[4:46] Sound check one two three four sound check one two

[4:49] three four.

[47:54] Here shortly. Okay we're live. All right call the meaning

[48:01] to order I guess good evening we have a meeting

[48:04] of the agriculture and rural affairs advisory committee and we're

[48:08] still waiting for Quorum so we're going to go into

[48:10] recess.

[1:00:18] We're live, Drew. You're muted. I am muted. Okay, good

[1:00:27] evening everyone. Welcome to the Agriculture Revol Affairs Advice subcommittee

[1:00:31] meeting. Let me get my thing back up here. We

[1:00:37] have quorum present for tonight's meeting now and I'd like

[1:00:39] to call this meeting of the Agriculture and rural affairs

[1:00:42] subcommittee to order. Reminder, please turn off your cell phones

[1:00:47] to a non - audible function. We have an agenda

[1:00:50] in front of us. Can I have a mover and

[1:00:52] a seconder to approve the agenda as presented? Councillor Cassar

[1:00:56] and Daniel Vanderhout. Is there any discussion on that.

[1:01:06] All in favor or anyone opposed, I guess I'll say.

[1:01:09] Has anyone opposed. I'm gonna call that carried. Any declarations

[1:01:16] of interest at this time. Hearing Nun, we'll move on

[1:01:25] to the minutes of June 22nd. Will there be a

[1:01:31] mover and a seconder to adopt those minutes as presented.

[1:01:37] I have no circusar again. Can't see everybody here. So

[1:01:46] our seconder. Okay, Janice, thank you. Any discussion on those

[1:01:52] minutes. If not, is anyone opposed to proving those minutes.

[1:02:04] We'll call that carried. Gonna move to item 7. 1

[1:02:10] Agriculture Community Improvement Plan Feasibility Study. The project update and

[1:02:14] feedback. And I will turn it over to Tyson McMahon.

[1:02:19] To provide us with his presentation. Through the chariot, Drew.

[1:02:24] Thank you. And appreciate everyone taking the time to join

[1:02:27] us today at the committee meeting. Today, as Drew mentioned,

[1:02:31] this is a project update and a bit of a

[1:02:34] feedback session for the agriculture warfare subcommittee. So earlier in

[1:02:40] the year at our June meeting, we presented the agricultural

[1:02:44] CIP feasibility study that we had begun work on. Since

[1:02:48] that time we have done some more project research analysis,

[1:02:54] as well as some significant consultation with stakeholders community and

[1:02:59] the farming community as well. So tonight I'll be brief,

[1:03:03] I'll pass it over to Maryland and Rebecca. They will

[1:03:05] provide an overview of the project work to date, the

[1:03:09] what we heard from stakeholders, some of those themes that

[1:03:11] we heard. As well as draft recommendations when it comes

[1:03:15] to what we heard from the community when it comes

[1:03:19] to priorities for the agricultural industry, as well as recommendations

[1:03:24] for what a draft CIP or community improvement could look

[1:03:28] like. Uh, so with that, I'll pass it over to

[1:03:30] both Maryland and Rebecca. He'll take us through the presentation

[1:03:33] as well as the feedback session. Fantastic. Thank you all.

[1:03:39] Can I just test that you can hear me. We

[1:03:43] can. Thank you, chair. Yeah. Uh, great. So Tyson said

[1:03:49] it, if you recall our last meeting, we're here today

[1:03:52] to reintroduce the concept and share back what we've heard.

[1:03:57] And then, uh, gather your input. So, um, Rebecca, if

[1:04:00] you don't mind going to the next slide, I'll go

[1:04:02] over our agenda. Our goal today is to, um, go

[1:04:06] over what the project involves, what a CIP is just

[1:04:10] as a refresher, because most of you have heard it

[1:04:12] once or twice before. Um, and then, uh, fill you

[1:04:16] in on what's been accomplished in the project to date.

[1:04:19] So that includes, um, review of background data and policy,

[1:04:24] as well as what we've heard from stakeholders so far.

[1:04:28] Um, then we'll be going through the sector informed priority.

[1:04:32] So basically that the analysis of everything we've heard. And

[1:04:36] we'll take you through the draft recommendations that we have

[1:04:38] for the agriculture CIP and some other strategic initiatives. The

[1:04:42] City could be doing as well. And then at the

[1:04:45] end of the presentation, we'd like to make sure there's

[1:04:47] some time to answer questions, clarify any points, um, and

[1:04:52] generally just get your feedback on these as we go

[1:04:55] to refine them into a final report. Um, so I'll

[1:04:58] hand it off to Rebecca to recap the project for

[1:05:01] you all. Perfect. Thanks, Britlin. Uh, so I'll begin with

[1:05:08] a brief overview of the study, our objectives and where

[1:05:11] we're at in the process. Um, so as you might

[1:05:14] remember from the June meeting, the study was designed to

[1:05:17] move from a really broad question about feasibility towards a

[1:05:21] locally grounded understanding of what would make a difference in

[1:05:24] rural Hamilton. So we begin by examining the legislative and

[1:05:28] policy framework that enables the city to provide incentives through

[1:05:31] a community improvement plan and looked at how other municipalities

[1:05:35] in Ontario have used this tool and rural and agricultural

[1:05:37] settings. That research gave us some examples, but not necessarily

[1:05:42] answers for Hamilton. Hamilton has its own compantion of farm

[1:05:46] types, land use policies, infrastructure, industrial capacity, transportation assets and

[1:05:52] development pressures. So engagement with the local agricultural community, City

[1:05:57] Councils and staff industry representatives and the general public with

[1:06:01] central to the study. And that was to be able

[1:06:03] to identify local priorities, um, barriers, assess possible incentive structures

[1:06:08] and recommend practical approaches, uh, and funding considerations. So our

[1:06:13] central question is not simply whether the City can establish

[1:06:17] a CIP for the agriculture and rural areas. But rather

[1:06:21] how, uh, SEIP could be designed to meaningfully impact and

[1:06:25] respond to Hamilton's agricultural context and support investments that might

[1:06:30] not otherwise proceed. So the studies progressed through five phases.

[1:06:37] Uh, the work completed since May has sort of progressively

[1:06:40] narrowed the focus of our study. The background research helped

[1:06:43] us to understand what was possible. And our R stakeholder

[1:06:46] engagement helped us to understand what's needed in the sector.

[1:06:50] We are now in phase four where our research and

[1:06:53] consultation findings have been translated into draft recommendations that will

[1:06:57] be presenting tonight, bridging those two pieces together. Following today's

[1:07:02] discussion, those recommendations will be refined for inclusion in a

[1:07:06] final background report, uh, that will be presented to council

[1:07:09] for some consideration on next steps. So before we turn

[1:07:14] to the findings, I think it's helpful just to pause

[1:07:16] and clarify what a CIP is and what it's not.

[1:07:20] Um, so as you might remember a CIP creates a

[1:07:23] defined and transparent framework for providing financial incentives and undertaking

[1:07:28] municipal initiatives, uh, where that investment is expected to produce

[1:07:32] a broader community benefit. So community improvement plans are increasingly

[1:07:37] used across Ontario because municipalities are otherwise limited in their

[1:07:41] ability to provide direct financial incentives or assistance to private

[1:07:45] businesses and landowners. So when rural Hamilton, what this could

[1:07:49] look like, uh, from a community benefit perspective, that could

[1:07:53] be more resilient farm businesses, greater food processing capacity, employment,

[1:07:59] uh, environmental performance or expanded opportunities for local food and

[1:08:03] agricurism. I should note that, uh, SEAP doesn't replace the

[1:08:10] required planning approvals, whether that's building permits, environmental requirements or

[1:08:14] other regulations, uh, projects still has to comply with that

[1:08:18] framework. But a CIP can reduce identified barriers and encourage

[1:08:23] private investment and projects that produce that wider community and

[1:08:27] economic benefit. So depending on how a program is designed,

[1:08:33] incentives can include grants, loans, rebates or fees, uh, or

[1:08:39] rebates that are tied to increases in municipal tax. So

[1:08:42] a CIP can support, um, also municipal actions that create

[1:08:46] broader environmental, social, physical or economic benefits. Um, what the

[1:08:52] important point being that the incentive should really respond to

[1:08:55] an identified barrier. So upfront capital is the main challenge,

[1:09:00] a matching grant might help if planning and technical requirements

[1:09:04] are creating, uh, disproportionate costs. Maybe it's a fee rebate

[1:09:08] or a grant for professional services that may be more

[1:09:11] useful. Um, if a project will substantially increase this assessed

[1:09:15] value of a property, a tax - based incentives may

[1:09:18] be more appropriate. And so for an agricultural CIP and

[1:09:21] rural Hamilton, the strongest model, uh, might be one that

[1:09:25] combines carefully targeted financial incentives such as these with broader

[1:09:30] municipal actions that improve the conditions for agricultural investment. I

[1:09:37] should note that Hamilton already does have considerable experience administering

[1:09:41] CIPs. The City currently uses CIPs to address housing, commercial

[1:09:45] revitalization, and environmental remediation and sustainable development. And that experience

[1:09:51] really is an important strength. The City already understands how

[1:09:55] to establish a community improvement project area, administer applications, structure

[1:10:00] incentives, and monitor investments. But the gap here is geographic

[1:10:05] and sectoral. Existing programs are directed primarily towards urban priorities.

[1:10:10] Whereas farms and rural businesses operate within a very different

[1:10:13] investment environment. And there's currently no dedicated framework focused on

[1:10:18] agricultural economic development. A CIP for Agriculture and rural Hamilton

[1:10:25] would address a distinct geographic and economic context with different

[1:10:28] development patterns, investment needs, project timelines and regulatory considerations. Alternativer

[1:10:35] to Maryland here to walk us through the jurisdictional scan.

[1:10:40] Yeah. So as part of our review, we took a

[1:10:42] look at other jurisdiction CIPs. Um, so, um, you'll see

[1:10:49] the full list here that we, um, looked at in,

[1:10:52] you know, varying levels of death. And you'll note that

[1:10:54] some of these are community improvement plans full. And some

[1:10:58] are referring to a specific grant that was, that was

[1:11:01] focused on agriculture. And that's generally because there's two approaches

[1:11:06] to focusing the topic of a CIP in some cases

[1:11:10] a CIP might apply to the entire municipality. And it

[1:11:13] will include incentives that can be applied in rural and

[1:11:17] urban areas. Um, and this offers, um, more of an

[1:11:21] equalizing approach where the more opportunity for more applicants, um,

[1:11:24] for a wider variety of projects. And in this case,

[1:11:29] um, so NORFOC County on that list, one example where

[1:11:32] there's a municipal wide CIP and they have one grant

[1:11:36] focused at agriculture and non - farm diversified uses. Um,

[1:11:39] so, um, this is where we tend to see a

[1:11:42] lot of very like commonalities across municipalities and how they

[1:11:45] offer those. And then, um, the other approach is to

[1:11:52] do, um, something a little more focused. And so this

[1:11:56] is where a municipality might have a specific CIP and

[1:11:59] a specific allocation of funding for that CIP towards a

[1:12:02] particular improvement outcome. Um, so this is how the City

[1:12:05] of Hamilton currently operates their CIPs. They're, you know, their

[1:12:09] brown field specific or downtown specific. Um, and this allows

[1:12:12] the city to really target a specific outcome or objective

[1:12:16] for improvement. Um, and so while this approach is common,

[1:12:21] um, for lots of different types of improvement, it's not

[1:12:25] so common for agriculture. And so we reviewed, um, three

[1:12:29] in particular that do take a focus on agriculture. So

[1:12:34] we're back. If you don't mind going to the next

[1:12:35] slide. Yeah. So, um, the first of these is Helderman

[1:12:42] County. So they have a rural business and tourism CIP

[1:12:46] from 2013. This one's the longest running one we found.

[1:12:50] It is currently under a review. So they might make

[1:12:53] changes to that upcoming. And then, uh, in 2021 King

[1:12:58] Township updated their CIP program and included a stream specific

[1:13:02] to rural resiliency. And this one is focused specifically at

[1:13:05] agricultural properties. And then most recently, who introduced one back

[1:13:12] in April of this year. Um, and so, um, they

[1:13:16] act fairly similarly, uh, very similar objectives to supporting agriculture

[1:13:21] and agri - food network. And what you'll notice is

[1:13:25] common as well is that the incentives all operate as

[1:13:29] grants primarily and support, you know, F50 percent cost matching

[1:13:35] for eligible costs. You'll note that the incentive types are

[1:13:39] all fairly similar as well. You can see common improvement

[1:13:43] types like facade signage, um, agriturism, um, and things like,

[1:13:48] uh, waving of planning application or building permit fees. Um,

[1:13:53] and then you'll also see that, um, in each of

[1:13:55] the three jurisdictions, they've had fairly similar, um, financial allocations,

[1:14:00] although with brands introduction of this new CIP, they, they

[1:14:03] went larger for 2026. And then all three of them

[1:14:07] publish, um, a return on the ratio of their return

[1:14:11] on investment. So you can see there that, um, all

[1:14:14] of them have quite a good return. Brent County especially

[1:14:17] has had quite a lot of success in their previous

[1:14:19] CIPs. Um, but yet to see what this new one,

[1:14:24] um, will, will bring in. In terms of the differences

[1:14:28] between them that I want to highlight, um, notably King

[1:14:31] Township, um, identifies that that grant opportunity could be converted

[1:14:35] to tax relief instead. Um, whereas Haldeman offers a taxed

[1:14:41] increment grant in addition to, um, other costs or other

[1:14:45] grant opportunities. And those are separate grants that work together.

[1:14:50] Um, and then, uh, another sort of noticeable difference here.

[1:14:54] Um, that's in the CIP programs is that along with

[1:14:57] the specific incentives for property owners, uh, the township of

[1:15:01] king has also, um, committed to a variety of municipal

[1:15:06] strategies and actions that they've decided to, um, commit to

[1:15:11] to work in tandem with the CIP. So as they

[1:15:14] try to incentivize private investment, they're also, um, working on

[1:15:18] these public ROM strategy, urban design guidelines revitalization strategy and

[1:15:23] then updates to their zoning biot to go alongside it

[1:15:26] because they've identified that that will help to make it

[1:15:28] a little more successful. So, um, the key takeaways from

[1:15:32] these is that, um, while it's less common to have

[1:15:36] an agriculture focused CIP, at least in Southwestern Ontario, um,

[1:15:40] there's a fairly strong indicator going as far back as

[1:15:44] 2013 that there's a business case to be made. They're

[1:15:47] strong return on investment. Um, and that, um, that these

[1:15:51] types of support for the agriculture sector are in demand

[1:15:55] and fairly successful. So I think there's something to be

[1:15:58] said that it's very timely for Hamilton to be looking

[1:16:00] into this approach. Um, you know, given that Haldeman and

[1:16:05] Brant do it, neighbouring municipalities that Hamilton can join, um,

[1:16:10] to create more of a regional support in this format

[1:16:14] for the sector. And then Rebecca, if you don't mind

[1:16:18] going to the next slide, I want to highlight a

[1:16:20] few other examples. So like I said, um, the, the

[1:16:25] CIP's highlighted the municipalities highlighted on this slide of municipal

[1:16:30] wide CIPs. So they're applicable to, um, lots of different

[1:16:34] types of uses or areas in the municipality. Um, but,

[1:16:39] um, what's interesting about these is they have one or

[1:16:42] two that are specifically focused for agriculture. And this is

[1:16:44] where in some of the language and eligible, um, criteria

[1:16:48] for the CIPs. We see some of the innovation that

[1:16:51] municipalities are looking to when they want to support agriculture

[1:16:53] improvement. So you can see areas of Bruce County and

[1:16:58] Georgia and bluffs looking at areas of agricultural innovation, specifically

[1:17:01] when it comes to, um, different types of crops. Um,

[1:17:07] different types of processing or doing, uh, direct sales on

[1:17:10] site. And then, excuse me, we can see, um, other

[1:17:17] CIPs focused on things like reducing waste, uh, production or

[1:17:22] looking at other types of environmental improvements to the soil

[1:17:27] or source water. Excuse me. Um, general property improvement is

[1:17:36] a very common CIP. Excuse me. Sorry. I might have

[1:17:42] to grab the lozenge. Rebecca and do you mind taking

[1:17:46] over the slide. And I'll be right back with you.

[1:17:51] Chair, no problem. Um, so on general property improvements, that

[1:17:55] could be things like farm labour residences, um, the scale

[1:17:59] of the operation is large enough to warrant having additional

[1:18:03] employees beyond the owner operator. Um, it could also just

[1:18:07] be, um, building expansion retrofitting or conversion of different existing

[1:18:14] or new, um, new building types on the farm. Um,

[1:18:19] in Brent County, this looked like commercial reuse of existing,

[1:18:23] uh, barns or other structures. Um, so to, to complement

[1:18:26] that on - farm retail or direct sales, uh, approach

[1:18:30] that, that they're trying to incentivize. Um, and then on

[1:18:34] the last category, that might look like infrastructure upgrades. So

[1:18:38] in Holton Hills, they identified a lack of, um, high

[1:18:41] speed broadband connection as being a barrier for continued, um,

[1:18:46] growth and expansion in the rural sector. So, um, one

[1:18:50] of the categories of improvement in that case would be,

[1:18:54] um, working with, uh, utility providers to facilitate, uh, the

[1:18:59] installation of broadband infrastructure. In Brent County, um, cycling and

[1:19:04] active transportation enhancement was a priority. So, uh, and some

[1:19:07] cases, um, the labour force, uh, workforce in the agriculture

[1:19:13] and rural sector, um, might not always have, uh, access

[1:19:16] to a private vehicle. There's not good transit connectivity to

[1:19:19] these areas. So, uh, providing that safe, uh, and efficient,

[1:19:24] uh, infrastructure for active transportation and other modalities helps to

[1:19:28] then bridge that gap. In a pivot gears to look

[1:19:37] now at the current context in Hamilton, uh, looking at,

[1:19:40] um, some of the most recent findings from the agricultural

[1:19:43] census, um, the policy and legislative framework in Hamilton for,

[1:19:48] um, the rural areas. And what this means for the

[1:19:51] agriculture CIP. And I'll pass it back to Maryland for

[1:19:57] this first slide. Thanks, Rebecca. A apologies for that. I'm

[1:20:02] going to try to talk through it. So, uh, excuse

[1:20:04] me if I need to take a few coughing breaks.

[1:20:07] Um, so first I wanted to make a note on

[1:20:10] our approach. When we talk about food broadly, we often

[1:20:14] fail to recognise the entire system that goes into getting

[1:20:17] food from production to the table. Um, and, and what

[1:20:21] happens in between. And so to do that would miss

[1:20:23] out on some real assets in Hamilton. Um, we know

[1:20:26] from the outside of the project, it became very clear

[1:20:28] that we wanted to take a systems approach to our

[1:20:31] review. Um, and so what you have here is just

[1:20:35] a very oversimplified visual of the agri food chain that

[1:20:39] shows the cycle of production and some of the other

[1:20:43] steps that are really key into making sure that Hamilton's

[1:20:47] agriculture is successful. Um, the sector is successful. And show

[1:20:52] some of the assets that Hamilton already has is as

[1:20:55] it's disposal. Um, particularly when it comes to processing and

[1:20:59] industry distribution, um, and then dining in tourism, uh, so

[1:21:04] we've kept this approach top of mind throughout. And that

[1:21:08] is really easily seen on the next slide. With some

[1:21:14] research. Sorry, Rebecca, thanks. I segue too subtly there. Um,

[1:21:21] so the research here shown that, um, demonstrates Hamilton strength,

[1:21:26] particularly in agribusiness, which includes both agriculture and food and

[1:21:29] beverage. And the secondary tertiary sectors within that agrofood chain.

[1:21:34] So what you're looking at here is a map from

[1:21:37] Waterloo Economic Development Corporation Research back from 2023 that shows,

[1:21:43] um, location quotient. And essentially North America's established clusters for

[1:21:48] food and beverage employment. And this is as a share

[1:21:52] of the National Average. That's how they've graphed it. So

[1:21:54] we can see that the biggest cluster is located in

[1:21:58] Toronto. The biggest green cluster, which is they consider true

[1:22:01] employment is located in the Toronto area. And then the

[1:22:04] nice little inset there that shows, um, that the real

[1:22:08] emerging clusters that make up the Toronto area actually includes

[1:22:13] Hamilton Waterloo and Guelph quite substantially. And so I won't

[1:22:16] go too much into this data, but I wanted to

[1:22:19] highlight that, you know, we've heard so much talk about

[1:22:22] Hamilton as an agri - food hub and how it's

[1:22:25] just continuing to grow. And I think this, um, puts

[1:22:29] a nice picture to how real that is across the

[1:22:32] entire continent. And then we'll go into the next slide

[1:22:36] and we'll talk, um, talk very quickly about agriculture. So

[1:22:39] as part of our review, we also took a look

[1:22:41] at Census of Agriculture and Labour Survey data, um, primarily

[1:22:44] as it was compelled for, um, Hamilton biomapha. And I

[1:22:49] won't go into too much detail here again because you

[1:22:52] folks are already the expert on this side of things.

[1:22:55] Um, but some of the key takeaways that we feel,

[1:22:59] um, really demonstrate what a CIP could support with include

[1:23:02] the trends that we can see in changing production types.

[1:23:07] So such as new animals being rared, um, new crops

[1:23:11] being taken on or changes to organic product usage, things

[1:23:15] like that. Um, as well as trends and technology uptake,

[1:23:19] um, automation, looking for efficiencies that way. Um, increasing direct

[1:23:25] sales on form in a variety of forms. Um, and

[1:23:28] then of course, uh, the demographic changes. So as population

[1:23:32] as this population is aging, um, and as farm sizes,

[1:23:37] uh, increase while the number of firms decrease as well.

[1:23:40] So we, we know that that would translate quite well

[1:23:43] in terms of creating demand for the type of CIP

[1:23:46] that could support farmers in investing. How you get two

[1:23:50] people while you adding processing is pretty much reading this

[1:23:54] diversified uses. And other ways to increase profit margins or

[1:23:59] encourage more resilient businesses. Um, so we can tell that

[1:24:03] there would be demand for this in Hamilton. I'm going

[1:24:07] to hand it over again to you, Rebecca. Thank. You.

[1:24:12] Thanks, Brennan. Um, so when we look at the policy

[1:24:16] basis for, uh, how a CIP could be structured and

[1:24:19] Hamilton, really any municipal initiative has to operate within the

[1:24:23] larger planning framework. And at the provincial level, this includes

[1:24:27] the provincial planning statement, the green butt planes government plan.

[1:24:36] Um, so the provincial framework establishes two sort of equally

[1:24:40] important directions. The first being protection. So prime agricultural land

[1:24:45] has to remain available for agriculture for land use conflict

[1:24:49] has to be managed. And new activities, um, can't undermine

[1:24:53] the long - term function of the agricultural system. The

[1:24:57] second is the systems approach. So provincial policies recognise that

[1:25:01] producting land is not really enough if businesses can't adapt,

[1:25:05] invest or remain economically productive. This system also depends on

[1:25:09] infrastructure services processing distribution and supporting businesses. These plans together

[1:25:15] support agricultural viability and diversification. But within clear sort of

[1:25:19] parameters for land use and environmental protection. And the CIP

[1:25:24] has to strike that balance. It should support investment and

[1:25:28] diversification. But without weakening the protection of the agricultural land

[1:25:32] base or impacting on the escarpment's ecological and landscape values.

[1:25:38] Then just let me listen to the rest of. Hamilton's

[1:25:44] local policy provides a basis for agriculture, agricultural related uses,

[1:25:49] and certain on - firm secondary uses and a framework

[1:25:52] for protecting agricultural land and supporting a viable rural economy.

[1:25:57] Farming is directed to the agriculture rural and specialty crop

[1:26:00] designations to maintain that stable base where a wide range

[1:26:04] of agriculture, agricultural related and on - frame secondary uses

[1:26:09] are permitted. Um, our review identified areas where the framework

[1:26:13] supports that agricultural investment as well as areas where greater

[1:26:17] flexibility or clarity might be beneficial. For example, um, stakeholders

[1:26:23] based questions about permissions and processes for agriculturism, renewable energy,

[1:26:28] processing, retail, and other activities associated with more contemporary farm

[1:26:32] business models. The policy direction and the official plan is

[1:26:37] implemented through the zoning bylaw, um, detailed controls on permitted

[1:26:43] uses, lot sizes setbacks development standards. I won't go through

[1:26:46] those, but they're up here. For your review. I will

[1:26:51] note, um, one thing that came up by mentioned just

[1:26:54] briefly, um, is the lack of, um, established permissions or

[1:26:59] regulations for renewable and alternative energy systems, which I understand

[1:27:03] is a priority of counsel to review, uh, and potentially

[1:27:08] integrate in the future. Um, subject to staff recommendations. So

[1:27:12] I wanted to flag that, uh, as part of our

[1:27:14] review as well. Beyond the policy framework, strong strategic alignment

[1:27:23] for MINISPOLCHINTHON through a CIP, uh, through Hamilton's food strategy

[1:27:26] and the economic development action plan. They both identify agriculture

[1:27:30] as an important economic driver and recognise, uh, an agriculture

[1:27:35] focus EIP as a potential tool for addressing barriers and

[1:27:38] supporting reinvestment. Um, the food strategy in particular supports a

[1:27:43] sustainable and resilient food system, uh, recognising the need for

[1:27:48] infrastructure coordinated funding, business support innovation and diversification. Um, so

[1:27:54] provides a really good basis for a CIP to build

[1:27:57] on those existing municipal directions rather than creating a separate

[1:28:02] or, or disconnected program. The last thing I want to

[1:28:08] touch on, um, on the framework side of things is

[1:28:12] the City enrichment fund, which provides really valuable community events,

[1:28:17] education and not for profit activities through a dedicated, um,

[1:28:21] funding allocation, uh, by council. Uh, so this includes support

[1:28:25] for agricultural affairs farmers markets, farm crawls, youth education, soil

[1:28:30] health initiatives, community gardens, public education just to name a

[1:28:34] few. I want to stress that this funding plays a

[1:28:38] really important role, but it does serve a different purpose

[1:28:40] from a CIP. It primarily supports programs, events, and community

[1:28:44] activities. Whereas a CIP would focus more directly on those

[1:28:48] capital improvements, business investments and property related projects. Um, another

[1:28:54] eligible activities that might be intended to improve long -

[1:28:58] term capacity. So if council were to decide to move

[1:29:02] forward with a CIP, the two programs could be complementary.

[1:29:07] But I'd stress that they shouldn't be treated as interchangeable,

[1:29:11] uh, with one replacing the other. Now I'm going to

[1:29:17] segue to talk about, uh, what we heard from stakeholder

[1:29:20] engagement and consultation. Um, a really major component of this

[1:29:24] study was hearing directly from people who work in support

[1:29:27] and interact with Hamilton's agricultural sector. Uh, and this program

[1:29:31] was designed to test the findings of our background research

[1:29:34] against that practical experience. So I think this is a

[1:29:40] really important thing to highlight before we get into what

[1:29:43] we heard. We were able to connect with more than

[1:29:46] 93 participants across the first three phases of this project,

[1:29:52] which really led itself to, um, really diverse and detailed

[1:29:57] overview of, of the sector. We heard from people who

[1:30:00] might apply to a feature program, uh, people who would

[1:30:03] administer and review it, elective representatives who hear directly from

[1:30:07] rural constituents and organisations that understand those broader industry trends.

[1:30:13] Um, the workshop provided a space for that larger group

[1:30:16] discussion and allowed participants to react to examples from other

[1:30:19] municipalities. Uh, the one - on - one interviews give

[1:30:22] us space to explore individual experiences with investment, approvals, business

[1:30:28] expansion on from diversification. Uh, and the farm crawl pop

[1:30:32] up added the perspective of residents and visitors, uh, where

[1:30:36] the customers and intended audience for many direct sales and

[1:30:40] farm experience activities. Uh, and really our focus here, um,

[1:30:45] and structuring this engagement was not simply a quest for

[1:30:48] a list of preferred grants, but asking stakeholders what is

[1:30:52] preventing investment, what improvement might look like, uh, and what

[1:30:57] would have to change for a future program to be

[1:30:59] credible and to be useful to have good uptake and

[1:31:03] good impact. And so that these DAX couple of slides

[1:31:08] sum up some of the themes that came out of

[1:31:10] those different activities. First, that Hamilton has a really strong

[1:31:16] foundation for Agrafood Growth. Stakeholders pointed to the city's agricultural

[1:31:20] and industrial sectors, transportation connections. This momentum and building a

[1:31:25] food hub and growing interest in local products and sort

[1:31:28] of buying local and shopping with small businesses. Second opportunities

[1:31:34] related to agriculture and agriculturism are not yet fully realised.

[1:31:38] There's interest in farm experience, direct sales, value - added

[1:31:42] production and emerging technologies that can be tapped into. Third,

[1:31:46] the municipal development process is viewed as a barrier participants

[1:31:51] described complex requirements, LC approval processes, uncertainty, and difficulty identifying

[1:31:57] a clear path forward. Fourth, some stake stakeholders believed that,

[1:32:04] um, policies and regulations haven't kept peace with the realities

[1:32:07] of modern agriculture. Um, in particular, in relation to processing,

[1:32:11] packaging, farm retail, agriturism, technology, renewable energy and far worker

[1:32:17] housing. So this could be an opportunity, um, for future,

[1:32:21] uh, review, um, an update. Following sort of, um, some

[1:32:26] targeted effort at looking at the policy framework and sort

[1:32:29] of greater detail. Um, there was also strong support for

[1:32:33] a more service oriented municipal model. This could be a

[1:32:37] dedicated liaison or concierge. She could provide early guidance, um,

[1:32:42] coordinate review, uh, between internal city departments and help applicants

[1:32:46] navigate requirements. Um, that role could be, uh, helping a

[1:32:51] business owner understand really early on in the process. What's

[1:32:54] permitted? What approvals are required? Who needs to be involved?

[1:32:58] And what that practical path to compliance could look like

[1:33:00] before significant resources are committed. Uh, the next kind of

[1:33:08] theme was on infrastructure and whether, uh, there's capacity within

[1:33:14] existing infrastructure to support those larger operations, uh, and business

[1:33:17] growth and expansion. So whether that's electrical capacity, natural gas

[1:33:22] broadband, uh, storm arte management, transportation or distribution infrastructure as

[1:33:27] important sort of considerations. Um, participants also described broader pressures,

[1:33:33] including high land and capital costs, difficulty accessing traditional financing,

[1:33:38] labour and skill shortages, success and challenges, heavy workloads and

[1:33:41] economic and climate uncertainty as being, um, major constraints as

[1:33:45] well. When we talked about specific incentives, stakeholders emphasize that

[1:33:50] they need to be meaningful, predictable and easy to understand.

[1:33:53] Um, smaller grants might help with some projects, but they

[1:33:57] are unlikely to overcome these major, uh, capital regulatory or

[1:34:01] infrastructure barriers by themselves. Um, which kind of leads to

[1:34:05] the last point here. Stakeholders preferred a sector wide approach

[1:34:09] focused on productivity innovation, diversification, market access, resilience and opportunities

[1:34:15] for the next generation, which led to our sort of

[1:34:18] central finding in this study, um, that a CIP might

[1:34:22] be valuable, but it's effectiveness will really depend on those

[1:34:25] complementary initiatives as part of a broader MIS Plaforite. The

[1:34:33] public engagement at Farm Curl Hamilton reinforced several themes and

[1:34:38] added sort of another dimension to this story. Attendees described

[1:34:42] how visiting farms and learning about local food production influence

[1:34:45] they're purchasing habits and strengthened their interest in buying locally.

[1:34:49] Young families have valued the hands on an educational opportunities

[1:34:53] that help children understand our food comes from and emphasized

[1:34:57] the importance of producting rural land for continued agricultural use.

[1:35:03] Farms reviewed not only as places for production, but also

[1:35:06] as destinations where people could connect with producers, spend time

[1:35:10] socially with friends and family and experience Hamilton's rural landscape.

[1:35:14] A lot of those visitors came from out of town.

[1:35:17] So from Toronto, Burlington, Oakville, Even Guelph, Brampton, Mississauga and

[1:35:24] described that as a way to get out of the

[1:35:26] city. So has really, um, really potential economic value for

[1:35:31] farm operators through not only direct sales, but educational activities

[1:35:35] potentially dining or from based experience and broader community value

[1:35:39] by increasing awareness of local agriculture and providing public support

[1:35:43] for firmly and production. So it's not just about attracting

[1:35:47] visitors to the rural area, but supporting activities that strengthen

[1:35:50] the underlying farm business, uh, and connect food, connect residents

[1:35:54] back to local food production. So something to consider as

[1:35:59] we structure, um, the CIP and the types of programs

[1:36:03] or streams that might be incentivized. I'll pass it over

[1:36:07] to Maryland to take us through the next section. Thank

[1:36:11] you. Yeah. So, um, at this point of the presentation,

[1:36:15] you've heard what the community has shared with us throughout

[1:36:18] this project. You've also heard a summary of the current

[1:36:21] Hamilton context through the background review earlier. Um, and so

[1:36:25] we want to briefly sort of recap and, um, reiterate

[1:36:29] what it all means. We've done that through a simple

[1:36:32] SWOT analysis and summary of four key priorities that have

[1:36:35] informed the draft recommendations. So, uh, next slide, please, Rebecca,

[1:36:43] as just a refresher, a SWAT analysis is just an

[1:36:46] assessment tool to help identify all of the different factors

[1:36:50] that play when considering an action or decision. So, um,

[1:36:54] it can be a helpful tool at a time like

[1:36:55] this when we want to assess, um, what those factors

[1:36:59] are. We're going to start with internal factors. And these

[1:37:02] are things within the city's jurisdiction. Um, or influence. Um,

[1:37:07] and so that includes things like, um, uh, there were

[1:37:12] a lot of strengths we heard. So those include things

[1:37:14] like, um, the strong foundation at Hamilton already has for

[1:37:18] the agri food industry, whether that's production, um, those other

[1:37:22] steps in the chain, um, distribution and processing. And then,

[1:37:27] uh, Hamilton's location is also a really key asset for

[1:37:31] the city, um, whether, you know, no matter the method,

[1:37:34] um, it can be shipped from Hamilton, right? It can

[1:37:38] be distributed. There's, there's so much opportunity there when you

[1:37:43] have access to the world that way. Then, um, internally,

[1:37:49] um, in terms of the city, itself, there's, um, the

[1:37:52] strong policy direction. So, so at the municipal level and

[1:37:55] the provincial level, um, the importance of agriculture is recognised

[1:38:00] in policy, um, and is protected, uh, quite broadly. The

[1:38:06] city also has experience with CIPs. So, um, the need

[1:38:10] for a substantial learning curve to implement something like this.

[1:38:14] And then in terms of the local industry, um, we've,

[1:38:18] uh, seen that there is significant capacity for innovation. All

[1:38:22] across that agri food chain. Um, but particularly in agriculture,

[1:38:27] there's demand and interest in adapting and innovating. And farmers

[1:38:31] are already doing it. Um, so the opportunity is there.

[1:38:35] And then, uh, I think you all are testament to

[1:38:38] this, that there is already a really strong network of,

[1:38:43] of local champions in the farming community, a strong social

[1:38:46] and professional network, um, with expertise and desire to share

[1:38:51] those learnings and desire to spread the word about opportunities

[1:38:56] that something like a CIP could offer. And then of

[1:39:02] course there's some, um, weaknesses or areas to work on.

[1:39:06] Um, so as Rebecca highlighted, we heard quite a bit

[1:39:08] about the complexity of municipal approvals and how that can

[1:39:12] introduce a lot of uncertainty for businesses. Um, and then

[1:39:15] with that comes relationships, um, in, in need of some

[1:39:19] repair and some trust building there, um, you know, whether

[1:39:23] real or perceived. Um, policies are also, um, perceived to

[1:39:28] not be keeping up with agriculture and how, how modern

[1:39:31] agriculture operates. Um, you know, and as a planner myself,

[1:39:35] I can say that that is somewhat inevitable policy will

[1:39:39] always be a step behind industry and an actual practice.

[1:39:43] Um, and so, um, this is, you know, potentially the

[1:39:46] time to be reviewing that and making sure it is

[1:39:49] as up to date and, um, as flexible for modern

[1:39:53] farm practices as is permissible. Then, um, as a recommend,

[1:40:00] infrastructure gaps that we've heard are currently constraining farmers from

[1:40:05] expanding or growing their businesses. Um, that are, you know,

[1:40:09] that are beyond the, um, the capacity for a single

[1:40:12] property owner to, to overcome in many cases. And then

[1:40:19] we also, um, understand that there can often be a

[1:40:22] mismatch in funding when it comes to CIP grants. So

[1:40:26] for the examples that you saw earlier ranged from five

[1:40:30] to 15, 000 dollars. And as maybe the case for

[1:40:34] some farmers, um, these are not large enough to move

[1:40:37] the needle on the types of projects. And so there

[1:40:40] are some cases where those type of incentives would be

[1:40:43] very appropriate. In some cases where they might not be.

[1:40:45] And so that's something to consider. We'll move on to

[1:40:47] external factors, please, RECA. Yeah. So again, these are outside

[1:40:55] of the city soil control. We look first out opportunities.

[1:40:59] Um, so we're seeing huge shifts in consumer demand, right?

[1:41:04] Um, people are shifting their buying habits for supporting Canadian

[1:41:07] and sporting local supporting Ontario. Um, and we're starting to

[1:41:11] see that shift in spending. And the support for the

[1:41:16] Agri tourism industry is also very strong right now. Excuse

[1:41:20] me. I'll see if I can make it through this

[1:41:28] section. Excuse me. Um, so I think farm crawl on

[1:41:34] the weekend. I'm so sorry everybody. Rebecca, I do my

[1:41:39] taking over this one. Yeah, no problem. Um, so on

[1:41:45] the opportunity side, we see the expanding Agriturism market. And

[1:41:49] from Carl Hamilton being a really great example of that,

[1:41:52] um, we were there for just a couple hours and

[1:41:55] managed to talk to, um, 40, 50 people in that

[1:41:59] span. And then chatting with, um, summit station dairy, they

[1:42:04] mentioned that in the grand scheme of private tours and,

[1:42:07] uh, the farm curl events from the year prior, um,

[1:42:10] they'd had about 8, 000 visitors through their farm in

[1:42:13] that year of 2025. Um, so there's a really big

[1:42:17] market for, um, tourism to be driving even just on

[1:42:22] - farm retail. And the number of people that we

[1:42:24] saw on Saturday coming for their weekly shopping of submit

[1:42:29] station's dairy products. That kind of dovetails into the opportunity

[1:42:33] for value out of diversification. So not only on -

[1:42:37] farm retail or tourism, but whether that's on - firm

[1:42:39] processing, packaging storage or other farm activities could strengthen foreign

[1:42:43] viability. In terms of technology and sustainability, um, sort of

[1:42:48] enlighten of a changing climate, um, increased frequency and severity

[1:42:53] of, um, adverse weather events. Um, those technology and innovation,

[1:42:58] um, advancements are really important, um, sort of be climate

[1:43:03] resilient, um, and sort of increase capacity and productivity and

[1:43:08] light of those, uh, changing contexts. So that could be,

[1:43:11] um, ranging from things like automation, uh, water management, energy

[1:43:15] efficiency and other climate resilient improvements. Looking at, um, the

[1:43:20] system, uh, investments opportunities could be, um, better logistics. Port

[1:43:25] access partnerships or infrastructure that could benefit the sector collectively.

[1:43:29] Um, so really getting, um, taking what's already been working

[1:43:34] so well already. And the, the fantastic asset that is

[1:43:39] the port facility and tapping into that to reach that

[1:43:42] broader network. On coordinated municipal action, uh, we're at a

[1:43:48] time where staff are beginning to initiate, uh, plan review

[1:43:52] for rural Hamilton. So, uh, it's a great time to

[1:43:55] be looking at aligning the CIP or a future CIP,

[1:43:59] um, with those policy gaps and staff's sort of work

[1:44:04] in the future to look at modernizing those policies where

[1:44:08] it's appropriate. On the threat side, some things that are

[1:44:11] outside of the city's control, um, one thing in particular

[1:44:15] is the overlapping approval requirements. So, um, there's in certain

[1:44:19] areas, um, where the Niagara Scarpment plan takes effect in

[1:44:23] rural Hamilton, um, there's a municipal development review system, but

[1:44:28] then there's also that provincial permitting system that layers on

[1:44:31] top of it that can create some increased complexity for

[1:44:36] those projects in those areas. Uh, so it's something that,

[1:44:39] you know, if that process gets overly complex or too

[1:44:42] costly with technical studies that might be required, uh, it

[1:44:45] can be a potential threat to business investment. Uh, as

[1:44:50] well, the regional competition. So next door in Niagara, you

[1:44:54] have an established Agriturism industry, uh, with winery, cideries, distilleries,

[1:45:00] um, other sort of pick your own or fluoroculture, um,

[1:45:04] operations that, uh, businesses in Hamilton have to compete with.

[1:45:09] As well, I mentioned before the high land and.

[1:45:24] Barriers from risk averse lending, uh, or, or lengthy approvals

[1:45:28] that make investment planning really difficult. Um, if it takes,

[1:45:32] um, a year or more to get your approvals, um,

[1:45:36] having to sort of, um, line up the funding can

[1:45:39] be a challenge. Also heard about workforce and succession pressures.

[1:45:45] So in light of labour shortages, uh, specialized skill gaps

[1:45:48] are an aging from population, how that affects business continuity

[1:45:51] and growth over the long term. And then as well,

[1:45:55] the risk of economic climate and land use pressures with

[1:45:59] rising costs, uh, severe weather, uh, encroachment of urban development,

[1:46:05] uh, affecting the availability of primaricultural land and land use

[1:46:09] conflicts that can affect farm resilience. The last real risk

[1:46:13] to contend with it's important to frame a recommendations is

[1:46:16] the risk of low SCIP uptick. So, um, participation might

[1:46:21] remain limited if the incentives are too small. Or if

[1:46:25] those processes remain difficult to navigate. So this kind of

[1:46:34] brings us to the four priorities for an agriculture CIP

[1:46:38] that will be important moving forward. The first viewing the

[1:46:42] Agra Food system as an opportunity for investment. The second

[1:46:47] aligning, uh, the future program with policy and funding requirements

[1:46:50] based on the existing framework. The third scaling program incentives,

[1:46:56] uh, and the types of projects that will be meaningful

[1:46:58] to incentivize. And the last framing, a supportive ecosystem and

[1:47:03] accessible process to support, uh, investment in the agricultural sector

[1:47:08] and creating those conditions for investment, um, to remove those

[1:47:12] administrative barriers. I won't go into too, too much detail.

[1:47:16] So it's a recap of what we just heard. But

[1:47:19] this is here for you to go back to later

[1:47:21] if you want to look at it in a bit

[1:47:22] more detail. So the, the next section, we'll look at

[1:47:27] recommendations. We'll first look at some of strategic initiatives that

[1:47:31] the municipality could take, um, before diving into the specific,

[1:47:38] uh, incentives or program streams, um, we've paired this often

[1:47:41] two ways. The strategic initiatives might be something that are

[1:47:47] sort of longer range priorities that might take a little

[1:47:49] bit more time to move the needle on, uh, whereas

[1:47:52] the financial incentives could be smaller winds or those low

[1:47:56] hanging fruits to get the ball rolling and start, um,

[1:48:00] start making some reel on the ground change. So the

[1:48:05] first, the suggested initiatives for the city, uh, are kind

[1:48:08] of in three bullet points. Uh, the first looking at

[1:48:12] opportunities to you leverage large scale investments in rural infrastructure.

[1:48:16] This could be working with external agencies to expand capacity

[1:48:19] for electricity and natural gas and rural Hamilton and increasing

[1:48:23] access to rural high speed broadband internet. The second, investing

[1:48:28] and dedicated staff resources, um, as we mentioned earlier, this

[1:48:32] could be something like a dedicated planning personnel to, uh,

[1:48:36] review development applications in the rural area that has sort

[1:48:40] of dedicated expertise and specialized knowledge of, um, agricultural operations,

[1:48:45] uh, could also be a dedicated staff to administer this

[1:48:48] EIP for the rural area that could assist with application

[1:48:51] intake. So that could look like somebody that's familiar with

[1:48:54] the program familiar with farm operations, uh, and has relationships

[1:48:59] with farmers and operators in the area that could even

[1:49:02] go out to the farm, um, with an application form,

[1:49:06] interview the farmer, the operator, uh, and help them, uh,

[1:49:10] fill out the application form and even do a site

[1:49:13] visit to sort of understand the concept of what the

[1:49:16] farmer is trying to do. Uh, and the scale of

[1:49:18] the improvements that are contemplated. The last thing would be

[1:49:22] to consider policy updates, whether that's for clarity, flexibility or

[1:49:26] reflecting common practice that's evolved, um, sort of contemporary farming

[1:49:31] practices have, um, which could occur as part of the

[1:49:34] rural Hamilton official plan update, uh, later zoning bylaw update.

[1:49:39] And that could include looking at things like renewable energy

[1:49:42] uses at different scales. Um, on from diversified uses, um,

[1:49:47] where permissible under the criteria from the province, um, looking

[1:49:50] at events and temporary agricurism uses, um, and, uh, looking

[1:49:56] at sort of historically, um, the different minor variances that

[1:50:00] are granted for agriculture, agriculture related and on firm diversified

[1:50:04] uses. If there are common patterns of specific provisions that

[1:50:09] are triggering the same type of application over and over

[1:50:12] again, maybe that's an opportunity to modernize those regulations, uh,

[1:50:16] and reduce that administrative barrier that's affecting not just one,

[1:50:21] but many property owners. So these would be things that,

[1:50:24] uh, would take sort of a municipal wide or a

[1:50:27] sector wide approach that would go in tandem with the

[1:50:31] property level or specific, um, landowner, uh, initiatives that would

[1:50:37] be, um, sort of more financially focused. So in this

[1:50:45] next section, I'm going to talk through, um, some of

[1:50:47] the goals and objectives. What some of those incentive types

[1:50:50] could look like and how they could be structured. Some

[1:50:53] considerations for city staff in, you know, if this project

[1:50:57] moves forward and how they structure the administrative side of

[1:51:00] the program's implementation. And then finally a sort of framework

[1:51:05] for monitoring and evaluation. So this is a bit of

[1:51:09] a draft of, you know, the goals and objectives, the

[1:51:12] outcomes that the, uh, the CIP could look to, um,

[1:51:18] to achieve. So I've structured it on, on sort of

[1:51:22] four themes. The first being foreign business viability and resilience.

[1:51:27] The second, Agrar Food Growth and Diversification. The third, improving

[1:51:31] conditions for agricultural investment. And the fourth workforce development and

[1:51:35] succession planning. Um, so these goals are structured and sort

[1:51:41] of intended to answer the basic question of what change

[1:51:44] should a future agriculture CIP produce. The report does provide

[1:51:49] some more detailed goals and objectives, but I've simplified them

[1:51:52] here for tonight's presentation. Um, the first desired outcome is

[1:51:56] a strong base of farm operations that are successful long

[1:51:59] - term competitive, adaptable and resilient for some operators that

[1:52:03] might be modernizing equipment or facilities. And for others, it

[1:52:07] might be improving efficiency adapting to climate and market pressures

[1:52:10] or preparing for succession. The second on diversification, value -

[1:52:16] added activity and growth across AgriFruit economy. That could include

[1:52:20] reducing reliance on a single commodity or revenue source remaining

[1:52:24] appropriately scaled and compatible with surrounding agriculture and supported by

[1:52:29] policy. Um, while at the same time, uh, tapping into

[1:52:33] that opportunity to extend beyond production, to processing storage distribution

[1:52:38] innovation and direct to consumer activity and strengthening those connections

[1:52:42] to help retain more of that economic value locally. The

[1:52:47] third being that improved environment for investment, if businesses can't

[1:52:51] understand or navigate those municipal requirements, the availability of funding

[1:52:55] is unlikely to be enough. So looking at structurally how

[1:52:59] to set those businesses at first success and really help

[1:53:03] to deliver on that collaborative relationship between city staff and

[1:53:07] the pharma community. And the final area being workforce in

[1:53:12] succession. So, um, understanding that labour shortages affect the availability

[1:53:16] of farms to, um, operate and expand, well, at the

[1:53:20] same time, the future of the sector depends on whether

[1:53:23] those new young and first generation farmers can see a

[1:53:26] viable path into agriculture. And all of these goals and

[1:53:30] objectives are deliberately outcome focused. Um, so they could provide

[1:53:34] a basis for selecting program streams, evaluating applications and determining

[1:53:39] over time whether the city's investment is producing those meaningful

[1:53:42] results you're looking for. On the program streams, um, several

[1:53:49] potential project types could be considered as targets for incentives.

[1:53:53] Not every project type will be appropriate everywhere. Um, and

[1:53:57] it's inclusion in the CIP wouldn't necessarily establish land use

[1:54:00] permissions, but the city would sort of structure those programs

[1:54:04] to reflect the different points at which otherwise viable project

[1:54:08] might encounter a barrier. So for some projects that might

[1:54:12] be earlier on in the process where an operator might

[1:54:15] need professional advice or a technical study or a planning

[1:54:19] application before knowing whether the investment could proceed and assistance

[1:54:24] at that stage could really help to determine feasibility and

[1:54:27] reduce overall risk. For others, the main hurdle might be

[1:54:32] the physical investment that's required to expand production or add

[1:54:36] processing or storage, improve worker accommodation, manage stormwater or create

[1:54:40] a visitor serving component. Um, well recognising that, you know,

[1:54:45] those larger scale improvements can be balanced with smaller improvements

[1:54:50] that also matter. So whether that's signage branding property improvements

[1:54:55] that might help a farmer become more visible, uh, accessible

[1:55:00] and attractive to not only customers, but also suppliers and

[1:55:03] visitors and really build that brand recognition and reputation. Um,

[1:55:09] I'll note here that the intention is not to create

[1:55:12] a grant for every possible expense, but rather focus on,

[1:55:16] uh, investments that advance and identified public objective where municipal

[1:55:19] assistance could really materially influence the project's timing or its

[1:55:23] scope or its feasibility. So funding projects that wouldn't otherwise

[1:55:27] move forward without that assistance. I'll note that the final

[1:55:31] program streams should also be screened against the planning framework.

[1:55:35] So that eligibility remains aligned with the official plan zoning

[1:55:38] bylaw provincial policy and other applicable requirements. So a really

[1:55:43] broad range of different project types all the way from

[1:55:46] building retrofit renovation, farm labour residence, uh, planning applications or

[1:55:51] building permit fees, agricurism uses, green infrastructure, low impact development

[1:55:56] practices for storm modern management, property beautification, grants for professional

[1:56:01] services, um, all the way to farm business accession planning.

[1:56:08] In terms of the administrative side to how incentives are

[1:56:12] structured, um, we heard really loud and clear that how

[1:56:15] the program is delivered is just as important as what

[1:56:19] it funds. So the credibility will depend heavily on the

[1:56:22] applicant experience. We've structured some recommendations around four key principles.

[1:56:27] Uh, it being simple and proportionate, guided and coordinated, uh,

[1:56:31] predictable and supportive and practical. So, um, applying for incentives

[1:56:37] should be simple. Uh, should match the scale of the

[1:56:40] incentives that are being offered, guided and coordinated by internal

[1:56:45] city staff, um, receiving clear information about what's required, when,

[1:56:49] uh, who might be involved and what next steps will

[1:56:52] be as they play out. Um, and establishing sort of

[1:56:56] all of that from the outside so that it's a

[1:56:58] really clear framework. The city will also kind of need

[1:57:04] to decide how to allocate limited funding. So some other

[1:57:06] considerations as this moves forward is the scale of funding

[1:57:09] that's allocated, whether there's fewer higher value incentives or smaller

[1:57:13] lower value grants. Um, how to approach application intake, uh,

[1:57:19] and whether to include an expedited or accelerated development review

[1:57:22] process for targeted improvement projects. The last is on monitoring

[1:57:29] and evaluation. So, um. Designing a future program that as

[1:57:34] something that can be tested, evaluated and proved upon as

[1:57:39] it's sort of developed and implemented and put forward, the

[1:57:44] measures that are shown here are just examples that could

[1:57:47] be refined as the program's developed. I'll stress that, you

[1:57:52] know, counting applications in dollars distributed will be sort of

[1:57:55] necessary for accounting purposes and for transparency, but it doesn't

[1:57:59] provide that complete picture. So we'd recommend that city also

[1:58:03] asks whether those supported projects leverage private investment, how they

[1:58:07] improved production or efficiency, whether they created new revenue streams

[1:58:12] retained businesses, adjust workforce needs or reduced barriers. And those

[1:58:17] process measures will be just as important as if one

[1:58:21] of the projects objectives is to, uh, improve the investment

[1:58:25] climate, um, the city could track approval experiences and applicant

[1:58:30] satisfaction as well, not only just that completed construction. And

[1:58:34] establishing this framework at the OOTSAT will allow the city

[1:58:37] to refine those underused streams, adjust funding amounts, uh, and

[1:58:42] demonstrate the public value that generated through the program. So

[1:58:47] I'll pass it over to Maryland to guide us through

[1:58:49] the last bit. Here. Thanks, Rebecca. Um, and thank you

[1:58:54] all. We've come to the end of our, um, presentation

[1:58:57] on the recommendations and what's been done to date. Um,

[1:59:01] we had hoped, um, grab a bit of discussion and

[1:59:04] gather your input at this point in the evening, but

[1:59:07] I know we are approaching time. So, um, I'll maybe

[1:59:10] hand it back to the chair. Um, and, uh, just

[1:59:13] add that we'd really welcome any feedback you have. Um,

[1:59:17] as our next step is refining these into the final

[1:59:19] recommendations report. Thank you. All right. Thanks Marlin and Rebecca.

[1:59:30] Is there any questions on the report.

[1:59:40] Yeah. My question is that I just want in one

[1:59:44] slide during the year 2024. There were more than 3,

[1:59:50] 200 agree business in Hamilton. And they implied more than

[1:59:57] 26, 000 people. My question is that is our these

[2:00:02] implies the local Canadian or offshore workers, seasonal workers. Thank

[2:00:11] you through you, um, Mr. Chao Economic Development Corporations data.

[2:00:18] So I'd have to go back and check, um, their

[2:00:20] sources and specifically, but I'm assuming that's data from the

[2:00:25] labour survey that they've done. That statistics Canada puts out.

[2:00:30] Um, so I'm assuming that's, um, I'm going to assume

[2:00:33] that that is permanent full time employment. For a resident.

[2:00:38] So I'm, I'm not sure if that includes things like

[2:00:40] temporary foreign workers. And I'm sorry I don't have that

[2:00:44] answer for you at this time. No, I don't. Thank

[2:00:48] you for responding. Are there other questions on the report.

[2:00:58] Councillor McMean has a question. Go ahead. Yeah. Thanks, uh,

[2:01:05] Chair. You know, different figures are quoted for different types

[2:01:10] of programs in different areas. Um, uh, how much money

[2:01:14] are we talking about and where is it coming from,

[2:01:17] uh, are there women's, uh, uh, they kind of support,

[2:01:22] uh, fiscal support that could be had to say, um,

[2:01:29] well, I'll just leave it there. Where's the money coming

[2:01:31] from and how much is it.

[2:01:44] Drew. That's about to go. Okay. Through the chair. No,

[2:01:47] that's a great question council. I'm thinking. And at this

[2:01:50] stage, with this just being feasibility study, that's just what

[2:01:54] this is right now. So if we come back to

[2:01:57] council with an idea as to we want to proceed.

[2:02:00] With putting together a CIP, that is where we'll be

[2:02:04] coming back to Council to identify. Um, budget sources, budgets

[2:02:09] of mound. So right now we don't have, uh, funding

[2:02:12] source identified for this program specifically. Um, that, that's something

[2:02:16] where depending on the kinds of funding streams, the amounts.

[2:02:22] We would be looking for council approval or direction on

[2:02:24] that councillor. So at this stage we have not committed

[2:02:28] funding or a funding source. What the intent be to

[2:02:33] have a shared sense of purpose with, uh, with the

[2:02:37] other levels of government, or is it intended to be

[2:02:40] a strictly municipal, um, launch. Through the chair, ideally through

[2:02:47] with this being a comedian proven planning would be a

[2:02:49] city launch. Now we would look to see how our

[2:02:51] program would interact with federal or provincial levels of funding.

[2:02:56] I know what there's sometimes issues when it comes to,

[2:02:59] um, stacking a funding. So we would ensure similar to

[2:03:02] our, the other CIP programs we have at the downtown

[2:03:06] of the commercial districts. We'll ensure that, um, our, our

[2:03:10] programs are not, uh, duplicating, but more complimenting any federal

[2:03:15] provincial funding that may be secured for similar types of

[2:03:19] projects or investment. Okay. That's helpful. It just occurs to

[2:03:25] me that, uh, you know, we don't spend as much

[2:03:28] time perhaps as, uh, as we too, where some of

[2:03:33] us would like to around developing partners with, uh, with

[2:03:36] other, other levels of government, uh, I would, I would

[2:03:39] think, uh, that, uh, to the extent that this is

[2:03:44] innovative. And obviously adding to a substantial, um, potentially substantial,

[2:03:52] uh, GDP contribution to province that might be some, um,

[2:03:58] benefit to, uh, opening a window of discussion with respect

[2:04:03] to building a partnership around some, some kind of innovation.

[2:04:10] True you, Mr. Chair, if I might, uh, add to

[2:04:12] Mr. McMahon's comments and response to Councillor McMeekin, there might

[2:04:16] also be availablety through the rural Ontario development, uh, fund

[2:04:21] that supported this feasibility study and could advance, um, future

[2:04:26] work if council were to consider developing a CIP further

[2:04:29] from, uh, the results of this business case. Um, it's

[2:04:33] my understanding that that could be up to, uh, approximately

[2:04:36] 50, 000 dollars with 50 percent matching between the city

[2:04:40] and the province towards developing what that CIP framework could

[2:04:44] look like. And there might be other opportunities through, um,

[2:04:47] through rod funding or other economic development streams available through

[2:04:51] the province to advance that. Uh, so it might be

[2:04:53] something to consider looking into further. That's, that's kind of

[2:04:57] what I wanted to hear. Thanks. I'll just add that

[2:05:01] another possibility down the road is coming out of the

[2:05:04] national food security strategy that the federal government's putting together.

[2:05:09] And there are opportunities there, uh, some of the details

[2:05:11] aren't being haven't been flushed out yet. So as those

[2:05:15] things, uh, come to life. Down the road. Uh,

[2:05:24] Mark Tassen, did I see her? You unmuted. Did you

[2:05:27] have a question. Maybe not.

[2:05:42] Okay. Are there any other questions on the report. What's

[2:05:47] the timeline for presentation at council. Again? Thank you. Three,

[2:05:55] you chair. Um, it's still somewhat to be determined, um,

[2:05:58] given the election timing. So, um, I think that's something

[2:06:02] that we'll be discussing, uh, with, uh, Tyson and, uh,

[2:06:07] determining unless Tyson, you want to add anything to that.

[2:06:11] No, thank you through the chairman, through the chair, Marilyn,

[2:06:14] you're right. Yeah. So we're, we would love to take

[2:06:17] this back, uh, later this year, but I think just

[2:06:19] depending on with, with the election and the new council

[2:06:23] coming on board, I think we're just want to make

[2:06:25] sure we, we time this right, but definitely drew, um,

[2:06:28] timing wise, we're looking at an end of this year

[2:06:31] early next year at the very latest to bring back,

[2:06:34] uh, recommendations to, to council. All right.

[2:06:45] Is there anything else anybody wants to add on this?

[2:06:51] Uh, can I, can I have the four first picture?

[2:06:53] Yeah, go ahead. Um, just one thing. I know in

[2:06:56] the discussion slide and maybe we don't want to get

[2:06:57] too, you can put in discussion, but, uh, you had

[2:06:59] said, uh, point where there was, uh, what stakeholder engagement

[2:07:03] or industry, uh, informed priorities were surprising or interesting. And

[2:07:06] I think the thing that really jumped out to me

[2:07:08] from your presentation and from the reading of the slide

[2:07:10] deck beforehand as well, um, was just the, the weaknesses

[2:07:13] identified as far as, um, some of the processes in

[2:07:16] the city being cumbersome to, um, navigate, uh, and so

[2:07:21] I think, um, the only thing that I would, I

[2:07:24] think like to highlight from that as well is just

[2:07:27] hopefully whatever this form, this grant takes doesn't mirror that

[2:07:31] issue as well and that it would be something that'd

[2:07:33] be easy to navigate and something that we, um, because

[2:07:36] especially if the grants end up on the smaller side,

[2:07:39] um, it can be difficult to even justify going. And

[2:07:42] you've identified that well. And so I think, well, good,

[2:07:44] kudos to you for, for highlighting that well, but also

[2:07:48] hopefully whatever recommendations flow out of this, that's taken well

[2:07:51] into consideration. And maybe as an added point to that

[2:07:54] as well is like, uh, I think just the internally

[2:07:57] in my own farm business, I think the biggest barrier

[2:08:00] to improvement often is jumping through the hurdles. Um, and

[2:08:04] so the community investment plan sounds like a great opportunity.

[2:08:08] Um, but also just an encouragement to the city as

[2:08:11] a whole too. Streamline some of those processes, uh, if

[2:08:14] we want to see the exector flourish. That's probably the

[2:08:18] main area to improve, but more so even than handing

[2:08:20] out money. We've identified a lot of strengths. We've did

[2:08:23] about a lot of opportunities. So how do we just

[2:08:25] keep those investments flowing easily? Drew. Mark. Sorry.

[2:08:35] I, uh, I was on two. Yeah. I was on

[2:08:37] two separate, uh, feeds and I couldn't talk. And I

[2:08:41] couldn't see for myself from the one and I couldn't

[2:08:42] talk in the other. So I think I got to

[2:08:45] figure it out. Um, it's true. It's just something that

[2:08:48] maybe the city should consider taking to Roma and delegating

[2:08:51] for. Yeah. I think so. You know, just going back

[2:08:56] to the, you know, multiple layers of funding approach. Certainly,

[2:09:01] uh, you know, I think, I think this is why

[2:09:02] we're here because we did take that ask to Roma

[2:09:06] and access some of that rod funding. And, you know,

[2:09:08] if we can carry that discussion on, and find other

[2:09:11] revenue streams going forward, I think that's a good idea.

[2:09:14] Okay. And we also have, you know, a whole system

[2:09:17] in the mayor's office, basically all they do is they

[2:09:21] look for grant money. So we should probably address those

[2:09:25] Tyson, those people. And I'm sure you are doing it

[2:09:27] already. Is that true, Tyson. Through the chair of Councillor

[2:09:33] Tatson. Yeah. That's right. So we, we definitely coordinate on

[2:09:36] what type of incentives or funding are available. And into

[2:09:39] your earlier point, I think this would be a good

[2:09:40] thing to bring forward at Roma just at eight demonstrate.

[2:09:44] The work or the ignitions that we're looking at, but

[2:09:46] also to Drew's point, what kind of other levels of

[2:09:49] funding could we access to further support this CIP as

[2:09:52] well as, uh, some of those infrastructure constraints that I

[2:09:56] know we've identified in this study, but also that, that

[2:09:58] we've, I think we've talked to at length of the

[2:10:01] past few years when it comes to how that infrastructure,

[2:10:05] uh, sometimes it's an impediment to those, uh, larger investments

[2:10:10] we would have in the city. Okay. Thanks, Tyson. And

[2:10:15] true, that's everything from me, except I just want to

[2:10:18] say kudos to, uh, Ted McMean for showing up tonight.

[2:10:25] Ted's committed. Yeah. Like the only guy in person. That's

[2:10:29] what I mean. Ted and Carrie. They're having a great

[2:10:32] time down there. Uh, wanted to reiterate some of Daniel's

[2:10:37] comments as well. And, uh, you know, I think you've

[2:10:39] captured, obviously I wasn't involved in all the consultations, but

[2:10:43] certainly captured a lot of what I had to say,

[2:10:45] I think in some of those, uh, discussions. And I

[2:10:48] think it's, um, very well done. And the very thorough

[2:10:51] report, um, that you've walked us through tonight. So yeah,

[2:10:55] I think if there are, uh, you know, future changes,

[2:10:58] we'd probably like to get a glimpse of them before

[2:11:00] it goes to council, but, uh, by and large, I

[2:11:03] think you've got a good document here. Thank you very

[2:11:10] much. And I wanted to thank you all for the

[2:11:12] time and attention tonight. It's been great to have the

[2:11:15] opportunity to share our findings with you and, uh, to

[2:11:19] receive your feedback tonight. So, so thank you. And you're

[2:11:24] still, you're still open to feedback. If anybody comes up

[2:11:28] with anything over the next little while. Absolutely. I saw

[2:11:32] that. I'll make sure that Tayson shares our contact information

[2:11:35] around. You can email either Maryland or myself or if

[2:11:40] you direct it through Tyson, he'll make sure it finds

[2:11:42] its way into our own boxes and happier to receive

[2:11:45] those thoughts after tonight's presentation. Sounds good. Thank you very

[2:11:51] much. Thank you, good night. Thank you. Can I get

[2:11:57] a mover in a second or two to receive the

[2:11:58] presentation? 7. 1. Councillor Tattison and Daniel Vanderho. Uh, anyone

[2:12:07] opposed to that. I'll call that carried. And that's all

[2:12:16] that's on my agenda. Was there any other business.

[2:12:25] Seeing none? I've got two kids to put the beds.

[2:12:28] So I will, uh, look for motion to adjourn. We

[2:12:32] don't need a motion. We don't need emotion. All right.

[2:12:36] Just a journalist at the time. We're adjourned at 8

[2:12:39] 25. Thanks everyone. Have a good night. Happy voting in

[2:12:43] the election.

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Sub-Committee

Agenda

Transcript