45:19

resume. Uh it did not indicate anything around prioritization of the outstanding policy updates or a timeline. Um do you think that this is acceptable? >> Frankly, uh councelor Nissan made a good effort, but it does need a staff direction for them to do it. It’s not just council. council needs to get these policies to be reviewed in a timely manner and it’s not happening and you need to take corrective action at this point and frankly um I don’t even know if putting it on the staff directions

03:45:57

list does any good because there hasn’t been a staff direction policy update released for I don’t know how long. The last the last one I have was maybe back in 2024. the the this is this is something that’s the responsibility of the clerk to issue the the table that he’s supposed to be keeping regularly. This should not be a major issue. It’s just a table that needs to get updated. There was some attempt made to prioritize um the the issues under the last CEO uh but it didn’t result in timely

03:46:41

timely reporting and th this is a problem. Reports you you don’t council doesn’t keep a record for itself. They rely on staff and staff isn’t doing their job. >> Okay. Thank thank you for those insights. And I did look up some policies that haven’t been updated like the ability to work on weekends so that I knew if I was stepping over a line with uh staff by trying to ask questions on the weekend about this. So um thanks for being here and bringing this to our attention. >> Not seeing any other questions. Thank

03:47:13

you very much for being with us. I’d like to say that when I if I get the stuff in on time, it should get onto the agenda and and I would have known that I’d put in the wrong the wrong um the wrong file. >> Thank you. Okay, our next delegation, Shannon Gillies, is in chambers to speak to heritage response to Bill 23 phase 2, short list of designation candidates, DGM 726. You have five minutes and there may be questions. Go ahead. Thank you. This um my my narrative about my house seems inconsistent with all the serious

03:47:50

and development charge things we were talking about but serious to me. So um so good afternoon Mayor Me Ward and members of council and staff. Uh my name is Shannon Gillies and I along with my husband Bill Charnie are the owners of 1419 Ontario Street. I am here to communicate some concerns we have about the staff report entitled heritage response to Bill 23 phase 2 short list of designation candidates which includes our home ranked as number two of 10 recommended properties to be studied. Forgot my glasses. Um a bit of

03:48:23

background. In the fall of 2001, Bill and I decided we wanted to buy a house with character, not a cookie cutter house in a new subdivision. When 1419 came up for sale, we were charmed not only by the house itself, but also by the people who lived there. We found out that Minnie Walker had lived in that home for over 40 years with her late husband George and their four children, which we’re still amazed at because we’re stepping all over each other still, and there’s only two of us. Um,

03:48:52

when we noticed an upright uh base on display in the front hallway, we learned that Mr. Walker had once been a band member at the Brandin. Um, in the months following September 11th, which is when we bought the house, when the future seemed uncertain, there was something comforting about moving into a house that had stood in the same place since 1907, mostly unchanged, while the world around it endured two world wars and other transformative events of the 20th century. Over the years, we’ve spent a small fortune

03:49:23

relatively, on upkeep that wouldn’t have been necessary in a new home. We replaced all the wiring, switched our furnace from oil to gas, built an entirely new garage because the existing one had caved in. We paid to have radon and basement flooding mitigation systems installed as well as for asbestous removal and even bat proofing. A few years ago, we had the pleasure of spending thousands to dig a trench in our front yard to have an old rusted out water supply pipe replaced. And the city didn’t pay for any of this. it was on

03:49:56

our part of the property. We paid for this these things because it’s our home and it was our choice to assume all the risks and the responsibilities that come with owning an older house. My point here is that we chose to buy a century home nearly 25 years ago because we wanted a century home and we’ve chosen to continue to invest in it because we love it most days and plan to stay here indefinitely. We never had a problem with being on the municipal registry of non-desated heritage homes because we

03:50:25

knew we’d never need to apply for a demolition permit. Provincial bill 23 is intended to remove barriers to building more new homes in neighborhoods slated for higher density. Our house is not at risk of demolition to build a condo. Um, I wrote here I I don’t know what the current maps show for zoning, but the last I checked it was a few streets west of Brand Street, but didn’t go as far as our part of HERD. Um, today I’m asking you to remove our home from the list of 10 properties to be studied for

03:50:58

designation eligibility or at the very least defer your vote on this matter until next month to allow for more discussion for the following reasons. Um the notices to the 10 property owners were not received in time for any of us to prepare a response before last uh week’s committee meeting. As it was already mentioned um we got our notice on Friday right as the meeting was happening. So I was pretty disappointed about that and I ended up watching the meeting. I think it was the next day and

03:51:24

there was no discussion on this topic whatsoever. Um the rushed force designation of our home but not others nearby simply isn’t fair and while legal constitutes government overreach. Our neighbors are free to modify their homes on either side of us because they’re not designated even though they’re similar in age. And um we would have we would have limitations if we want to build a small extension or do any kind of external work. We’d have to apply for the permit and not be sure that it would

03:51:52

be approved. Um we will continue to object to a designation even if we need to appeal at the OOLT which will cause cost the city additional funds unfortunately. Um, we are happy to have our house added back onto the municipal registry. My understanding is in six years. I’m not sure of my math. I’m not sure if it’s 5 years from January 2027. Um, so we’re happy to put it back on the list at that time or have the city do that. So, in our opinion, the city has not been proactive enough in encouraging

03:52:20

volunt uh voluntary designation. Um, I sent a link to what G has done. They sent out a bunch of letters and they got some responses of people who wanted to voluntarily designate their house. So, in closing, it brings me no joy to delegate today against heritage protection because I do respect all the work being done by staff and Heritage Burlington Advisory Committee. I hate to see the loss of beautiful old buildings as much as anyone else and I know the city’s been put in a difficult position.

03:52:46

That’s it. A couple more seconds. >> Thank you. You do have a couple of questions. Uh first from councelor Stoalty. Go ahead. >> Thank you, mayor. Thanks, Shannon. Thanks for being here today. So I’m sure you well I know that you were here and hearing all the conversation that was earlier so that to and that was in large part why I had advocated successfully thankfully for the complete agenda to be referred at least until or deferred at least until March 2nd in order to have

03:53:09

time to talk more than just about the DC charges. So does that give you some level of comfort that there won’t be a decision made today and that we’re into next next month’s uh decisions? My preference would it would be that it goes back to committee so it can actually have a robust discussion and and then go to the council meeting after that. >> Okay. But the deferral at least today helps in that process. Okay. Thank you >> councelor Currins. >> Thank you very much through the chair. I

03:53:36

was just going to ask the same question. Would you support a deferral back to committee or a referral back to committee which is the full cycle not straight to council? >> So two-step process. So take it out of this, put it back into the March committee of the whole and then from March committee of the whole it would go to March council meeting for determination. >> I think that’s what I would prefer. I realize time is limited but at least it gives me and some other homeowners um a chance to talk about this at

03:54:06

committee. >> Yeah, it gives me a chance too because you were not the only person who was surprised um and we’ve had some communication with staff so I will bring it forward at the appropriate time. But thank you for uh at least being open to that option. >> Sure, >> councelor Nissan. >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thanks. >> Uh your your um property number again was >> uh 1419 Ontario Street. It’s right at the corner of Herd on the northwest

03:54:31

corner. >> Perfect. So I just want to make sure that we’re all on the same page. So um you’re you know you’re not going to be designated through the council meeting, right? that it’s only the first step, right? >> To be studied, >> to have a look at it. >> Yeah. >> Okay, good. And um you mentioned something about I think you mentioned something about going back onto a onto the register. Did I hear that correctly? >> Yes. And I hope I have my information

03:54:59

right. My understanding is that this new bill will if if the city doesn’t designate the homes by January 2027, I guess it is, then I’m there was something about a 2-year period I’m not sure about, but then my understanding was that after 5 years >> um the houses can go back on a municipal registry of non-desated homes. >> Oh, >> I’m not sure if anyone confirm that. >> Well, we’ll definitely ask staff. My understanding is that the registry is going to become null. That’s what I

03:55:28

thought at first and then as I was reading it, I was reading more about this 5-year thing that that houses could go back on a on a municipal registry of non-desate houses after 5 years. So, >> okay, we’ll definitely ask at at council. >> Okay. >> Does that change your mind at all? If if like that’s not even an option like it’s either to my understanding it’s either up or down like we have to make that call. We got a we got an extension to the deadline and we we study the

03:55:52

properties and it’s either yes or no and uh and that’s the end essentially. I’m only mentioning it because as a way of suggesting to council that um you know my house isn’t at risk of being demolished. We’re going to be there another 6 10 15 years. And so when I read that about the houses going back on the registry I thought why bother designating our house designate another house. Protect another house. >> I see. Okay. Thank you Shannon. >> Okay. >> Thanks. I’ll I’ll just uh jump in. Are

03:56:25

you asking us not to study it at all? Um or you’re okay because I know it’s going to qualify. >> You you know it’s going to qualify for designation. Okay. >> Essentially is what I was you know >> um >> Okay. So delay taken off delaying discussing and put another house on instead. >> Okay. >> Choose another house of your top 10 to study. I know that there’s limited funds or $75,000. >> I see. So, you would want us to ask staff if there’s another house that

03:56:55

could be studied for the funds versus your house. >> You don’t want to more at risk in the in the high density area. I don’t know. I’m not haven’t studied this thoroughly. I don’t know if there’s any other houses on Brandt Street that qualify. Like, I know you haven’t been able to pick all the houses because money and time is short. >> So, you’ve been scrambling and the city’s been scrambling. So, in my eye, I think why not protect a house that’s

03:57:20

more at risk of demolition like on Brandt Street because that’s where the zoning is for the condos to go. They’re not going to build a condo on my lot. >> Okay. Thank you, uh, Councelor Karns. >> Thank you once again through the mayor. So, I hear you loud and clear. However, you are also located directly across the street from the new heritage character area. Yeah. um is that something that maybe needs to be expanded to the north side of Ontario as opposed to just the south side and that would eliminate the

03:57:53

concerns around um a heavy-handed heritage designation. So in W 2 and in the downtown in particular St. Luke’s which is where you’re located um the heritage conversation has not always been an easy conversation. It’s been softened the edges of it around the heritage character where you just need a sort of heritage permit as opposed to the full heavy-handed designation which does a lot more than just a you know paint colors and shutters. >> Um is that something you would be more

03:58:21

open to around that type of a thing? >> Yes. >> Um I thought about that because I realize now that the houses directly across from us are in the map for the heritage district. >> Y >> because I don’t think they were before. Um, but I wouldn’t want our house just to be included. I would want either house on either side of as the beautiful house on the other side of herd, which has much more of a historical story than our house does, but it doesn’t qualify because they’ve done some extensions out

03:58:47

the back. But I would love to see that house and the house on the other side of us. if they were all included all in the heritage um district that would change things because I think that would be much more equitable for us because then we’re not at a disadvantage for potential buyers. There’s more value there for buyers. They’re part of a beautiful heritage district. They know nothing’s going to happen to either house. With our house, you know, we have a sister house, they call it a twin

03:59:16

house or something next to us. It’s basically the identical house with with modifications, but it’s not protected right now and ours will be. And it’s just it’s not fair that they can do they don’t have any of those restrictions. >> And across the street, the house can take off the full frontage and replace the whole deck and you can’t touch yours, >> right? I mean, and we’re probably not going to do anything major, but it’s just having that freedom to, you know,

03:59:41

we’re getting older, our parents are getting older. One day we might need to put a small extension out the back with a ba a bedroom and a bathroom. We don’t have a main four bathroom right now and it just you know and I know the argument would be that well you know staff is flexible and they’re reasonable but I I don’t know that right there’s no guarantees and I don’t know what the council’s going to be like in subsequent years who is going to decide on some of these things.

04:00:05

>> Okay, thanks for your patience today. >> Yeah. >> Okay, I’m not seeing any other questions. Thank you so much for joining this morning. Okay, our next delegate is David Barker to speak regarding options for the temporary elimination of development charges. Come on up, David. You have five minutes and there may be questions. >> Thank you for the minute. Um, I was going to say good morning. Um, seems a bit superfluous now, right? Um, I am amazed and extremely disappointed that

04:00:44

city council is willing to give away or effectively give away according to STAR’s figures between 17 and just over 41 million of anticipated revenue by way of waving development charges for a 2-year period. The only way this loss of revenue revenue can be absorbed is through higher property taxes. My position on this, as you might already tell, is that development charges should not, and I repeat, not be eliminated no matter what the time period the elimination period would be before. I have two reasons for saying this

04:01:21

position. The first reason being that if development charges are eliminated, the cost to install services usually covered by development charges will fall upon the property taxpayer. Why should the property taxpayer bear these charges for which it gets no benefit? Because it won’t be in those houses. It’s easy for council to vote to eliminate development charges because council does not pay the bill. Property taxpayers pay the bill. My second reason, I guess, is more to do with my upset with the developers as a whole.

04:01:57

Commercial businesses are there to be to make a profit at customers expense. That is understood and accepted by society. If however businesses a business is unable to make a profit, it more than likely would go out of business. Sure, there are instances where a governmental body may step in to bail out a failing business because of the effect a failure would have on society and the rest of the economy at large. In such cases, provincial and federal governments have funds available giving them the ability to bail out the

04:02:30

corporation. Sure, those funds do come from taxpayers, but the load is spread over a much larger taxpaying base. Our municipal government does not have any such resource available to it. Any elimination or development charges will fall directly and immediately upon the existing tax base. So in effect the existing tax base is subsidizing to some extent the purchaser of the new home that the developer will be building. Why should that be? My feelings towards developers is not a kind one. Why is that? Well, in my view, over the

04:03:10

last 10 years or so, developers have been raking in great profits on their developmental pro uh projects whilst at the same time totally ignoring the wishes of Burlington residents and their council as regards to zoning and height restrictions. They have in effect shown Burlington the middle finger. Now they come crying and wanting our help which will allow them to continue showing us the middle finger and ignoring our wishes and zoning bylaws. Certainly we do not certainly we do not uh need developers sorry certainly we do

04:03:45

need develop developments built and new affordable homes made available to the population. Hopefully the developments would include large numbers of affordable rental houses but I doubt that. My solution is to allow property developers a deferral, not an elimination of development charges for which they are responsible. I would suggest a deferral be until such time as the development is completed, a certificate of occupancy is issued and 75% is sold or occupied at which time deferral fees sorry

04:04:22

u development fees would be payable in full. In my opinion, our council should be saying no to eliminating development charges and only allowing a deferral if really needs be. But council should be pushing back on developers, directing them towards the provincial and federal governments whose taxes and other charges are more significant. At the committee of the whole, three councilors voted in favor of the elimination of charges. Two voted against and two councilors Karns and Shaman were absent. I’m hoping

04:04:55

my delegation here is not in vain and that councilors Karna and Shaman will vote with councilors Nissan and Staly to defeat the motion. Hopefully, you’re not hopefully you’re not only hearing my voice and the voices of financially strained constituents, but you’re listening and you will send the matter back to staff for further consideration. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. I am not seeing any questions for you. Okay. >> So, uh, wait, Council Karns, >> thank you.

04:05:29

>> Yeah. Through the mayor, my question to you is this. So, you’re a pretty, uh, keen observer of council proceedings. Do you feel that this issue or the magnitude which you’ve mentioned from our staff’s numbers have made it into mainstream communications well enough or a media release by the city or anything like that to alert uh regular taxpayers what the magnitude of this is? >> Not at all. >> Not at all. >> I mean I I came across it by luck but just through an article on focus

04:06:01

Burlington. >> Okay. >> I had no idea. Yeah. >> Okay. And then um if there were to do you feel that this would be an issue that would be of a magnitude sufficient enough to warrant um a referendum question on the election ballot in October 2026. >> Um some sort of question would be good but a single question won’t get you a proper answer because people have variances. So it needs to be almost like a multi-choice question. What are your preferences? And then if it’s possible

04:06:30

to rank rank those and see where people stand. So, I’m going to stop you because that’s not an option. It’s a yes no question. Do would it would be something like should development charges be eliminated? Yes. No. >> I don’t see why it shouldn’t be on there. >> Okay. Thanks for your time. I think you have someone else. >> Councelor Charman, >> thank you very much. And just picking up on that thought process about having enough information to make a decision.

04:06:56

Um, are you did you did you see by any chance the the presentation that was provided by the CHC uh person that talked about the act their projection of the number of units that would be um maybe uh built? >> No, I haven’t. >> So, so >> I’m just against it in principle. I think it’s the wrong thing to do >> to to eliminate uh >> No, no. I I but you didn’t see the data. >> Sorry. You didn’t see the data. No. Right. And so therefore, >> did you know that it was a whole lot

04:07:31

less than a 16 to >> whether it’s $1 or $100 or a million dollars, it doesn’t matter. The principle is wrong. We we the residents should not be bailing out a commercial business. They have other places to go to get money and that’s the provincial and federal governments. >> Thank you for the clarification. Did you know that, if I might follow up on that, that in the uh in in the housing price differential between a resale home and a new home, there’s $200,000 of government

04:07:59

source funding that in other words, payments to government. >> Sorry, point of order. This is a question of clarity on the delegation. >> I introducing information. >> Hold on. Hold on. We She’s called a point of order. >> Okay. So, one at a time. I think it’s relevant to the conversation. So go ahead, councelor Charman. >> Thank you. So are you aware though that in terms of the difference the amount of money that’s being collected by government on a resale home versus a new

04:08:27

home is about $200,000 that so so that a a buyer of a resale home would not have to give $200,000. So shouldn’t that be given some thought also? >> So you’re saying the resale home is a higher price >> lower by $200,000. Um, I’m not going back to the presentation. I think someone said the difference is like $11,000 it’ll make to the price to the sale price that the developer will have that by deferring or eliminating the uh uh development charges will be about an $11,000 difference.

04:09:06

>> Yeah, I think you’ve answered the question. Thank you. >> Well, that makes it makes no sense. If you’re paying $400,000, $11,000 is nothing. Okay. Thank you. Uh, councelor Nissan, >> thank you. Your worship, since we’re going to allow the did you knows, I’m going to add a couple more did you knows? Sure. Did you know, David, that staff stand by their estimates that this will cost between 16 and $41 million? Did you Did you know that? >> I know that was a number that’s given

04:09:36

out. If they stand by it, it makes it even more reason why not to do it. So, who who’s as a followup, who whose numbers do you think council should uh to those of our colleagues or of our staff? >> I think eliminating development charges in principle is wrong. >> Defer them, >> but these developers, they’ve made millions. I mean, uh the guy who’s sitting here today, um I mean, he is not poor. And now he’s having a tough time. He wants us, the taxpayer, to bail him out. I don’t want

04:10:11

to do that. >> Thank you, David. >> Thank you. >> Question. Second question. Did you know >> that there’s more money collected for HST, which goes into general revenue on these new homes than for development charges, which goes back into the community? Were you aware that in Burlington the HST is actually higher? >> So, I’m not not understanding you >> on a new house. >> Yeah. >> The provincial and federal government, did you know that they collect HST on

04:10:36

that? And it’s more than our DCs. >> Yes. That’s why I say that’s the place to go and get some some help from the provincial and federal governments who are set up to bail out companies if they need to be bailed out and there is an effect on society or on the um economy at large. >> Thank you >> councelor Bentovenia. >> Thank you mayor and thank you David for being here. Um you are aware that at times the economy needs to be kickstarted. >> Sorry, >> you are aware that at times the economy

04:11:12

needs to be kickstarted. >> Yes, >> we know that the the housing industry as was mentioned numerous times has fallen off the cliff. We’ve talked about last year’s development charges and I know you said whether it’s a $100 or >> the true number was 6.8 million collected. We are going to collect less based on all the information that we have that many of us have talked about for the last few hours and there’s been discussion of fraction to half. Mhm. >> So again, going back to the reports

04:11:57

from 16 million to 40 million. Do you see an issue with those numbers? And >> I don’t I know nothing about the numbers. I can’t speak to whether they’re valid or not, but you say less development charges will be coming in. Does that mean less buildings going on? I assume so. So the infrastructure is not going to be needed because they’re not being built. So the lack of development charges means the lack of need to put in infrastructure because it’s not being built. Is that not not

04:12:29

logical? >> That actually is very logical. But we need to build homes. >> Yes, but that’s not our job as a taxpayer to fun >> Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. We’re we’re not going to not having a conversation here. Do you have another question? >> Yeah, I I do I do have another question. So, do you believe that we need to build homes so that we could build the tax base by putting people in those homes so that we can get the growth that we need in terms of financial to build not only roads for

04:13:04

these homes but infrastructure facilities and so on. So with limited revenues that we would have with no homes being built, do you believe that the taxpayer, the existing taxpayer is going to pay more money moving forward? >> If if you’re going to eliminate >> No. If if if there’s less homes being built in the next two years, which that’s is the existing taxpayer, you and I >> Mhm. >> going to pay more in the next two years than we would normally pay if there was

04:13:36

growth. >> Uh I don’t I don’t believe we would be paying more because the develop the development charges will be covering those expenses. No, >> just I don’t want to we can’t have a conversation. >> Is that not the case? >> But there’s no homes being built. So So >> So there’s no there’s no development charges coming in. There’s no infrastructure costs needed because there’s no houses being built. >> Okay. Thank you. Um >> I’ll take it offline with you after.

04:14:05

>> We’ll we’ll move on. Uh councelor Stoalty, go ahead. >> Um thank you. I’ll throw up my own uh did you know or were you aware? Were you aware in the staff report that staff were recommending uh exploring a development charge deferral or or wave program that was focused only on two plusbedroom familysiz purpose-built rentals and would you see your way to thinking that that might be worth exploring more >> not not funded by Burlington residents funded by the Ontario government and the

04:14:34

federal government absolutely that’s a wider base of taxpayers funding whether it’s Burlington Milton Ashawa doesn’t matter Burlington should not residents should not be funding a commercial entity to build something make a profit because they’re still talking about making their what is it 8 to 10% profit why am I funding him to make a profit that’s what a business is meant to do if you can’t do it somebody else will come and build it >> okay thanks >> councelor Sherman

04:15:06

>> thank you very much David um thinking about your consistency uh that you don’t want the developers to receive a reduction in the um development charges. If those development charge reduction caused that price to be lower and it’s not a gift to the developers, but to the new home owner, would that make a difference to you? >> Well, I think the number put out by the developers is it’ll make an $11,000 difference. That is meaningless if you like my daughter, elder daughter lives in

04:15:41

Liberty Village. Okay, it’s Toronto. >> Sorry, put put aside the number. >> I was asking about the principle. >> What’s the cost of the of the unit being sold? >> So my question is if that was going not to the developer but to the homeowner to give them a reduction in price, would that change your perspective? >> I don’t believe so. Because I ask you, what is the price of the sale? Let’s say it’s Let’s say it’s 600,000. >> I’m sorry. I can’t have a debate with

04:16:08

you. >> No, no, but $11,000 on 600,000 is meaningless. >> Fine. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Karns. >> Thanks very much for sharing uh your philosophy. So, I’m just looking at some articles here and we’re seeing things like I mentioned the unemployment rate from the province’s own financial report at 7.6%. Uh a survey of restaurants in Canada finds that 44 percent of respondents are operating at a loss or even breaking e or barely breaking even. Uh I know

04:16:40

firsthand from our retail main street businesses that they are struggling with empty stores and uh significant losses in in in retail. Um >> do you think we should be bailing out at the local level everybody who needs who needs a hand? Not at all. because if we lose our restaurants, if we lose our businesses, if we lose our houses, uh then we will all have nothing. So, I’m just wondering where does it end? Uh when we haven’t even called a housing crisis in the city, >> I don’t believe we taxpayers should be

04:17:12

funding any commercial entity. So, if uh a cafe is going out of business who’s owned by a couple of private individuals, you want to fund that? I don’t believe so. What about if I can’t afford to go and buy groceries? Are you going to fund my groceries for me? You know, why not? But it’s not the job of the municipality to save businesses. It’s the job of the provincial government and the federal government to do that. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh not seeing any other

04:17:45

questions. I do just have one for you. And you mentioned um uh what I thought was your and this is a clarity question. and what I thought was your support for a deferral of payment until occupancy of development charges and I’m just wondering if you know that that is already um that is already policy of the government that those development charges aren’t due to the city until occupancy and that is a sir charge on the purchasers’s price. It goes direct to the purchaser. So it doesn’t actually

04:18:15

subsidize the developer. So are you aware of that? Does that change your thought at all? My understand you’re saying there is a deferral already. >> Yes, that’s provincial policy. >> So de what so what want? >> They’ve got and then an elimination of them as well. >> So you mentioned in your I’ll start again because we can’t have a debate or or a discussion. So if I wasn’t clear in my question, I apologize. I’ll start again. You mentioned that I thought you were

04:18:45

supportive uh of a deferral of payment until occupancy and so I was wondering if you were aware that that is already provincial legislation. That has changed recently that DC’s are not payable uh to the city until occupancy and they’re added to uh a closing to the cost of the purchaser. So it doesn’t go through the developer. It doesn’t subsidize the developer. It goes from the purchaser at occupancy to the city. Does that change? So did you know that I guess I assume that a closing that amount

04:19:20

would be known before closing well before. So it’s not going to come as the gentleman said like a surprise. You know, it’s not like, oh, we’re going to have to pay $11,000 now. We didn’t think we’re going to have to. That would all be disclosed up front. One would assume in the purchase and sale agreement. Okay. So, as long as it’s disclosed, you’re okay with it. All right. Thank you very much. There are no further questions for you. Thank you so much for coming in. Uh again, our final

04:19:43

delegation, Lynn Crosby, please uh come up. You have five minutes and there may be questions. >> Oh, uh sorry. Go ahead, Councelor Nissan. >> Thanks. Just as Lyn’s coming up, I would just ask, you know, request of the chair to adhere a little more strictly to our bylaw, which is to not ask leading questions and not go into and I did it as well because I saw others doing it. So, I’m part of the problem maybe, but uh can we not do that because these the delegates are residents. They’re not our

04:20:12

staff and let’s not treat them like they’re experts in everything. Thank you. And also, let’s not lead them to our own answers, which are obviously what we want to say anyway. So, thanks. >> Uh, go ahead, Lynn. You have five minutes. >> Just before I start, I just want to say two quick things. I I apologize, but I I did send my form in, and I do understand computer problems. Boy, do I understand that. So, I just didn’t totally love the possible implied implication that I made

04:20:44

this up and said I submitted it and hadn’t. Um, I did. It got lost. I’m here. It’s fine. Um, and I just want to say I’ve timed myself reading this and I’m about exactly five minutes, I think. So, I’m just asking that if I go over by a couple seconds, you just let me finish. Okay. Thank you. Um, I have delegated a few times essentially on four topics. The undemocratic strong mayor powers, issues around development, the need for responsible fiscal management, and citizen engagement. I’m here today

04:21:15

because this one agenda item covers each of these. I’ll begin with engagement because it’s pretty much a fluke that I’m here today at all. Normally, I can’t be on a random Tuesday in the daytime as residents who are working or attending school can’t be. But by chance, I was free today. If council cares about real engagement, they should have regular evening council meetings. Further, in what seems to be too common, this manner was matter was rushed through to the extent that the vast majority of

04:21:40

citizens would not know enough if anything about it to come and delegate on it today anyway and certainly would not have had time to spend their family day weekend in preparation. I’m here because I happened to see something about it in the media on Friday. By that time, it was already too late to register to delegate by the deadline. I happen to be among a small minority who knows that I can register late and may still get to speak. I screw that up slightly, but okay. Most would not know this. It’s the oldest trick in

04:22:09

the book to release to release news one might not want the public to notice just before a long weekend. This is an extremely important issue at a cost of almost hund00 million over two years. And it is unacceptable for council to not have supported councelor Nissan’s request last Tuesday to delay this decision for two months. He explained well his rationale that this time would allow for staff and council to do wholesome research and it would allow for the gathering of opinions and feedback from residents. Oh yes,

04:22:37

residents remember us. Do residents think that we should be the ones helping developers increase their profits? Well, since you haven’t given us time to answer, I guess you can’t say. For this resident, the answer is a resounding no. And I expect that I’m in the majority. I don’t believe there is any justification for developers to be bailed out of their obligations and cost of doing business. If the market isn’t giving them enough profits for their liking, then they can stop building and

04:23:02

sit on their investment until it turns around. Or they can reassess what it is the public actually wants and needs and build those things instead. More expensive towers on Burlington’s waterfront, for example, sped up now thanks to the mayor’s direction, do nothing to provide the affordable housing and the types of housing that families and young people want and need. It is not on municipalities or citizens to solve the complex issues surrounding the housing crisis, but it is sure used as a great excuse by the development

04:23:30

industry and by governments who decide for various reasons that they wish to help them build build anywhere and everywhere. I’m gobsmacked that any of you would think it is acceptable to transfer this financial obligation onto an already overburdened taxpayer, particularly in these times where so many are in dire straits. And whether this magical provincial and federal funding materializes or doesn’t, certainly you don’t know whether it will or won’t in the end. I will remind you

04:23:55

that again, there is only one taxpayer, so that all comes from us, too. Regardless, it is irresponsible to hand over our money and hope that other levels of government may pay it all back. And can we be honest enough to not call it a freeze? A freeze signifies that the rate charged last week won’t be increased for two years. It doesn’t mean their charges have been wiped out completely. more misleading language. There are many other municipalities which have exceeded their housing targets without waving development

04:24:23

charges. Being the first municipality to make a hugely expensive mistake isn’t a precedent one should want to set. Every dollar of ours that you hand to the developers is not only one less dollar in the pockets of taxpayers, it’s much worse than that. It’s one less dollar that could instead be being spent on far more important things. And that is the same whether we are talking about municipal provincial or federal dollars. The consequences are huge and cannot be summed up by staff members producing a

04:24:50

rushed report at the request of their strong mayor who holds the power to hire and fire senior staff. I might add that leads me to the undemocratic strong mayor powers which no mayor should accept, let alone use ever. While I’m not surprised the mayor has used her powers in this manner, I’m really appalled that she has. There’s an old saying about how even the appearance of a conflict of interest is one which must be avoided. A similar concept holds true for the strong mayor having unilateral

04:25:17

power over staff members to which she gives directions. The public can never actually trust that the staff members are telling us what they believe or what they feel that they need to say they believe. This is as unfair to them as it is to the public. It’s one reason the powers should not exist. In closing, it is disrespectful to your council colleagues and especially council Nissan for the mayor to have used the powers and gone over their heads. It is disrespectful to citizens that this is

04:25:43

being done in a way where we are not being properly informed and are not given the opportunity to be heard and in which even the most basic standards of engagement seem to have been bypassed. It is disrespectful to put the onus on staff to rush through and produce reports in unnecessarily tight time frames. It is disrespectful to every other business owner in Burlington whose profits are also likely waning in today’s economy that you’ve decided to bail out big developers with deep pockets. as Mayor Mor meard was fond of

04:26:10

calling them. So, please spare me spare us the talk about respect. Respect is a two-way street. Thank you. >> Thank you. I’ll look to the board to see if there are any questions. Councelor Karns, >> thank you very much. Through the mayor, you uh raised the theme of respect and how that’s um and trust and how that’s identified under the strong mayor’s powers. Uh over a long weekend for uh a senior staff that can be hired and fired. What would you imagine it must feel like to be given such a directive

04:26:40

on short order? One that resulted in three times identifying that the answer could not be provided who fulsomely. I think it must have been extremely stressful and unfair. Um I was I have seen a a report which I will send you for your interest um where a journalist interviewed a bunch of um municipal staff across Ontario and ensured their anonymity um asking what it is like to work in a municipality now with strong mayor and the results you know they were allowed to say whatever they wanted and they

04:27:20

wouldn’t be identified and it’s very problematic. >> Thanks very much. And my second question is this. So from an engagement perspective, had this gone through, I mean, right by this hour really, we could have been uh completed an agenda if it wasn’t changed. Uh and municipal taxpayers would be on the hook for the numbers identified in the report. Um how might that have reflected? It could have been done and dusted by this hour right now. the entire report that you’re delegating to. Um how might that have

04:27:48

landed from a community engagement perspective? If this was if the report on the development charge um waving was completed by this hour right now today uh and then it was promoted out to the city, how do you think that people would feel uh knowing that it was a fade to complete? >> Oh, they would not be happy. Not at all. >> All right. Thank you. I’m not seeing any other questions. I do have one for you and it’s a question of clarity. You mentioned that there was a speeding up of waterfront development

04:28:25

due to the mayor’s direction and there’s been no such direction to speed up waterfront uh development. So wondering what you meant by that. >> What I meant was that because of the direction that will encompass the projects on the in the football area on lake shore. That’s what I meant by water waterfront. I don’t mean that you specifically said I want it to be sped up, but that will be the effect that by by including all bu all builds, luxury, whatever. There’s a it’s a very strange irony

04:29:04

because I believe you voted against some of that. Uh but this direction will actually help speed that up. Okay. And uh you heard earlier some uh questions around a cap so that luxury units of any kind are not captured. Uh would you support a a cap to address that concern which uh most of us would support for sure and I do. My um thought really is I think similar to David’s that I don’t support um taxpayers paying for what should be the cost of doing business for developers. They should pay

04:29:46

they should pay those fees. Period. >> Councelor Karns. >> Uh thanks very much. And through the last line of dialogue, it’s raised some questions for me. Um and again my apologies for being sick on uh committee uh and also being absent any legal advice uh on this matter. I’m now hearing new things like potential caps. Uh I know that there has been some community dialogue around uh if the development was uh issued in its per its planning permissions by way of a tribunal decision that it would not get

04:30:17

you know uh a double bonus from the city by by getting its development fees waved. Um, are you aware of any other type of criteria that that are now um being flown around that would be supportive or are you still in your stance that uh absolutely no uh no development fee should be um excused whatsoever? >> No, I I don’t believe they should be excused. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right. I’m not seeing any other questions. Thank you so much for joining this morning. >> This afternoon,

04:30:48

>> we have no petitions. The recommendations from standing committees have already been referred and changed uh to a subsequent meeting. We did want to deal with the confidential items. So I will ask that the confidential items be brought up and we’ll uh vote on those. >> Sorry. Point of order. >> Go ahead. >> Uh we didn’t include uh petition so that shouldn’t be discussed. We have no petitions. >> The the whole section shouldn’t even be spoken to. It should be silent. Don’t

04:31:26

even say petitions. Can I have the clerk correct that >> through you uh mayor me board? Sorry, I don’t understand. Um correct that. >> I think we can move on. Point point has been noted. >> Okay. Confidential items are on the board now. Are there any further questions? Okay. Any comments on the confidential items? >> Okay. Councelor Karns. >> Uh just a question to my colleague. I believe councelor Bentania wanted to go into closed on some of the closed items. >> I don’t see a hand. Uh I’d like to go

04:32:10

into close for all of the items >> on the confidential agenda >> on the confidential. >> Okay. Then I will ask for a motion from you councelor Benia seconded by councelor Karns to go into close to discuss the confidential items. All those in favor we will do we need a recorded vote on this? Okay. Over to the clerk for the recorded vote to go into closed on this item on these items. Uh, councelor Gre >> do not support. >> Councelor Karns >> support. >> Councelor Nissan

04:32:44

>> do not support. >> Councelor Stoalty >> support. >> Councelor Charman >> do not support. >> Sorry, was that >> do not >> do not support. >> Thank you. Sorry about that. Uh, councelor Benñena >> support. >> And Mayor Maid Ward >> support. >> That’s four in favor, three against. >> And that does carry. We are now resolving into close session. Welcome back everyone. And we are back in open session and I do have a motion

05:06:38

to confirm the confidential minutes and we’ll take it in two parts. Uh so the first motion moved by councelor Charman, seconded by councelor Stolty that we confirm the confidential committee of the whole closed meeting minutes of February 9. Uh councelor Golra did declare a pecuniary interest in one item which we will vote on separately. So that is not included uh in this package here. Uh so what you see on the screen is the uh the items and the minutes that we will uh vote on. Okay. And that is a

05:07:14

simple show of hands. All those in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that does carry. And now we will vote on the uh the other item confidential close minutes for which council garb did declare a conflict. He will not be voting on that uh item. So all those in favor of the closed meeting minutes for that item. Any opposed? Seeing none and uh did note that councelor Galra did recuse himself. Uh rise and report. We have nothing to report. instruction was given in the meeting itself. We do need a confirmatory bylaw motion to confirm the

05:07:58

proceedings of this meeting. That has been moved by councelor Charman and seconded by councelor Stoalty that we enact and pass bylaw number 11, 2026 being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of council at our meeting of February 17, 2026 being read a first, second, and third time. All those in favor. Is that a recorded vote? Okay. Over over uh over to you for the recorded vote. >> Thank you. Councelor Golra >> support. Councelor Karns >> support. >> Councelor Nissan support.

05:08:29

>> Councelor Stoalty >> support. Councelor Charman >> support. >> Councelor Bentana >> support. >> Mayor me >> support. >> Seven in favor. >> And that does carry. And I now have a motion to adjourn this meeting. Moved by councelor Sherman. Seconded by councelor Nissan. All those in favor? Show of hands. Any opposed? Seeing none, we are adjourned until March. Thanks everyone.