It looks like Mayor Guthrie is going to be appearing virtually, and so will Cllrs Caton, Billings, and Caron.
Mayor Guthrie has called the meeting to order. No Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof.
One item on the agenda: Analysis of Bill 109 (More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022) and Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022). Guthrie says it's interesting that we're meeting on National Housing Day today.
Guthrie notes that this meeting it "out of turn" with a lot of intergovernmental work that the City does. But in some cases, there are important issues that need to be discussed in a whole meeting. He and staff thought this was worthwhile.
Staff presentation begins with CAO Stewart who says staff have sent a lot of time doing analytical work. These changes are significant and come on the back of other significant changes that we're just now starting to understand. He adds, essentially, that this is not normal.
Stewart adds that the ONgov approach is disrespectful to municipalities and is not the way that they should be doing engagement to find common ground.
Previously on provincial mandated changes to planning: 
Stewart says that the biggest challenge is a "serious lack of consultation" even though we agree with the goal: get more housing. There are massive concerns about the impact of these changes on affordability and greenspace. Higher density less greenspace is "mind boggling."
Stewart notes that AMO was denied a chance to advocate at committee, AMO being the most important engagement partner. He notes that the province cost Guelph $3.8 million in loss money spent on developing plans that no longer apply due to ONgov changes.
Jodie Sales, Acting GM of Strategic Communications and Community Engagement takes over to talk about how intergovernmental usually works. Typically, when the gov opens consultation, their feedback will be in an info report.
Sales notes that there are presently 18 open commentary periods at the Province right now. Typically, they get 18 all year long.
Next is Krista Walkey, GM of Planning and Building Services with a high-level overview of the changes to those 18 pieces of legislation.
First, number of homes: The City had accounted for just over 10k by 2051 in the latest OPA. Now the Province is asking for 18k, nearly twice as many. Walkey notes that the City does not build houses, but are being asked to sign a pledge to build 18k.
Correction: 2031 not 2051.
Walkey notes that the housing targets have been changed three times in the last three years, that's a lot of last staff time
On changes to the OLT, the ONgov was originally going to cut the time line for third-party (developers) appeals, which was actually good, but now they're back in the leg. as of yesterday.
Also, if a developer is successful at the OLT, the municipality may have to pay for their costs. This is a big change to the way the tribunal currently works.
Impact on conservation authorities: Changes to the Greenbelt, and wetlands protection, plus limiting the scope of CAs. Municipal costs and liability will be increased because of these changes to regulation and oversight, and could impact NHS. No cost/time savings here.
Loss of wetland protection would also increase costs to stormwater management system b/c of reduction to protected area around wetlands to 30m. These changes will lead to wetland loss in Guelph, and loss of endangered animals since that's removed as a condition of protection.
The leg. can remove wetlands from protected lands, which will also affect urban forest management and other environmental directives. The leg. does say they can be replaces elsewhere in the watershed but how? 🤷♂️
Changes to Heritage Act: Dismantle of register by delisting things not registered after two years, will likely result in the loss of "thousands" of heritage properties around the province. Designation the only long-term solution. In Guelph there's 1,713 listed vs. 270+ registered
Now, properties listed have to meet two criteria instead of one, which will make heritage lean to post-settlement heritage elements. (Noted at HG earlier this month that many listed properties meeting all 3 criteria.)
Walkey notes that the MMAH has the City's most recent OPA and it was supposed to be reviewed, but that review is paused because of these changes. She says many of the directives in the leg. were addressed in changes to the recent OPA.
Walkey says that there are a lot of goals that the city wants to achieve with planning, and all of that's at risk.
Removal of site plan review to be cancelled for 10 units or less, and Walkey notes that one developer filed an application & withdrew it last week waiting for these changes to go into effect.
Landscaping and urban design will be removed from sit plan control. Walkey says that Guelph takes a lot of pride in how it looks and that will be lost. A lot of worst case scenarios being envisioned in the planning office.
Changes to affordable residential: Walkey says it would be solely determined by market rate, and that definition of "affordable" is 80 per cent of market value. Walkey notes that there's no room in this for geared-to-income. The market def. of affordablity now is over $600k.
Ontario Building Code: Will attempt to harmonise ON code with the national one, and staff is generally in favour of that idea, but there are some safety concerns about, of all things, fire safety on stacked townhouses and other mid-rise builds.
Shanna O'Dwyer, Acting GM of Finance/City Treasurer, takes over about the financial impacts, which are changing day-by day. O'Dwyer says they're working with Watson & Associates to get better numbers.
O'Dwyer notes that it's not just a lot of revenue, DCs affect all areas of planning that has already been done, from OPA 80 to the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan. Without upper levels of gov. financial support, the shortfall will be felt in increased taxes.
City will lose 10-15% of revenue during the 5-year phase in period, which means over $2 million per year. Plus there's a number of new discounts and exemptions that will apply to DCs. New infrastructure will still be required for all new developments:
Parkland: New cap on collection for parkland, which the City presently has in the case of downtown, but the cap is smaller and applies to the whole city. Could cost 60% of parkland revenue at the same time as demand increases b/c or high density development.
Community Benefit Charges: Not significant source of revenue... yet. It will increase with addition of more high density development, but the ONgov has just changed it with added exemptions. It's worth noting that the CBC only went into effect in Sept.
Impacts on operating budget: More staff needed to respond, and it will take time to scale up. Even developers can't double their efforts overnight, so there's time, but all municipalities will be accelerating development at the exact same time.
On the plus side, there would be more assessment growth and utility revenue, but that's a lagging indicator and exact figures are unknown.
In summary:
Specifically:
O'Dwyer adds that real help would come with the creation of new financial tools to raise the revenue to cover the cost of building more housing.
Gary Scanlan, Associate Director of Watson and Associates Economists, takes over for comments. He notes that in 1989 you could still recover 100 per cent of costs for growth but the has dwindled over time. Harris gov alone removed 20-30% in 1997.
Scanlon says this could remove another 25% from being recovered by DCs, and he's never seen a cut in DCs result in a corresponding cut in the cost of housing.
Scanlon says this is meant to increase supply, and he did get a chance to speak at committee to express the concerns of all of W&As municipal clients. There's a sizeable amount of water and wastewater that needs to be build first on new lands, Clair-Maltby among them.
This infrastructure has to be bult upfront, and thus it puts the city in a position of not being able to supply the land that developers need. He's hard mixed feelings about Bill 23 from the development comm. Thought there'd be a financial commitment from ONgov too.
Scanlon notes that affordability is now being pressured in communities outside the Golden Horseshoe rim, which would include Guelph. The burden is being put on the communities, and many of them will not be able to afford the financial burden.
Scalon notes that the full impact of these changes will take years to be fully known, and if the goal is to create more housing, the focus should be on real affordable housing using cause and reward and methods. DC cuts won't affect McMansions, but they will other needed housing.
Back to Walkey, who looks at the changes to fees from Bill 109, which was introduce in March and passed before the election.
Prior to Bill 109 going into effect, staff were planning on a three year review of fees, and as they're trying to catch up they have an alternative process in effect to deal with developers.
These are the changes to the Development charges mentioned in Recommendation #3:
O'Dwyer takes over again with final thoughts starting here:
DCAO Jayne Holmes wraps up saying that staff has presented a lot of information, and based on what they've done so far, these changes are "against the public interest" and they're concerned how the decisions of the Province will affect Guelph.
Holmes: Bill 23 has "no regard for responsible planning" and it's unclear how downloading is going to result in more, and more affordable, housing.
Again, Holmes says that the City agrees with the goal of creating more housing, but they don't have the staff or financial resources to make it a reality as proposed in Bill 23. She urges council to approve the recommendations:
Holmes notes that council is waiting for another flight, so he's only available till 11:30 for questions.
Cllr O'rourke asks about a provision for municipalities to allocate DCs on an annual basis, effect on reserves? Scanlon says there's no process on paper right now, hope it's simply a question of transparency in the leg.
Allt asks if Bill 23 will disrupt any ongoing efforts to create affordable housing. Scanlon says it appears that the stimulus is coming from the local level, not the provincial.
Allt asks if cities can afford the price tag. Scanlon says they will be challenged by delay or reduction of services.
Guthrie calls a five-minute break before delegations.
Guthrie calls the meeting back to order.
We're now going to start with delegations. Guthrie thanks staff for the presentation, but he asks delegates to keep everything "well summarised" and be efficient.
First delegate is Lin Grist, who says it's a shame that the ONgov would drop this so soon after the election. Concerned about the cost on residents without any promise that this will create affordable housing. It does nothing to promise more housing, but does a lot for sprawl.
Next delegate is Ron East of the Council of Canadians, Guelph Chapter, and the CofC has united opposition to the bill. Staff didn't touch on the governance effects and how the bill will replace local democracy with a centralised autocratic model.
Ron East right now...
Next up is Tanya Gevaert. She's concerned that there's not enough time for feedback to matter, and adds that we don't know if DC savings will be passed on to buyers. She also hopes that the opening of the Greenbelt will be handled another meeting.
David J. A. Douglas from the U of G School of Environmental Design & Rural Development is next. He notes that the environmental damage of the bill is considerable & it will impact local democracy & erode trust in the effectiveness in governments. He calls the bill "catastrophic."
Susan Watson is next who begins by asking f the lectern is ever coming back. On the topic at head, she questions the timing of announcing the Bill, so it was clearly a pre-meditated ambush. Bill 23 will set Guelph on path to financial, social, and enviro ruin.
Watson calls Bill 23 "broad daylight mugging by Ford's developer cronies." It's also going to exacerbate the affordability problem, so City needs to ask the ONgov not to extend consultation, but to cancel the legislation.
Watson asks council to tell the Province that if the legislation is not withdrawn, then they will put a moratorium on all new development.
Susan Watson delegation right now.
Next up is Elizabeth Snell. She says that Bill 23 is likely against the interest of all five of the City's Strategic Plan directives. The announced policies are "oblivious" to the way ecosystems function, and the effectiveness of GAs to prevent flooding and improve the community.
Next is Morgan Dandie (and her little service dog). She notes that one of the thing Bill 23 affects is removing housing supports, which goes to the most vulnerable. Who's going to pay for reduction in property taxes on apartments? All the current homeowners.
She also says that apartment managers are unlikely to download savings to renters either. She also notes that when Milton was adding 1,000 units per month, they were having trouble keeping up with infrastructure. Mattamy Homes gave Milton a loan, that's how dev get stuff done.
Donna Jennison is next. Notes that climate change is an overarching concern especially with apparent government inaction on the matter. Notes how developers bought up half the land now earmarked to lose G.Belt protection after Ford was first elected in 2018.
Susan Ratcliffe, local history geek 😉, is next. She says Bill 23 made her cry with despair about the fate of heritage. She notes that the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario was also barred from presenting at the standing committee.
Ratcliffe also says that the bill spits in the face of Gordon Couling, the namesake of the Couling list made in the 70s logging over 5,000 buildings in Guelph built before 1927.
Next is Steven Petric, who says Bill 23 is a judgement of quantity over quality and that setting a number is not the same as a housing plan. Risks an imbalance in the city because new houses will not be sourced or supported in the same way as older homes.
Shakiba Shayani, Pres & CEO of Guelph Chamber of Commerce, is next. She says he need to aspire to do more on housing. Requests that council puts aside partisanship and blame, and has confidence in local developers as partners. Does agree that Bill 23 has some conflict with goals.
Cllr Caron asks Shayani about builders concerns about lack of workers and materials. She says she's hearing that. There are a variety of financial pressures and what they need from government is stability and predictability, and getting their POV about what's actionable.
Mike Puddister is next. He's the chair of City's Natural Heritage Advisory Committee, and he encourages council to take a strong position and force the ONgove to do real consultation that will not undermine planning process.
O'Rourke asks Puddister about concerns when it comes to underplaying climate change impacts. Puddister says we need to think of Natural Heritage as a system that has a number of impacts on the community. Violating their integrity will result in greater climate change impacts.
Next up is Alexander Krucker, who asks council to demand that the Province withdraw Bill 23 until full consultation is done. He's especially concerned about the loss of heritage assets. Heritage or housing is a false narrative.
Krucker adds that never has the ignoring of a heritage designation resulted in cost savings on housing prices. No way that the City can review 1,700 buildings in the next two years and determine if they should be designated.
Ryan Scott is the last delegate. He says the ONgov has proved that they're willing to intervene in municipalities, but Guelph knows how to build Guelph. It's not certain if the Bill will achieve goals, but it believes Guelph should build Guelph.
Cllr Goller asks what kind of help do developers need to get the 6k-plus approved units built. Scott says he doesn't know where the 6k units are, but he thinks timely feedback is helpful, not losing momentum, no mandates in bill to hold developers accountable to timelines either.
Goller asks if Fusion has any developments waiting for shovels in the ground. Scott says it's company policy to get shovels in ground as soon as possible. They had a project approved this spring, breaking ground this fall.
O'Rourke asks about the mechanism in the legislation for developers to pass on cost savings. Scott says having reviewed the bill he doesn't see any mechanism to guarantee cost savings for buyers. But every month of delay in process, there's a cost.
O'Rourke asks is there's a role for developers to co-sign the development pledge. Scott says there's possibility, because building more homes, and timely, is a multi-party effort.
O'Rourke asks if Bill 23 will change GID 2ndary Plan. Scott isn't sure but he doesn't think so. That plan's been in place for a long time and was well vetted.
Cllr Busuttil asks if Scott saw a place in the legislation that talks about complete communities (aside from good will). Scott says he doesn't see a lot of mechanisms. Fusion's approach is co-operation.
Busuttil asks if Fusion is pro- or anti-Bill 23. Scott says the Bill is focused on how to make an immediate dent on supply, but he doesn't think it's perfect in any form. The need, however, is evident.
Busuttil says it's clear that Bill 23 changes the power dynamic and puts in the hands of developers, so it's important to recognise that.
Cllr Allt asks about challenges of labour and supply chain. Scott says it's been a roller coaster the last few years, and its required a lot of resources. Supply chain issues have changed week-to-week, and have had to stay ahead of it as much as possible.
Allt asks about cost per sq foot for home construction. Scott says there's many factors depending on the type of development, but generally 10-15% annual increases year-over-year depending on timing.
Allt asks if the bill is addressing these factors. Scott says not really, these are inflationary pressures (labour and supply).
Allt asks if Bill 23 will bring down costs. Scott there are mechanism that attempt to bring them down, but not really (he trailed off there).
Allt asks if Bill 23 will bring down costs. Scott there are mechanism that attempt to bring them down, but not really (he trailed off there).
Allt: Will Fusion have other forms of housing on their GID development? Scott says there's an opportunity to do something meaningful here on affordable housing.
Allt asks if Fusions plans would change if there was no Bill 23. Scott says no.
Allt asks if Fusions plans would change if there was no Bill 23. Scott says no.
Guthrie asks about the new fee schedule? Scott says he sympathizes with staff for the position they're in and thinks the fee changes look reasonable on first blush.
That's the end of delegations, so Mayor Guthrie calls a lunch break. Asks council to consider how best to be effective when we get back.
We will resume at 1:40 pm!
We will resume at 1:40 pm!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
