All right, we're going to get things rolling here. Good
morning, everyone. We're a little delayed here this morning. There's
some morning going on in the back of the room
if the top blades lost last night to Musha. But
we're okay. So I'm going to welcome everybody to our
PDTs meeting this morning. It's Wednesday, May 8 May 8
at 09:30 a.m. Check, check.
How do I sound? We're good. No, I still hear
knuckle. Check. That might be coming
from the teams.
How do we know? How do we know? No.
Last night. Get right back.
Are we good? Yeah, okay. All right, so I'll get
everybody's attention. In the crowd and the thousands who are
watching that we will get back into this meeting. So
again, I'd like to welcome everybody to today's. Policy planning,
development and community services meeting. And before we get started,
just make a quick land acknowledgment that we are here
on the homeland of the meaty and the ancestral lands
of many first nations, including the Cree, the Dene, Soto,
Dakota and Lakoto's. People. And before we get into the
meeting, I'll just do a quick roll call. We do
have all committee members present. Councilors, Jeff. Jeffries councilors loan.
Councilors block his worship and councilor Goff, and we do.
Have councilor Dubois joining us online here today as well.
And so we will call the meeting to order just
some housekeeping that we're going. To have to do here
on the agenda. On a request to speak, so I'm
just going to pull this up on my list. So
7.2.4 our speakers not in attendance but had a video
unfortunately just due to the precedents that we have in
committee meetings. We don't allow that unless the speaker is
available for questions. So, Ms. Bride, if we can contact
the speaker and just let them know that this will
be going to council, and they'll have that opportunity to
speak to council. Yes, I'll. Do that. So then 7.2.4
would go back to the normal agenda. It won't. Be
bumped up with our rest of our speakers like we
normally do in past. So one minor emission on the
agenda. So with that change, let's ask for someone to
approve the agenda. Councilor block. So I'll call a question.
Any opposed? Not carries. So we will go to our
speakers list. And our first speaker. So before we get
into that 6.1.1, Miss Lacroix. Do you want to introduce
that? Sorry. Any conflict of interest, I should call first.
Not seeing any carry on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No
formal introduction on this letter, I see. The speaker is
available. And again. It's just regarding. Pleasant Hill area and
degradation of the neighborhood and some comments from the speaker.
Great. So I will go on and see if our
speaker can hear us. I'm going to try the name
here, and if I get it wrong, I apologize, but.
If you could just introduce yourself, make sure we get
this right. But fe cout so Giannis. Effie, can you
hear me? Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear
you. That's very good act. It's very close. So feel
free to go ahead anytime you're ready. My name is
Afghatanis. I'm the owner and operator of Pleasant hill dental.
I've been in the area for over 30 years. And.
The last. Seven years, I've noticed a tremendous change in
the area, in that specific block, basically a degradation of
the area. And especially since December. I'm very concerned. And
very disgruntled at what has been occurring and very concerned
about my safety and people's safety in the area. In
December, I started noticing. I guess, for lack of a
better word. Encampment. Taking up the entire sidewalk in front.
Of PHR. So I reached out to Randy Shabilo at
Riversdale bed. He was kind enough to actually call me
back, actually, boxing Day, and we had a very lengthy
conversation up until then, I had never really voiced my
concern. Concerns. And maybe I should have, because I've talked
to various people in the Riversdale area. I've talked to
people. Personally. And they've always said to me, you know
what, if you have to start speaking out because it's
not going to get any better. And so with that
conversation with Randy, It actually almost propelled me to start
talking more and more about it. So he invited me
to come to the Riversville bid board meeting on January
24, and at that meeting, I had a conversation with
the board, and I did not realize. How most of
the board members. Were somewhat oblivious to what was really
happening in that 1500 block of 20th Street. I'm really
concerned. In. That. What I have to deal with day
in, day out. I don't think anyone else in the
city has to deal with, and it's. Getting to be
overbearing. I'm going to state some specific concerns that I
have to deal with, and I'm going to actually ask
questions. Not that they have to be answered, but just
for thinking purposes to counsel and to people in this
meeting. When I get to work. I have people sitting
in my doorway many times. A couple of years ago.
I got to work early in the morning to pick
up some stuff. From my downtown office. I operate two
offices. I asked the person to leave. She would not
leave. I actually ended up getting assaulted. I called the
police. And they have a report on that. I have
to come to my office many times. Where? Someone's at
my doorway. They're passed out, and I have had to
call. The police numerous times to move those people. Most
of the time, people will leave. Not quickly, though. But
there are times I do have to call the police
to move those people along. Sometimes I have to wait,
and I end up having to delay my appointments because
I can't get into my office and my patients can't.
Get into the office. I many times have to come
daily. Come to my office and there's garbage all over.
In front of my property. The garbage is coming. From
people being fed, and I do not have a problem
with people being fed. That is not my problem. That
is not what I'm voicing my concern about. I'm a
very philanthropic person, if you know me, who I am.
I'm very philanthropic. I do a lot of donating and
help a lot of organizations, especially youth organizations. But my
concern is that when people are being fed from PHR.
Or the Saturn Health Community clinic. Those people come over,
they sit on my property, eat and leave. Their garbage
there. If PHR and the Saskin Community clinic do not
have the facilities to properly feed and take care of
these people and take care of the garbage, then why
do I end up being the garbage ground. How would
you feel if your neighbors were having people over? They
did not have the facility or the placement for those
people to sit down and eat. So those people came
and sat on your yard, ate and left all their
garbage fare. I don't think anyone in that room would
appreciate that. And I have to deal with that on
a daily basis. There's many times I've come to my
office and I've had feces. In front of my doorway.
If this encounter continues to happen with dispositively Phi, why
do they not have bathroom? Facilities for those people. Why
do the city continue to allow encampments to occur in
front of PHr? I have a photo from last night
where? That sidewalk is entirely filled with people. People, shopping
carts, belongings. That is an infringement upon someone's safety. You
have 30 seconds left. Effie I'm. Concerned about my safety.
I'm considering my staff safety. Why did the city allow.
The credit union to leave. Why did they not work
with the credit union to somehow figure out a solution
to allow them to stay. I feel the government level
of governments enable this behavior within this community. I can
go on for a few more minutes, but I can't.
But when I have. Comments to be saying, oh, what
do you expect? This is 20th street. This is skid
row. That to me is an attitude that's developed because
of the way. Sorry, iphy to cut you off. Your
five minutes is up there. I understand. I think my
point is being taken. I hope. Yeah. You do have
a question, though. So I'll just keep you on the
line there, if you don't mind, and. Council golf Councilor
Goff has a question for you. Thank you, Chair Davies.
And hi, Dr. Katsgonis. Thanks for being here. There's a
collaborative group that includes a number of civic agencies, including
both Sastoon police and Sastoon Fire department who are working
with partners in the area to best understand the challenges
and gaps in the area and work towards collaborative solutions.
They've been doing some consultations already. And my question to
you is, would you be open to meeting with a
member of that team? To share some of your observations.
And some of the changes that you've seen. Miss Goff,
I've had numerous meetings and conversations with police. You know
what the police have been so helpful. They come in
and they make sure that we're doing fine in fact,
two weeks ago, they stopped in on a Saturday. They
knocked on the door and asked how we're doing. They
are so helpful. I have no wrong words to say
about our police. They know me. They know my concerns.
I don't think I have to have another meeting. With
them because I've had so many conversations with them. I've
had so many. Conversations with Randy Shabaido. Randy has passed
on my concerns to the police. So I do think
another meeting is going to help. I think the city
has to start doing something. I can tell you my
opinion of what needs. Okay, I think I've heard your
answer to my question. The folks who are involved in
responding to these issues feel the need for collaborative conversation,
and so I think I've heard that you're not interested
in engaging with that collaborative conversation. Is that right? Ms.
Golf? Please don't misinterpret what I've said, I've had numerous
conversations with the police. How much more do I have
to state? In order for them to understand. What's going
on? I've had numerous conversations with them. I'm not wanting
not to collaborate. Please do. Not misunderstand. And don't twist
my words around. I've had many conversations. With the police.
They know what the concerns are. I can have another
meeting with them, but they know my concerns. I'm not
sure how many more meetings I have to have with
people. For them to understand. The concerns. All you need
to do is drive by one to understand what the
concerns are. I will be there if they want me
to be there, but I cannot be there constantly for
collaborative meetings that are going to be the same, the
same thing over and over again that are not. Going
to move things forward. I will collaborate, definitely. But please
listen to what I'm saying. I have spoken to the
police. People many times. Okay, thank you. I don't see
any other questions for you and any comments. Not seeing
any. Do I have someone willing to receive his information,
someone to move that? Anyone. His worship. I'll call the
question. Anyone opposed? Not carries. Moving on. 6.1.2. Mr. Croix,
or any background you want to open. With that prior
to get to that. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So,
again, just upon receiving this, letter to the committee. The
team in planning and development was able to dig into
this file just a bit, and again, this is about
a name that was assigned to the Lakewood suburban center
when it was starting. To be built out back in
the late 1990s. And. It was previously raised as a
flag in the spelling. The naming advisory committee received that
request back. Almost two decades ago now, in 2023, And
had a determination that. They would include a historic note
to the record, but the sign was not changed at
that particular time. There are currently more than 650 dwelling
units. Addressed to Paula Tanko. Lane just in doing a
quick search, so. It would involve some undertaking related to
any decision to make a change to the name. So
perhaps the civic naming advisory committee might have an opportunity
to re review this situation and consider some direction. Great.
And so our speaker for that is Nina Corlic. Is
Nina here? Nothing. Virtually, I don't think either.
Okay. I'm not seeing. Ena. So we can do one
of two things. Whatever committee wishes, we could put a
motion back to. Sum this if someone's willing councilor law.
Sorry. No worries. I was just going to ask what
we could do with this in the absence. Of the
speaker, but yeah. I think. Is it procedurally useful to
refer this to the naming committee or. Is best left
at the administrative level. I think this is something the
naming committee should probably become. Aware of. I guess I'd
be looking for some guidance from administration about the path
that we should. Follow on this issue. Yeah. Thank you.
Just conferring with my colleague here at city clerk. Assistant
city clerk. The committee can have this referred to administration
to connect back with the civic naming committee or it
can be just referred directly to the civic naming committee,
and at that meeting, the administration can provide some of
this background directly to the committee. Okay, I would make
that motion. Just to clarify. Are you making the motion
to refer to the amend to report to the civic
naming committee or. Just referring the item directly to the
civic naming committee. I was going to make the second
motion. Because I think that's more streamlined, but. If I'm
guessing incorrectly, please feel free to intervene. That would be
appropriate. Okay. We have the motion on the floor, so
open up for questions. Any questions on the motion? Not
seeing any comments. Let's move by Councilor Lowen. I'll call
the question. Any opposed? That carries. Moving on to our
next speaker. And before we get to that 7.2.3 the
housing accelerator fund incentive is Mr. Croix. Yeah. Thank you.
Ms. Leslie Anderson, director of planning and development is here
to introduce this report. Great. Thank you. And good morning,
committee members. Leslie Anderson, director of planning and development. We
do have a PowerPoint, so I'll just give that 1
second. Great. Thank you. So this report today is presenting
a recommended approach to incentives using the housing accelerator fund.
Dollars. And as a reminder, we have 41.35 million in
funding under this incentive program from. The federal government, and
so. We are recommending a use of those funds. For
development incentives. We do need to meet the timelines of
this program, and so that does dictate some of the
activities. Next slide, please. Through this incentive program, we are
proposing to use $35 million in total from this pot
to support development incentives. In general, our criteria for the
program will include the timelines for the delivery of units.
A demonstration of the capacity, the quality of the site
development and architecture for these new units. The eligible capital
costs that would fall or be associated with these. And
also consideration of the size, the type of unit, the
accessibility, and the level of affordability. For the units. These
would be the general criteria that we'd be applying across
these programs. Next slide, please. Our first package would be
focused on affordable housing units. These would be housing units
that are affordable. To low income households with incomes below
the Saskatchewan household income maximums, which are referred to as
the shims while spending no more than 30% of their
income on housing. And this. Aligns with our innovative housing
incentives policy. We are recommending this based on the housing
needs assessment and other data sources, as we recognize that
there is a gap in the community where a funding
allocation of this type can help support development of new,
affordable units. This contribution would be used to leverage funding
from provincial and federal programs, and we've recognized that this
suggested funding alone would not produce new units. Without other
levels coming to the table. Our funding can then be
leveraged to achieve that collaborative effort. We also recognize that
our nonprofit affordable housing providers need time. To consolidate funding
programs across the various levels of governments and to put
together a funding package for new units. And so moving
forward with this, as our first call would be, would
give them that. Additional time to do that work. This
stream is where we are recommending the most focus. So
you will see that there is a per door grant
as well as a building and development. Permit fee, rebate
and a five year incremental tax abatement. For these projects.
The tax statement, of course, is subject to city council
approval. We understand. For the affordable units to be delivered,
that every dollar counts, and in order to provide those
rental rates that are significantly below market. The social housing
projects really require a significant additional upfront capital and equity
from partners to enable that construction. So this is where
we have recommended putting a lot of focus. Through this
program. Next slide, please. In terms of where our focus
is throughout this program. It's within this area that we've
circled on the housing continuum. So, moving from transitional housing
units up to that subsidized market rent. We're looking in
this realm to see a gain in the total number
of units across. This spectrum. Next slide, please. Our next
program would be to use the funds to support additional
rental development in the downtown and the quarter growth areas.
These have been and will continue to be focus areas
for the city to increase development and to support other
goals of the city. These developments must be new multiple
unit rental housing with at least five units or more
in the development. The units do not have to meet
the affordable requirements, although we will ask for the anticipated
cost of rent for these units as part of our
evaluation. Mixed market rental units, including both market and affordable
units, would be eligible. The affordable units would be eligible
for the affordable amounts, and the market would be eligible
for this. Rental housing priority. So that would be for
the rental housing market. Rental would be $10,000 per door.
And. We will be again looking at the building and
development permit fee. Rebate up to $1,500. Per door. Next
slide, please. The next piece is related to the city
on land and the incentives to be associated with that.
Further information on the city owned land options will be
forthcoming in a separate report and direction from council will
be required for the approach to sale or lease through
that report. However, we're proposing that the incentives package associated
with those parcels would have a higher dollar. Value. As
we will be making additional requests for those developments in
terms of. What we are looking for, which might include
target populations, the level of affordability, the number of units.
The site design and other aspects. So bringing additional dollars
to the table. To ensure. We can meet multiple goals
on these sites. We are looking to stretch the dollars
as much as possible to achieve the greatest outcomes we
can. With each of these projects. Next slide, please. In
terms of process, we receive our housing accelerator funding on
an annual basis, so we're preparing to issue. Call for
proposals on an annual basis to line up with this.
We're also working with our other counterparts from federal and
provincial governments to try to align as much as possible
on these funding calls. In 2024. We already have our
first allocation of dollars, so we would pursue a call
for proposals following approval of this report. Based on the
results of that call, we may issue a second call
again later in 2024. These two calls would be focused
on affordable housing. We would then move to a 2025
call for proposals looking at the priority growth areas and
again, that priority growth area can also include affordable units,
depending. On. The proposals we receive. In 2026. We do
anticipate determining what that call would be based on the
results. We've seen through the earlier calls as well as
if we have funding available at that time based on
the number of units we've already committed to. At the
bottom. You can see as well that we have city
owned land on its own timeline. And that would be
determined by the site specific requirements dependent on those sites
and the steps required. For each of those sites. Some
of the sites that we have discussed are not fully
development ready. At this time and require a number of
steps before they'd be ready for release, so. That would
be operating on its own timeline. I'd also just like
to share a few reminders on some of the elements
of the overall program and the requirements we have. The
goal of the program is the creation of new units.
Our performance and our funding, which is tied to our
performance, is tied to producing new units. We can spend
funding on a number of other things, including renovation of
existing units. However, it doesn't help us meet our required
targets. And it also doesn't help us expand the total
number of affordable units in our community. Our total funding
allocation, the 41.325 million. Also includes a consideration of a
top up for affordable housing units, so there was additional
dollars allocated for affordable housing units through this program. So
we have to keep that in mind as we move
forward. We realize that there is a desire. For assistance
to develop new market rental units as well. And also
entry level ownership. And these are important parts of the
housing continuum. We see that the focus of our wide
range of zoning bylaw amendments that are being pursued help
in this market development spectrum and across the continuum. So
that will encourage the creation of more types of housing
in more areas that will meet the needs of more
households. Our recommended approach with the incentives program is to
target the investments to support the housing needs of our
lower income community members. As the program progresses, we will
evaluate the results and can report back. If we need
to adjust. Where we are targeting the incentives. With that,
I can take any questions from committee. Thanks, Ms. Anderson.
So we can do one of two things. Did you
want to hear the speakers? First or ask questions. We'll
go into speakers, and then we might call you back
to the podium, if that's. Okay. Thank you. All right,
our first speaker, Jason Merkerty, welcome to the podium. As
you might have heard before, and I know you've been
to council here before five. Minutes is all you're going
to have for today. After that, we're going to drag
you out of here if you go any further. I'm
just kidding. You'll hear a big screech. So I'll give
you a minute's notice when you hit. Five minutes, just
so. You're aware. Sounds good. Feel free to introduce yourself
and go anytime. Yeah. Thank you for having me. My
name is Jason Merker. I'm currently the acting director of
programs and services for Mat Nation, Saskatchewan. Although my normal
job as director of social infrastructure. That includes housing and
homelessness. And so many of you know me, I think
I'm in a unique position on the speaker's list as
I have been in the CBO role, I've been in
a funder role, and now I'm in a government and
a funder role, so. I understand the complexity of all
the stakeholders involved. In the housing accelerator fund, and I
just want to say that. This is a good investment
and a good idea for the city to do. And
I understand there's some back and forth about the different
funding levels, but the reality is social housing and low
income housing. Is a solid investment. I was at the
Chra conference. About a month ago, and the guest speaker
was Jeff Rubins. Who's a renowned canadian economist and. He
said that the best investment a government can make over
the next 20 years is in affordable housing. And so
I really want to reiterate that this. Is a solid
idea, and I think based off the level of support
that we're going to see from ourselves as an indigenous
government and as a funder and CBos that the sector
really wants to see this happen because there's not a
lot of. Opportunities for the CBO sector to acquire money.
And so this housing accelerator fund will help go a
long way. And I know with the debates around the
different funding levels, The different funding levels will get brought
up throughout the different speakers. But no formula is perfect.
I think this one is solid, and specifically because the
timelines are so tight and, you know, I was at
the Blades game last night and I saw an advertisement
on the screen for the downtown arena and the slogan
that they talked about was punching above your weight, and
that's something that I think cbos are very good at,
whether they're indigenous cbos or indigenous. Governments or just your
average community based organization? When we're looking at the level
of investment, yes, we do need stacking. But from the
Mat government perspective, we have been asked a number of
times. To invest in various communities for social housing. And
our thought process, especially around the bigger communities like Regina,
Pa. Saskatoon is what does the city bring into the
table. Well, now it feels like the city is actually
bringing something to the table. So that we can open
up discussions with our stakeholders. To figure out how we
can make money available to various projects. With that. I
don't really want to go on too long because I
know the speaker's. List is, like, 30 deep for this
one item. But. On the various levels that are available,
both in the corridor, both on the 27k for the
affordable housing and even on the city owned land. I
think these are positive steps to take. I also think
it's great that the focus is around community based organizations
and indigenous organizations and governments. When we're talking about truth
and reconciliation, we can have all the land acknowledgments. We
want. But money talks, and I think this is going
to go a long way to help serve the indigenous
population. In Saskatchewan and Saskatoon specifically. No matter. Which CBO
gets the funding, but there's some projects, like at Hart
Road, that are. Ready to roll on this money would
go a long way for those organizations, and quickly. So
I just can't stress. The timelines are tight. If. This,
for some reason, doesn't move ahead and goes back. I
don't see how. You're going to get money out the
door this year. Just to be frank, I don't see
how money is going to be made available this year
and effectively for this construction. Season. The windows closing already,
and so I can't stress enough, the timing is tight,
so. Thank you for that. Great. We got a question
for you here from councilor block. Thanks, chair Davies. And
thanks for being here. Mr. Mekrie, you spoke about the
conference that you attended. Can you just help us understand
in context why affordability affordable housing rather is such an
important target. Yeah. Affordable housing. Is an important target because.
We're seeing it across all levels of government. Where there
seems to be a divestment from affordable housing. And we
see market rate rentals continually going up, and we oversee
a homelessness prevention fund. So we have made these citizens
throughout the province low income ones. That can't afford their
bills and their rent. We're seeing energy prices increase, grocery
prices increase, and this isn't even just for people on
social assistance. I know that point has been belabored across.
Multiple meetings and stakeholders. We're talking about work in poor
as well. They are not able to afford market rate
rentals, and we're expecting that trend to continue. And so
having an investment. That's specifically targeting low income individuals is
key for a government. We just heard from Pleasant Hill
about business and pleasant Hill about the issues that are
happening in that community. I'm very familiar with that area.
A big factor. We couldn't do is get people into
market rate rentals. It was a big barrier. That we
had. Working with homeless folks, but we were able to
do referrals to a lot of cbos that were housing
these same individuals. And so if we're actually wanting to
get some upstream solutions. I think the investment is right
in the housing continuum where it was said, where the
target is being made because that area needs to be
invested in heavily. And the province is also making money
available as well. And so we have that ability to
stack as well on a federal level, but just on
the affordability standpoint, I don't. See without government. Concerted government
effort and investment and specific to community based organizations and
indigenous governments on low income I don't see how we're
going to be able to keep up with market rate
rentals or market rate builds. You spoke about city's divesting
in affordable housing. Can you explain that? Why is that.
Big factor is around the income assistance rates. It's very
hard to make low income market rate work for people
on income assistance. Basically now, unless you're in social housing
with the catchment like we were talking about, both the
30%. People can't afford their rent. And so we're seeing
a lot of transition away from low income rentals to
market. Rate rentals because there's also a housing shortage in
the city. So you're going to be able to fill
those units regardless whether they're low income or market rate.
And you're going to be able to charge more, and
so there's less incentive. For sectors to charge low income
rentals unless it's tied to funding agreements. With like 10,
20, 30 year outcomes. And so we do need to
see that, and we're, also Saskatoon is one of the
few exceptions for the housing corp. Is in selling off
units but we see across the province that we're seeing
the province sell off. Older social housing units, and as
a result, we need to build more. The answer isn't
to sell off more. It's to build more and to
maintain more. And to have a proper level of maintenance
for the existing units. But we do need to build
an incredible I think every organization, housing organization or CBO
can tell you they got a backlog into the hundreds.
Now, for people awaiting housing. We oversee the coordinated access
program. In partnership with ship, and I can't tell you
the amount of times we've tried to get people into
housing and. It's a math equation where they can't afford
it, and you'll see. Advertisements on Kajiji and things like
that, saying we do not accept people on income assistance.
Don't bother applying. And so you see these? It's like
before people used to say. That's saying the quiet part
loud and. Now we're seeing it. Just be open. And
I'm not saying that there's. Not reasons for that. There's
a lot of reasons that go into why people make
decisions. They do business decisions like that. But the cbos
don't get to make business. Decisions like that. They're mission
driven. I can tell you from somebody who ran a
CBO and worked in the CBO sector. For 20 years.
It is. Even though people tell you it's thankless, it's
truly a thankless job. They're underpaid, they're overworked, but. Yet
they show up every day and do it. And I
think providing these incentives to organizations like Camponi. Like, comfy,
like STC. Is going to go a long way to
show them that the city is there to support them.
Just one final question. In your view, how has. This
particular crisis affected our homelessness crisis. It's massive. We no
longer have the. I'll try to do a really short
history lesson. When we had a coordinated system. Around housing
first, where people would go into. The people would go
in off the street. They'd. Be met with the support
workers. They would go. Into sometimes market rate rentals or
social housing, but they'd be supported in that. But there
was a plan to offload them into the private sector,
and we actually had pretty good partnerships with private sector
on a landlord basis and organizational basis to get people
who are homelessness. That window is rapidly closing, and there's
folks like Cam who could speak better to it. Than
I can. But there's a lot of reasons why that's
happening. But. I don't know. It's unramplaned at this point,
but it's. Crisis mode for us. Okay? Thank you. Thank
you very much, Mr. Mechrity. Next, your worship? Yeah. Thanks.
And I appreciate you coming, Mr. Merker, given your experience,
as he said in a variety of different hats within
the sector. And from what I'm reading, and everybody, I
think, has just had a few days to sort of
grapple with this feedback. And the decision that we're facing,
which is. This is meant to use this funding to
inject. Into the sector, the ability to get a bunch
more projects happening than would have otherwise. We're hearing some,
and I think we will hear some feedback that the
way this incentives are set up. They may not lead
to project penciling out, and it depends on how long.
The rent. Is held to below. Market rates or just
the overall ability to make the capital projects work. You're
saying based on the 27,000 1500 building permits or the
50,000? Per door. On the city owned land. Incentives. You
think this will lead? To more projects happening. And. What's
your confidence in that? I guess, or. How do you
come to that conclusion? So from a funder level, we've
had a number of people come to us asking us
for funding on a project. Basically had in hand. And
that makes it very difficult for us to do it,
to commit the money, because our money is tied up
for that year. And potentially two years while they're trying
to leverage all sorts of other levels of funding. This
is going to be one of the more simplified processes
to get access to funding. And as a result, they're
going to be able to go to groups like CMHC.
They're going to be able to go to groups like
Maitination, Saskatchewan. They're going to be able to go to
the province with the housing corp. And say, hey, we.
Have a commitment of 27,000 per door or 10,000 per
door or whatever combo. It ends up being, are you
able to meet us at some level? And it's going
to make those conversations and get them moving a lot
faster. So I don't think every project can necessarily come
to light, but I do think it's going to open
up the door for a lot. And I think Camponi
can speak better than I can about being shovel ready
and hitting the ground running. So I do have faith
that this is going to go. And I've seen some
math being done on the projects. Yeah, I think there's
going to have to be an additional level of funding
being accessed. Across the board, but that's the way these
projects always work. Is you have different pockets of funding
that are available, and the city stepping up is going
to open up a lot of doors for us, whether
that's through a group applying for funding. Through Nietzsche. Or
the various other funding streams that are coming. We constantly
are applying for different levels of funding, but having this
type of. Having this type of. Investment from a city
perspective makes it. A lot more doable. So if I
could just paraphrase. The level of incentive isn't a deal
breaker to make in itself. To make Project pencil but
the currency gives a housing provider. To then put together.
And have a compelling ask to other funders. Is a
critical piece to help unlock those funds. Yeah. And the
thing that's different about right now is that every funder,
whether you talk to CMHC, Nietzsche, us. We're talking shovel
ready projects. We're not talking down the road. Two years,
three years, four years, everybody wants shovel ready. Projects. And
when I've talked to the builders. We have a project
that we're doing up in Meadow Lake. We signed a
contract, Matthew. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we signed
that contract about two months ago. The builds are ready
and in their yards right now, so builders are able
to meet the demand. If the funding is available. But
we have to make that funding available, and so, yeah.
Organizations that are speaking after me can speak better about
it, but I don't think that the funding level. Is
going to disincentivize, and I think if we send this
back to committee, to try to work out a perfect
formula. You're now talking, trying to get all the projects
done within 2025 2026 construction cycle. And I just think
that's a bad idea. We have the ability to get
some projects up running now, and also it's a maturity
for projects to start applying now for funding so that
they can. Have a project done by the end of
2025. Okay, and last question. And can just be. A
brief answer, but is the mediation also have funding that
can potentially. Be contributed on some of these projects. If
providers are coming forward. So, yes, with the caveat of
I have my own council. The provincial maid council that
we'd have to talk to. We've met. And we have
a meeting, I believe, at the end of the month.
Where? We are wanting to work better with the city.
On these projects. President McCallum has been pretty clear he
wants this working in partnership across the board. But, yeah,
there's potential there for sure. We have to go through
our channels. But I think? There's a high potential there,
and that's why we want to see this go. Because
then we can get some other machinations going. But if
we come and say we're, the only ones contributing. The
question is going to be why? Let's go to Regina.
Or Prince Albert. Where they're meeting us halfway. Okay, thank
you. I think that's it for speakers, so thank you
very much. We'll go to our next speaker, Cameron Chicat.
Another veteran at the podium, so I know I don't
have to tell you the rules. So feel free to
go ahead. Anytime you're ready. Yes. The resident Nerd has
appeared. As always, I want to thank Jason for stealing
most of my punchlines. Well done, I think. We're really
on the same page. Camera chick at CEO of Saskatchewan
Landlord association really wanted to provide some value in this
conversation by crunching some numbers because I'm a numbers guy.
So I circulated a brief committee this morning. Much thanks
to the clerk's office. But first of all, there's been
some rumors. About the lack of consultation. Around half. I've
been around that long. But this lovely mailer. Came out
to every citizen in Saskatoon, so the concerns around consultation,
I think, are moot. Because citizens have this, they have
the opportunity to engage in the program. And I think
if they want to. They have every opportunity to look
for agendas every Wednesday at 430, and those are posted.
So I really want to encourage committee to hold on
the fact that admin has prioritized consultation. And then on
the matter at hand. The incentives. We're here today. Although
we don't represent a whole pile of affordable housing providers.
I have the pleasure of working with dozens of them
in Saskatoon and across the province. And it's my pleasure
today to offer our support for the incentives. And we
asked the question, will these incentives get more shovels in
the ground much? To the question that his worship just
posed and the brief that I circulated, the punchline there.
Is. They will not directly incentivize unless, as Jason said,
There are significant investments from other levels of government, and
I put four scenarios before you of an actual affordable
housing development that I sit on the board of. 36
units, three stories. Mostly one and two bedroom apartments. And
you can see that without a $3 million forgivable mortgage
from CMHC. Affordable this affordable housing development is just not
possible. Where rents are at. And that's essentially what Jason
said as well. Without significant investment from other levels of
government. These incentives. Won't do what they're meant to do.
But they are such a valid piece. In being able
to go to CMHC and saying, we have $27,000 per
unit. So. I'm not putting a doom and gloom cloud
over these incentives. They're great and. We're here to support
them, however. They are just a piece of the puzzle.
A three piece puzzle in terms of provincial and federal.
Investments. Because the debt service costs, as you saw in
my brief, are staggering. Even that 50 year mortgages which
is what this calculation is based on. At a 5%
interest rate. The debt service costs. Are the largest operating
costs for affordable housing developments. And when you're guided by
the Shims provincially, that's what's required. So in addition to
this brief, I'll just say that most affordable housing developments
will use a mixed market approach so that they can
subsidize some of the affordable units with market rate rentals.
And that's kind of a win win for both sectors
where you have market rate rentals as well as affordable
in the same building. That just helps the top line
revenue. In the event that there isn't as much investment.
So I put these numbers before you. Just to give
you kind of a real world example of what a
developer. What camponi? What? Quint might be going through. When
they're crunching the numbers, they look at these. Viability spreadsheets
really closely because they need to make it work for
20 years because there is no operational fund. Funding from
other levels of government. It's typically capital. Right. But I
will offer a couple comments regarding the incentives in the
next minute and 15 seconds. It certainly appears, though, on
the city owned land incentive, that the city's actually lining
their pockets with federal housing dollars by charging for the
land but increasing the incentive. These are federal dollars. So
if the city wants to come to the table with
their own skin in the game, You should be providing
that land at a discount and not at a million
dollars an acre, because. What you're doing is charging a
million dollars an acre, but giving $50,000. Incentive, whereas you
could stretch that $50,000 incentive by charging less for the
land. So that's one amendment we'd strongly consider because the
purpose of half. Is not to line the municipality's pockets.
And I'd also like to see some. Additional clarity, as
Ms. Terasoff outlined in her written submission on how much
money is being allocated to each incentive. So that we
have clear lines of sight where the money is being
spent, and that's merely just to have transparency and accountability.
And finally, I'd suggest not having 20 year operating agreements,
I'd reduce those to ten. Because not for profit, for
profit housing providers don't want to be handcuffed for that
long and that flexibility is really important. So with that,
I'm available for questions. Great. Any questions for our speaker?
Councilor block. Thanks to your Davies. And thanks for being
here, Mr. Shakat. I guess just in your last comment
about the timeline. Reducing from 20 to ten. Could you
just expand on that a little bit? Because I think
part of the idea of the fund is to expand
that affordability as long as possible. Certainly, I just think
20 year agreements tend to scare providers off. That. It's
been a long standing kind of standard. I know. The
municipal scan showed 20. Years in other municipalities. I just
think providers prefer a bit more flexibility. And having ten
year agreements. I think, or ten or 15 provide that
flexibility. You're partnering with mission based organizations, so the notion
of affordability. Is important. But what providers don't want to
be saddled with is 20 year rent control agreements. That
prevent them from raising rent at all and not being
able to maintain the investment in their properties over the
long term. So I just think the time horizon is
a little too long in the housing landscape and might
come with some risk and scare some folks off. So.
In your view. Sorry. In your view. It could maintain.
A technical, affordable unit in perpetuity. But the rents need
to be raised at a certain point. When Quint Camponi
Jubilee residences. Any not for profit or for profit housing
provider gets the property tax bill and it's up 5%
or gets the insurance bill. That's up 10%. And they
can't. Raise rent. They take money out of other line
items, be it staff for supportive housing, be it. Repairs
and maintenance. Regardless of your political position on rent control.
It's a dollars and cents. At the end of the
day, there needs to be money. At the bottom line
to ensure that they can reinvest. And ensure that they
can maintain those properties over the long term. So we
want to make sure they can raise rents adequately. They're
mission driven organizations, I can tell you, I sit on
the board of Jubilee. Our average rental rate increases are
two to 5%. Typically at or below inflation, and we
just want to make sure that's possible. And we don't
want to handcuff providers for 20 years, because after 20
years, if they haven't been able to raise rents significantly.
They don't have a nice nest egg. To reinvest. Buy
new furnaces, put new shingles, replace windows, all of those
capital investments. Thanks very much. You're welcome. You sparked another
question here, Councilor Goff. Thanks. I actually had turned off
my mic because I thought my question was answered. But
of course, there's another one in my mind now. I'm
wondering. So you're referring to mission based organizations when you
talk about. Other assurances that rents will remain affordable. These
incentives are not only available to those organizations. And in
the role that you're here today, the primary role that
year, today you represent. Housing providers who exist in all
ends of the spectrum. And not all of whom are
exist in the not for profit space. So I'm just
curious to hear. Any comments you have about. How we
ensure the long term affordability of market. Of affordable units
provided by market landlords. I think the operating agreements are
a way you do that. I can tell you most
market rate providers that I represent largely in my day
job won't sign 20 year agreements. What we've seen in
years gone by is buyout clauses where they might sign
a 15 year agreement. But after ten years, if the
numbers just aren't penciling, they'll. Actually buy out the remainder
of the agreement. It's like a prepaid cell phone. Plan,
right? If you upgrade before the date, you have to
pay $300 if you want to. Get out of your
affordable. Operating agreement. You actually have to give some of
the money back that you had worked really well. With
the Wrap program 25 years ago that was administered provincially.
I think operating agreements are fine. I'm just. 20 years
is a long time. The housing landscape changes drastically, and
I don't want the handcuff. To scare providers away from
participating in the program. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other
questions? I think you're good. Thank you. I'm not sure
why Councilor Goff is staying on my queue list. Do
you want to hit your button? On and off. Oh,
there we go. No. Yeah, we're good. Perfect. We will
go to our next speaker, Angela Bishop. Angela bishop has
two people. Do you guys want to speak together? Yes.
Okay. Feel free to introduce yourselves. Sure. Kate. Good day.
Honorable committee members. My name is Zessary Shorte. I would
also like to take a second to address the gallery
as I'm here with my colleagues. Amy Bellage, our new
executive director and Adam Colrich, the project manage. Manager for
Hart Road. As a Mati woman and the board chair,
we stand before you in support of the inflammation of
the proposed incentives aimed at fostering the development of a
more affordable housing through the housing accelerator fund. We are
here on behalf of one of the largest Mati housing
providers in Saskatoon camp. Camponi housing corporation and sas native
rentals. This year we are celebrating 50 years as a
Mati led provider of purpose, built, supportive and affordable housing
in the city. I would now like to turn it
over to the chair of the trustees and the joint
oversight committee for the Hart Road project. I'm a little
shorter. I just want to say I feel a little
bit like the poor cousin coming. To this meeting today
because. We really don't have. Two significant concerns in relation
to. The housing accelerator fund and the proposals that are
being put forward. Primarily because there's definitely a need within
the community and not so. With those opening comments. I
just want. To. Make those comments and that I don't
realize I wasted 20 seconds saying that. So. Good morning.
My name is Angela Bishop. I am chair of the
joint oversight committee overseeing the Heart Road project, an innovative
housing project in Blair Moore. Upon completion of phase one
of the heart road project, we will have added 73
much needed residential units to the affordable housing stock. And
we'll have invested $40 million into the community. We have
over 300 families on our waiting list, and it's growing.
We know there is a need for affordable housing. So
we commend your efforts in presenting recommendations to address this.
Pressing issue of affordable housing in our city. The thoughtfulness
and dedication exhibited in this report underscores the city's commitment
to finding sustainable solutions to our housing challenges. In creating
incentives and developing solutions. We are breaking ground, we are
breaking barriers, we are creating. Opportunities, and we are building
up communities. And for this you are commended. Your vision
is an inclusive vision. It doesn't just focus on affordable
housing. And I commend the committee on the comprehensive nature
of. These proposals. As you well know. Saskatoon, like many
other growing urban centers across this country, faces a persistence
shortage of affordable housing options. The shortage not only impacts
vulnerable populations, but also affects the overall socioeconomic fabric of
our community. Access to safe and affordable housing is a
fundamental human right, and addressing the issue is paramount to
fostering more equitable and inclusive communities. Housing is one of
the main factors determining well being. Unsafe housing leads to
mental and physical health problems. We heard about it this
morning. Greater mortality rates. And substance abuse. As an indigenous
housing provider and as a mat woman, we are seeing
all these problems in our communities and within our own
families at much higher rates than other people across this
country. There is a cost to not addressing these issues,
although there are many intersecting issues. Cost of living crisis,
affordability crisis, homelessness crisis. Hope is not lost on us.
By investing in increasing housing in Saskatoon. We invest in
health, we invest in jobs, we invest in a better
future. I hope that city council will act on the
recommendations advanced by committee, and we can invest in housing
together. As a mat housing provider. Again, it is imperative
to underscore the critical importance of addressing the housing needs
of indigenous communities. In a supportive and culturally appropriate manner.
At Camponi, we like to say we are more than
just a Mati housing provider. We also offer tenant supports.
We recognize the need to provide additional supports to our
tenants who may not have. The rental acuity to maintain
stable housing. We recognize that our tenants are among the
most vulnerable. And marginalized populations, Saskatchewan. We bear witness to
these issues every day. Our people's base disproportionately high rates
of homelessness, overcrowding, and inadequate housing stemming from. Historical injustices,
systemic discrimination, racism, and socioeconomic disparities. So we commend your
efforts. Thank you. You guys are a great duo, I
won't lie, but I'm just. Going to open up for
questions here. Your worship. Feel free to go ahead. Thank
you very much. And it's nice to see Ms. Bishop.
And welcome to the Camponi. Team as well. I do
remember meetings around the work to get the heart road
project off the ground. And. There had been points along
the way where you had some funding, but not enough
to get it. Going? And so I'm just wondering, because.
Similar actor. I guess we heard from Mr. Merkerty from
the media nations. As a housing provider. Do you also
feel that this changes the game by having. This kind
of funding. In hand. If there's a project to be
able to leverage those other. Orders of funding from other
potential funders. And really accelerate the amount of units that
are getting built here in our community to meet that.
Need. Absolutely. I think that right now we're also facing
challenges in relation to phase two and trying to close
a gap and over $20 million gap because projects have
become more costly. And so that project is shovel ready,
but we're not able to get funding approvals. Because. We
don't have other than our own equity. I mean, we
own the land. We don't have funds to leverage, like
we don't have commitments to leverage other funding, so absolutely,
it's really important. I think that this housing accelerator fund
not only creates space for that project, but also space
for other projects that we may be embarking on in
the near future. And that. We do have a number
of, like, our inventory. The houses that we have, we
have over 350. And the age of those houses. Many
of them. Are. A lot older. They're not necessarily in
the best condition. Some of them have unfinished basements, and
what we're seeing is that. The housing stock that we
have may not necessarily be suitable for the housing needs
within our community. And so that will also create space
for us to, let's say, for example, we have a
single family dwelling to end up. Increasing or growing our
portfolio. So do an infill where. You would maybe level
that one of those properties. And then multiply it by.
Four. So I think that. This really provides those incentives
in that. And I just want to echo. Jason. 's
sentiment in that and that there's no formula that is
perfect. We'll take what we can get. And as is
the practice of our Mati community, we'll make it work.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Councilor Goff. Thank
you, Chair, Davies. And thank you. For. Your whole team
for being here. Nice to see you all again. And
in real life this time instead of virtually. That's great.
I'm wondering if you can give me some indication of
kind of how many funders or programs. Are represented in
the heart road phase one project. And it's okay if
it's an estimate, but I'm curious to know. In terms
of. Getting that project off the ground. Was that application
to one or two programs or. Is there contribution from
a number? I think we had received definitely contributions from
three levels of government. And I can't recall necessarily. That
we also have relationships with existing partners because. We're trying
to build community and. We're trying to like, we'll have
a community. Kitchen. We'll have a gym and those sort
of things. So we're reaching out to other kind of
service providers in the community to help. To, I guess.
Empower our tenants through either programming or through. Sort of
interconnecting those services. And that the other thing that I
just want to say is that. We also will be
bringing back what we call the wraparound services program, and
that will be offered. At Heart Road and also to
the rest of our tenants, because. We find that the
lack of support also contributes to the sustainability of our
clients, who are often faced with the impacts of intergenerational
trauma, and I can speak to that quite confident. Comfortably
and with knowledge because I have also been impacted by
intra. Intragenerational trauma. I will say one thing that I'm
really proud of Camponi's history. I actually was a tenant
of Camponi. But for their culture of care attitude. I
mean, if I had been anywhere else when I was
a student, I'm pretty sure I would have been booted
out the door. And I'm pretty happy for the supports
that I got from the staff and that. Have a
really good organization in that. And I eventually became a
lawyer and that. And so don't hold that against me.
But. It was. With that support and that safety net
and people being there. So really, when I talk about
housing, I talk about supportive housing. Thank you. Thanks. I
think that's a really helpful perspective and appreciate your answer
to my question. Next councilor block. Thank you, chair Davies.
And thank you for your presentation this morning, Ms. Bishop.
And Ms. Charte. I was inspired by you sharing your
story, so thank you for that. I'm just wondering, you
say that you don't really see any issues with what's
being proposed today, despite its imperfections. Are you okay with
a 20 year agreement in that case? Yeah. At this
time. Really? We see that there's a real urgency to
move things along, right? We can't be holding things up
from my perspective, because. We have people who are in
need of housing and that, and we'll have to end.
Up making that work. Some of our agreements have been
for longer terms, so we're used. To those types of.
Arrangements and that sort of stuff. So from my perspective,
The most important thing is making sure that we can
fill that need. Like I said, we have. 300 families
that are on our waiting list, and it grows every
single day. It's really sad because some of them are.
Kind of all clunked together. And other accommodations. So at
this point in time, like I said, no formula is
perfect. Maybe not all of the things that are being
proposed are perfect, but definitely we support this because we
see a need, and we will definitely be able to
leverage this in relation to Hert. Road, but also in
relation to kind of future. Developments and that sort of
stuff. So. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. Don't
see any other speakers for you. So thanks again for
coming. And our next speaker we have is Karen Kobison.
Morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. Before
I introduce myself, I just want to take a minute
to acknowledge. That our housing colleagues, relatives and friends in
the room today. We've been working on this. Since April
5, 2023. I'm sure Admin has been doing it a
little bit. Longer. But that was the day that we
all came together in that room at station 20 west.
And started to have these conversations. And really looking to
the outcomes of where we are today. So I just
want to take a moment to acknowledge and thanks our
team. And again, my friends and colleagues in the housing
industry, we've been here a lot recently, so today. My
name is Karen Kobison. I sometimes come to you wearing
different hats. Today I'm coming as a resident of Saskatoon,
of Saskatchewan, and a citizen of Canada, which we all
are. And I think that everyone today here would agree
that we are called to serve our communities and with
that comes responsibility to be good stewards of these public
resources, these fundings. Are people. On our assets. And so
I do understand the permitted uses of half, and I
do understand what we're doing here today, and I'm 100%
fully supportive. As my sister Angela mentioned. This will go
a long way to moving the needle on housing in
our community. One of the things that concerns me, though,
and it was actually brought up by the doctor, this
morning is that I live in that neighborhood. Those people
are my neighbors. We all know that we will do
whatever we can to help. What I see and what
is concerning to me. Are the vacant, boarded up apartment
buildings. The houses that are underutilized, uninhabitable. And I would
urge you to consider. I don't know what the right
timeline should be on these affordable housing agreements. Yes, we
need to get new housing built. But what does that
look like in the future? How do we move people?
To free up space for more people, so. We don't
have 300 families on a waiting list ever again. They
need to move forward and. They need to continue to
grow. So I would ask you to consider, and I'm
going to take you a little bit. Into the future.
When we build all the new units that we need,
and I don't think we're actually going to scratch the
surface with this today. We are going to make a
good start. But the Saskatoon and region home builders Association.
Has estimated in its latest housing market outlook report that
Saskatoon alone is going to need about 24,000. Housing units
between now and 2030 to meet population growth. So when
we think of it as the affordable housing piece supporting.
Let's say the lowest income earning quartile. Of that, we'll
need about 8000 units. And I don't think this can
just be accomplished by building new all the time. I
think we have to understand the unintended consequences of building
new all the time. People will need to be relocated.
They potentially will need to be in new. Environments. Perhaps
not where they're familiar, because it's what they can afford.
So I would like us to take a look at
the neighborhoods where we have assets. Where we have. In
our possession, whether it's land. I think I also understand
the city doesn't. Really own buildings in those neighborhoods. But
can we look at a future where we can fund
or help leverage. Like Angela said, Camponi or matination or
somebody like, what are those partnerships and collaborative opportunities. Looking
like into the future. So today. I think that these
assets and the future. What does this look like beyond
half. In a 20 year agreement. I don't think the
same people. I don't think the same people are going
to be living in those units 20 years later, but
maybe they are. Depending on the population target. Right? So
I just want to introduce today something for us all
to think about. And it is called. Asset based community
development. And it's just a philosophy. That links our micro
assets to our macro environment. So this comes to us.
Through the foundational elements of clear and common purpose, which
we already have, that we're all here today. Community engagement
coproduction. Relationships and trust and then results in accountability. So
it highlights capacity, skills, knowledge, connections and potential of what
we already have in the community today. So I applaud
the housing accelerator fund. Thank you again so much to
the administration team. For including me personally where I work
and the other places where I am active in the
consultations. And I really am supportive of this. And thank
you, committee and council, for your work. Great. Thank you
very much. You do have a question from councilor block.
There we go. Thanks, chair Davies. And thanks for that
information. Ms. Cobison. I'm just wanting to know if you
could give us an example of what you mean by
that asset. Based community development, macro, micro. Yeah. So I
had to say a lot of words there in a
short period of time. Thank you for your questions, Mr.
Chair. So it would be an example of that would
be. To, for example, work with Camponi. They have housing
like they have existing stock that might need. To be
bulldozed. New infill, four units on a site, for example.
So that's like a micro asset, right? That house that
Angela is referring to? But how? They still need funding
for that type of work, too. And it's in the
right community. The people already live there. So we just
look at it as that tiny little asset in that
community, whether it's an apartment building, a single family home,
a vacant lot. And how can we start from within
and build our way out and to me, the micro
asset that has the macro effect is also a bottom
up approach rather than top down and. I think sometimes.
That's really a stronger way to go about things. And
in here below, how would the city play a role
in that? No girl. You know what? Again? Am I
going to rock the boat if I say things like
zoning approval for four units as of right. Perhaps looking
at how can we leverage city own land doesn't necessarily
maybe mean the piece that we talk about. On the
Lakeview Community center parking lot. Maybe it is. Some of
the vacant lots that are available in meadow Green or
Mount Royal or Pleasant Hill or wherever they meet. I
think that there's really a lot of ways that we
can communicate, that we can. Collaborate, and I just think
we can almost come up with new ideas. So how
the city plays. A role in that is. Whatever council
thinks would be a great idea. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Not seeing other speakers or any questions, so
thank you. We do have other speakers. Kristen thomps. Welcome.
Well, hello. Hopefully. Last but not least. My name is
Kristen Toms. I'm the executive. Director with Quint Development Corporation.
We're a nonprofit housing provider in Saskatoon, and so I
have read through the housing accelerator. Fund incentive report. And
first off, I'd like to say that it is great
to see incentives like capital subsidies and tax abatements for
agencies like ourselves when we're considering housing developments. Those are
the types of incentives that we're looking towards. I also
want to say that I really appreciate the focus on
affordable housing. I think it really reflects the commitment of
the city in terms of social equity and community well
being. So I'm not really up here. To labor the
conversation about the need for affordable housing. But just in
terms of what affordable housing is to us. And for
us, it's more deeply affordable housing for those in most
need. And I think it does align with the report.
You do identify the low income households. Those folks below
the shim rates. And when we consider households that rely
on. Say, provincial income support affordability really does need to
align with. The income support, shelter loans or things like
the Saskatchewan housing benefits. So when we keep that in
mind. I think affordability in terms of incentives, they need
to be a little bit of aggressive. So we're looking
at the city's proposed incentives. For sure. The incentive itself
doesn't necessarily have legs to stand on alone, but I
agree. With the speakers that came before me definitely can
be stacked. So there is obviously opportunity on a provincial
level, not as strong as there is on a federal
level. So I think. For agencies like Quint, we would
have to look at stacking these incentives. And really looking,
again, deeply affordable. So, thinking about rental rates. The incentives
have to cover a good, significant portion. Of those upfront
costs to keep it sustainable long term. So sustainable as
a housing provider, but. Affordable for the tenants that are
moving into those units. So what I'm, I guess bringing
to the table is I don't think it's. The city
and the city alone that needs to do this. I
think you're one stakeholder of many. And so I appreciate
what the report. Provided. But what I would like to,
for folks to consider, I think. Just had some other
things to say, but I think the speakers ahead of
me talked about it. So maybe the only thing that
I would add to that is there might be some
play in terms of tax abatements. I will be honest.
I'm a little bit of an imposter here. Standing up
here. I don't. Know a lot about the tax abatements
within the city. I do understand that five years is
a general practice, but when we're talking about those agreements.
So, councilor block. You're identifying those 20 year partnership agreements.
Is there play to look at tax abatements that extend
to the length of those agreements? So if an agency
like Quint, when I think of federal programming, there's a
lot of investment in the loan stream versus the contribution
stream. So, like, say, an agency like Quint. Stacks the
incentives at the city level, maybe with the provincial level
and federal level, and there is additional carrying. Costs. What
can the city do to support housing providers like ourselves
that can keep. Those operational costs lower. For those 20
year agreements. And in terms of just to comment on
raising of rents. So I think there needs to be
a little bit of flexibility in that. Our experience, especially
through our partnerships with the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation, there is
a little bit of a request in terms of raising
those rents. So some types of levers to do that
if and when affordability is in question and rents need
to be raised a little bit. So I think. I'll
end it there. Thank you. Great. Do you have a
couple of questions here, sir? Your worship? Yeah, actually, I
think. I just wanted to. And I'm not asking you
to debate others speakers, but we are. Hearing about a
concern about lengthening agreements. To 20 years and how feasible
or viable that would be. I think at the end,
you kind of made reference to. Flexibility. And so could
you just comment a little bit more on how your
recommendation about how we go about? Wanting to have as
long a time horizon as we can to make sure
that that affordability stays, but. Also not completely. Tying the
hands of providers. Yeah. I think in terms of flexibility
in these agreements, I don't know if I can. Do.
A deep dive in that. But there has to be
processes in place that if there is a need to
flex or change or amend agreements that. There's avenues to
do that as a nonprofit provider. I think we would
go into these agreements in good faith. Right. But also,
like many other agreements, there's these opportunities to amend and
just to make sure the infrastructure within the city is
in place to do that. And it doesn't be like,
okay, whose department it is, and what processors are in
place. So just thinking of a more administratively after effect
to have those. Continued conversations after that initial development has
been established and people have been moved in, and I
just think in general, like I said, the city is
one stakeholder in this in terms of dealing. With housing
and homelessness. So what levers does the city have outside
of the housing accelerator? Fund to support the. Continue affordability
of these units once the construction is built, because I
agree with other speakers like there is a lot of
investment in the capital cost into development, not so much
in terms of the carrying costs afterwards. Okay, thank you
very much. Councilor goff. Thanks. I was going to ask
a similar question, but I think it's been answered and.
I will ask our staff to help me understand. The
tax abatement portion, but I'm also wondering. I'm looking ahead
in the agenda. And Quint Development Corporation is being provided
a $20,000 grant for the eviction prevention program. Are those
the types of operating funding sources I know it's not
operating in terms of paying your utilities, but are those
the types? Of programs. Can you tell me about the
types of programs that quint tries to tie to its
housing? And where you seek support to make those things
sustainable. Yeah, just, I think, in a nutshell. A lot
of people provide eviction prevention programming within their affordable housing,
and so for us, it has changed throughout the years.
When it started, we're a community economic development organization. So
really eviction prevention kind of looked at building folks'capacity and
their connection to their community and creating ownership in a
rental environment. But through the years. And through the complex
issues that our communities are facing, it has moved a
little bit more into more supportive system, navigation and advocacy
and stabilization of our tenants to keep them housed. And
that does come with pretty significant costs. So repair and
maintenance costs aren't just for sweet turnovers when somebody leaves.
Repair maintenance often includes keeping people. Housed. So some of
the victim prevention work we do focuses in those areas.
Okay, thanks so much. I think that's it for questions.
Okay, thank you. So it's eleven three right now. I
know we're going to have some questions. For our administration.
If we can just hold off on those. And we're
going to take a quick ten minute break. We'll come
back at 1113. Thank you.
And we were done. Our speakers list on this item,
so I am going to open it up. For administration
and for questions. So Councilor Goff. Go ahead. Thank you.
Chair. Davies. Sorry, I'm just pulling up my notes here.
We got an echo? Do we have the echo back?
Testing testing testing. Chair, Davies. Maybe try turning your mic
off. Mic off? Is that any better? Any better? No.
Did anyone in this room sign into teams and leave
their mic on? I don't see anybody lighting up on
the board. I think you're good now. Is it better?
Just talk long enough when the issue fixes itself. Okay.
Now I've lost my notes again. Okay. Thank you for
the report and thank you to all of the speakers.
And folks who've come to ask questions about this. One
question that was raised earlier is around the property tax
abatement portion of the incentives. And we've used this tool
before. I'm wondering if you can remind me kind of.
What the format of that is. And whether we can
consider. Longer term property tax abatements. Great. Thank you. So
we have used the property tax maven for a long,
long time for a variety of different things. Under the
city's act, there is a five year allowance for that
property tax abatement. So with a standard term set by
that act, we are fairly limited in what we can
do. We have been having conversations internally about what are
some of the options, what could we look at? But
we are bound by the act. In terms of tax
payments. Okay. And have we flagged that as a barrier
to our provincial counterparts. We have definitely had discussions with
the provincial counterparts that we have discussions with all the
time. We've also talked about it with CMHC. We haven't
yet. I don't believe advocated to the province formally to
request that. Change. I would also note we have been
seeing across the country that some provinces are going to
a ten year abatement. And that does help these projects
in terms of it then becoming an eligible funding source
or a method of contribution for CMHC to support. So
it does make a difference. But at this time we
are limited to the five years. So, to clarify, When
we commit to a five year property tax abatement at
the outset of a project CMHC is considering that almost
a capital contribution to the project. In terms of. The
supports from various funders when they're looking at kind of
matching supports or other things. I don't know if it's
a capital, if they consider it a capital or. Just
considered an inkind contribution, right? In kind. Okay, yeah, that
makes sense, but it's. Being considered when people are looking
at the capital picture, okay? And do we have the
opportunity to. Consider. A subsequent five year tax abatement after
a first one is complete or five years is kind
of the total maximum. Sorry, Mr. Croy. Yeah. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, if I may jump. In. Just. I know.
Ms Manus Thursky with the city solicitor's office. Just as
a bit of. Point of clarification on some because there
are tax abatements and there are tax exemptions. Some are
under the act, some are under the policy. Sometimes. They
get connected together, but Ms. Menosterski can provide just a
little bit of clarity. And the opportunity to renew. Any
tax abatements or exemptions. So just Jody master ski with
the city solicitors office. So further to what Ms. Lacroix?
Said. The act does prohibit exemptions. Or limit exemptions to
five years. Rather than abatements. Abatements. There's a little bit
more wiggle room. Our policy does state that it's a
five year term, so it is possible for us. To
take a look at that and see if it's something
that we may be able to. Consider. Any other questions?
Sorry. Just hit your mic there. We had a mic
on problem earlier. Now we can have a mic off
problem. And so. We've heard a few comments kind of
about this program being urgent. We need to get projects
built started this year. And initiated. Are those some of
those sorts of details that administration can continue? To explore
and work on in terms of kind of various rounds
of putting this out there and also. Our relationship with
service providers that we are kind of entering into contracts
with through this funding in our regular affordable housing funding.
Absolutely. I mean, the area of housing, as we know,
is a big concern, and we have lots going on
in it. There are lots of conversations, there are lots
of things being looked at and so we can continue
to explore that. And explore what new opportunities come about
as well. Great. And then in your slide presentation, There
was a slide that was labeled anticipated process, I think.
And anticipated jumped out to me for sure, but I'm
just wanting to confirm. With the approvals in the report
here, does your team maintain the flexibility to put out
calls for proposals in a different order, along slightly different
timelines, depending on what you're seeing. In terms of uptake
in the various portions of the market that you're looking
to trigger. With the process that we've laid out here,
and thank you for putting it back up. On the
screen. Is where we're building in kind of that flexibility.
So we see going out with that. First call. We
need to put that out to the market for a
little while, give them time. To prepare their documents. So
we anticipate being able to do that in June, to
go out, and then they will have some time to
respond. Depending on what we receive back in that call,
we would then be able to issue another call. So
we will do it based on the number of proposals
we see the number of units. How much of the
money is that taking up? Are we getting any proposals?
If we get zero proposals? Well, there's a problem and
we need to reevaluate. I don't anticipate that in 2025.
Based on the results of 2024. We go out with
another call. And again, this is because we get an
additional round of our money. To allocate to this program
in 2025. So we would again be looking at what
results did we get? Do we need to refine anything
in our call or in our requirements? In our criteria.
To bring out another call. So we do need to
build in that time. For the proponents to develop their
proposals. And also, we are looking to align this with
other calls, especially from Saskalvin Corp. On their funding, which
would go in the early part of the new year.
And. Are we totally blind to kind of what readiness
there might be? In particular the affordable sector for bringing
forward projects, or do we have a sense of. Whether
folks have shovel ready projects, for example, or where folks
might be at in the development of future projects. I
think we have a fairly good sense because we have
been working on the development of our housing strategy. Where
we have good connections with the nonprofit providers in the
community, so we have a good sense of quite a
number of projects that are out there where this funding
would play a role in. Them being able to proceed.
Okay. And there was further some conversation about the 20
year incentives. And I have very vocally asked you about
whether we would look or sorry. Not the 20 year
incentives, the 20 year requirements for affordability. Over the many
months we've been discussing future housing policy and half to
push towards longer term commitments. For the stability. In the
housing market and the affordable end of that. In terms
of what you guys are seeing and the conversations you're
having with the sector. Do you believe there's additional flexibility
required in either the metric or the timeline? And is
that something that's already built into this, or is it
kind of a hard and fast? Thing that we're setting
up here. We would put this into our criteria. So
seeing the timeline of 20 years being one of our
elements that we evaluate on. Based on a number of
the providers that. Are currently in place in Saskatoon. They're
very familiar with a 20 year timeline. It is 20
years is also used by SHC on a sliding scale
for their rental development. Program, and many CMHC programs also
require a 20 year term, so it is very familiar.
If we were to see that. We did our call
for proposals and we received zero applicants willing. To do
20 years, we would reevaluate, okay? We are also building
in. Similar to what SHC does is you build in
an annual ability to raise the rates, still maintain them
within an affordable realm. But you do have the ability
to change rates. Right? And the shims shift as well.
The shim shift? Based on what? The. Province determines. So
some years they change, some years they don't. Okay. And
in terms of our kind. Of relationship. With providers who
we'd be entering into a 20 year agreement with, for
example. What's our ability to kind of be in ongoing
collaboration with them? We're always evolving the tools that we
have available, as you said, and we have a housing
plan coming forward. What is our commitment in terms of
kind of working with those providers to continue making what
we've committed to together possible. I think. What we would
be able to do is to have those ongoing dialogues.
Part of this will be an ongoing kind of monitoring
element, so we will maintain those relationships with the providers
throughout the term. Of that agreement to be able to
work with them. I think that we are going to
see a lot of change in this sector, both in
what the city's role might be, what other levels of
government are doing as well, and what the providers need.
So we will have to maintain those relationships. And I
think that's where. We're absolutely heading. Thank you. And then.
We heard a little bit about concern related to focusing
entirely on new builds. I know our commitments. Under the
half program require us to have those new starts. Is
your team looking at any potential programs, either through half
or through. The housing plan. Related to renovations or other
less capital intensive forms of development. It's definitely an area
that has come up in the conversations, especially through the
housing strategy. Development. So it is something that is on
our radar. It is not one of the initiatives we
put forward under half. We did identify that that's an
area of need, and I think the housing sector, especially
for the affordable housing sector has raised that multiple times
that that is an area of need for a dedicated
funding program. So it's something that we don't have a
current plan for how to address. That, but it will
be part of those ongoing conversations. Okay. And then finally,
with respect to. The initiatives under the housing accelerator fund.
There isn't an outline here about kind of how many
dollars are going to. Be going into achieving those other
initiatives. Can you just give us a little bit of
an update? On the overall. Kind of use of funding
landscape for half. Absolutely. So our total funding bucket is
41.35. Million. We've said 35 million towards incentives. 15 million
of that we've specifically identified. Right. Now for city owned
land to be able to do the development prep work
on those sites. So at the time. When we put
that together, we were still working on just some assumptions
around sites, and we didn't. Know how much money might
be needed to make them development ready. If there was
a site that was contaminated, for example, What steps do
we have to take and how much does that cost?
So we built in. A fairly big bucket there. If
funding is not needed to support that work, then we
would move it to the general incentives. So 35 million
total for incentives, including that 15 million, the remaining dollars.
Are being put towards all of our other initiatives. The
main dollars spent there are for the staff to do
the work, to make all the changes. We're making. The
advertising, all of those kinds of things. Whatever money we
don't spend, we will reallocate to another initiative. But we
need to complete the initiatives. Some of them require some
dollars. To do that. Okay, so, in short. The line
items that have been assigned to some of the other
initiatives. Are our best estimates. We're our best estimates at
the time of application. And if there's anything left? We
will reallocate it to incentives. We have to spend all
of the money that we receive under this program in
the timeline of the program. So we will put that
if there is more money coming, and we need to
put it towards the development incentives, then we will do
that. If there is a site that requires additional dollars
to get it up to development ready state, then we
will do that. We will be reporting on an ongoing
manner to council on status. Okay, thank you. Next we
have your. One question I wanted to follow up on
was regarding the city owned land incentive. Because I'm still
wanting to make sure I understand, but. There's 50,000 as
opposed to 27,000 in the case of city own. Land.
Some of the speakers raised the question of whether this
is just. A way of essentially paying ourselves back for
the land. I know we've already debated how. To deal
with city owned land. Can you speak a little bit
more to. How the grant is structured. And to what
extent we are expecting to recoup market based costs on
those or when we make those decisions? Because I know
there's reports coming back on that. Yeah, so, right. Now,
what our intention with the incentive is, is to recognize
that we are going to have additional requirements. For developments
on the city owned land site, so. We are going
to specify we are looking for at least x number
of units, for example, or we're looking for x number
of large family units, those kinds of things. So we
are. Going to have higher requirements that we're putting on
those sites right now because. We don't have a final
decision from council on how we're going to proceed. With
the city owned parcels. I can't give an exact answer
on how those dollars might be used. We would anticipate
that if we're assigning a 50,000 per unit. Grant on
that parcel. It goes towards eligible capital costs from the
proponent. And land costs could be part of that. But
if, for example, the decision is that we have a
city owned parcel that's $0. They may still be using
that 50,000 per door for capital costs on that project,
so. It's not an intentional effort to bring money back
to the city for the cost of city owned land.
So the 50 is tied to. Higher requirements. Demands or
requirements not to land costs. And. We'll have a further
conversation about the land hospital. So if we were, for
example. To offer the land at a dollar. Perhaps we
don't need to offer $50,000. Per door. But perhaps we
do because we're looking for something very complex. Right. Okay.
I appreciate that clarification. It may be good in future
reporting to make that a bit more explicit, because you
could read it a different way. So, anyway, but thank
you. Councilor jeffries. Thank you, chair Davies and I had
a very similar question, and just as I wasn't, necessarily
clear from the report around the city owned land. So
to be clear, The idea here. Isn't about essentially having
a higher incentive in order to maybe move the city
sites more. Quickly. This is. About having. A trying to
think of the right term here, but having more requirements
or having. Perhaps things that are not being provided. As
much in the market. That require additional financial support or
incentive in order to get them across the finish line
is that a fair statement? Yes, I would say so.
Okay. Can you, Miss Anderson, speak to. I guess what
I'm trying to understand is when I look at some
of the incentives, here on the affordable piece, and I
see those as I think the number was $27,000. Per
unit, plus some other pieces there around, permitting. And then
for the corridor growth areas and other areas, $10,000 per
unit. Can you speak to the work that you and
your team did? To actually identify. The number you felt
that was actually going to perhaps get some projects across
the finish line. As opposed to. Not. I guess I'm
just trying to understand. The specific numbers that were landed
upon here. Because, of course, the goal is, as we
all know, across the board to actually get more units
built, not simply to provide an incentive to something that
already was likely going to be financially viable or get
built in the first place. I'm wanting to better understand
that process of figuring out what those numbers would be
to get more things across the finish line. Sure. And
it's a bit of a difficult question because we were
looking at it in terms of how can we stretch
the dollars as much as possible to get as many
units possible? So that was part of what we factored
in in terms of we need to hit a certain
number of baseline units, which is where our three to.
Five year trend was prior to the half money. And
then we need to add additional units on top. So
we wanted to try to stretch the dollars where we
could. And then we were also looking at. Bringing more
to the table than we have perhaps in the past.
The 27,000 per door. Would basically be a matching contribution
to what the province typically provides under their programs for
a unit. So it was an element of can we
both come to the table with that same amount to
provide for these developments to move ahead. In terms of
the 10,000 we were looking there because it is market
rental. Where we're trying to drive them to particular locations.
That they might already be viable, but we want them
in specific areas, so providing a lesser dollar. Value to
those and also because they're not hitting the affordable market.
So that's some of the rationale that went there, but.
We weren't looking at these dollars as. Fully making the
business plans work. For these developments, many of them have
to bring together multiple layers of government funding to make
them work and $27,000 per door. As you heard, several
of the speakers lets them go. To those other governments
and say, look, we have something. We're going to be
able to move forward. Can you come to the table
as well? The $10,000 a door on the market rental
is purely an incentive, and in the background. The many
years where we've done incentives, our incentives have never been.
Intended to make the business case work. So I think.
There is definitely. Some piece there where this is purely
an incentive to help drive towards our goal, not to
make the business plan work 100% for development. Sure, that's
fair. And I appreciate the context. Around that. In thinking,
just back to the city owned land piece. What would
have prevented. Administration from bringing forward. A higher level incentive,
like $50,000 per unit, based on something that was broader
and having more criteria in place. For it. But not
limiting that to city owned land, because, of course, It
is possible to achieve. All of those other things on
things, on sites that aren't owned by the city. I'm
just trying to understand better, perhaps, why the decision was
made. To recommend. Sending folks in that direction as opposed
to. Other sites that might be viable and could actually
meet the same goals that we're looking. For. I think
I understand your question, so I will try to answer
it. So. We were looking at one the additional requirements
we could put on because we own the land and
would look at a contract through sale, potentially, depending on
what council determines where we have additional triggers. That we
can put there. So that little bit of extra control,
we felt, was a way we can add additional requirements.
The other piece is. Because we have such a tight
timeline to actually produce new units, we have to have
final building. Permits issued within the term of this program.
So it's a very tight timeline, and we felt that
on the city owned land, at least on some of
the parcels, we will have the ability to get those
out fairly quickly and to drive the applicants on that
to meet the terms. Quickly. So just having those additional
elements of control. We felt. Were relevant to asking them
to do more and to giving them additional dollars to
do that. Okay. So it would be fair to say,
based on your comments, That. A significant. Portion of that
decision around the recommendation that's in front of us was
tied to the really tight timeline that we have under
half. Not so much that there's something special about the
city sites other than the ability to have that control.
And then drive the development within the identified timelines. I
think that's correct, yeah. Okay. I think that's all I
have for questions. Thank you, chair. Councilor block. Thanks, chair
Davies. Ms. Anderson. I think just a couple of questions
left, and I wanted to just be a little more
clear. On those additional triggers on city land, and apologies
if I missed it. If you could just explain. That
a bit more. So one of our abilities on a
city owned property, whether we sell it fully or we
lease. It or whatever we do. We have a contract.
Through that sale or that lease. And so that gives
us an additional negotiating room or negotiating power. To say
we want X, Y and Z added into this and
that you need to meet this. Whereas if someone is
coming to us, bringing their own privately held site that
they already own, we don't have that same. Power. So
we're able to say. Here are our requirements under this
funding contract, but it's not quite the same level of
negotiating power to say we require other things as well.
I think what I'm trying to get at is what
problem are we trying to solve? That the folks that
would otherwise come forward would already have in place understanding
what the needs are. So part of it might be
additional requirements beyond what the zoning requires. Where when we
look at city owned land, we may ask them for
more different site development or different architectural pieces, which we
couldn't ask them for under the zoning, so it gives
us just some additional tools. Are there any other tools?
I guess I'm just curious what this looks like. Is
it? Some of them might be more for families. Or
is there an obligation for more green space around the
facility. Those are some of the pieces that would be
built out for city owned land. To understand, on this
particular site, we see more opportunity for more green space
or for more family. Units. So I think each site
that we consider under city owned land would likely have.
Be a different part of the puzzle. So one site
may be families, one site may be large families. Ones
that may not be family size. It might be one
in two bedrooms. Okay, that makes sense. And so just
one other area that I wanted to ask about. Through
the chair. I think I understand that these products must
be new based on half. What isn't clear to me,
and maybe I just need a refresher, is if or
how the city is considering what those incentives might look
like in terms of. The city's levers to pull for
conversions of existing. Whether that's in the downtown or elsewhere,
but looking to accelerate housing through other tools outside of
half. Just for clarity, when you're saying conversion of existing,
like an existing building, that's. Not residential currently. I think
that was one that I was curious about. And some
of the speakers talk today about. Buildings that don't seem
to be occupied by anybody. So there's a couple of
different things, I guess. When I heard the speaker mentioning
that I was thinking about one of our other initiatives
under half that is around. Disincentive program for vacant and
boarded up buildings. So that is a separate program that's
being developed. With sastium fire to address kind of. The
existing homes and buildings that are out there that maybe
are vacant and boarded up, dilapidated and could be used
for better uses. So that's something that Sastin Fire is
currently investigating. And developing a program for that. We anticipate
that will be in the next year. That we'll have
something to consider there for council. In terms of the
other pieces for conversion. We have through our vacant lot
program. We have an allowance for conversion of a non
residential building. To a residential building and incentives available for
that. If someone was to take an office building or.
Some non residential use and make it into residential. That
would likely meet a requirement for a new unit under
half. It's not a current residential unit. We cannot consider
current residential units unless they have been completely removed. From
being able to be inhabited, so they have to have
orders on them. No one living in them. Unavailable in
the market. That's very helpful. Do we have a plan,
or are we making this widely known in the business
community so they are aware. Around conversion of existing buildings
under half. It's not something where we targeted a lot
of units, because we do see it taking quite a
lot of time. City of Calgary has a very aggressive
program for conversion of office buildings to residential, and it
takes quite a bit of time to do that, so
it's not something that we have been heavily promoting under
half. Okay, so what you're saying is it's available. Impossible.
And that may be something. That we develop more depending
on how this first space goes. That would be a
good statement, yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Council, Lawrence.
Thank you, Chair Davies. I have a couple of questions
left. Most have been addressed, and these are kind of
all over the place, so bear with me. The report
refers to the priority areas, including. The quarter growth areas,
and I'm just not clear whether or not. The definition
of those priority areas. Includes our own internal quarter planning
criteria, or the TDA. That's part of the broader half
picture. I'm just curious to know, are we using our.
Definition or the federal definition? We have been using our
definition. Okay, that's good to know. We heard from some
of the speakers. In the context of the long term
affordability piece. Like things that keep operating costs low. And
so I'm wondering if administration considered. Including some incentives targeted
around sustainability. And the capital builds as part of this
package. We will include sustainability in the criteria for evaluation.
We typically don't see that as being. A key element
that drives the business plan for some of these projects.
For example, we know in our vacant law program it
is part of our criteria, but it's. Not something that
typically gets them over the goal line. We do see
projects, considering some elements of that. In their project development.
They, of course, have to meet the minimum standards, including
energy efficiency and those types of things. There are other
programs that also look at that, that we do try
to connect them with other colleagues in the organization. We
connect them with and other federal programs as well, okay?
Can you just say a little bit more about. You
mentioned that it would form part of the criteria, and
can you expand on how that criteria would be sort
of informed or created? So based on after this report
goes to council and whatever the results are at that
point in time we will be. Taking the criteria that
we've outlined in this plan. So, for example, on the
affordable it includes. The size, the type, the accessibility, the
level of affordability. And those are some key aspects of
it. We will also be looking at the proponent and
their qualifications. How long have they been around? What are
they willing to do for the term of affordability, for
example? So sustainability, but would be another element in there
that we look at and we ask them to explain
in their proposal how they would address that and what
they're considering, and then we'll have. A point scoring evaluation
on each criteria, okay? I think the last question I
have. Is. It's sort of only peripherally related to the
incentives, and so if this is best, asked and answered
at a different point. Please let me know. But after
our last conversation about identifying city owned land, And sites
that could be leveraged. I got some questions about some
of our long term. Lease land holdings and whether or
not that was captured in sort of the scan of
possible lands. And so I'm wondering if administration has been
considering those lands as part of city owned lands in
this context. In our initial scan, it was not. But
definitely coming up with that idea, I think was a
good one. And it is something we will continue to
look at. We haven't done a really deep dive on
that yet. There simply hasn't been time to do that.
But there are multiple long term leases held with multiple
groups and actually administered by different groups in the organization
as well, so it will require a fair amount of
coordination to investigate that option. But. We have it noted.
So is that something that the administration is sort of
planning to do in the background, or is that just
not possible with. The demands that are presently on your
plate. It's definitely not in our work plan for the
next couple of months. Yeah, for sure. But I think
it is a real opportunity for us to look at.
So it will be on the list. Definitely. I would
say we'll start something on that this year. Okay, but
again, With long term leases would have agreement implications and
all those types of things. Yeah. Okay, I think I'd
be very interested to hear more about how you plan
to sort of investigate that. But we can take that
offline. Okay. Thank you. I think that's it for questions.
So you're off the hot seat. We'll open up for
comments. Any comments. And we do have one recommendation, your
worship. Well, I'll move the recommendation. I know not everybody
who spoke is still with us, but. I do want
to thank everybody for coming and engaging on this. And
I remember the meeting at station 20 west, too. That
I think Karen, you mentioned, and I really believe it's
paid. Off. There has not been a lot of time
to come up. With. A strategy around this, and there's
lots of options and lots of ways that men could
have developed this plan, I think. It's commendable that. We've
got. The support. While maybe not perfect, And recognizing there
isn't a perfect formula, that we're hearing that this has
the potential to really make a difference. In our ability
to get that badly needed housing out there. And the
strategy to focus on housing, that is. On the more
affordable side. I believe is a really key way of
addressing the whole continuum. And also helping us to address
what's an urging crisis in our community. That's ongoing around
homelessness and addictions and all of these issues. And the
level of engagement we're seeing. From providers and partners in
the sector is very promising to help us keep moving
this forward and I think what we heard from you,
Ms. Anderson, is the flexibility that is implied in the
board. Going to be able to go out, put this
package out there, hear feedback, see what gets taken. Up.
And also make adjustments. So. I just really want to
thank the team. Within the city and also the partners
and providers. And housing industry representatives. Who've really informed this.
We need to get more housing built badly. And we
need to get as many of the options out there
as possible as quickly as we can. And if this
can be that catalyst to accelerate it, as the title
says. Then that'll be a great thing for the whole
community. So I really want to thank everyone for all
the work on this great councilor goff. Thanks for Davies.
I think Mayor Clark covered it well. I also think
it's important to reiterate. One point that's been discussed here
today and another that. I'll share. One is that we
need all orders of government contributing to projects. And some
of the contributors. Are unexpected or not what we necessarily
think of around housing. For instance, the federation of canadian
municipalities administer some funds that can be directed towards housing
around sustainability and that sort of thing. But what we're
looking at here is also federal dollars being administered by
the city, and so. We need to remain focused on
what it looks like for the city to truly have
skin in. This game. And so far we are talking
about that in the form of city owned parcels and
making those available. And, of course, the tremendous work of
our staff in putting these incentives together and administering them.
And that sort of thing. We made some good investments.
In the last budget around the capacity of our team
to do this work, to oversee these agreements. Over the
long term, that sort of thing. We also need to
continue talking about what our investment in the operation of
these programs. Looks like over the longer term we have
housing strategy coming. And we're going to need to continue
to be a partner on this stuff, so I think?
We really need to recognize that. Yes. This is an
important contribution from this city. But there are other roles
we need to continue playing. And continue exploring all of
the tools that have been discussed today, including property tax
incentives and abatements and that sort of thing. So eager
to see this move forward. Grateful to everybody who's put
in the work. To figure out how to get this
moving quickly and in a way that. Is going to
be used and be usable. And also understanding that those
same folks. Have hard work ahead to bring forward the
rest of the work that the city needs to do.
On this front. Thanks. Great. So that item has been
moved by his worship. So I'll call the question any
opposed. And that carries. And looks like we do have
our speaker back for 7.2.4. And so before we get
to the speaker, Ms. Lacroix, Planning, Development act changes. Yeah,
thank you, Mr. Chair. So this report includes several topics
and some extensive background to provide expanded context on a
situation the city and the community are faced with addressing
as it relates to much needed schools. Within Saskatoon the
desire to preserve as much municipal reserve land as possible
for actual green space for the community and school benefits
and balancing all of this with overall housing affordability as
we've just heard in this previous presentation. We acknowledge all
of these pillars are of equal importance. To all of
us. And this report is about finding a way to
balance this, given the changes, the legislation. Has just recently
occurred and now requiring municipalities to provide sufficient land for
schools. Given the complexity of this, I would like to
just provide just a bit more of an extensive introduction.
The report is about addressing the urgent situation for lands
required for the joint use high school and leisure. Center
in the Homewood Urban center just east of Brighton. It's
about putting a plan in place to be prepared for
all future high school sites. And it's about the need
to provide some additional lands for the joint High School
leisure center site to accommodate the new east leisure Center.
The report recommends. The development of a funding model. To
meet the requirement for the city to provide adequate land
for new joint high schools, starting with the homewood sector
and then being prepared for all future high schools. Historically,
the city has not provided land for elementary nor high
school sites. The planning and Development act was amended in.
2018, requiring municipalities to provide sufficient land for schools. At
the time the act was changed, there were limited indications
of how this amendment would be interpreted. And implemented in
the future. And a general notion. This would be focused
on lands for elementary schools. The province and school divisions
have now confirmed future high school sites will be part
of the legislative changes. Land is required for high school
sites, and future high school student enrollment is being planned
for 3600 students. Based on this, it is anticipated high
school. Schools will require new high schools will be required
for approximately every four to five new neighborhoods of growth
based on this. We know a second high school site.
I see. We have an emergency alert. I'll just pause
for a moment. Thank you. It's a test. Okay, so
just to purchase. Sorry. So it will be based on
every. Four to five new neighborhoods. This means there'll need
to be a second high school site. Eventually required for
the Homewood sector, along with an additional future site in
the Blairmore sector. To support the purchase of these lands
for. High schools while maintaining the majority of municipal reserve
land for active and passive recreation. Administration is recommending the
creation of a new high school. Levy all things considered,
the future joint high schools are anticipated to require 36
to 40 acres for two schools. In the associated sports
fields. Ten acres of this would be sports fields and
Mr. Would be allocated to support the school's programming and
community use. The remaining 28 or so acres of required
lands would need to be purchased. For this purchase, the
new high school land levy is being proposed at $175.80
per front meter beginning January 1, 2025. Related to the
new upcoming joint high schools in East Leisure center. The
city has committed, providing 23 acres of municipal reserve land.
The province has identified the need for nine additional acres
of land given the student population. And a requirement. The
32 acres are to support school. And associated sports fields.
Given the late changes to. The additional land required. Administration
has been negotiating with the province to develop a plan
to fund the acquisition of the nine additional acres, the
province in the letter shown in appendix two of this
report has agreed to equally share the cost of purchasing
nine acres of additional land at a cost of just
over. 3.7 million. The city shares proposed to be funded
from the new high school land levy proposed in this
report. The nine acres of land does need to be
purchased in 2024 and then would need to be financed
over the next five to ten years, depending on the
pace of growth and the levy collection to facilitate. This,
the administration is recommending the new high school land levy
be approved to be in a short term deficit position.
With the province indicating the full 32 acres are required
for the two new high schools and supporting sports fields
and that the city will need to provide additional lands
to accommodate the planned leisure center. And supporting parking, which
is an estimated requirement of four acres. In order to
help fund the purchase of these four acres. We know
that 22 acres of the parcel of land will not
be developed into park space. It will be buildings and.
It will be parking lots as part of the school
development. This whole area would normally be funded by the
parks and rec levee collected for the sector. Where administration
is therefore recommending the parks and recreation levy reserve be
utilized to acquire an additional four acres of land to
support the development of the leisure center. The parks and
recreation levy policy does allow for these funds to be
utilized for multidistrict and recreation facilities. It's just not typically
allocated in that fashion to facilitate the immediate project administration.
Is recommending capital project 2600. Be increased by ten point
84. 2 million to purchase nine acres of land for
the high school. Sites. Four acres of land for the
leisure and the land will be serviced and purchased from
dream. Asset management. Related to the establishment of this new
levy administration, did meet with the developer liaison committee on
April 29 to provide an update on the new high
school land levy and this upcoming report at the meeting
with the full details available and the per front meter
cost shared. There were concerns raised with the long term
affordability of homes in Saskatoon and a wonder if alternate
sources of funding might be available. The developers recognized the
benefits of schools and park space to the vibrancy of
neighborhoods and they're also concerned about the overall affordability of
lots for housing development. A concern I would say we
also share, which is why the work on this file
has been extremely challenging to find the right balance. We
also know this is the first step in establishing this
new high school land levy, as we have an immediate
need to be addressed. As with all levies similar to
this new one, administration does ongoing reviews, consults with developers
and builders and reports annually on any changes to the
levy and the levy rates. So there will be more
discussions with builders and developers in the future as we
work to massage. What this levy rate might ultimately be
and how we can plan for a successful future. Subject
to city council approval, the new high school land levy
as described in this report would come into effect January
1, 2025. The city solicitor would prepare the appropriate funding
contribution agreements and then a formal approval for the purchase.
Of the 13 acres of land will be subject to
a future report through the standing policy committee. On finance.
And with that, there are four recommendations in the reports
and administration is here. If there are any questions? I
see. We have a couple of questions, but we do
have one speaker. Did you guys want to wait. Perfect.
Ms. Burgess, can you hear me okay? Yeah. I can.
Sorry. I'm operating off my phone. The hotel is doing
a bunch of tests. And so I'm on my phone,
Internet. So I did prepare a video, thank God, and
I'll be here to answer questions following the video. Thanks.
Perfect. Thanks for making some time. To get in here.
So we'll give the video. Good morning. Your worship and
counselors, and thank you so much for allowing me the
opportunity to address you. Virtually today. Unfortunately, I am out
of the province and therefore unable to physically be there.
I am speaking to you today on behalf of the
SAS, Tune and Region Homebuilders association to express our concerns
and are strong opposition to the proposed high school levy
fee, scheduled to start on January 1 2025. Upon further
investigation, we have serious questions regarding whether the creation of
this new levee is even permitted and in alignment with
the Planning and Development Act. Recent discussions with stakeholders involved
during the legislative change of 2018 2019 suggested that municipalities
would not have the authority to impose such a levy.
Therefore, we are seeking a meeting with the province city
administration. And local developers to gain clarity on this issue.
Until this matter is resolved, we kindly request that this
item be deferred to a later. Date. With that said,
even if it is determined that this levee is permitted,
we find the proposed rate of $175 per front meter
to be excessive. Previous discussions led us to anticipate a
much lower rate of $35 per front meter. Furthermore, the
lack of consultation on this levy has blindsided our members.
As evidenced during the meeting of April 29, when it
was first communicated. The proposed cost impact far exceeds the
expectation set through previous discussions, creating a significant disconnect between
the city's approach and the practical realities facing builders and
developers. As you are aware we are currently in the
midst of a housing crisis that greatly affects affordability and
investment in our city. Implementing a levee that adds around
$2,000 to the cost of an average single family lot
is said to be implemented at a time when development
levies on single family lots are already. At historically high
levels. According to a recent municipal benchmarking study by the
Canadian Homebuilders Association. Saskatoon's development levees on single family lots
are the second highest in all of Canada. Only behind
Surrey BC. This is especially concerning considering that our municipality
also being a major land developer in the city has
the capacity to offset these fees without putting on the
backs of future homeowners. The current rate of escalating costs,
including this proposed levy, threatens the viability of new construction
and the broader goal of maintaining Saskatoon as one of
Canada's most affordable housing markets. Our city is at a
critical juncture where doubling housing starts in the coming years
is going to be critical to meeting demand and restoring
affordability. Adding to our frustration opportunities to mitigate these costs
through the $40 million federal housing accelerator. Fund have been
outright dismissed. Stakeholders involved at the outset of this process
identified this as a top priority for addressing housing challenges
and affordability. However, the decision was ultimately made to exclude
this initiative from the application due to an ongoing levy
review process that was already underway, the same levy review
process that has been stalled out since November. 2022 with
no clear timelines for resolution. Given the urgent need for
housing and the direct impact of Levy has on affordability,
We strongly urge this committee to reconsider the proposed levy
and postpone moving forward with the proposal until alignment with
the Planning and Development act is clarified. As mentioned many
times over the years, the homebuilding industry requires three things
from the city to support the development of much needed
housing. We need certainty, a level playing field, and collaboration
from the city. This new added levy represents a complete
move away from these principles. Thank you so much for
your time. We appreciate your consideration, and we look forward
to engaging in a much more inclusive and balanced discussion
on this matter. Thank you so much. Have a great
day. So I'll just open it up before we go
to questions. Administration. Administration. Is there any. Questions for the
speaker. And bhp is doing great.
Any questions for the speaker? Not seeing any. Thank you.
Ms. Burgess, I don't see any questions for you, so
thank you for attending here today. Thank you so much,
Councilor Lawrence for administration. And you should be good. Yeah.
Thanks so much. Okay. So thanks very much for this
report. I know this has been. A very long and
challenging process to try to find a solution way forward
here. I'm sure this is in the report. I'm having
trouble tracking some of the ins and outs. Can you
comment on the overall impact on available actual park space
for the neighborhood? And what this does. To. Our plans
or original concept plan for development of green space and
recreational space in the community broadly. Yeah. Thank you. Through
you, Mr. Chair. Again, to put it into context of
the entire homewood sector, if indeed the city had to
allocate solely municipal reserve land for elementary school parcels. There
are intended to be seven new neighborhoods, so those are
at ten acre par. Parcels per elementary school site. That
would be 70 acres of municipal reserve land. High schools
are on the current size they're building. They're an average
of 36 to 40 acres of land required. So if
we take that round. It up at eight. At 40,
we know two high schools will be required in the
homewood. Sector at full build out, that's another 80 acres.
So those two combined of 70 acres. And 80 acres,
or even if he said 70 acres, it's about 140
to 150 acres. Of municipal reserve land. And for the
entire homewood sector, there is only a toy, and it's
again, the dedication of municipal reserve land is driven by
the Planning and Development act, where developers are required to
set aside 10% of the developable residential area and five.
Percent of the industrial commercial areas. So with that, in
the Homewood sector entirely, there are approximately 430 total acres
of. Mr. So if we had to take 150 of
those, that's one third of the entire. Municipal reserve land
for that entire sector. That would be simply for schools
and parking lots to sit. On. So it is indeed
of great concern to the overall quality of life and
community building and access to green space. And something that
we want to continue a conversation with the province on
related to the impacts. Our response to this back in
2018 when. The act first changed was to repurpose our
then community center levy to be utilized to purchase additional
lands for those. New four new p three schools, so.
We wouldn't have a core neighborhood park that's half the
size it currently is. Right. With the land reserve from
the Mr. Bucket for the schools. Then we're below that
10% threshold in terms of the actual. Available land. For
Mr. Development through you, Mr. Chair. That is correct. The
act implies that the city would set, use Mr. To
set aside for the schools. And I'm not sure if.
The full impact that was contemplated at the time of
the act changes. In school parcels. Were somewhat smaller at
the time. So with that in mind, I'm wondering. If,
and perhaps it's too early to have these conversations, but
I know, for example, An example of this would be
at Aiden Bowman. We did a land swap. We have
land that's available both for school use and for public
recreational use. I know. We're thinking about. Like an actual
leisure center facility. I'm wondering about access. To schools, sports
fields and so forth, and whether or not we're intending
to negotiate some public or community access to those assets
in light of the restricted amount of green space. This
is going to leave us with? To you, Mr. Chair?
Absolutely. That is the intent of those ten acres that
will indeed be green. Space and sports fields. Because it
is municipal reserve land that has been set aside to
connect with this. We will be using parks and recreation
levy funding. To design, develop, build those sports fields with
the full intention they are available for school use and
they also will be available for community use. Okay, that's
good to know. And this is, again, maybe a little
too early to ask this question, but can you describe
the process that we will have with the province and
with the school divisions. To. Plan some of the access
in egress from these sites. These are. Huge. School population,
this is a school population is going to be larger
than a lot of Saskatchewan communities. And so, given the
challenges we've had with some of. These smaller sites, and
I'm thinking of the school site in Stonebridge, but I
know it's not unique. Can you describe what our process
is going to be for ensuring safe access? Vehicular access?
Transit, pedestrians, cyclists to these sites. What will that process
look like? And is it underway? Yeah. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Through you. It is absolutely underway in earnest because
of the tight time frames of wanting to get to
design. There have been no fewer than 25. To 30
meeting multisectoral meetings hosted over the course of the last
three or so. Months, and Mr. Roberts has set in
on most of those, so he can probably tell you
if it's much more than that. It is a consultant
that has been hired by the province and the two
school divisions to do this detailed design. It's looking at
the layout of the parcel. It's looking at. The requirements
for parking for the parcel. It's collaborating with our colleagues
in transportation and transit to talk about how it is.
We're going to maximize the safe access egress to a
site. Knowing that school starts at a certain time and
all 1800 students are going to be arriving within probably
two minutes of the bell time. So trying to strategize
on what that might look like? Is going to be
critically important. That work is well underway. We have a
number of staff. From our city departments that are involved
in these conversations. With. Some finalization hoping to come to
conclusion in the coming months. Okay, I think my last
question. Is just in the introduction of a new levee
with. These specific. Projected new schools in mind. Is the
intent to leave this levy in place in perpetuity, or
would there be a point where. It would be reviewed.
If the province decided to take a different approach to
a new school site designation. Yeah. Thank you. To you,
Mr. Chair. And it will need to be in place
for as long as municipalities are required to provide this.
Amount of land for high schools, but as you say,
We are still intending to have more in depth conversations
with the province and with the school divisions. And trying
to make sure that we future proof ourselves to ensure
we do have a good balance. Of what land needs
to be purchased over how many neighborhoods, how frequently will
schools be built and who needs to provide the funding?
Or how do we acquire the funding to purchase those
lands, right? So if we were successful. In. Having the
province take a different approach, then we might review whether
or not this is still required. We would absolutely review
that. And as I sort of hinted at in the
introduction, we annually review these levees and adjust. For the
rates per front meter or the criteria by which the
levees are built for these kinds of things. And it's
commonly through a conversation with our builders and developers. This
one has been. A changing situation along the way. The
original estimation was a 23 acre parcel would be large
enough. The maximum school enrollment would be 22 to 2400,
those goal posts have moved. And so part of this
is in response to that. And how do we make
sure we address this existing situation and then also future
proof, ourself? For future. Situations. Okay, well, thanks for the
update. Councilor block. Thanks, chair Davies. I just want to
be clear. I think the way I understand this is
that it's not that the city didn't. Realize that. This.
School land reserve wasn't going to be inclusive of high
schools. It's simply the size of these high schools. Can
you speak a bit more to how this came as
something that was potentially. Not considered by administration previously. Yeah.
Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. When the Planning and
Development act was first changed in 2018. There was little
information around how it would actually be implemented, what all
the impacts might eventually be. And notionally, and probably because
they were most urgent. The concept or thought was it
would be mainly applicable to elementary school sites, and it's
only been in the last three years that we've been
working with our colleagues at the school divisions as they
plan for this new high school site. That the province
has been very specific. About the requirement for the city
to provide. Lands, also for high schools, so it has
been a bit of a shift. It's been more direct.
We haven't built a high school since 2009 when the
Shaw center and joint high schools were built. And at
the time. The school divisions purchased that land. Okay. So
we didn't anticipate that it would be inclusive of high
schools. It was not our anticipation. It has come to
light recently. In the last three or four years, that's
been part of our planning. That's where we had set
aside up to 23 acres of municipal reserve. Hoping that
would help address it, but it's grown bigger than that,
and beyond that, we've also had an opportunity to actually
zoom out and see what the overall impact is to.
An entire sector. When you take such a significant component
of multidistrict and district park space to have buildings and
parking lots sit on. So again, it's trying to find
that balance. Where green space is so critically important. As
we have increased densities in the city. There are more
multi unit dwellings that have no front yards, no backyards,
they have no green space and proximity to play in.
So they rely on our neighborhood park. So we need
to also ensure we're protecting and preserving the integrity and
the community value of those green spaces. Is it also
the case that the size is different than would be
anticipated for high school and is that because. They are
also in consideration of some of those joint use projects
like the Shaw Center. To you, Mr. Chair. The size
of the parcel and the enrollment of students. Has also
surprised the local school divisions. I'll say. It's the 3600
student population or enrollment has only been made known to
us within the last two and a half months or
three months. Originally. The project, and when we did the
joint site feasibility study work, it was based on the
student enrollment of 2200 to 2400. The province is trying
to maximize efficiencies in terms of how often high schools
need to be built in large, growing cities and centers.
This 3600 student enrollment school will be one of the
largest high schools in western Canada. Okay. So maybe I'll
just shift. I did have actually just sort of a
process question with regards to how it's being funded. So
the increase in that capital reserve, and based on the
sharing of the problems. It kind of seems that. We
are not getting that money from the province right away.
Did I misunderstand that or. Is that just the way
that has been presented? But that money would be coming
forth with. To you, Mr. Chair. The funding will is
imminent. Absolutely. But the city's share of that. Nine acre
purchase, which is just over 3.7 million, will need to
be funded by the reserve and thus the required deficit
position. But the 3.7 or so million from the province
will be available immediately. We just need to purchase all
nine acres, essentially, immediately. Okay, I think I'm following that.
Thanks. I just wanted to shift gears a bit here.
Can you talk a bit about what options were available
to the city visa vis the decision to come up
with $175 per front meter. So the options the city
looked at is what available municipal reserve land do we
have? To provide for the additional. Four school lands and
mitigating the impacts in the community. We took a look
at what other capital or funding there might be. And
in conversations with our colleagues in finance, there is no
other readily available source of land. Funding. Sorry. To purchase
land solely for school purposes. So we then took a
page out of the model that we currently use for
the elementary school. Land levy, and that is to establish,
similar to our parks and recreation levy is to establish
a per front meter cost to collect the sufficient funds
to be able to purchase the lands required to accommodate
the new high school sites. That's complemented by an allocation
of. Municipal reserve land. The concern that this. Wasn't well
discussed with the development community. I know you said that
there was an information session. Can you explain the limitations?
In administration's view of how that went down. Thank you.
And to you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. As I just shared
sort of the requirement to provide. A parcel that is
indeed nine or ten acres larger because of the increased
student enrollment, has only come broadly to light within the
last two and a half to three months. When we
first approached this subject, and I would say, because this
is in the homeward sector, we have had conversations with
the land developer along the way. Some of the initial
conversations was presupposing we would need to buy less land
because we would have some. Mr. And the student enrollment
population would be less and we could spread that out.
Over five, possibly six neighborhoods, which gives you more front
meters over which to collect the levy as we dug
into the details with the school divisions as the province
laid out the new plan for high schools to have
3600 students. And their legislation then dictates the size of
the parcel. The number has been evolving. Some of the
earlier conversations were that that per front meter cost could
be in a range of front meter. Given that it's
over fewer neighborhoods, given that we need to buy more
land than anticipated. It's now at $175 per front meter.
And it is a number that's larger than. We had
anticipated or hoped for. It's been an iterative process that
we've gone through as changes have occurred. From both sides
of the equation. So I realized this isn't a question
that is us for us to answer, but are you
aware of whether the province had considered perhaps a second
level? To litigate the footprint of the site. Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Chair. Actually, the province is now pushing
the schools to look at no lesson, a three story
high school. And potentially explore a four story high school
because that was also. Our comment was related to building
up just like density. Same way we approach infill build
up versus outs so that you need less land. That's
exactly the current design iterations. They're going through. It's going
to be a minimum three story high school, and there's
potential for them to consider possibly a fourth story that's
not yet been sort of fully vetted. Okay, so through
the chair. I think I understand now that. The amount
of land that is required is based on the number
of students, not on the design. Of the bill. Indeed.
How the education regulations identifies appropriate school site size. Is
based on student population. So there's a required amount for
a base student population of 1000. It's in. That 4.5
to 5.7 site, and then for every 100 incremental students.
An additional .4 land is required to be provided so
the size of the site. Is absolutely dictated by the
student population, and some of the implications are also connected
to the amount of parking being requested, which is part
of what we're currently working hard with the province. And
school divisions on that. The current identified parking for. This
particular site is well in excess of what the current
zoning bylaw requirements are, so that's part of our conversations
as well, just around how much parking actually needs to
be required. On site again to make sure the parcel
size is as lean and tight as it can be.
That's a whole nother rabbit hole that I will not
go down today, given bus. Rapid transit on the way,
but I will just ask one final question around affordability.
If you're saying that this is really the only option
that we have, At our disposal. How do we consider
affordability in an area like all those new areas? Are
already very expensive. What are administration's thoughts as those arguments
have been made? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as
I said in my opening introductions, That is what has
made this the most challenging thing. It is about finding
ways to really balance. Affordability. Necessary schools in the community
and access to quality green space, so it hasn't been
easy. And we know that this has implications for affordability.
We are faced with the need of providing lands for
school purposes, and this is a new thing. For us,
so we didn't take this lightly. And that's exactly what
we've said to the developers. This was not our first
default. We tried to ensure we had sufficient Mr. Available
for this particular. Emergent site. It wasn't enough, and we
still require funding to purchase some additional land levies as
we look forward with this high school land. Levy. We're
going to continue to explore options. To massage how much
Mr. Might be available and. That might be. Assisted. If
indeed we can work closely with our colleagues at the
province around what percentage dedication of municipal reserve land might
be a right number given our changing reality in the
communities and the need to provide school lands. Thanks. Those
are my questions. Next we have councilor Jeffries. Thank you,
chair. Through you to the administration. Is it possible to
give a little more context to know you did already
about the discussions that happened with industry around. Not only
the new levee, but the cost of the levy. It
was noted, of course, by the speaker. There was a
quoted number that was quite a bit lower than what
we're talking about here today? About one fifth. And I
perhaps could have asked the speaker. Where they got that
number from. But I'm wondering, perhaps administration had thought this
was going to be less. Absolutely. Through you, Mr. Chair.
Originally out of the gate, we presumed we'd need to
buy fewer acres of land and we also presume that
high schools would only need to be built perhaps every
five or six. Neighborhoods. That in and of itself would
have meant that the levy rate per front meter would
have been substantially lower. All of our conversations along the
way have been immediately with the existing developer. As we
talk about this particular site. I don't know if 30
was ever a number we locked and loaded, but indeed
we had talked in that realm of $75 to $100
per front meter, which would have absolutely been doable if
we would have only had to purchase ten or twelve
acres of land and indeed, high schools are only being
anticipated every. Six neighborhoods. It could have landed somewhere in
that neighborhood. That's not our current reality. We now know.
We will need to purchase likely 28 acres of land,
and we want to continue to explore whether that's the
right number. Or if we could reduce that. The current
formula is based over four new neighborhoods, and that's a
population of approximately. 45 to 50,000 people that that might
be driving population to merit a new high school. So
those are the numbers we're going to continue to work
through and see where there might be opportunities to ultimately
reduce the per front meter cost for the high school
land levy. That will be needed to purchase acres. It
was identified in the report that the developer in this
case, dream sees the value and benefit in getting this
project across the finish line. And as a result of
that has actually offered land that I think it was
a 15% discount. Has administration. As they calculate this levy
taken anything like that into account, where we would suggest
that. Just as the province is not going to pay
anything for land, for schools, perhaps we are not. Willing
to pay market rate to developers for schools, recognizing the
benefit to the developer. In having high school developments actually
nearby and how that helps them drive land sales. To
you, mr. Chair. I would say. While this report mentions
dreamland development because they are the current landowner where we're
looking. All developers have indeed come to the table related
to this. It's a similar principle that they provide for
all the elementary school sites. So with our elementary school
land, levy, indeed, the developers. Provide the land at approximately
85% of market rates and typically what they'll do to
use to set that rate is a reflection back on
the past year sales of some RMtm kinds of parcels.
What that's been going for. What's the average in the
sale? Of those, and then we set the land price.
At 15% below what the typical average market rate is.
So all developers have indeed come to the table, recognizing
there is a greater benefit to all communities to have
school amenities. Within neighborhoods. Okay. In thinking about. The levee
versus another way to go about this. In theory, if
we were allowed, would be to have more. Mr. In
a neighborhood. And let's say instead of it being 10%
it could be twelve, whatever that might be, to be
clear, and you can just give me a quick answer
on that. We're not allowed to go over 10% right
now. That's? Under what the province says we can and
can't do. Two year worship. Sorry. Just give you a
promotion to the chair. Through you. Just currently, the legislation
is ten. There is a component within the dedicated Lands
act that where there are higher component densities. Where there's
more than 50 units per hectare and I could have
this number wrong. That the municipality can require developers to
set aside some additional Mr. We have nowhere within our
city currently that reaches anywhere close. To those levels of
densities. On a neighborhood basis, there might be small blocks.
Coincidentally, when the regulations changed, Regina and Saskatoon approached the
province. To request that the municipal that dedication be increased
from ten to twelve to help address that and. At
the time it was turned down. It's something. We want
to reopen that conversation, given we now have a lived
reality. That we clearly understand what the impacts are of
that change in legislation. What would the financial implications be
for lot prices going from 10% to 12% versus having
a levy because ultimately. That cost is passed along in
one way or another. It's not magical land that just.
Appears and then can be built upon. It is funded
through the development of that neighborhood. Do we have some
idea of what that looks like. The difference between. One
and the other. Through you. Mr. Chair, if I may
just ask for a bit of clarification. So if. Indeed.
We had 12% a dedication of Mr. Versus 10% of
dedication. There's sort of two pieces that would be impacted.
There would be more. Mr. Available to allocate to school
sites. Thus the front meter charge for levees to purchase
land would be less. On the other side of the
books, in the pro forma for neighborhood development for developers,
they would have 2% less land to develop and sell,
and I can't speak intelligently. Around what that cost implication
might be. To them. But it would. So it has
double sided ledger sort of implications. If there was more.
Mr. Lot cost would be on a front meter, but
the overall pro forma for that neighborhood would be less
for a developer. Yeah. So, I mean, there's cost one
way or another to. Providing more land for schools if
it's not going to be purchased by the province of
Saskatchewan, but we don't know exactly what that looks like.
One route versus the other. Okay. That's helpful. The other
question is prompted by an answer that you gave, and
I know. That we're veering a little. From the report,
but not too much. You had identified that this would
actually be one of the largest high schools in western
Canada. I'm going to ask that maybe we get some
more. Details offline about that. But as we think about
that site and think about the land and the configuration
and everything else. Are we having conversations? With the school
divisions and the province about access, egress, everything else. My
understanding is that with the p three schools that. Were
built, those kind of got plunked down, and there was
just, hey, this is what they're going to look like.
Doesn't matter. What the conditions are around it. This is
how we're building them, and we see what the impact
of that has been. In particular. I see it in
Evergreen, but I'm sure that Councilor Lowen, for example, sees
it in stonebridge. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. Those
have been the conversations going on, both. With the province
and then also the local school divisions. Some of that
is what's driven the school division's request to have ten
acre parcels of land for elementary schools now set aside
versus the previous eight acres, it's to help try to
address the overall configuration. The other is when those first
p three schools came to be, they landed in neighborhoods
that were already underway in terms of development, so a
little less flexibility in terms of being able to respond.
To the final design. We also have our colleagues in
transportation integrally involved in school development, and a recent one
is just the former scion school site that will be
the new Kree bilingual school. There has been massive consultations
with our colleagues in transportation about what that site is
going to look like how busing and access in egress
is going to happen with that and that's why they're
at the table now. In the early stages of doing
the big block kinds of considerations for this high school
leisure center. Parcel. Sure. And just to be clear, If
we're thinking back to the last number of high schools
that were built, Tommy Douglas Bethlehem. If we go blast
quarter century. Continual. St. Joseph High School, the city was
not required to. Provide land to provide money towards land,
anything like that for any of these high schools that
have been built, kind of, let's say, in my lifetime.
Through you, Mr. Chair. That's absolutely correct. So it's fair
to say that this is a new cost and. This
is if the province just followed what they did previously.
With high schools. We would not be having to look
at. A high school. Levy at all. That is correct.
So ultimately, this is passing the cost on from them
to us. That wasn't there previously. Correct. Okay. Good old
download. I think that's all I have for questions. Thank
you, chair. Councilor Goff. I have no original questions, but
I do want to make sure I understand everything. I
don't. They've all been asked. Thankfully. You're going to ask
all. The questions again. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I'm going to
go through them all. No. I'm going to pull a
hillary here and say what I think I understand in
my own words and ask general manager La Croix correct
me. So provincial legislation requires us to provide land. That
requirement has expanded and grown, and we have two tools.
Mr. Requirements and levees and therefore. We cannot require more.
Mr. That is not a tool we have available to
respond to the expansion. And growth of the land requirements.
So the tools we have are to shrink parks. To
use the levees. To be able to purchase more land
or to fund land some other way. Which ultimately require,
regardless of the routing of those dollars, Is residential tax
dollars or residential and commercial tax dollars. Have I missed
anything? Through you, Mr. Chair. No, you've captured that nicely.
Okay, thanks. And Councilor Goff, are you willing to move
those four recommendations? Any comments? Councilor
loan. Thanks, chair Davies. I think I just want to
start by saying that I'm going to express some frustration.
In the next few minutes, and I don't want that
to be a reflection. Of. My feelings about how our
administration has responded to this challenge. Because I know that
this is yet another. Situation. Where? Jurisdiction becomes very messy.
And the things that we didn't used to need to
take responsibility. For. We are asked to be responsible for.
I think I share a lot of the concerns that
were sort of identified through the report. The reduction in
available green space, I think. Is. Of significant concern to
me, and I just want to say that. I think
one of the trade offs that we know is really
essential for quality of life when we are increasing density
in neighborhoods when we're offering more multifamily. Units as a
proportion of the overall neighborhood. We know it's really important
for people to. Have access to green space for recreation,
leisure, community building. And so I'm quite concerned about. Our
shrinking ability to offer that in new neighborhoods. And I
know administration shares those concerns. So this is a general
comment. I also think the size and the scope. Of
a facility like this certainly gives me pause, sort of
from a traffic planning perspective. I'm concerned to hear about.
The abundant parking that's being pursued because, of course, the
more single vehicle trips made to a site like this,
the more challenging it is to provide a safe context
for those arriving on foot and by bike. We also
are trying to facilitate a modal shift in the community,
and so I hope. We can keep an eye on
that as those negotiations proceed. Having schools is absolutely essential
to the health of communities. And this is in no
means a criticism or. A skepticism about the necessity of
having these schools. But. It's creating. Problems for us.
Which. I think are complicated to explain to the public.
And here we are in a situation where we're creating
new levees, which is really the only way for us
to do this without having. A broad property tax impact.
And so do I want to introduce new levees? No,
but I want the industry and the general public to
understand that this is the most appropriate way to fund
these investments that we're being asked to make for which
we do not. Have designated revenue tools already. So is
it exciting for us to approve a new levee today?
No, but this is necessary. For us to keep these
costs off property tax and to try to equalize the
investment in these schools as much as possible. So I
appreciate very much the problem solving. I know this has
been incredibly complicated, and the stick handling that administration has
done on this file. I'm frustrated that we're in this
position. I absolutely want to see these schools. As part
of our growing city, but I hope we can continue
to negotiate with the province in a way that protects
our interests of having available park space. Of having not
to be asked to make investments in areas of jurisdiction
which belong to other orders. Of government. And councilor Jeffries.
Thank you, chair, and I will just quickly inject. A
question. If our administration will allow that or the chair
will allow that, it actually would be directed towards Miss
Manistrosky. And it was identified. That perhaps what we're looking
at here with a levy would not be allowable under
the planning and development Act. I gather. I like to
think that the things that we come up with tend
to be legal. Or based on good legal advice, and
I just would hope to very quickly have your assessment
and thoughts about what has been proposed here and how
that falls under our authority. Through you, Mr. Chair. There's
nothing that I can think of that comes to mind
that would prohibit us from. Creating such a levy. Having
said that, I can certainly review the act and provide
something further offline. But. There are no red flags right
now in terms of our ability to take this approach,
and it would be fair to say, functionally, this is
really not. Different in terms of what we're looking at
or funding than the existing levy that we have that
funds elementary school sites. Yeah. Thank you. That's what I
was just going to add. It mirrors exactly what we're
doing with the elementary school land levy, which has now
been in place. For roughly ten years. And we've never
had any questions to date about the authority to have
that levy in. Place. Correct. Okay. Thank you. So now
I'll move to comments. Which. Is what I heard today
here from our administration. Are three things. One is that
we're doing our very best to make sure that as
we build new neighborhoods. Not only do we have the
amenities that folks need, whether. That's things like schools and
high schools, but we're trying to create places that are
really livable, and to me, that means providing as much.
Park space as we possibly can. Under the regulations that
we have right now, around 10% municipal reserve. And I
think it was well noted. And I can't remember if
it was one of my colleagues or member of administration.
About the fact that we have some areas now that
in our new neighborhoods that are very dense. And the
fact is, That you can go. I can go show
you some of the parks right now in Evergreen where
we have significant density. Of multi unit sites and the
only place for families and for kids to go play
and to enjoy the outdoors is actually in our public
spaces because they don't have backyards and they don't have
play places on site. And we could go to the
east side of Evergreen, east of McCorman right now. Or
how about 5 hours from now and you'll see some
of those playgrounds? Absolutely. Teeming with kids, especially on a
nice. Night like tonight. And primarily we're talking about families
and kids that otherwise don't. Have a place to play
in their own backyard. So one of the principles for
me in all of this is not taking that away
from kids. And families. In order to. Pay for or
create land for high schools, and understanding that both of
these principles are important. So one of the things that's
going to be important for me to keep an eye
on, on all of this is as we push and
Cajole and lobby. And ask the province to reconsider some
of the pieces, either around not funding land or not
having sufficient municipal reserve to be able to dedicate some
of those lands to schools. But as we make progress,
or as we hope to make progress. I heard it
very clearly today that. Any levy like this that exists
if the cost goes down, if we have other sources
of revenue. Or we no longer need to provide as
much land. That the levy itself goes down as well,
and that's something that gives me comfort here. But the
central issue that we're dealing with today, and I know
it was already mentioned, by colleagues. And this is something
that I think bears repeating, is this is a download.
These are costs that 20 years ago we were not
asked to bear. And these are costs that today we
are being asked to bear. And when our level of
government is asked to bear these costs, it's not some
nebulous. Cloud of money that suddenly floats down and makes
sure that land is available for new high schools. The
fact is, it has to come from somewhere. And we
have a principle, generally speaking. That growth pays for growth.
So that means. It starts to go into. This method
of funding. So I want everyone to understand who's watching,
and I want folks in the development community to understand
that although you may be frustrated today, With this report.
And. With the way that we've addressed this issue as
it relates to a levy, the fact is that we
are only doing this because, a, we believe in building
high schools and making sure that that happens, as I
know our development community does as well, but because the
province of Saskatchewan has said they no longer want to
pay for things that they used to pay for. And
if. You want to aim your frustration in one direction.
We're not the ones who are bringing this forward. We're
not the ones who. Are forcing this issue. The fact
is that we've got a growing province. We have growing
communities. And we have an order of government that no
longer wants to pay for something anymore. And that's why
we're in this position. So I hope that folks will
understand. That. And that we share our feedback and concerns
accordingly. Thank you, chair. Great councilor block. Thanks, chair Davies.
I think I'll try to focus my comments on the
affordability piece. It's not lost on me that we've covered
two huge topics today, and the first half is dealing
exclusively with trying to make housing more affordable, and now
we're dealing with one that's going to make it more
expensive. And I think. It's all centrally coming down to
who's got skin in this game to try. To make
our city and our province more affordable, that we can
develop in a way that people can afford to live
here. And I would hope that as we go forward
with talks with the provincial government and the development community
that we are all reminded that we're in it together
and that we all need skin in that game. And
that the amount of leverage that the city can come
to bear is one piece of it. And our ability
to find allies with other municipalities. I think is there.
Although as the fastest growing city in the province, perhaps
the pressures aren't. Quite. As. Harsh as it is in
our community right now, so I still think that those
allies are important. The big city mayor's caucus could be
a support, but truly the developers have a strong voice.
In. How government makes decisions. And so I guess my
comment is that I hope that we can find a
way to work together to understand that affordability is in
the best interest of every single municipality in this province.
And that finding a better way forward. Is good for
all of us. Thanks. Not seeing any other comments, so
it's been moved by councilor Goff. So I will call
the question. Any opposed? And that carries. So while we
move back in our agenda, We will be remiss that
I need somebody to adopt the minutes I missed that
so. We're going to have to go back to the
start of the meeting if we can. Get the speakers
back. So let's move by Councilor Lowen. I'll call the
question and the opposed. That carries. And so that will
take us to 7.2.120 24 assistance to community groups, cash
awards. Ms. Lacroix yeah, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This
report provides an overview of the recommended grants under the
Assistance Community Groups for 2024. The Assistance to Community group
social services subcommittee. Is a committee appointed by city council,
and the members include Gary Bowden, chairperson, who is here
with us today and has spent his entire morning with
us. Aaron Ganye, Jody Glines, Emily Gabor and Tayaba Sultana.
The committee has reviewed all requests followed by the guidelines
set out in the policy. Their recommendation includes support totaling
over 585,000. Represent support to 29 agencies. Appendix one provides
a full list of the agencies. The grant is also
administered in part with collaboration under the CESt and collaborative
funders and the United Way of Canada. There are two
recommendations in the reports and administration and the subcommittee chair,
Mr. Bowden, are here. For any questions. So, Councilor goff.
Thank you, Chair Davies. And I want to thank the
folks who've been with us all. Day. To represent this
work, and it is really important collaborative work, so thank
you very much. And I know that. There's always huge
demand on these grants. And I apologize if I missed
it in the report, but I'm wondering. If there's a
summary. Of. Kind of what the value of the applications
to this grant. Were this round. There were 58 applications
requesting a total of just over $2.8 million worth of
grant. Funding, and we have just over 585,000 available for
funding. So over five times. Subscribed, correct. And we've had
this discussion before. Which brings me to my next question.
And that is. Around. The underway review of the program.
And the report says that we will be getting some
reporting later this year for that. And I'm looking forward
to that. Respecting. The program and the policy. I'm wondering
if that reporting will speak to the capacity of this
program. I know we had a little bit of a
preview of that. When? In the budget documents this past
year. Signaling this being a pressure point, but I'm wondering
if there will be proposals related to the capacity of
this program in that reporting. Yeah. Thank you. Through you,
Mr. Chair. Yes, absolutely. That's part of what the review
is. Year over year. For the past decade or more,
we've been oversubscribed. The current $2 per capita rate was
set sometime, I'm going to say close to 1999. Maybe
2000. So now, going on 24, 25 years ago, that
$2 per capita. So while it grows by the. Percentage
population growth. What we are seeing is the number of
folks struggling with affordability and requiring support of social serving
agencies has grown disproportionately to the actual. Population growth of
Saskatoon. So that part of the reporting will be to
talk about. A new, targeted per capita funding for this
grant and has been exploring what other municipalities are indeed
looking to allocate towards. Social support to social serving agencies.
Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Great. And
you move those recommendations. Awesome. Thank you. Any other questions
or comments? And I just like to echo those comments.
Thanks very much for your work on this. You're, welcome
to come to every committee meeting. A formal invite will
come in the mail, so we appreciate you being here.
The support. So, again, thank you. So carry on to
7.2.220 24 rec and community development tax abatements. Mr. Gray.
Yeah. Great. Here we are, coming in on the home
stretch. Probably will end a minute. Or two before time.
This report. Is the summary of tax abatements being recommended
for approval for eligible organizations qualifying under three different support
programs. This is recommending a total of just over $1
million in tax abatements to 30 eligible organizations. Five organizations
under the recreation and sport tax ab. Abatement program for
about 140,018 organizations under the Assistance to Community grant social
services totaling 717,007 organizations in the Culture grant program. Totaling
approximately 180,000. Appendix one includes a list of all organizations
for each of the programs and the abatements they are
being recommended for. This amount has been accounted for within
the 2024 operating budget. And include the amount shown, include
the city and library portion of the taxes, the education
portion of the taxes are administered, as we know, by
the province and. They typically follow the city for. Education
portion up to 25,000. Anything beyond that, the city applies
to the province for the formal abatement. There's one recommendation.
And administration is available for any questions. Any questions? Not
see any comments. Somebody willing to move that recommendation. Councilor
Lawrence. Great call. The question any opposed? That carries. Brings
us to the end of our agenda, I believe. Heavy
agenda today. I don't see any motions. Any urgent business,
Mr. Croix? None. You don't want to talk about your
retirement dates, plans, what you have? Carry on. Anybody given
notice today? Not seeing any. We do not have an
in camera session, so I will call our meeting adjourned.
Two minutes before.