Thread by @adamadonaldson

The regular council meeting begins at 6:30 pm (in 13 minutes)! It's a packed agenda, and this is what's on it: guelphpolitico.ca/2023/02/17/cit…

Mayor Guthrie calls the meeting to order.

Three items for discussion on the closed agenda.

3.4 - Council gave direction to staff.
3.5 - Council received info, and there will be motions later.
3.6 - Council received info.

No Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof.

First item on the agenda, a recognition: Recognition - Waterloo Area's Top Employers of 2023. Guthrie says that he was pleased that the City got this distinction for the second year in a row. Great sign about attracting and retaining talent.

Guthrie congratulations all City employees for making the corporation a great place to work. CAO Stewart, DCAO Lee, and GM of Human Resources Mark Ellis accepts the award on behalf of the City.

Motion to approve minutes from council meetings held November 15, January 10, 24 and 25, and the Committee of the Whole Meeting held January 10 by Gibson and Richardson. Approved unanimously.

Consent agenda from Committee of the Whole:

Goller asks to pull Guelph Greener Homes plan, so Goller and Busuttil move the contract. It passes unanimously.

Goller wants to take a moment to thank staff for getting this done, and notes that he's already had a couple of constituents reach out about applying. It's an important next step to make Guelph carbon neutral.

Busuttil says she wants to urge staff to focus on equity of access for modest income earners that might want to access this program. It would really benefit low income families too.

Goller/Busuttil move approval of the program, and it passes unanimously.

First item is 2022 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner with presentation by John Mascarin, Integrity Commissioner from Aird and Berlis LLP. Guthrie notes that this is going next because this is a short report.

Mascarin says there were really no problems last year. They investigated six complaints, 5 against one member, which Mascarin called "kind of a pile on." The sixth complaint was of a similar nature, but against another member. All 6 were dismissed.

There were no complaints from the general public last week, though there were a few people who flirted with the idea and then decided against it.

The integrity commissioner’s office also responded to four requests for advice. Mascarin said that council was quite good in their requests for advice by providing background info.

Mascarin commends councillors for seeking out advice and not getting themselves into ethical trouble.

No questions from council. Motion to receive the report moved by Downer and Goller. Passed unanimously.

Next, Operations Facilities Long-Term Plan Update. Nothing's changed since this was discussed at committee, but there is one delegate: John Fisher, President of Guelph Hiking Trail Club.

Fisher delegated at a previous meeting and wanted to encourage staff to look at opportunities to connect the site to trails to GID and through the City. Disappointed that integrate site development opportunities no considered in this plan.

Fisher has comments in the meeting agenda: pub-guelph.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ash…

Downer/Busuttil puts recommendation on the floor:

Cllr Caton asks staff about the cost feasibility to Fisher's request. Clack-Bush says she's not sure, but staff agrees with the needs for trails and are working with Parks staff on how to incorporate trails in this and other projects.

Cllr Downer said she asked earlier today about directing staff about trails. Asks if trails will be reflected in site plan to make sure it stays top of mind. DCAO Holmes says they'll be included in that info, and notes site plan is in infancy.

Cllr O'Rourke asks if a trail is added to this location, does it displace other trail projects in the plan? Clack-Bush says it's not their intention to displace anything, but they do have to balance capital and schedule. Won't automatically bump, but it's a consideration.

O'Rourke asks if a plan is displaced, does it come back to council for consideration? Clack-Bush says that's what the multiyear budget process is for.

Guthrie says there's already a great partnership with GHTC and the City, can they get involved before site plan comes back to council? Clack-Bush says certainly, and they will continue that dialogue.

Billings asks when staff might come back to council for preliminary approval for operating and capital budget? Holmes says there will be more defined costs in Q3 2024.

Billings asks if there's a Plan A or B for the design, like a cheap option and expensive option. Holmes says a facility like this is different from a library or rec centre where there are diff. considerations for programming. They have to meet certain requirements for grant💵.

Recommendations approved unanimously.

Additional motion from O'Rourke, and Richardson seconds.

O'Rourke wants some information for council to digest about planning and costs etc before it goes right to the MYB. Something that council can digest before the process.

Downer notes information reports are typically debated. She also doesn't want to force staff to provide information prematurely before all the facts are in.

Holmes notes that there is some information they still need to put together for the renovations piece, but imagines that there could be placeholders that staff couple make council aware of and then bring back "more refined" numbers as they get closer to tender.

Holmes suggests the possibility of a capital workshop in September that couple look at the whole capital work plan, asset management, capital budget and the 10-year capital forecast.

Guthrie says that it seems like there's a lot of positive reaction to this workshop idea, so he asks O'Rourke if maybe the motion is needed. A workshop would allow debate w/o a decision.

O'Rourke says the intent of her motion is to have ongoing awareness about the timelines. It's helpful to council, given the size of the project, to keep it in their line of site. There's going to be a lot referred to the four-year budget this year.

Cllr Allt asks if the discussion in the workshop will truncate any discussion about the ops campus specifically, b/c that seems to be what O'Rourke is getting at.

Holmes says the workshop is still in its infancy, so it can be set up anyway that council likes. The ops campus will be a part, but perhaps not in the detail some cllrs wants. Perhaps the report can come out in advance of the workshop.

Cllr Gibson says he would like another "touchpoint" because he's heard colleagues say that they don't debate policy or projects at budget, so those conversations should come before the budget.

O'Rourke notes that there likely won't be enough info about the long-term plan for the ops campus by September. Also, nothing prevents an info item from being drawn and brought to council for discussion.

Cllr Richardson said it would be helpful for the new councillors to get a report as a way of catching up.

O'Rourke motion passes unanimously.

Next, City of Guelph Housing Pledge - By Guelph, For Guelph. First, what kind of pledge is this?

Municipalities are being asked to go beyond the Places to Grow to build 18k homes per year. Of course, the City itself doesn't build housing but it has to create the conditions to encourage development.

Before and after ONgov demand to reach 1.5 million new homes by 2031:

Good info to consider, how many units per year have been built in the city in the last 20 years. We haven't been higher than around 1,400 in 2004. (ONgov wants us to get to 2,000 per year.)

Issues?
-cash flow and funding
-competition for staff
-all planning docs based on old targets
-pacing and capacity issues
-rapid development of infrastructure needed

City current reviewing and updated capital forecast, investing in downtown renewal and transportation infrastructure, and developing capital plan resource strategy.

In terms of financials
-complete growth-related revenue by-law reviews
-establish a process for front-ending agreements with developers
-advocate for upfront funding from ⬆️levels of gov.
-update City’s debt forecast to understand growth financing capacity

City asking for support from ONgov too:
-approval of increased pop. target from 203,000 to 208,000
-minister exempt appeals of 2ndary plans and CZB
-new long-term, permanent municipal funding strategy
-ONgov address parkland shortage

Also:
-bring back bonusing
-ONgov look at issuance delays within their ministries
-ONgov fund and expedite approval for necessary infrastructure including water supply, waste treatment plants.
-approve the backlog of Environmental Assessments
...

-ONgove provide clear and consistent guidance with respect to Indigenous engagement, and fund capacity requirements
-ONgov commit to building supporting institutions including schools, hospitals, daycares, and long-term care facilities.
...

-support the associated funding of health care workers, paramedics, etc
- increases education and training spaces in the Guelph area to provide the highly- skilled talent
-provide additional investments for housing in cities with post-secondary institutions.
...

-increase funding for affordable and supportive housing projects to address the critical shortage.
-And that all stakeholders be held jointly accountable for targets!!!

[fin]

Stewart says that the speed that the City needs to respond means what we need help, and the City is open to fitting working to achieve these goals so long as we can get that assistance and not shoulder the burden alone.

This is the full 6-page pledge: pub-guelph.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ash…

Stewart says we've got to be made whole, and this is essential to accomplish the goal. The City does not have the financial and human resource capacity to get there alone.

Stewart notes that this is a pledge Guelph is making with many factors are outside of control. What happens if the Bank of Canada changes interest rates and no one's buying? The City can't control that.

Mike Moffat, Senior Director of Policy and Innovation at the Smart Prosperity Institute, now joins the meeting via telepresence to offer a broader lens.

Why housing crunch now? Big population boom of new adults arrive in Ontario. Look at this graph:

A lot of this growth is because of increased immigration targets, and a lot of this is also because of a strong Ontario economy that might naturally attract more immigrants anyway. Moffat adds that 1.5 mn new units is about right in terms of goal, might also be low ball.

Moffat says he's not sure if people have wrapped their head around the size of the challenge. Ontario has never built more Thant 850k in a 10 year time period, and the last time we've done 750k in 10 years is 40 years ago.

Moffat notes that we build houses the same way now that we did 50 years ago. We can't take what we've been doing, the way we've been doing it, and then double it. Here's a list of stuff we need to do:

Moffat says that this issue is not the fault of municipalities or any one actor in the system including upper levels of government, developers, and higher education. There has been a lack of co-ordination to address things.

Alternative plan:

Guthrie asks for questions for Moffat. Allt asks about the missing land and the missing labour. Moffat says the Fed gov and CMHC should play a larger role than discussed. There should also be more recruiting in skilled trades. Need to bring all stakeholders together.

Moffat says the labour piece is the biggest bottleneck, and if there's a reason why we fail get to 1.5 million units it will be because of the labour gaps.

Allt asks about people downsizing and turnover of existing units. Moffat says he need to be building units that seniors - who are most likely to be the source of the turnover - are comfortable with. His own parents threaten to downsize every year and never do.

Goller asks about the value of a city pledging to double approval without the commensurate support. Moffat says the city is being asked to pledge something it doesn't control, as opposed to zoning, approvals or boundaries. If interest rates go up to 10% no one's going to build.

O'Rourke asks Moffat about keys to affordability. Moffat said CMHC reported that we would need 2 million new homes to get to 90s/00s level of affordability. Having said that, we need to build non-market housing, and variety of housing. Not 100% market.

O'Rourke note MPAC report saying single-detached homes getting bigger, misuse of land, so what options? Moffat says there's ways to build more density w/o going smaller. Can some requirements be changed to allow for more space in building code/planning?

Gibson asks if the pledge to build 1.5 million homes will drive skilled labour to come to Ontario? Moffat says theoretically yes, but since housing is expensive it's tough to get people to relocate. It's a "cruel irony."

Downer says she's guilty of being overhoused too, but wonders if there will be a lot of housing available in 10-15 years. Moffat says maybe there's room for something in-between, more on/off ramps in the housing market is need b/c causing issues on both sides.

Downer says that when Moffat says we need a co-ordinated approach, it's not going to happen! The ONgov is probably not going to read their caveats. Moffat says that the convo has changed, a few years ago it was hard to convince people that more supply was needed...

...In any challenge, the first step is admitting that there's a problem, and we've done that. Agrees that everyone working together is not a great strategy so try and find specific asks.

Chew asks about the missing middle, and how can we incentivise it. Moffat says the most that the City can do is zoning, height restrictions and those sorts of things, and after that its advocacy. Not a lot of levers for municipalities.

Billings asks Moffat about staff conditions in Guelph pledge, does it give it more teeth? Moffat's not sure, but he does reinforce that this needs to be a full team solution, and it's reasonable for the City to point out how they need help to achieve the goals of the pledge.

Guthrie asks Moffat about how increasing market supply will help with affordability. Moffat says housing is a system, and the lack of market rate housing is driving renovictions. It's a good mechanism for preventing displacement.

That's it from Moffat, so we move on to delegations starting with David Douglas. He says that 48 hours ago he had a delegation supporting the pledge, but he's had a change of heart after doing a lot of reading about the full impact of Bill 23.

Next is Tanya Gevaert, who say Bill 23 is even worse than she thought, and notes that the pledge is a testament to the City's inability to say no to unrealistic expectations and what's council to vote against it.

Goller asks if Gevaert would change her mind knowing that funds from ONgov might be at stake. Gevaert says that she hopes the population would revolt if needed funding is contingent on cities signing the pledge.

Josh Kaufman, VP of Guelph and District Homebuilders Association, is next. He says this is an excellent step forward to collective action on the housing process. But... they don't like the request for exemptions from the minister, or being held equally accountable.

Busuttil asks thoughts on units approved but haven't started building yet. Kaufman says timing is a factor, things have to move quickly to put shovels in the ground, if approvals come timely then the housing should be built but some stuff is still out of control.

Caron asks Kaufman believes we can build 18k unit in the next 8 years? He says he thinks they can make a "significant dent" in the target, if we don't get to the finish line.

Allt asks about Kaufman's definition of urban boundary expansion. He says if there's an ability to extend the boundary, it will allow more housing to occur.

Allt asks if we should be considering expansion into GET or Puslinch. Kaufman says we should.

Allt asks about one developer that told him there would be no affordable housing unless the gov donates the land. Kaufman says he thinks affordable housing can be developed, and there are opportunities that can enable it.

Allt asks about the level of affordable purchasing, is it $650k? Kaufman says he can't confirm or refute, but can look into it. This caused a bit of a kerfuffle as Guthrie wanted to know where Allt was going with this apparently feeling Allt was playing gotcha.

Goller asks if we going to be doing more approving than building, and is the HBA going to overcome that? Kaufman says they support education in trades, and adds that if the City permits it, they (the developers) will come.

Goller asks if the HBA gave their notes to the City in advance. Kaufman says a letter was sent to mayor and council on Feb 24, but there was collaboration in providing comments in advance of the draft pledge.

Cllr Klassen asks about the effect of interest rates. Kaufman says most builders take on construction debt, which is affected by the rate (higher rate = higher debt = higher cost).

Klassen asks if Kaufman has seen any municipality ask for stabilisation of interest rates as part housing goals. He says that he hopes things stabilise, but he's not an economist so he's not sure when. Kaufman just knows it's having an impact.

Caton asks about plans from HBA to address accessible housing. Kaufman says his association is in support of all types of housing, and if there's an opportunity for accessible build, it will be exploited.

O'Rourke asks how the City can deliver with less DCs, and the HBA's commitment to build quality amenity spaces? Kaufman says they support building great communities, and the higher the charges for fees the higher the impact on prices. He notes this is a "black swan" moment.

Kaufman says he'a proponent for growth paying for growth, but growth also has to be reasonable. They do support the idea of getting more help from the Province to help pay for infrastructure.

O''Rourke asks if HBA is prepared to entertain a pledge not to build on wetlands. Kaufman says it's "hard to address" right now. Is O'Rourke looking for something tonight. O'Rourke says she wants to know where Guelph builders stand on the environment.

Kaufman adds that the HBA does support protecting the environment.

Guthrie calls for a five minute break!

Mayor Guthrie calls the meeting back to order.

This is the recommendation:

Guthrie says that there are "several" amendments coming, and asks council to let their vote be their voice. He also acknowledges that council will have a lot to say, but maybe we can keep it brief.

Goller asks if it would be prudent to defer this since the deadline is March 22. Maybe we can come back to this refreshed. Guthrie says they're rounding third, but he wouldn't stop someone from deferring this.

Gibson/Busuttil move the original recommendation.

Caron asks about end of life replacement for development in the 50s/60s, and the infrastructure here is for new housing. Would the former be out of scope? Treasurer Baker says that while the focus is growth, growth will be happening in intensification area. So both 🤷‍♂️

Stewart says there will be questions about infrastructure and service levels too, but to sure how that might be worded in the pledge. Holmes points to point #6 in the pledge could cover Caron's concerns. pub-guelph.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ash…

Goller asks about the report about vacant properties in the Golden Horseshoe mentioned by delegate Douglas. GM planning Walkey says she's aware of the report, but hasn't had chance to read it full yet.

This is the report in question: yourstoprotect.ca/wp-content/upl…

Goller asks about the cost of not signing the pledge. Walkey notes that they've outlined their concerns and limitations in the pledge. If the pledge can't be accomplished, the City has essentially outline the reasons why. We need the pledge to advance our case.

Goller asks about previous discussions with the HBA. Stewart says there were no commitments given, but they were co-operative and positive. They looked for common ground, even though it was clear there were things the couldn't get behind.

Stewart talks about the dilemma: The City can build infrastructure somewhere, but they can't make people build the units. Also, the City will have to make choices about where to building the infrastructure, they can't work city-wide at one time.

Goller asks if council can put on different quotas for different types of housing. Walkey says no, and that is a disappointment. Supportive and student housing specifically mentioned in the pledge.

Klassen asks what happens if council doesn't approve the pledge. Walkey says requests for funding and other things the City's asked for requires the pledge to be in place. Staff are comfortable with the pledge as worded because it gives them leverage with the province.

Guthrie says the Province is putting weight on this whether council agrees or not. Council has heard tonight that everything is intertwined, and how's it going to work on the intergovernmental side if Guelph doesn't sign the pledge. It makes things harder.

Allt asks about the impact of raising affording housing level to the prov. definition of 80% or market. Walkey says it will change how the City defines "affordable" and they're working on the report right now.

Guthrie notes that the DC waving it tied to the new definition of affordable. A Guelph house price $600-$700k could, theoretically, be defined as affordable now and have its fees waved.

Allt asks if the provincial and federal government must be involved in housing. Walkey says yes!

First proposed amendment from Downer/Goller, this would replace the original recommendation #2:

Downer says that she thinks these targets are unobtainable for a number of reasons, but it sounds like there could be consequences for not signing the pledge even if it's only as good a commitment form the ONgov to make it happen.

Amendment approved unanimously.

O'Rourke/Busuttil motion to add this to the pledge. Passes unanimously.

O'Rourke second amendment passes unanimously.

O'Rourke/Richardson motion calling on the ONgov to pause all changes to planning and population targets for five years.

Gibson asks how the ONgov can pause population targets, those are kind of out of their control. O'Rourke says the pop. targets in Places to Grow and other things come from the provincial ministries.

Guthrie says he "adores" this motion. The City needs breathing room, and constant changes are coming down from the Province.

Gibson says he was happy to let his vote be his voice, but are we going to tell people where to go and that immigrants can come here. He doesn't like this conversation. Not at all.

Guthrie says it doesn't matter what we think, but the water capacity of the area is telling us.

Allt says he has some problem with the last conversation because it's saying that our population targets are racists, but the rest of that got eaten up in tech garble.

"I'm going to call the vote to move on," Guthrie says.

The motion passes 12-1.

Caton motion on accessibility passes unanimously.

Klassen motion about engaging the Feds passes unanimously.

Klassen and Gibson move this motion that originates from Guthrie. Wants to hold ONgov to their word about making municipalities whole and open up the books.

That motion passes unanimously.

Motion as amended passes unanimously.

Motion to extend the meeting past 11 pm passes unanimously.

Last item, The Elliott Long-Term Care Residence Report - Approval for Long Term Care Home Redevelopment. Michelle Karker, CEO of The Elliot Community begins.

Karker thanks staff at the City and the Elliott for pulling all this together. It's take a lot of effort to pull this together on tight deadlines, and they are up-to-date and ready to move this on to the next stage.

There are five motions in the staff memo. They pass unanimously.

There are also two additional motions from the closed session. Moved by Allt/O'Rourke.

Guthrie asks if staff can ask the Elliott staff can scope the monthly reports so that they look similar to the Tier 1 project reports. Clack-Bush says yes, and that they will come to the Committee of Management and for information to council.

Motions passes unanimously.

Karker thanks council for the support and looks forward to adding more beds to LTC "very soon."

Bylaws of the week pass unanimously.

Meeting adjourned!

@threadreaderapp, unroll please!