Sound check. 1 2 3 I'd like to welcome everyone to a general issues meeting part two uh July 30th GIC 26011 I believe is the number. Welcome back committee members, the media staff. Uh, thank you for for being here. Uh, we have councelor Francis online in chambers, councelor Clark Cooper, Morin Wilson, Crutch, Alex Wilson, Wang, and Casar. Uh, just quickly, please don't leave uh if you have to. Currently, I'm expecting some more people, but right now we are at quorum, so stay uh and ask if you are going to leave. Thanks. Uh, we're on items for consideration. Uh, 8.2 PD26151. uh sports tour hosting opportunities citywide. Uh move and second to put the item on the floor, please. Councelor Casar, councelor Wang. Um there is a confidential appendix. Hopefully uh we don't need to discuss that. Um any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'm going to move to the electronic vote, please. And this is uh to recommend um whatever's in the report. Just give us a sec to get the robots working or the wizards. Welcome, councelor Jackson. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> That carries 9 to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 8.3. PW26081 ER260419. Invitation to municipalities to register potential interest in implementing a water wastewater public corporation model. Move her and second her to put the item on the floor. Councelor Moren Wilson. Councelor Wang. We'll go to councelor Moren Wilson. >> Thank you, Mary. Thank you very much, Chair. Um I I appreciate that. Uh I believe the report when I did read it uh offers the caveat that we don't know what the objectives are of um of this initiative by the government of Ontario and so we're kind of responding a little bit in a vacuum but I I would like staff first of all to give an overview and give particular emphasis if they could to the pilot that is ongoing um in Peele and to perhaps opine on what might be the objective ives in your professional opinion and or that of GM Zagar's um on these initiatives. >> Thank you, Councelor Wilson. We're going to go with Director Winters first and then we'll go to GM Zerick if he has something to add. Director Winters couple minute overview. Thank you. >> Certainly. Uh thank you, Nick Winters, director of the Hamilton Water Division. Um so to the councelor's question uh there have been ongoing discussions uh at the provincial level um for a number of years about the potential benefits of a municipal water wastewater public utilities. Um there are existing models in Ontario where this has proven to be effective. Um uh Aqua which is a provincial agency is one example. Um Union Water uh out in Windsor Essex County is another. Um, and I know talking to the leaders of those utilities, the benefits that they see is that really you're pooling assets. >> Uh, and as a result, you're able to achieve economies of scale. Um, we treat a lot of water, wastewater from chemical purchasing, uh, contractors that work in those systems. Um, the more assets, the more you do, uh, you can get some cost efficiencies, uh, there. Um as part of the Peele region uh review uh that the provincial government initiated a couple of years ago uh there was a lot of talk about um a transition to separate governments um separate municipal governments for town of Kaledan uh city of Bmpton uh city of Missaga. uh that never ended up happening. But a key topic of discussion through those was this continued idea of um combining the water wastewater storm water functions between the lower tier municipalities and the region of Peele and that's something that carried on uh beyond the departure from that regional government uh review. Um and so the province through legislation uh moved forward to mandate that Peele consolidate all of those functions along with the lower tier municipalities under the region of Peele. Um and that's a pilot that is ongoing now and the purpose of the pilot really is to prove out um the provincial government's belief um that there are going to be efficiencies achieved through centralization of all those functions. Um, and I will say uh that as the uh leader responsible for the utility here in Hamilton, I agree that there are benefits to a model where you have the utility who is providing endtoend operation. Um, you know, thinking from treating water all the way to uh serving the the customers that are using that water, that's an important thing. Same thing from collecting waste water from the customers who are generating that waste water. uh taking it all the way from collection to treatment and discharge to the natural environment. This is something that Hamilton already benefits from in our existing model and I think it's a very important thing uh as the leader of the utility to have eyes on all of those operations and be accountable for those operations. So I do expect that Peele region is going to achieve um significant value from making the making the transition under this pilot. Um, from a financial perspective, we're unclear on where efficiencies or additional value, excuse me, [clears throat] might materialize from that change. And so, uh, that is one of our major areas of interest to follow along in the pilot is are there financial efficiencies that are achieved? How are they showing those as part of this pilot program? Um my perspective is that we already benefit from anything that's going to be created, but we'll happy to be happy to follow along and see what else is there is. Uh and I'll stop there. >> Thank you, director. GM Zerick, anything to add? I >> if I if I could premise that question to GM Ziggar, apologies chair for interrupting. I am interested in hearing your opinion on my understanding is the capacity to issue debt is going to be transferred to the model and but the uh ongoing operating costs of what is remains with uh the municipal governments. I I'm just not sure and if you could um validate that or correct me and then offer a personal opinion on the opportunities or risks and the relationship to land use development, please. >> Jim Zerk through the chair. I appreciate uh Director Winter's um summary and comments with respect to other jurisdictions. I'm not familiar with the experience in other jurisdictions. So I'll speak to what's proposed as it relates to a municipal corporation for water and wastewater and more specifically around financial matters and and governance matters. This is I understand what is being proposed is that uh the governance would transfer over to a separate board similar to Hamilton Renewable Power Inc. or to a certain um uh extent uh electra for instance >> and uh so uh governance decisions would be made at the board level. Um, uh, I'll just weigh in a bit on operations and that not clear to me. We have, uh, good coordination between our public works, more specifically transportation, engineering, uh, roads and Helm water and wastewater if they were if it was a separate entity. Not clear to me how that coordination would continue uh, under a separate entity. Financially what is uh being proposed is this separate entity uh could issue debt but the debt would still reside with the city of Hamilton. So it would not reduce uh our debt uh limitations. It would be reflected as city of Hamilton debt. Uh but uh again not clear if we would be issuing debt on their behalf but at any rate it would be city of Hamilton debt. we would be accountable responsible for that debt. >> Okay. >> So in terms of servicing that debt, the rate setting would rest with the board. They would make decisions with respect to rate setting. As I understand it, the oversight unlike uh electricity, the oversight would not be with uh a separate entity like the Ontario Energy Board as I understand it. The oversight would be with the minister. the minister would have the ultimate approval in terms of approving the rate increase uh or not. Um I see the greatest risk under this proposal uh as it relates to the funding for growth. >> It's not clear whether or not this entity would be eligible to collect development charges. >> Yes, that's right. Thank you. And if it does not have the authority to collect development charges and the city would not have any authority to collect development charges on behalf of the entity those costs like hydro like electricity would be borne by all rate setters. So it would be a redistribution >> of of those costs. Uh so just highlighting some of the financial uh factors as I understand it as it relates to the corporation. Not clear for a single tier municipality what this would uh potentially result in in terms of efficiencies or gains. Uh and uh with respect to to growth again development charges as being a large factor but to my earlier point is just um not clear in terms of whether we would continue to realize the efficiencies and effectiveness we have with um delivering uh whether it's growth enabling projects or state of good repair projects that coordination across city departments uh including him to water. >> Thank you for that. You answered my third question which was going to be about the DCs and the clarity. Appreciate your overview both of you. Thank you >> council clerk. >> So does the erro indicate anything beyond or who would be issuing the debt? I mean when the city issues the debt we hold the debt. There's been a lot of talk at Queens Park about uh attracting investors and they would work to pay off the debt through user fees. [snorts] So, I'm concerned that these public utilities will actually be making money for private investors and putting that on top of the rateayers. Can you speak to that? >> Jim Ziger. >> Yeah, through the chair. I think I heard two questions. So maybe uh and councelor Clark, you'll correct me if I misinterpreted your your question. not clear as it relates to what is being proposed whether or not uh the province is suggesting that there be private sector uh equity holders or investors as it relates to these utilities whether it's through a IPO or some form of uh equity buyin for for again for the corporations uh if if we just make a parallel to electricity or hydro electricity and hydro may have a return on an investment of about 9%. And so if you just uh assume that model there would be some form of return on investment uh and so under a corporation and again this would be under municipal corporation act under legislation so very much operating like a corporation. So I'll just make the parallel with respect to electricity around 9%. With respect to debt, it would be city of Hamilton debts or municipal debt. Not clear whether or not the city would be issuing the debt. I'll assume they would. Similar to I'll use uh City Housing Hamilton for example, as the shareholder, we guarantee and we issued the debt on behalf of City Housing Hamilton. So again, not clear as to what efficiency there would be as it relates to debt under our current model. debt is available to the city of Hamilton. Under the current model, that debt is an obligation under city of Hamilton. Under the proposed model, the debt would continue to be an obligation to City of Hamilton. Under the proposed model, I would assume the city of Hamilton would be issuing the debt. Maybe the only change would be the board would make the determination as to debt equity, the amount of debt uh and that would be um delegated to the board. >> [snorts] >> So, if I'm hearing correctly, this new board would be arms length from the city of Hamilton and could set whatever fees they want in terms of basically selling water and treating waste water through the chair. Uh, that's my understanding. uh h however it's my understanding that the ultimate uh deciding body would be the minister uh and sorry I apologize not sure which minister uh unlike electricity where it's the Ontario uh energy board uh this would be ultimate decision making in terms of approval would lie with the minister >> I'm not sure if that provides me great comfort or less comfort. Um, is there a way of putting into our comments back to the province that it needs to be a revenue neutral operation? That any revenue that they collect from fees is the actual revenue that's required to pay for the capital and operations. In other words, we don't want anyone from the private sector making money off this. through the chair, we can take that away. uh if it's the will of committee to amend uh what I'm understanding and hearing is the city of Hamilton would want to ensure that the model would be self- sustaining that the revenues would satisfy the operation in capital and that uh the funds that are generated are reinvested into the city and uh and would not include uh some sort of a a profit or or margin uh that would be redirected outside of investments into the system. >> Yes, that would be my suggestion. Um [clears throat] I'm a little bit concerned that the motivation here at least from the minister and cabinet seems to be the elimination of development charges paying for water services and sewer services. um that's going to change the proforma significantly and I'm worried about private sector involvement. So that's my concerns. I'll leave it with the committee. Okay. So just so everybody's clear, the recommendations are that would staff be direct to submit the responses that are in appendix A indicating that the city while the city is not advocating for particular governance models prepared to work with the province to support governance arrangements that ensure the continued delivery of safe, reliable, cost-effective water, wastewater, and storm water services. That is the vote the vote currently. There's no one on the speaker's list. So if we're not making an amendment to that, then there we go. Councelor Clark, go ahead. Thank you. So, um I don't want to draft an amendment on the fly. Um we're going to be ratifying this at council next week. So, I'd like to direct staff to uh take away and and provide a comment whereby um the model is not a profit-making model. That's the the cleanest way of saying it, I think. >> Okay, Jim Zerk, that's okay. >> Through the chair, staff can take that away and propose some amendments before council. Circulate them before council. >> Perfect. Thanks so much. We willh go to the vote. The vote is up. That carries 10 to zero. Thank you. 8.4 HSC26054 family shelter transition and short-term hotel overflow funding extension. Any discussion on this item? Councelor Clark. I didn't get a mover second. Councelor, are you okay moving this? >> Nope. >> Okay. Councelor Jackson. Anyone else for a seconder? Councelor Casar, it's on the floor now. Councelor Clark, >> thank you. So, we're it it reads that we're going to increase funding by an additional $2.6 million for family shelter beds. We're already spending inclusively $190 million and we're getting 28 $29 million from the province and $14 million from the feds. When does it stop? Why are why aren't we saying the province should be dealing with this or at the very least the province pay half of it? like the property taxpayers can't afford this. True. >> So, question to the staff, [snorts] why why aren't we going to the feds in the province saying, "Look, and I don't even know who these families are." Um, were they folks who came in through through our immigration services? Where's the funding from the federal government for that? They they just can't keep pawning it off on municipalities as though property taxpayers are an endless bank account that they can utilize. >> Director Barrett, can you provide u the reasoning behind the extension? >> Uh thank you through the chair. Uh Michelle Barrett, director housing services division. Counselor, thank you for the question and there's important clarification here. So right now uh the hotel overflow provides um as its name it's overflow from the family shelter system and it's a temporarily funded program. $4 million annually comes from the levy. Another $2 million comes from the provincial um HPP funding envelope. So it's $6 million annually to operate. We're that funding, the levy portion of that funding, the $4 million ends at the end of 2026, so December 2026. It um and so this is not additional funding, but rather the $4 million ends and this is 2.9 2.6 million for the period until the end of June next year while we transition away from the hotels. The plan is to move families um away from hotels because hotels it's not necessarily an amenable situation for folks seeking shelter. With respect to who stays at the the hotel, it can be families experiencing homelessness for all sorts of reasons. Some fleeing violence, uh poverty, inability to pay rent, much the same as um you know the factors we talked about yesterday. I would say it's a complex interplay. The issue for families of course is the impact on children and intergenerational poverty. So, uh, family homelessness is a priority for us in the community to deal with. I just want to make it clear, it's not an additional 2.6 million on top of what's already spent because the $4 million ends at the end of this year. >> Councelor Clark, >> so where exactly is the $2.6 6 million coming from it's coming out of the reserve but director bear >> through the chair correct uh the $2.6 6 million would come from the housing sustainability investment uh reserve. >> And wasn't that city money that paid for the reserve >> through the chair? I'm hoping hoping GM Ziger could answer that portion of the question >> through the chair. Uh I would assume so. Uh I'm not familiar with all of the transfers to the reserve but I would assume if there was any funding from senior levels of government that funding would be clawed back if we had surpluses. Uh and uh through the chair, sorry. Um uh GM Mater is also identifying that some of the reserve strategy that was approved over this term of council which included some of the CO 19 reserve uh funds also form part of the transfer to that reserve. >> Okay. So the funding of $2.6 $6 million based on the resolution is authorizing temporary family hotel overflow funding from January 1, 2027 to June 30th, 2027. And you're saying that that money is coming from the reserve and that the feds in the province didn't contribute to the reserve. They're just confirming >> [snorts] >> Jim Ziggar, do you need the councelor to repeat the question >> through the chair? Apologize. Yes, please. >> So, the resolution reads that the $2.6 million is coming from this reserve. It's for services that will be provided January 1, 2027 to June 30th, 2027. And I asked, did the federal or provincial government contribute to that reserve? Yeah. >> Through the chair, it's my understanding those are all municipal contributions to the reserve. >> And so is that $2.6 6 million new funding >> through the chair if I understand and I'll invite General GM Mater to correct me if I'm incorrect. It's one-time funding for the period January to June. So, uh again, it would be new funding relative to what was approved in 2026, but onetime funding for 2027. >> Council clerk. So, the $198 million that we've spent or will be spending in 2026, is this money a part of that money or is this all new money that next year we're going to now be spending $200 million? >> Director Berg >> through the chair. Uh, thank you for the question, counselor. So, um, right now there is a levy contribution of $4 million of that $190 million that goes to pay for the hotels along with $2 million from the province. The $4 million ends at the end of this year. And so, in order to continue the hotel operation for the period of time that we transition, the this 2.6 6 million is new funding, but the 4 million ends. So, it's actually replacing that. >> And what happens to the $2 million from the province >> through the chair? Uh my apologies. That contribution continues. >> Okay. So, in 2027, we're going to spend $2.6 million. We still have $2 million from the the province that has not been spent. Will that be a part of this funding >> uh through the chair? So, as we go through the transition program, um we're looking to um invest in permanent family shelter beds. So, moving away from the hotel into permanent beds. that $2 million is part of the operating dollars to realize that long-term solution. >> Okay. And so the intention of what you're doing here is from January 1 to two uh to June 30th of 2027, that's to allow for temporary hotel overflow space. And the reason it's 6 months is we're phasing out of that program in 2027. through the chair. Yes. In 2027, we are trying to move away from full reliance on the hotel and instead have permanent uh shelter spaces that more meet the needs of families that are are using those spaces. >> Okay. And the last question I have, and I know I've taken up too much time, my apologies. Um, are we still advocating to the province saying, "Hey, where's your support for the homelessness in our community?" $29 million doesn't cut it. >> Uh, through the chair, um, from the staff perspective, certainly we are counselor. We have those conversations on an ongoing basis and we continue to indicate that the funding doesn't meet the needs of um the services that we need and provide within Hamilton and I know that those conversations are happening at the political level as well. >> Councelor Clark, I have another you good >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Casar. >> Thanks, Chair and I appreciate the council Clark's questions and the answers. I I share the frustration about the continued tax burden on taxpayers. So, thank you for highlighting that. Again, just continuing that thought. So, understanding here that moving from families from hotels to more permanent uh shelter program or structure is better for them, which is good. Um are you able to speak at this point on the financial part of it in the new model that we're looking to transition to? Does the dollar go farther i.e. Can we house more or give shelter to more families with the same amount of money or is it more expensive? Can you do you have any idea of what that looks like at this point? >> Director Baird >> through the chair. So, right now we don't have um councelor unfortunately we don't have a a good answer to that question that we don't know what will come forward through the call for applications. What we would hope that even if we are spending the same amount of money rather than spending money because right now we're spending money to rent hotel rooms and then we're spending money operationally to provide the supports for the individuals that need them in a dedicated shelter space. We would want to move away from those monthly rent costs for the units and have the the funding going toward the supports that the individuals need. >> Right. Okay. I understand that. I figured that might be the answer since it's early in the process, but I could see certainly how money could be u adjusted and spent better uh for a better outcome. So, thank you. Thank you, councelor. No one else on the speakers list, so we will go to the vote on 8.4. The vote is up. That carries 12 to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 8.5 PED26161. Revised Board of Management for the International Village Business Improvement Area Awards 2 and three. Mover and second to put the item on the floor. Councelor Crutch, Councelor Nan. Thank you. Um any discussion? Seeing none, we'll move to the vote. The vote is up. That carries 12 to zero. Thank you. 8.6 PD26163 revised board of management for the Ottawa Street business improvement area. Awards three and four. Move in and second. Councelor Wang, Councelor Nan. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to the vote. That carries 12 to zero. Thank you. 8.7 FCS26055 vacant unit tax 2026 bylaw citywide. Um mover and seconder to put this on the floor, please. Councelor Crutch, Councelor Nan. Uh any discussion on this item? Councelor Tom Jackson. Thanks uh deputy mayor uh Spaphor and good afternoon. I just will be consistently opposed to this. This is talking about enacting and administering the program uh for another year, the third year uh for the vacant unit tax which again out on my ward today talking to people uh overwhelmingly are still upset over this unnecessary tax. But I'm hoping that I hear that there may be, if not today, then possibly next week, there may be some motion to deal with what has become really an irritant. And that has been the $500 filing fee for those that either missed a deadline inadvertently, those that didn't know they had to meet a deadline of this fairly new tax still and or for those that didn't qualify uh after staff reviewed their appeal that they didn't qualify to have the $500 wave. But otherwise, I'm just going to be recorded as opposed to 8.7. Thanks, Deputy Mayor. >> Thank you, Councelor Jackson. Councelor McMaken. [clears throat] >> Thanks, Deputy Mayor. I will continue to support the vut, but we'll rearticulate the point that councelor Jackson has made and look forward to the motion. Um the uh idea that somebody for whatever reason or combination of reasons may appeal a charge under this tax which is u is in the appeal process exonerated uh found essentially innocent but at the same time whereas the outcome of that is still sent to jail but having to pay the $500 fine just doesn't make sense to me. If you're innocent, you're innocent and uh and the fee should certainly be waved in those circumstances. So, I look forward to the debate on the motion a little bit down the road. Thanks. >> Thank you, Councelor McMeek. And I don't believe we can jail people over VU, but who knows? Councelor Francis on the big screen. >> Thank you, Chair. And uh yes, I do intend to be the mover of that motion. I've circulated to council via email and I'll just verbally introduce it now and move it next week at uh Wednesday's council meeting as whereas council wishes to provide a fair and compassionate process for property owners who are unable to submit a vacant unit tax declaration by the required deadline due to circumstances beyond their control. Whereas bylaw number 26-lank which we will know at council includes provisions that sets out to achieve these goals. However, similar considerations is not provided in bylaw number 25-201, a bylaw to establish a vacant unit tax. Therefore, be it resolved that part nine of the bylaw number 25-201 be amended to allow the director and or program administrator to wave the late appeal fee where a property owner misses the first appeal deadline for reasons set out in part 10 clause 62 proposed bylaw number two s 26-lank and that only late appeals that are pending or late appeals that relate to a property owner's occupancy determination as prescribed in part one of bylaw number 25-201 one will be considered. So, chair, you know, should that motion pass, it will essentially eliminate a $500 penalty for missing the deadline. Uh many of the people find the $500 are examples exactly as described by yesterday's delegate. And there are many innocent people who have been fined $500 simply for an honest mistake, whether they're they've misplaced their mail, maybe have not received mail, um which we we certainly know, um does happen time to time with Canada Post. Um, and there's some folks that are experiencing language barriers, seniors, uh, struggling with the portal. There's real life experiences that are happening here far too often and they're putting in putting our residents in a very unfortunate circumstance and uh, my motion sets to rectify that. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Councelor France. And just a reminder to everyone, we are not voting on the amendment today. It's coming to council. So, today is strictly the bylaw in front of us. Uh, we'll go to councelor Alex Wilson. Thank you through you chair. Just trying to understand some of the finances around the returns. Um I'm seeing that we're about I think just over 80% collection so far. Collections ongoing getting close to that $7 million mark for 2024. Uh when I'm looking at some of the materials in earlier presentations on the agenda, albeit that was now yesterday. Um I'm seeing that that's about 4% of the annual total spend on housing considering municipal contributions, provincial contributions. Um I'm wondering if uh staff would be able to comment on the relative scale of you know $7 million in terms of the portfolio um and the context that it's not um coming from the levy, it's that money is coming from the reserve piece. Just what how does that contribute to the financing picture um kind of from our affordable housing portfolio? Who's going to be taking that? Director Pereira to the chair. Clayton Pereira, director of revenue services. Uh, thank you for the question. Um uh just uh just just as a starting point just wanted to confirm um uh as per the report that's in front of uh committee uh the the net uh revenues is about 8.02 million. Um, as of the authoring of the report, there's been a slight change and I got uh the vacant unit tax team to update that just based on ongoing appeals as as you as you can appreciate there were 35 appeals. Uh, so that number came down slightly to 7.94. Um so that's the quantum that we're looking at after all costs are considered operating costs as well as the onetime implementation costs. So that's the number we're working with and again just to emphasize that uh there will be ongoing uh appeals till the end of this year for the 2024 occupancy year. So with that I'm now going to pass it over to GM Ziggar to answer the next part of the question >> to the chair. It was uh council's direction that the net proceeds from the uh vacant unit tax be directed towards the housing affordability reserve. It is a one of the few non- tax revenue sources that the city has with respect to uh while the approximately $6 million has been realized. What staff are recommending is that transfer to reserve coincide with the delivery of the 2025 audited financial statements which would be in 2027. Uh so it would be at that time then before council as it relates to uh any recommendation staff would have as to how to reinvest these net proceeds towards housing and housing affordability. >> Councelor, >> thank you and through you chair. Um, as this program continues, if we continue the program as council, um, I guess I'm I have the chart looking at our spend from various uh various sources open and in 2024, we spent a collective about of $180 million across total programs. We're now sharing that it's taken a couple years, but we've now collected and can reinvest currently around six, potentially up to around eight for the year 2024 million. That's a substantial portion of going from, you know, we're talking about 60% plus funded from municipal taxpayers to now a non-t taxpayer funding source. Um that means that as we keep doing this in future years that if we maintain funding levels, we don't increase funding levels, um like we are able to rely less on property taxes and more on non-propy tax revenue to fund the same level of service. We know from the housing conversation that that's not the we're not maintaining the same level of service every year. Need keeps out growing. Um and that's led to some of these kind of constant budget pressures and constant needs. But in terms of shifting the funding source uh through each comments that I think this is, you know, incredibly substantial uh up to about a 20th of the total program spend. You know, I think it's rare that we get to say, "Oh, we found a way to move $1 and $20 of a program or one in 20 thing, one in 20th of anything um off property taxpayers in this role and find a way to have non non-property tax revenue." So, I I do think that this is a success story for this program and look forward to this program continuing, albeit improving. And I think that's a really helpful argument because if we can build public trust and confidence in these in these stories and in the results that come and when we can fall back and say this is where that $6 million went to further that story of where how this is a good news story. I think that all helps. But yes, in the meantime, absolutely supportive of continuous improvement, but I think this is a great news story. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Wilson. Councelor Casar. >> Yeah, thanks Chair. I'll continue to support the VOT as well. Um, similar to councelor Wilson, uh, just some brief comments. We've had several reports in the last 24 hours on seeing how challenging the homelessness situation is. It's actually getting worse. There's been a desire to see us move the needle, to see results from the dollars we spend, and to actually, you know, not see more people on the street or encampments. So, we have to do something about it. And this is doing something about it. It's one of many tools. I understand that there's opposition to it and it's changed and you know it has negative impacts and we need to uh minimize those. So I welcome ideas the one that's been just shared a few minutes ago and any others to have compassion to improve the process. We should absolutely do that. But part of improving the entire city is to deal with the homelessness problem. And we've said many times, I think all of us have said it, we it shouldn't be on the backs of property taxpayers. But as councelor Wilson just said, that's what this is about. Should it be have to come from a VU? Not necessarily. It should come from upper levels of government, but we don't have that luxury at this point in time. So, you know, it's not a perfect process, not a perfect decision, but it's something that we have to do and I'll continue to support it and look forward to deliberating ways to improve it. Thanks, Chair. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Cooper. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, just a question for the director. Uh, we're seeing a lot of places being built right now and they're not able to be sold. Um, this vacant unit tax, it hits those new builds at a certain point. Question. director, new builds, at what point do they start paying vacant unit tax? >> To the chair. uh for new builds. There's there's a leeway that was afforded by virtue of the bylaw uh that enabled uh an exemption for 6 months and then uh the additional 6 months because for the following year or where there has to be 183 consecutive days uh of occupancy. So, in effect, in total, there's uh an opportunity for new builds to be exempt for one year uh before [clears throat] um changes are made in order for them to be sold. >> Councelor Cooper, >> thank you. And I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again as I we weren't sure last time I asked the question which was so there's instances where people are buying um these units uh because they can't get financing job situation changes it goes back to the the builder. Uh at that point does the vacant unit tax kick in on the builder? >> Chair if I could uh simply ask uh to repeat the question again please. >> Certainly. Yes. So many situations today after someone uh expresses an interest in buying uh a house or a unit um for whatever reason they can't get the financing or they lose their jobs uh these units are reverting back to the builder. Okay. And so in that situation where it reverts back to the builder when does a vacant unit tax kick in? >> Director to the chair. This would be treated very very similar to um a property that is uh sold between a buyer and a seller. So in the event that there are economic situations that trigger essentially uh a sale treated as a ownership change uh back to the builder. uh it's very the implication would be again an exemption in the in the in the period that it is sold. So uh we have had several properties as an example where um a declaration was not required when a property was sold because by virtue of that uh the seller would only have an obligation for the following year. So, so would that how long would that be that they would have when it reverts back to them >> through the chair? >> Through the chair, it would be 183 days. >> 183 days. So, I I'm I'm aware of somebody that had 40 of the units go back to them, right? And so, my question to you is, do we understand the chilling effect that the vacant unit tax has on new builds right now in Hamilton? >> Uh, councelor Cooper, we're going to answer both. Jim Zerg wants to add to the last question and then we'll get an answer to this one. Jim Zer. >> Yeah, through the chair. Um, just expanding on the first question and possibly uh to councelor Cooper's last question. Just a reminder and uh we do appreciate the challenges that the development community is experiencing, especially around the condominium development community. The vacant unit tax only applies to developments of six units or less. So if it is a condominium development, the vacant unit tax does not apply to a condominium development. >> So in a situation of a home build building homes, how does that work for them >> through through the chair, they would not be exempt and so it would apply to a single uh or a semi or a town town row or any of those forms of development. So, so in that scenario where there's 40 units going back to somebody with single homes, uh, that would kick in in 6 months. >> To the chair, yes, that would be right. >> Okay. And so, I'll come back to the question. Do we understand the chilling effect this is having amongst the the builders in our community in terms of building in Hamilton through your chair? uh uh to the chair. Um uh we have certainly had uh several dialogues and communications with the development community in particular with the vacant unit tax. Uh uh several of those uh we have assisted um in actually helping them with the declaration to navigate this new program. Um and I've actually uh incorrectly declared um in year 1 and we have assisted them to correctly declare for uh 2024 as an example. We have continued that with other uh developers as well uh to assist with uh correctly declaring and have been quite appreciative of the support from staff in regards to the program and how to navigate it. >> Jim Zirk. >> Yeah. Through the chair. Just want to recognize the vacant unit tax team and uh their responsiveness. Councelor Cooper to your question. >> Yes. Uh in that uh over the two years the team have sat down with developers uh there are issues such as model homes that we provided clarity such that model homes would form part of that exemption uh helping developers initially the 6 months did not reside within the program. So amending the program to provide 6 months. So uh I would say staff are recognizing the challenges within the development community and have been responsive and built in these factors uh during during the first two years of the program. >> Last question council here. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh more of a statement. What I've been hearing is that this is really having an impact on whether people develop in Hamilton or not because this is not common among I'll say our peer communities surrounding Hamilton. So this is having a chilling effect on what's happening in Hamilton right now and it may be something we might want to look at and provide some sort of exemption going forward if this program continues. Thank you chair. >> Thank you councelor. Councelor clerk. >> Thank you chair. My question is with regards to uh shoot page five of nine. It indicates the appealed properties. So, are these properties under appeal or they have been dealt with already? >> What page was that? Sorry, counselor. >> Page five of nine in the report shows uh up till June 17th, 2026, 3,493 properties. Then up to July 3rd, 2026, 3576 properties. trying to understand if they are actively under appeal or does that mean those were the ones that were appealed and they lost? >> Director Pereira, to the chair, um the 3,576 uh properties are mostly ones that have successfully appealed and they are closed. There's only 186 properties of those that are are pending review just because uh the vacant unit tax team is working with uh the respective uh property owners to get the appropriate documentation. >> So you're saying that those numbers where it says appealed properties means that they were successful in their appeal. So, they're no longer counted under the vacant unit tax build properties. Is that correct? >> Uh, to the chair, that is correct. >> Okay. Do we have an understanding of how much it costs to go through those appeal processes and who made the determination on the appeal? uh truth the chair the costs would be uh depending on when they were appealed. So if they appealed uh prior to uh council uh providing the uh extensions uh in 2025 the last one being November then there would have not been a cost associated to that. However, if there were appeals deemed or I want to be careful with the word deemed, if there were appeals that were introduced in 2020 2026 as a late appeal, the $500 fee would um would kick in. Uh and to answer your second part of the question, the uh the vacant unit tax team um would uh would firstly review that and then uh it would go up to the leadership team uh to make a determination based on the documentation supplied. >> Thank you. And with regards to um the $500 cost, if they were successful in their appeal, do they get their $500 back? >> To the chair, no, they wouldn't. >> So, we made $1.7 million off of $500 appeal for 305 3,576 properties. That's a lot of revenue just off of an appeal fee. director. >> I still have concerns about this. Thank you, chair. >> No problem. The director just wanted to uh follow up. Go ahead. >> Uh through the chair, uh not all of the appeals uh were in 2026. So, the total revenue associated with the $500 uh fee, total 242,000 to date. So the chart is not quite that clear then. So where does it say that on the chart? >> True. The chart. Uh do you mind just repeating that question again? >> I'm looking at the chart on page five of nine and you're saying only a portion of those properties paid $500. Where would I find the actual accounting for that? to the chair. Uh it's not something that is uh readily available on the table, but happy to take that away and provide that. >> I would appreciate it. Thank you. I will continue to oppose this tax. >> Thank you, councelor clerk. We have no further speakers. We will go to vote again on the bylaw. This does not include the amendment that was introduced earlier. Oh. Oh, okay. Sorry. Uh, this does not include uh the motion that is coming at council, just strictly on the bylaw. And uh we'll bring that vote up now. And the votes up. [snorts] [clears throat] That carries 7 to 5 8.8 outstanding business list. the mover and second to put the items on the floor, please. Councelor Clark, Councelor Cooper, any discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to the vote. >> Clark and Cooper. Vote is up. That carries 12 to 0. 8.9 LRTC26-002 light rail transit subcommittee minutes dated July 13, 2026. Can I please have a mover and seconder to put this on the floor? People, I need movers and seconders. Councelor Nan, Councelor Wang, longer it takes to get them, the longer we're going to be here. Any discussion on the LRT subcommittee minutes? Votes up. Please vote. All right. >> Go ahead. >> Thanks, uh, deputy mayor. >> No problem. >> I understand this is part two of a long day yesterday. Thank you. Uh, 8.1. I'll ask for a separate vote on the light rail transit municipal betterment process update because it's talking about that recommendations be approved regarding the pursuit of the LRT. So, if I could ask through you to director shake. I know I'm not on the subcommittee. I know I raised this during the budget of 2025 about there not being, it was confirmed at that time, a written agreement from the federal government based on a business case from Metroink submitted upwards to the federal government to have a written agreement about their 1.7 billion and the provincial 1.7 billion corresponding as well. So, I know I'm not on the subcommittee. I thought maybe in courtesy given my interest there may have been a follow-up. So is a written agreement in place? Let's find out today for public consumption through you deputy mayor. Please >> director >> through the chair. My name is Abdul Shek, director L uh project office. In terms of business case, as Metro links presented at the LRT subcommittee last time I I don't have the business case information. But I understand that you know Metro links has already provided all the information to the federal government and they already have received the support on proceeding uh with the project and we can see the representation of several MPs attending the LT announcement in April that provide the sign that you know federal government is still supporting uh the project but I haven't but I haven't seen the business case provided uh by the both parties. So, Director Shake, thank you for honestly saying what you know and believe, but to quote you again, please. Um, you just finished by saying you haven't seen, and please correct me if my ears are plugged. You said you haven't seen the business case from Metro Links and you haven't heard or seen an actual written agreement from the federal government in spite of all the asurances that you uh rhymed off that seem to be in place. Just a simple question. Have you seen the business case from Metroinks? Have we seen a written agreement from the federal government? That's all I'm asking deputy mayor spata please. >> Director >> to the chair. Uh thank you councelor for the question. I haven't seen like city has not received the business case but as it remains between the province and federal uh so but municipality has not seen the business case yet. >> Okay thank you very much director 8.1 if you'd separate that for me deputy mayor so I can have a separate vote. Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Uh councelor Nan please. >> Thank you. Uh deputy mayor Spataphora. Happy to confirm to my colleague around the table as chair of the LRT subcommittee. It was confirmed during the three-level government um event that took place at the stadium earlier this spring that the funds have been allocated in the federal treasury that was confirmed um multiple times. So the the money is in the treasury allocated to the LRT Hamilton project. >> Thank you councelor Councelor Clark. So then the promises of Minister McKenna that the federal money would only flow if there was a guarantee of notfor-profit housing. We haven't received that guarantee. >> Can anyone speak to that? >> Is there anyone that can speak to that question? Director >> microphone please. >> Through the chair. Thank you for the question. Councelor K. uh in their announcement they did not attach any condition uh as council nan mentioned uh so what we understand that they are committed to 1.7 billion however the we are working uh we are actually working with province to establish a working group so that we can uh you know advance that affordable housing mandate along the l project and that we are still waiting for that committee to be established >> yeah and I'm still struggling to understand all of this because the province their own rules indicate that it's supposed to be the highest and best use. So Metroinks is bound by the Ministry of Transportation rules which is highest and best use for the lands. So, the federal government promised us that they were going to tie their $1.7 billion to ensure that there was not forprofit affordable housing along the line on lands that are owned by Metroinks and that all has disappeared over time. Just for the public record, can I ask specifically about this report 8.1? It says um municipal betterment candidates. Can you help me understand the definition for that >> director? Through the chair. Uh thank you for the question counselor. uh we have already provided a list of what we think is a bet potential betterment candidate and we are not saying that these are the confirmed betterment items for the LRT project. So that's the reason we are calling them as a candidate and is going to go through the proper due diligence process to see the cause whether we are getting a good value for money or not and then the I the plan is to bring the shortlisted betterment items for consideration to concept as part of the LRT project. So so far they are as considered as a candidate and after the due diligence are completed we will bring that information to LRT subcommittee to recommend to be included as part of the candid as part of the LT project. >> Thank you. So nothing has been decided [clears throat] is what you're saying you're going you're still going through the process correct >> through the chair. Yes, exactly. Uh we are going through the process and we are committed to bring more information to the LRT subcommittee before we commit to Metro Links to include as part of the project. >> Thank you chair. That's it for me. I still remain concerned that as time goes along we're losing a lot of these promises that were made to us. It's very disappointing. >> Thank you councelor. >> Councelor McMe. >> Yeah. Uh briefly, uh Deputy Mayor, I attended the uh the announcement uh the joint senior level government announcement uh at the stadium and the one question I had uh uh in my quiver of questions that was really important to get answered was the one on housing and I spoke to both the federal rep and the the provincial minister directly and both affirmed their commitment to putting that uh working group in place. uh the mechanics of it. Uh you know, gosh, anyone can guess as to how that's coming together, but I was pleased that the commitment was at least made. >> Yeah, I hope that's helpful. Thanks. >> Thank you, councelor. Going to ask one more time if there's anybody that'd like to speak to this item. Seeing none, we're going to separate 8.1. Uh so we'll do that first, then we'll uh do the rest, and then we'll do the correspondence. So, we have a mover in councelor Nan and councelor Wang for 8.1. And we'll bring that vote up now. Votes up. >> Councelor McMaken. That carries 10 to two. Now we're going to move on to the rest of the items. Same mover and sector. Councelor Nan, Councelor Wang. That vote will be coming up and it's up. That carries 12 to zero. Same mover and seconder. Councelor Nan, councelor Wang to accept the correspondence. And it's a show of hands vote, please. And that carries. Thank you. Moving on to 8.10 BIAC2607, business improvement area subcommittee minutes July 21st. Uh mover and seconder, please. Council crutch. Councelor Wang. Any discussion on the item? Councelor Wang. >> Uh at the BIA subcommittee, there was some robust conversation around the holiday parking. So, I just wanted to mention that councelor Moren Wilson will be putting forward a motion at council uh to actually shift the dates of the holiday parking to the 24th, November 24th to December 24th. Uh it was something that we just couldn't get done for this particular GIC. Um, but it will be coming for council. And so just to let BIA subcommittee members know that we heard you and we've had lots of emails and emails and emails about this. So just uh thanks to also Christina Gesler as well as uh DC Angela McCrae on their heavy lifting on this one. So councelor Moren Wilson will be bringing that forward on on Wednesday. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Wang. Any other speakers on this item? Seeing none, we will go to the vote. Votes up. That carries 12 to 0. 8.11 CC2605 proposed amendments to the signed bylaw citywide. Who wants to move and second this one? I'm good. If no one wants to move and second it, that's perfect. Councelor Alex Wilson, we have one mover. A seconder. Councelor Wang, are you seconding this? Okay. Councelor Wang has seconded. Discussion on the item. I'm sure there'll be some. Please populate the speakers list. Councelor Crutch, start us off. briefly. I think that this is an issue that could generate lots of discussion. I'm hoping that we won't all just repeat one another. I don't support this simply because I think that it's introducing chaos at a time during a municipal election and we're changing timelines and that's not really good practice. I understand there's a legal situation here. So, I think, you know, turning our minds to this for the next election is the right thing to do. I also think we should be mindful of the fact that we haven't done public consultation on this. haven't had discussions with the public about this and one of the big reasons why this ended up changing many years ago was because there was a lot of sign pollution because the pier was much longer and frankly it's understandable and as an incumbent me saying this is a bit rich that you know people want to have more time to advertise right so if people wanted to have time that weren't incumbents to advertise longer I can understand that feeling or sentiment but we have to balance that with the community's need not to want to see election signs dominating you know the the lawns of every place around town for an extended period of time. So I think a reasonable approach to this is just to say hey we get it something has occurred here in the legal landscape. We should consider this do public feedback in 2030 and leave it at that. I just don't think it makes sense to interrupt this now. Also to say that many campaigns are already ongoing across the entire city. People have made plans already with respect to how they're going to do these things. So some people have already ordered things, some people haven't done so yet. moving up an entire month for especially for folks whose campaigns maybe can't absorb that kind of chaos I think could could cause harm for people set up a competition happening earlier um put people in a weird weird place so everyone's already been told when the date is going to be it's been heavily advertised and people registered I think changing it now is not the best >> thank you councelor councelor Jackson >> deputy mayor spata ws two and six are in alignment let the minutes uh la blend bron would you Please note that. Thank you. Um, sincerely, uh, I've been on both ends of it, of course, many years ago starting out and now since then being an incumbent, and I remember years past, um, you know, we used to have, if memory serves me right, many years ago, it we literally could start after Labor Day, so two full months. And don't forget back then about 15 20 years ago, it was early November that was E days. And that was eventually moved up to towards the end of October so that we didn't hit into sometimes colder weather in November. Deputy Mayor Spaphora and I remember two full months of signs and boy did we get bombarded past colleagues and myself about the sign pollution, the extended period of sign pollution. Now, I'm not going to be a hypocrite. I love signs. I enjoy signs. I think they're a proper and acceptable way to add uh to advertise who I am. uh to the everyday voter. And so I'm not going to be a hypocrite. I support signs, but I also saw from past councils and hearing from the community that there needs to be a reasonable cut off. And I think our all of us abided by it four years ago, the 28 days before Eday, I think is sufficient. I did a little research. City Clerk Tren was very helpful and I understand this is more coming from city's lesser shields and her team because it was basically a joint report that some u a tiny township in Ontario somewhere had a challenge and so they lost the challenge of restricting x number of days for signs in court and so I know the legal the lawyers the courts the judges it's based law is based on precedent and I just do not like going in a direction where something happens somewhere and so yes let's be cognizant of it but that doesn't need mean we have to suddenly overhaul everything because of that to my knowledge we haven't had a challenge and quite frankly what's recommended here today uh by city clerk Trenum is August 24th 3 days after nominations close where he certifies all the candidates well why stop August 24th then let's go back to May 1st when the first registered day was allowing candidates I let let it be for 6 months then if we're afraid of uh limiting or restricting the period of time for signs. So, Deputy Mayor Spaphora, to conclude, I was prepared to uh parse that portion of this recommendation off to go back to revert back to the 28 days before. But if there's a move on uh instead to refer this back to staff and for the next term of council, whoever's here for the 2030 election and especially involved community consultation, I'm fine with that as a plan B for myself. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Spaphora. >> Thank you, Councelor Jackson. and I appreciate that you're aligned with W 2, Councelor Wang. >> Thank you. Um, my ward shares two writings. So, I have Hamilton Center MPP and I also have Hamilton East Stony Creek MPP. And I think I am not in support of this because I think that if a bi-election was called as soon as what we think is August the 5th, that's right in the middle of all of that stuff. So I think Ward 4 constituents would be very confused because after Kennaworth Street you'll start to see four different colored signs and then all then four different candidates that are registered for the municipal election. I think that it would just very be very confusing for at least W four candidates, but ultimately for W five and W 10 candidates um as well and constituents, I mean, so I just believe timing of this is terrible and I do not support this at all despite the fact that I'm seconding seconding it on the floor, putting it on the floor. That's why. Thank you. >> We understand, Councelor Wang. No problem. Councelor Alex Wilson. >> Yeah. Uh I'll be brief. Um, I think there's kind of two pieces of fairness here. One is the fairness of, you know, what are the courts telling us, um, with respect to everyone's individual rights. You know, I want to go put something out on my lawn um because that's my political representation and then Hamilton bylaw comes by and a candidate who provided me that sign is potentially getting a fine as a result. I think there is like a what happens if that gets appealed. the enforcability like the the technical instruments of that are unfortunate um just given the latigious moment we are in but on the other side of that there's the internal fairness to we are maybe limiting that right if that's what the courts are doing but we're limiting in the same way for everyone it's the same period it was well advertised well in advance we're hope um based on I'd say what cancer crutch shared earlier like an openness to changing it but not changing it instream for folks doing that you know at a time where everyone will be impacted by that change equitably. Um I think that's a fair consideration is yep maybe right now we don't have a best practice but by changing that best practice are we introducing a new harm or a new bias potentially um just given the fact that it's it is midstream as many have pointed out. I'll just finally conclude and just say though I did grow up in Waterl region where election signs don't have to be on private property. Sign pollution and sign shenanigans are real concerns and the need for municipalities to um protect public rights of way like I think is real. Like Toronto there was a huge huge issue in a past election with a candidate kind of flagrantly disobeying the bylaws and policies. So, I I think there's a real a real um public good to be protected here and I think there's reasons to have limitations in a signed bot. I don't think they're arbitrary um despite, you know, maybe what we're hearing from some of that case law. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Clark. >> Thank you, Chair. I'd be curious to know if the city of Hamilton has ever fined a property owner for having an election sign on their property for something or other. Um, Director Smith, do you want to How far back does your knowledge go? Have we been fined? >> Uh, Dan Smith, director of licensing of viol services. I don't have that information at the tips of my finger. I'd be happy to do a history check and share that information with the counselor. >> More curiosity. I find that our BAR team spends a great deal of time taking down signs off of public property on boulevards and all the rest of it. that's what they end up doing during an election and that's not their role. They should be actually out there um dealing with actual issues um where municipal law enforcement is involved. I read the decision. The decision talks about political science being a vital form of democratic participation and municipalities must ensure any restrictions are evidence-based, proportionate, and justified. We haven't done that with our bylaw. Um and we should use this opportunity to start that process. Uh civic engagement would be a part of that process. Um and then develop a bylaw that is justified, that's proportionate. Um the Supreme Court has ruled frequently and reminded people that freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not an absolute. there are restrictions on what you can and cannot say depending on what the issue is. Um, so in in in my position here, I I'm I'm fine if if we we want to go down this road, but I'm nervous about it happening right in the middle of an election. Um, incumbents will be accused that, well, you've already got all your signs, so you can get your signs up right away. I haven't even raised the money to put my signs up. It creates this power imbalance between incumbents and non-incumbents. And I don't want to create that type of artificial issue in the middle of an election. If we are going to do this and I think we should look at it then it should be started uh early in the new term of council and they should go through that process of talking to the public because chair in my political experience I have not had one person tell me that they love election signs. I can tell you many many times how many people tell me they don't like them and I could share with you privately some of the language that is used to describe the election signs. Um so they're not popular with the public. Um people do it because they they feel in that moment when a candidate is on their front step and they're asking would you mind if I can put an election sign up? Canadians are pretty permissive. Um, [snorts] so I think we should be I I'm not supporting this today. Do the the uh civic engagement broadly across the city. Um, even do it as a a plebite so you actually can demonstrate that we've asked the public and the public has told us they want them or they don't want them. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Clerk. Councelor Francis, go ahead. Uh thank you chair and based on everything I heard today uh I wish to refer this report and uh the language I've got here is as follows. That the recommendation respecting the sign the election sign bylaw be referred to the city clerk for public consultation before any changes are considered with a report back in advance of the 2030 municipal election. >> And I'm calling for a second on that. Sounds like I should probably have a few >> participants. >> Councelor, uh, ward five. Oh, >> the recommendations are Can Hold. Listen, how about we do this? Everybody slow down because I got people talking to me from every direction. Everybody just settle down and relax. Hold on one second. He's trying to refer the the report back to staff. Can we do that, clerk? Yes or no? So the recommendations in the report are to approve the bylaw. So we would have and the those recommendations are on the floor. So we would have to deal with that before >> Oh, you're okay. >> We are going to have councelor Francis move it. Councelor Cut's going to second it. We're going to refer the entire report back to staff being the city clerk with the directions that councelor Francis mentioned which were uh to have public consultation and come back with something that the next council will vote on prior to the 2030 election. Any questions? >> Broad public consultation, please. Any other speakers, comments, questions? Seeing none, we will go to the vote on the referral. Moved by councelor Francis, seconded by councelor Crutch, and it will be an electronic vote. The vote is up. That carries 12 to zero. Thank you. We're moving on to motions 9.1, development of a regional significant community hub at 700 Gardner Road East. Councelor Casar, please introduce your motion and your seconder. Did you turn it off? >> Thank you and my apologies. Deputy Mayor Spaphora. My secondary is councelor Wang. This was a notice of motion um for one cycle and we did have some delegations yesterday a long time ago when this meeting started and there are many items of correspondence on the agenda. So I'll just be brief and give an overview. This is about the development of a regionally significant community hub at Garner Road East. There was a draft plan of subdivision council recently approved for these lands in Ancaster and War 12 and uh led by Kevin Gonzi. This is a group looking to bring a recreational facility uh for community recreation, wellness, and potential sport tourism to uh to Hamilton. Uh there is no request for any city funding. Just want to make that clear. Uh made that clear during the delegation yesterday. It's not asking for city money. It's just asking for the city to participate and support a process on the feasibility of partnership and analysis of this community hub and report back in Q1 of next year. So, uh, and it's driven by the fact that there is really no standard community or city process for this. And given the scale of it and the potential benefit, uh I think it's well worth staff investment that we could potentially bring through an outside group and outside funding, something of this scale and benefit to the city. Uh it's a good investment of city uh staff time to be able to provide some support and guidance on this process. So I'll just leave it there and let councelor Jackson chime in. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Jackson. >> Thanks, Deputy Mayor Spataphor. really appreciate councelor Casar's open-mindedness. Um they may end up wanting to change their name from the Mohawk Sports Park Community Hub. Um because this is councelor Clark was just whispering to me. He said is this two two projects by the same group and I said no this ideally then would uh if everything went well that it would uh be moving their original preferred site at Mohawk Sports Park to my knowledge over to 700 Gardener Road. and think of the synergies uh this council will remember and you've been just wonderful to ultimately support the new franophhone school at 700 gardener road that took about 11 years to negotiate between three parties and that school and site plan and everything is uh underway and uh but they I know they don't have the dollars to my knowledge to build a community center um a rec center uh fields for sports things like that, especially an indoor structure that the Gonyy Group and Mohawk Sports Park Hub are proposing. And so when you think of the synergies, the Franophhone School, that's going to be a tremendous asset and landmark in um in Ward 12 ultimately. And to have a a recreational component potentially, I think uh is a is a wonderful win-win opportunity, especially for that cultural community. uh so uh for public consumption if that ultimately does happen and the relocation to that area happens then obviously that takes away the need for the acreage at Mohawk Sports Park and as the my colleagues know from ECS uh Deputy Mayor Spaphora um uh staff are trying to uh through director Seavore's team trying to build a framework of how we receive in the future whether solicited or unsolicited proposals. I think now in total if you count the Mohawk College one recently we have three or four and again this these are organizations institutions and mostly volunteer groups that recognize a need in the city and want to bring forward as soon as possible something that will benefit children, youth, families across our city regardless of where it is. and we don't want to necessarily get them hung up on procedural technique if they have especially funding that's pending with deadlines involved as well. So, I've always been very open-minded, supportive, and encouraged encouraging to groups that want to bring dollars forward, ideas, proposals, um, feasibility studies forward that they've done that they know the city may not just have the time, inclination or financing to do at this time, but ultimately councils of today and future have to ultimately approve the projects moving forward. So to conclude, Deputy Mayor Spataphora really thank Councelor Casar for his open-mindedness. I in some ways I'll be jealous because he'll have a gem of both a cultural new school as well as a potential of a recreational facility all at 700 Garner Road, but then that will open up space potentially at Mohawk Sports Park possibly for something different. Thanks, Deputy Mayor Spaphora. >> Thank you, Councelor Jackson. Councelor Clark. >> Thank you, Chair. So, can I understand at the moment because we don't have a process, we're looking at advancing this project at 700 Garner Road, but because we don't have a process, we have at least two community centers that have been in master plans for many years now and have not come to the realization. So is this usurping that that process? I understand we don't want to have a planning process that drags on and creates impediments to this type of development, but I'm also looking at trying to ensure that there's procedural fairness in how we're treating other proponents and other projects in other wards. Director Seavore >> through the chair. Uh Steve Savor, director of recreation. Uh thanks for the the uh question, councelor clerk. Uh in terms of um differences between our planned recreation centers and uh opportunities that the community might provide. Uh I I think this particular situation here is an opportunity uh as asked by uh the motion is to involve staff in terms of the due diligence in terms of reviewing this particular piece. Uh it uh does not necessarily uh in in my view um um take away from the work that staff are doing from planned uh recreational citywide services in that regard. Councelor Clark, >> but it could take the funding away. >> Uh, I don't believe there's a funding request, but Director Savor, >> if we think that there's not going to be a funding request attached to this, then we're naive. There will be a funding request. >> I've not seen one happen that has not had funding to the municipality, the costs that the municipality has to bear. So how how do we reconcile that >> director >> through the chair at this uh to the chair to the council at this point uh from the information that we have uh understandable that uh in in any project there is funding uh sources that need to be uh realized uh but to our knowledge at this point uh we have not received a request for funding. >> Okay. So, you're confident that this is not going to bounce out any other community center investments because there's going to be a requirement for future funding from the municipality. >> Councelor Clark, I'm going to go to GM Mater. She wants to answer your question. GM, >> uh, through the chair to the councelor, Grace Mater, general manager, healthy and safe communities. Thank you, uh, councelor Clark. Um, any request for funding, if there is any along the way, because you're right, we don't want to be naive. Any requests would come back to this table for information and approval. >> Okay, I'll uh support it to get the information, but I have real reservations that we're hopcotching around and leaving community centers that have been promised to residents in a lurch. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Any other speakers? Seeing none, we'll go to the vote. Vote is up. >> I don't see her. Yeah, >> that carries 11 to zero. on the correspondence. Councelor Casar, Councelor Wang will move and second it to put the correspondence on the floor. Any discussion? Seeing none, show of hands, please. And that carries. 9.2 options to provide financial assistance to eligible low-income seniors. Council Gretch, please introduce the motion and your seconder. >> My seconder is councelor Moren Wilson, and this is specifically for low-income senior tenants. So, as you may know, many of the city of Hamilton's programs specifically line up for eligible low-income seniors who own their homes already. And that can sometimes be with respect to their utility, all kinds of things that they can access. What we're trying to do here is get information from staff to understand how this might apply to tenants as well. Because of course, tenants just because they don't own their home doesn't mean they don't have financial affordability issues. And right now, as tenants try to contact staff and apply for these programs, they're being told, "Sorry, you're not eligible. You can't apply to these same programs." The good thing about this is that the Ontario government has already moved forward with programs to align their eligibility programs to ensure that everyone is eligible based on age and doesn't discriminate based on whether someone owns their home or whether someone doesn't own their home. So, this is moving us toward being in line with the provincial programming on the subject. That decision is not being made today. that was being made today is asking staff to report back on this because there are going to be some cost implications for this meeting. There's going to be administration that has to be done, how we assess eligibility. So staff are going to report back on what's possible here and it's a decision probably for the next council to make. But right now, I'm asking for council to direct staff to report back on the eligibility criteria, administrative requirements, annual program costs, opportunities to align it with existing programs, and any required policies and bylaws, legal, operational, financial, and technological things. Thanks to staff for working on this with me, and it's been something that we've been talking a lot about with seniors downtown because, of course, as you know, 80% of the people who live in W 2 rent their homes. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Clark, >> thank you. Um, what I don't see in the resolution is a clause that provides information to council about what the federal and provincial programming is. So, a report back on what funding is available from the province and the feds for these programs. Um, I'd like to have a a better idea as to who's funding what. And this is just talking about creating a brand new lowinccome senior renters um basically financial assistance program. So what are what is the province doing? What's the feds doing? You know, from my perspective, if the federal government paid more for CPP and Old Age Security to seniors, we wouldn't have the issue. The amount of money that they're getting for those pensions are very low. And given that about 50% of the population in Ontario, at least in Ontario, doesn't have a a a pension plan other than what the government is providing them, is really concerning because a lot of seniors are on fixed income. So, I like at least that staff when they report back that they include all of the information about where funding is available from the feds in the province for for renters. Also, thank you, >> councelor. Are you okay with adding that to the motion friendly or >> Yeah, it's fine with me. There's a can be a G saying and report back on comparable programs from the provincial and federal government that do the same thing. I don't remember the name of the program right now or I just tell you it's just not in front of me. Oh, wait, actually, maybe it is. Huh. Yeah. So, the the comparable program actually is the province's energy and property tax credit program. So it's not it's not saying their energy and property tax credit program allows there to be eligibility for both those who own their property and those who rent their homes. So that's the program that we could say that's the only one I'm aware of and with the province. So perhaps we can get more information on that specific program and how it compares to or if any any provincial and federal programs compare. >> Sure. So it's fine with me if you want to add that as a G. >> Yep. Any provincial and federal programs that are similar. I want to just clarify though that this is not about creating a new program. It's about we have a we have a program already that we have at the city for senior seniors and um right now the eligibility criteria is a contingency upon owning your home. And so of course that doesn't mean that people don't have active metered water accounts in rental properties. And that's what this is primarily about is those kinds of situations where people have the same kinds of utilities or same kinds of issues that people in homes have uh where they own their property and homes where they rent their property. So yeah, I'm fine with that as a friendly amendment if you want to add report back on related provincial and federal programming. >> Clerk, do you have that? >> So yeah. So G will read information on any provincial or federal funding programs available. Thank you. >> Okay, that has been added. Councelor Clark. >> And just to be clear, I'm not opposed to the concept or the idea. I'm just wanting to have a wholesome report back. That's all. >> Thank you, Councelor Clark. Have no one else on the speakers list. We will go to the vote. That carries 12 to zero. Thank you. Moving on to lost my page. We are on item 10, notice of motion 10.1, municipal property and building name and policy review. Councelor Nan, is this staying as a notice or deputy mayor? Staying as a notice. Yeah. >> Awesome. Thank you. And we're moving on to private and confidential. Uh we will take a motion to go into close for 11.7. Um and sorry, wrong number. I'll be right back. >> 114 five and six. 11.45 and six. So I'll take a motion now to go into closed for those items. Councelor Morin Wilson, councelor Casar. And uh we will get that vote up while I hand vote. Sorry. And the hands are up. And that carries. Thank you. Uh where am I here? Members of the public are advised that during the close session portion of the meeting, the live stream will broadcast the close session in progress screen. The broadcast will resume when the close session portion of the meeting is complete. As we are now moving into close session, I would ask all members of the public, delegates, external participants to please now exit the WebEx meeting, but I still have something else to read. So, just hold on one second. I should have them memorized. >> There we go. Uh so we're moving into close session pursuant to 9.3 subsection AB F and K of the proities procedural bylaw 21-021 as amended and section 2392 subsection AB F and K of the Ontario Municipal Act 2001 as amended as a subject matter pertains to the security of the property of the municipality or local board. Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees. Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the city or local board. Advice that the subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the city or a local board. We already took a vote and I already read the next part. Uh I'm going to ask staff now that are do not directly related to the inc camera items to please exit the WebEx. Also a reminder to members of council that per section 8.7 of the procedural bylaw the use of personal electronic devices during closed meetings are strictly prohibited. However, the use of city electronic devices during closed meetings are limited to text communication only with the city's electronic devices not being used as a telephone recording device or camera. Staff from the office of the city clerk are exempted from subsection 8.7c when using electronic devices for recordkeeping purposes. Welcome back everyone. Uh we are back in open session and we are at 11.4 4 CM2600 00008A cyber resilience update Q2 2026 mover and seconder for the following that the report CM26008A be received and remain confidential councelor Casar councelor crud show of hands please that carries thank you moving on to 11.5 LS19028A update on expropriation of 70 Branch Street ward Three mover and seconder on the following that the direction to staff and closed be approved. Councelor Casar, Councelor Wang, do I need to read out all these other things? Okay. Close session recommendation one to confidential report LS19028A be approved and remain confidential unless made public as the city's position before the OOLT as necessary to secure the claims withdrawal pursuant to minutes of settlement and that the balance of report LS19028A remain confidential. Show of hands, please. And that >> that's electronic. >> Oh, sorry. >> I just wanted to be on the record. That was not my air. Thank you. And the the electronic vote is up. >> Very responsible. Please vote accordingly. >> That carries 10 to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 10.6 LS26014. Legal advice regarding adenification bylaw. May I please have a mover and second on the following. Councelor Crutch, Councelor Moren Wilson. That the direction provided to staff in close session respecting report LS26014 be approved and remain confidential. And that the report LS26014 remain confidential. >> Amazing. >> Electronic vote everyone. Thank you. >> And that carries 10 to zero. And uh just before I adjourn, thank you to uh all the counselors that stayed today, the ones that participated yesterday, the ones that stayed for AFNA this morning. There's not a lot of staff here, but to all the staff that spent the last day and a half with us, thank you very much. Uh this was the best GIC I've had in four years. I promise. Uh, enjoy the rest of your evening and we are adjourned at uh, 4:11 p.m. on July 30th. Have a great night.