[1:00] All right, we're going to get things rolling here. Good
[1:02] morning, everyone. We're a little delayed here this morning. There's
[1:07] some morning going on in the back of the room
[1:09] if the top blades lost last night to Musha. But
[1:12] we're okay. So I'm going to welcome everybody to our
[1:17] PDTs meeting this morning. It's Wednesday, May 8 May 8
[1:20] at 09:30 a.m. Check, check.
[1:31] How do I sound? We're good. No, I still hear
[1:35] knuckle. Check. That might be coming
[1:45] from the teams.
[1:58] How do we know? How do we know? No.
[5:53] Last night. Get right back.
[13:53] Are we good? Yeah, okay. All right, so I'll get
[14:02] everybody's attention. In the crowd and the thousands who are
[14:07] watching that we will get back into this meeting. So
[14:10] again, I'd like to welcome everybody to today's. Policy planning,
[14:14] development and community services meeting. And before we get started,
[14:18] just make a quick land acknowledgment that we are here
[14:21] on the homeland of the meaty and the ancestral lands
[14:23] of many first nations, including the Cree, the Dene, Soto,
[14:26] Dakota and Lakoto's. People. And before we get into the
[14:29] meeting, I'll just do a quick roll call. We do
[14:30] have all committee members present. Councilors, Jeff. Jeffries councilors loan.
[14:35] Councilors block his worship and councilor Goff, and we do.
[14:39] Have councilor Dubois joining us online here today as well.
[14:43] And so we will call the meeting to order just
[14:46] some housekeeping that we're going. To have to do here
[14:48] on the agenda. On a request to speak, so I'm
[14:52] just going to pull this up on my list. So
[14:54] 7.2.4 our speakers not in attendance but had a video
[14:59] unfortunately just due to the precedents that we have in
[15:02] committee meetings. We don't allow that unless the speaker is
[15:04] available for questions. So, Ms. Bride, if we can contact
[15:08] the speaker and just let them know that this will
[15:11] be going to council, and they'll have that opportunity to
[15:12] speak to council. Yes, I'll. Do that. So then 7.2.4
[15:18] would go back to the normal agenda. It won't. Be
[15:21] bumped up with our rest of our speakers like we
[15:23] normally do in past. So one minor emission on the
[15:26] agenda. So with that change, let's ask for someone to
[15:29] approve the agenda. Councilor block. So I'll call a question.
[15:33] Any opposed? Not carries. So we will go to our
[15:36] speakers list. And our first speaker. So before we get
[15:42] into that 6.1.1, Miss Lacroix. Do you want to introduce
[15:46] that? Sorry. Any conflict of interest, I should call first.
[15:52] Not seeing any carry on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No
[15:57] formal introduction on this letter, I see. The speaker is
[16:01] available. And again. It's just regarding. Pleasant Hill area and
[16:07] degradation of the neighborhood and some comments from the speaker.
[16:11] Great. So I will go on and see if our
[16:14] speaker can hear us. I'm going to try the name
[16:17] here, and if I get it wrong, I apologize, but.
[16:19] If you could just introduce yourself, make sure we get
[16:22] this right. But fe cout so Giannis. Effie, can you
[16:26] hear me? Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear
[16:32] you. That's very good act. It's very close. So feel
[16:37] free to go ahead anytime you're ready. My name is
[16:42] Afghatanis. I'm the owner and operator of Pleasant hill dental.
[16:47] I've been in the area for over 30 years. And.
[16:52] The last. Seven years, I've noticed a tremendous change in
[16:57] the area, in that specific block, basically a degradation of
[17:00] the area. And especially since December. I'm very concerned. And
[17:08] very disgruntled at what has been occurring and very concerned
[17:12] about my safety and people's safety in the area. In
[17:16] December, I started noticing. I guess, for lack of a
[17:22] better word. Encampment. Taking up the entire sidewalk in front.
[17:25] Of PHR. So I reached out to Randy Shabilo at
[17:29] Riversdale bed. He was kind enough to actually call me
[17:32] back, actually, boxing Day, and we had a very lengthy
[17:37] conversation up until then, I had never really voiced my
[17:40] concern. Concerns. And maybe I should have, because I've talked
[17:44] to various people in the Riversdale area. I've talked to
[17:46] people. Personally. And they've always said to me, you know
[17:49] what, if you have to start speaking out because it's
[17:52] not going to get any better. And so with that
[17:55] conversation with Randy, It actually almost propelled me to start
[18:00] talking more and more about it. So he invited me
[18:03] to come to the Riversville bid board meeting on January
[18:06] 24, and at that meeting, I had a conversation with
[18:09] the board, and I did not realize. How most of
[18:13] the board members. Were somewhat oblivious to what was really
[18:17] happening in that 1500 block of 20th Street. I'm really
[18:22] concerned. In. That. What I have to deal with day
[18:28] in, day out. I don't think anyone else in the
[18:31] city has to deal with, and it's. Getting to be
[18:34] overbearing. I'm going to state some specific concerns that I
[18:38] have to deal with, and I'm going to actually ask
[18:41] questions. Not that they have to be answered, but just
[18:46] for thinking purposes to counsel and to people in this
[18:50] meeting. When I get to work. I have people sitting
[18:55] in my doorway many times. A couple of years ago.
[18:58] I got to work early in the morning to pick
[18:59] up some stuff. From my downtown office. I operate two
[19:02] offices. I asked the person to leave. She would not
[19:05] leave. I actually ended up getting assaulted. I called the
[19:08] police. And they have a report on that. I have
[19:13] to come to my office many times. Where? Someone's at
[19:17] my doorway. They're passed out, and I have had to
[19:19] call. The police numerous times to move those people. Most
[19:23] of the time, people will leave. Not quickly, though. But
[19:26] there are times I do have to call the police
[19:28] to move those people along. Sometimes I have to wait,
[19:31] and I end up having to delay my appointments because
[19:33] I can't get into my office and my patients can't.
[19:36] Get into the office. I many times have to come
[19:39] daily. Come to my office and there's garbage all over.
[19:42] In front of my property. The garbage is coming. From
[19:47] people being fed, and I do not have a problem
[19:50] with people being fed. That is not my problem. That
[19:53] is not what I'm voicing my concern about. I'm a
[19:56] very philanthropic person, if you know me, who I am.
[20:00] I'm very philanthropic. I do a lot of donating and
[20:02] help a lot of organizations, especially youth organizations. But my
[20:08] concern is that when people are being fed from PHR.
[20:12] Or the Saturn Health Community clinic. Those people come over,
[20:16] they sit on my property, eat and leave. Their garbage
[20:19] there. If PHR and the Saskin Community clinic do not
[20:24] have the facilities to properly feed and take care of
[20:27] these people and take care of the garbage, then why
[20:30] do I end up being the garbage ground. How would
[20:34] you feel if your neighbors were having people over? They
[20:38] did not have the facility or the placement for those
[20:41] people to sit down and eat. So those people came
[20:42] and sat on your yard, ate and left all their
[20:45] garbage fare. I don't think anyone in that room would
[20:50] appreciate that. And I have to deal with that on
[20:52] a daily basis. There's many times I've come to my
[20:55] office and I've had feces. In front of my doorway.
[20:59] If this encounter continues to happen with dispositively Phi, why
[21:03] do they not have bathroom? Facilities for those people. Why
[21:08] do the city continue to allow encampments to occur in
[21:11] front of PHr? I have a photo from last night
[21:14] where? That sidewalk is entirely filled with people. People, shopping
[21:19] carts, belongings. That is an infringement upon someone's safety. You
[21:24] have 30 seconds left. Effie I'm. Concerned about my safety.
[21:27] I'm considering my staff safety. Why did the city allow.
[21:34] The credit union to leave. Why did they not work
[21:36] with the credit union to somehow figure out a solution
[21:38] to allow them to stay. I feel the government level
[21:42] of governments enable this behavior within this community. I can
[21:46] go on for a few more minutes, but I can't.
[21:49] But when I have. Comments to be saying, oh, what
[21:52] do you expect? This is 20th street. This is skid
[21:54] row. That to me is an attitude that's developed because
[21:57] of the way. Sorry, iphy to cut you off. Your
[22:00] five minutes is up there. I understand. I think my
[22:03] point is being taken. I hope. Yeah. You do have
[22:06] a question, though. So I'll just keep you on the
[22:07] line there, if you don't mind, and. Council golf Councilor
[22:10] Goff has a question for you. Thank you, Chair Davies.
[22:14] And hi, Dr. Katsgonis. Thanks for being here. There's a
[22:18] collaborative group that includes a number of civic agencies, including
[22:21] both Sastoon police and Sastoon Fire department who are working
[22:25] with partners in the area to best understand the challenges
[22:27] and gaps in the area and work towards collaborative solutions.
[22:31] They've been doing some consultations already. And my question to
[22:35] you is, would you be open to meeting with a
[22:37] member of that team? To share some of your observations.
[22:41] And some of the changes that you've seen. Miss Goff,
[22:45] I've had numerous meetings and conversations with police. You know
[22:49] what the police have been so helpful. They come in
[22:53] and they make sure that we're doing fine in fact,
[22:55] two weeks ago, they stopped in on a Saturday. They
[22:57] knocked on the door and asked how we're doing. They
[23:02] are so helpful. I have no wrong words to say
[23:05] about our police. They know me. They know my concerns.
[23:11] I don't think I have to have another meeting. With
[23:13] them because I've had so many conversations with them. I've
[23:16] had so many. Conversations with Randy Shabaido. Randy has passed
[23:20] on my concerns to the police. So I do think
[23:24] another meeting is going to help. I think the city
[23:27] has to start doing something. I can tell you my
[23:29] opinion of what needs. Okay, I think I've heard your
[23:32] answer to my question. The folks who are involved in
[23:35] responding to these issues feel the need for collaborative conversation,
[23:39] and so I think I've heard that you're not interested
[23:42] in engaging with that collaborative conversation. Is that right? Ms.
[23:46] Golf? Please don't misinterpret what I've said, I've had numerous
[23:49] conversations with the police. How much more do I have
[23:53] to state? In order for them to understand. What's going
[23:55] on? I've had numerous conversations with them. I'm not wanting
[24:00] not to collaborate. Please do. Not misunderstand. And don't twist
[24:03] my words around. I've had many conversations. With the police.
[24:07] They know what the concerns are. I can have another
[24:10] meeting with them, but they know my concerns. I'm not
[24:13] sure how many more meetings I have to have with
[24:15] people. For them to understand. The concerns. All you need
[24:18] to do is drive by one to understand what the
[24:21] concerns are. I will be there if they want me
[24:24] to be there, but I cannot be there constantly for
[24:26] collaborative meetings that are going to be the same, the
[24:28] same thing over and over again that are not. Going
[24:30] to move things forward. I will collaborate, definitely. But please
[24:34] listen to what I'm saying. I have spoken to the
[24:37] police. People many times. Okay, thank you. I don't see
[24:42] any other questions for you and any comments. Not seeing
[24:47] any. Do I have someone willing to receive his information,
[24:50] someone to move that? Anyone. His worship. I'll call the
[25:00] question. Anyone opposed? Not carries. Moving on. 6.1.2. Mr. Croix,
[25:08] or any background you want to open. With that prior
[25:10] to get to that. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So,
[25:13] again, just upon receiving this, letter to the committee. The
[25:19] team in planning and development was able to dig into
[25:21] this file just a bit, and again, this is about
[25:24] a name that was assigned to the Lakewood suburban center
[25:27] when it was starting. To be built out back in
[25:30] the late 1990s. And. It was previously raised as a
[25:37] flag in the spelling. The naming advisory committee received that
[25:41] request back. Almost two decades ago now, in 2023, And
[25:47] had a determination that. They would include a historic note
[25:51] to the record, but the sign was not changed at
[25:55] that particular time. There are currently more than 650 dwelling
[26:00] units. Addressed to Paula Tanko. Lane just in doing a
[26:05] quick search, so. It would involve some undertaking related to
[26:11] any decision to make a change to the name. So
[26:14] perhaps the civic naming advisory committee might have an opportunity
[26:18] to re review this situation and consider some direction. Great.
[26:24] And so our speaker for that is Nina Corlic. Is
[26:26] Nina here? Nothing. Virtually, I don't think either.
[26:37] Okay. I'm not seeing. Ena. So we can do one
[26:44] of two things. Whatever committee wishes, we could put a
[26:48] motion back to. Sum this if someone's willing councilor law.
[26:53] Sorry. No worries. I was just going to ask what
[26:55] we could do with this in the absence. Of the
[26:57] speaker, but yeah. I think. Is it procedurally useful to
[27:03] refer this to the naming committee or. Is best left
[27:09] at the administrative level. I think this is something the
[27:11] naming committee should probably become. Aware of. I guess I'd
[27:18] be looking for some guidance from administration about the path
[27:20] that we should. Follow on this issue. Yeah. Thank you.
[27:30] Just conferring with my colleague here at city clerk. Assistant
[27:35] city clerk. The committee can have this referred to administration
[27:40] to connect back with the civic naming committee or it
[27:43] can be just referred directly to the civic naming committee,
[27:46] and at that meeting, the administration can provide some of
[27:50] this background directly to the committee. Okay, I would make
[27:53] that motion. Just to clarify. Are you making the motion
[27:59] to refer to the amend to report to the civic
[28:02] naming committee or. Just referring the item directly to the
[28:05] civic naming committee. I was going to make the second
[28:10] motion. Because I think that's more streamlined, but. If I'm
[28:20] guessing incorrectly, please feel free to intervene. That would be
[28:24] appropriate. Okay. We have the motion on the floor, so
[28:28] open up for questions. Any questions on the motion? Not
[28:33] seeing any comments. Let's move by Councilor Lowen. I'll call
[28:38] the question. Any opposed? That carries. Moving on to our
[28:43] next speaker. And before we get to that 7.2.3 the
[28:46] housing accelerator fund incentive is Mr. Croix. Yeah. Thank you.
[28:50] Ms. Leslie Anderson, director of planning and development is here
[28:53] to introduce this report. Great. Thank you. And good morning,
[29:02] committee members. Leslie Anderson, director of planning and development. We
[29:10] do have a PowerPoint, so I'll just give that 1
[29:12] second. Great. Thank you. So this report today is presenting
[29:21] a recommended approach to incentives using the housing accelerator fund.
[29:26] Dollars. And as a reminder, we have 41.35 million in
[29:30] funding under this incentive program from. The federal government, and
[29:35] so. We are recommending a use of those funds. For
[29:40] development incentives. We do need to meet the timelines of
[29:44] this program, and so that does dictate some of the
[29:47] activities. Next slide, please. Through this incentive program, we are
[29:51] proposing to use $35 million in total from this pot
[29:55] to support development incentives. In general, our criteria for the
[30:03] program will include the timelines for the delivery of units.
[30:07] A demonstration of the capacity, the quality of the site
[30:10] development and architecture for these new units. The eligible capital
[30:14] costs that would fall or be associated with these. And
[30:19] also consideration of the size, the type of unit, the
[30:22] accessibility, and the level of affordability. For the units. These
[30:26] would be the general criteria that we'd be applying across
[30:29] these programs. Next slide, please. Our first package would be
[30:34] focused on affordable housing units. These would be housing units
[30:37] that are affordable. To low income households with incomes below
[30:41] the Saskatchewan household income maximums, which are referred to as
[30:45] the shims while spending no more than 30% of their
[30:49] income on housing. And this. Aligns with our innovative housing
[30:54] incentives policy. We are recommending this based on the housing
[30:58] needs assessment and other data sources, as we recognize that
[31:02] there is a gap in the community where a funding
[31:04] allocation of this type can help support development of new,
[31:07] affordable units. This contribution would be used to leverage funding
[31:12] from provincial and federal programs, and we've recognized that this
[31:16] suggested funding alone would not produce new units. Without other
[31:21] levels coming to the table. Our funding can then be
[31:25] leveraged to achieve that collaborative effort. We also recognize that
[31:30] our nonprofit affordable housing providers need time. To consolidate funding
[31:37] programs across the various levels of governments and to put
[31:40] together a funding package for new units. And so moving
[31:44] forward with this, as our first call would be, would
[31:47] give them that. Additional time to do that work. This
[31:51] stream is where we are recommending the most focus. So
[31:55] you will see that there is a per door grant
[31:58] as well as a building and development. Permit fee, rebate
[32:01] and a five year incremental tax abatement. For these projects.
[32:06] The tax statement, of course, is subject to city council
[32:08] approval. We understand. For the affordable units to be delivered,
[32:14] that every dollar counts, and in order to provide those
[32:17] rental rates that are significantly below market. The social housing
[32:22] projects really require a significant additional upfront capital and equity
[32:26] from partners to enable that construction. So this is where
[32:30] we have recommended putting a lot of focus. Through this
[32:32] program. Next slide, please. In terms of where our focus
[32:37] is throughout this program. It's within this area that we've
[32:40] circled on the housing continuum. So, moving from transitional housing
[32:49] units up to that subsidized market rent. We're looking in
[32:52] this realm to see a gain in the total number
[32:55] of units across. This spectrum. Next slide, please. Our next
[32:59] program would be to use the funds to support additional
[33:02] rental development in the downtown and the quarter growth areas.
[33:06] These have been and will continue to be focus areas
[33:09] for the city to increase development and to support other
[33:12] goals of the city. These developments must be new multiple
[33:19] unit rental housing with at least five units or more
[33:22] in the development. The units do not have to meet
[33:25] the affordable requirements, although we will ask for the anticipated
[33:30] cost of rent for these units as part of our
[33:32] evaluation. Mixed market rental units, including both market and affordable
[33:37] units, would be eligible. The affordable units would be eligible
[33:41] for the affordable amounts, and the market would be eligible
[33:45] for this. Rental housing priority. So that would be for
[33:48] the rental housing market. Rental would be $10,000 per door.
[33:53] And. We will be again looking at the building and
[33:55] development permit fee. Rebate up to $1,500. Per door. Next
[33:59] slide, please. The next piece is related to the city
[34:04] on land and the incentives to be associated with that.
[34:07] Further information on the city owned land options will be
[34:10] forthcoming in a separate report and direction from council will
[34:13] be required for the approach to sale or lease through
[34:16] that report. However, we're proposing that the incentives package associated
[34:24] with those parcels would have a higher dollar. Value. As
[34:27] we will be making additional requests for those developments in
[34:31] terms of. What we are looking for, which might include
[34:34] target populations, the level of affordability, the number of units.
[34:40] The site design and other aspects. So bringing additional dollars
[34:44] to the table. To ensure. We can meet multiple goals
[34:48] on these sites. We are looking to stretch the dollars
[34:52] as much as possible to achieve the greatest outcomes we
[34:54] can. With each of these projects. Next slide, please. In
[34:59] terms of process, we receive our housing accelerator funding on
[35:04] an annual basis, so we're preparing to issue. Call for
[35:08] proposals on an annual basis to line up with this.
[35:12] We're also working with our other counterparts from federal and
[35:15] provincial governments to try to align as much as possible
[35:18] on these funding calls. In 2024. We already have our
[35:23] first allocation of dollars, so we would pursue a call
[35:26] for proposals following approval of this report. Based on the
[35:30] results of that call, we may issue a second call
[35:33] again later in 2024. These two calls would be focused
[35:37] on affordable housing. We would then move to a 2025
[35:42] call for proposals looking at the priority growth areas and
[35:46] again, that priority growth area can also include affordable units,
[35:50] depending. On. The proposals we receive. In 2026. We do
[35:56] anticipate determining what that call would be based on the
[36:00] results. We've seen through the earlier calls as well as
[36:03] if we have funding available at that time based on
[36:06] the number of units we've already committed to. At the
[36:09] bottom. You can see as well that we have city
[36:12] owned land on its own timeline. And that would be
[36:16] determined by the site specific requirements dependent on those sites
[36:21] and the steps required. For each of those sites. Some
[36:24] of the sites that we have discussed are not fully
[36:26] development ready. At this time and require a number of
[36:28] steps before they'd be ready for release, so. That would
[36:32] be operating on its own timeline. I'd also just like
[36:35] to share a few reminders on some of the elements
[36:38] of the overall program and the requirements we have. The
[36:46] goal of the program is the creation of new units.
[36:51] Our performance and our funding, which is tied to our
[36:54] performance, is tied to producing new units. We can spend
[37:00] funding on a number of other things, including renovation of
[37:03] existing units. However, it doesn't help us meet our required
[37:07] targets. And it also doesn't help us expand the total
[37:12] number of affordable units in our community. Our total funding
[37:16] allocation, the 41.325 million. Also includes a consideration of a
[37:22] top up for affordable housing units, so there was additional
[37:26] dollars allocated for affordable housing units through this program. So
[37:30] we have to keep that in mind as we move
[37:33] forward. We realize that there is a desire. For assistance
[37:38] to develop new market rental units as well. And also
[37:42] entry level ownership. And these are important parts of the
[37:45] housing continuum. We see that the focus of our wide
[37:50] range of zoning bylaw amendments that are being pursued help
[37:54] in this market development spectrum and across the continuum. So
[37:58] that will encourage the creation of more types of housing
[38:01] in more areas that will meet the needs of more
[38:03] households. Our recommended approach with the incentives program is to
[38:08] target the investments to support the housing needs of our
[38:11] lower income community members. As the program progresses, we will
[38:15] evaluate the results and can report back. If we need
[38:19] to adjust. Where we are targeting the incentives. With that,
[38:23] I can take any questions from committee. Thanks, Ms. Anderson.
[38:26] So we can do one of two things. Did you
[38:28] want to hear the speakers? First or ask questions. We'll
[38:32] go into speakers, and then we might call you back
[38:34] to the podium, if that's. Okay. Thank you. All right,
[38:37] our first speaker, Jason Merkerty, welcome to the podium. As
[38:42] you might have heard before, and I know you've been
[38:43] to council here before five. Minutes is all you're going
[38:46] to have for today. After that, we're going to drag
[38:49] you out of here if you go any further. I'm
[38:50] just kidding. You'll hear a big screech. So I'll give
[38:54] you a minute's notice when you hit. Five minutes, just
[38:56] so. You're aware. Sounds good. Feel free to introduce yourself
[38:59] and go anytime. Yeah. Thank you for having me. My
[39:01] name is Jason Merker. I'm currently the acting director of
[39:04] programs and services for Mat Nation, Saskatchewan. Although my normal
[39:07] job as director of social infrastructure. That includes housing and
[39:12] homelessness. And so many of you know me, I think
[39:17] I'm in a unique position on the speaker's list as
[39:19] I have been in the CBO role, I've been in
[39:22] a funder role, and now I'm in a government and
[39:25] a funder role, so. I understand the complexity of all
[39:28] the stakeholders involved. In the housing accelerator fund, and I
[39:32] just want to say that. This is a good investment
[39:36] and a good idea for the city to do. And
[39:39] I understand there's some back and forth about the different
[39:42] funding levels, but the reality is social housing and low
[39:46] income housing. Is a solid investment. I was at the
[39:50] Chra conference. About a month ago, and the guest speaker
[39:55] was Jeff Rubins. Who's a renowned canadian economist and. He
[40:00] said that the best investment a government can make over
[40:04] the next 20 years is in affordable housing. And so
[40:07] I really want to reiterate that this. Is a solid
[40:12] idea, and I think based off the level of support
[40:14] that we're going to see from ourselves as an indigenous
[40:17] government and as a funder and CBos that the sector
[40:21] really wants to see this happen because there's not a
[40:23] lot of. Opportunities for the CBO sector to acquire money.
[40:28] And so this housing accelerator fund will help go a
[40:31] long way. And I know with the debates around the
[40:34] different funding levels, The different funding levels will get brought
[40:39] up throughout the different speakers. But no formula is perfect.
[40:45] I think this one is solid, and specifically because the
[40:48] timelines are so tight and, you know, I was at
[40:50] the Blades game last night and I saw an advertisement
[40:53] on the screen for the downtown arena and the slogan
[40:56] that they talked about was punching above your weight, and
[40:59] that's something that I think cbos are very good at,
[41:03] whether they're indigenous cbos or indigenous. Governments or just your
[41:06] average community based organization? When we're looking at the level
[41:11] of investment, yes, we do need stacking. But from the
[41:16] Mat government perspective, we have been asked a number of
[41:18] times. To invest in various communities for social housing. And
[41:26] our thought process, especially around the bigger communities like Regina,
[41:28] Pa. Saskatoon is what does the city bring into the
[41:31] table. Well, now it feels like the city is actually
[41:34] bringing something to the table. So that we can open
[41:36] up discussions with our stakeholders. To figure out how we
[41:39] can make money available to various projects. With that. I
[41:44] don't really want to go on too long because I
[41:46] know the speaker's. List is, like, 30 deep for this
[41:48] one item. But. On the various levels that are available,
[41:55] both in the corridor, both on the 27k for the
[41:59] affordable housing and even on the city owned land. I
[42:02] think these are positive steps to take. I also think
[42:05] it's great that the focus is around community based organizations
[42:09] and indigenous organizations and governments. When we're talking about truth
[42:14] and reconciliation, we can have all the land acknowledgments. We
[42:17] want. But money talks, and I think this is going
[42:21] to go a long way to help serve the indigenous
[42:24] population. In Saskatchewan and Saskatoon specifically. No matter. Which CBO
[42:31] gets the funding, but there's some projects, like at Hart
[42:34] Road, that are. Ready to roll on this money would
[42:36] go a long way for those organizations, and quickly. So
[42:41] I just can't stress. The timelines are tight. If. This,
[42:44] for some reason, doesn't move ahead and goes back. I
[42:48] don't see how. You're going to get money out the
[42:49] door this year. Just to be frank, I don't see
[42:52] how money is going to be made available this year
[42:54] and effectively for this construction. Season. The windows closing already,
[42:58] and so I can't stress enough, the timing is tight,
[43:01] so. Thank you for that. Great. We got a question
[43:04] for you here from councilor block. Thanks, chair Davies. And
[43:08] thanks for being here. Mr. Mekrie, you spoke about the
[43:11] conference that you attended. Can you just help us understand
[43:14] in context why affordability affordable housing rather is such an
[43:19] important target. Yeah. Affordable housing. Is an important target because.
[43:25] We're seeing it across all levels of government. Where there
[43:29] seems to be a divestment from affordable housing. And we
[43:35] see market rate rentals continually going up, and we oversee
[43:39] a homelessness prevention fund. So we have made these citizens
[43:41] throughout the province low income ones. That can't afford their
[43:45] bills and their rent. We're seeing energy prices increase, grocery
[43:50] prices increase, and this isn't even just for people on
[43:53] social assistance. I know that point has been belabored across.
[43:58] Multiple meetings and stakeholders. We're talking about work in poor
[44:01] as well. They are not able to afford market rate
[44:04] rentals, and we're expecting that trend to continue. And so
[44:08] having an investment. That's specifically targeting low income individuals is
[44:13] key for a government. We just heard from Pleasant Hill
[44:17] about business and pleasant Hill about the issues that are
[44:19] happening in that community. I'm very familiar with that area.
[44:23] A big factor. We couldn't do is get people into
[44:27] market rate rentals. It was a big barrier. That we
[44:30] had. Working with homeless folks, but we were able to
[44:33] do referrals to a lot of cbos that were housing
[44:36] these same individuals. And so if we're actually wanting to
[44:39] get some upstream solutions. I think the investment is right
[44:42] in the housing continuum where it was said, where the
[44:45] target is being made because that area needs to be
[44:47] invested in heavily. And the province is also making money
[44:50] available as well. And so we have that ability to
[44:53] stack as well on a federal level, but just on
[44:55] the affordability standpoint, I don't. See without government. Concerted government
[45:00] effort and investment and specific to community based organizations and
[45:06] indigenous governments on low income I don't see how we're
[45:08] going to be able to keep up with market rate
[45:10] rentals or market rate builds. You spoke about city's divesting
[45:14] in affordable housing. Can you explain that? Why is that.
[45:19] Big factor is around the income assistance rates. It's very
[45:22] hard to make low income market rate work for people
[45:27] on income assistance. Basically now, unless you're in social housing
[45:32] with the catchment like we were talking about, both the
[45:34] 30%. People can't afford their rent. And so we're seeing
[45:39] a lot of transition away from low income rentals to
[45:42] market. Rate rentals because there's also a housing shortage in
[45:45] the city. So you're going to be able to fill
[45:46] those units regardless whether they're low income or market rate.
[45:49] And you're going to be able to charge more, and
[45:50] so there's less incentive. For sectors to charge low income
[45:54] rentals unless it's tied to funding agreements. With like 10,
[45:59] 20, 30 year outcomes. And so we do need to
[46:01] see that, and we're, also Saskatoon is one of the
[46:04] few exceptions for the housing corp. Is in selling off
[46:07] units but we see across the province that we're seeing
[46:10] the province sell off. Older social housing units, and as
[46:14] a result, we need to build more. The answer isn't
[46:16] to sell off more. It's to build more and to
[46:18] maintain more. And to have a proper level of maintenance
[46:21] for the existing units. But we do need to build
[46:24] an incredible I think every organization, housing organization or CBO
[46:27] can tell you they got a backlog into the hundreds.
[46:30] Now, for people awaiting housing. We oversee the coordinated access
[46:33] program. In partnership with ship, and I can't tell you
[46:36] the amount of times we've tried to get people into
[46:39] housing and. It's a math equation where they can't afford
[46:43] it, and you'll see. Advertisements on Kajiji and things like
[46:46] that, saying we do not accept people on income assistance.
[46:49] Don't bother applying. And so you see these? It's like
[46:53] before people used to say. That's saying the quiet part
[46:55] loud and. Now we're seeing it. Just be open. And
[46:59] I'm not saying that there's. Not reasons for that. There's
[47:01] a lot of reasons that go into why people make
[47:03] decisions. They do business decisions like that. But the cbos
[47:06] don't get to make business. Decisions like that. They're mission
[47:11] driven. I can tell you from somebody who ran a
[47:13] CBO and worked in the CBO sector. For 20 years.
[47:15] It is. Even though people tell you it's thankless, it's
[47:18] truly a thankless job. They're underpaid, they're overworked, but. Yet
[47:21] they show up every day and do it. And I
[47:23] think providing these incentives to organizations like Camponi. Like, comfy,
[47:27] like STC. Is going to go a long way to
[47:31] show them that the city is there to support them.
[47:34] Just one final question. In your view, how has. This
[47:40] particular crisis affected our homelessness crisis. It's massive. We no
[47:45] longer have the. I'll try to do a really short
[47:48] history lesson. When we had a coordinated system. Around housing
[47:54] first, where people would go into. The people would go
[47:57] in off the street. They'd. Be met with the support
[47:59] workers. They would go. Into sometimes market rate rentals or
[48:04] social housing, but they'd be supported in that. But there
[48:06] was a plan to offload them into the private sector,
[48:08] and we actually had pretty good partnerships with private sector
[48:11] on a landlord basis and organizational basis to get people
[48:14] who are homelessness. That window is rapidly closing, and there's
[48:19] folks like Cam who could speak better to it. Than
[48:20] I can. But there's a lot of reasons why that's
[48:24] happening. But. I don't know. It's unramplaned at this point,
[48:28] but it's. Crisis mode for us. Okay? Thank you. Thank
[48:31] you very much, Mr. Mechrity. Next, your worship? Yeah. Thanks.
[48:39] And I appreciate you coming, Mr. Merker, given your experience,
[48:44] as he said in a variety of different hats within
[48:47] the sector. And from what I'm reading, and everybody, I
[48:53] think, has just had a few days to sort of
[48:54] grapple with this feedback. And the decision that we're facing,
[49:00] which is. This is meant to use this funding to
[49:06] inject. Into the sector, the ability to get a bunch
[49:12] more projects happening than would have otherwise. We're hearing some,
[49:15] and I think we will hear some feedback that the
[49:18] way this incentives are set up. They may not lead
[49:22] to project penciling out, and it depends on how long.
[49:27] The rent. Is held to below. Market rates or just
[49:32] the overall ability to make the capital projects work. You're
[49:36] saying based on the 27,000 1500 building permits or the
[49:40] 50,000? Per door. On the city owned land. Incentives. You
[49:45] think this will lead? To more projects happening. And. What's
[49:54] your confidence in that? I guess, or. How do you
[49:57] come to that conclusion? So from a funder level, we've
[50:02] had a number of people come to us asking us
[50:05] for funding on a project. Basically had in hand. And
[50:10] that makes it very difficult for us to do it,
[50:13] to commit the money, because our money is tied up
[50:15] for that year. And potentially two years while they're trying
[50:18] to leverage all sorts of other levels of funding. This
[50:22] is going to be one of the more simplified processes
[50:25] to get access to funding. And as a result, they're
[50:28] going to be able to go to groups like CMHC.
[50:30] They're going to be able to go to groups like
[50:31] Maitination, Saskatchewan. They're going to be able to go to
[50:34] the province with the housing corp. And say, hey, we.
[50:37] Have a commitment of 27,000 per door or 10,000 per
[50:40] door or whatever combo. It ends up being, are you
[50:44] able to meet us at some level? And it's going
[50:47] to make those conversations and get them moving a lot
[50:50] faster. So I don't think every project can necessarily come
[50:53] to light, but I do think it's going to open
[50:55] up the door for a lot. And I think Camponi
[50:58] can speak better than I can about being shovel ready
[51:01] and hitting the ground running. So I do have faith
[51:04] that this is going to go. And I've seen some
[51:08] math being done on the projects. Yeah, I think there's
[51:12] going to have to be an additional level of funding
[51:14] being accessed. Across the board, but that's the way these
[51:17] projects always work. Is you have different pockets of funding
[51:21] that are available, and the city stepping up is going
[51:24] to open up a lot of doors for us, whether
[51:26] that's through a group applying for funding. Through Nietzsche. Or
[51:30] the various other funding streams that are coming. We constantly
[51:34] are applying for different levels of funding, but having this
[51:37] type of. Having this type of. Investment from a city
[51:38] perspective makes it. A lot more doable. So if I
[51:43] could just paraphrase. The level of incentive isn't a deal
[51:47] breaker to make in itself. To make Project pencil but
[51:52] the currency gives a housing provider. To then put together.
[51:57] And have a compelling ask to other funders. Is a
[52:02] critical piece to help unlock those funds. Yeah. And the
[52:08] thing that's different about right now is that every funder,
[52:11] whether you talk to CMHC, Nietzsche, us. We're talking shovel
[52:14] ready projects. We're not talking down the road. Two years,
[52:18] three years, four years, everybody wants shovel ready. Projects. And
[52:21] when I've talked to the builders. We have a project
[52:24] that we're doing up in Meadow Lake. We signed a
[52:27] contract, Matthew. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we signed
[52:30] that contract about two months ago. The builds are ready
[52:35] and in their yards right now, so builders are able
[52:38] to meet the demand. If the funding is available. But
[52:41] we have to make that funding available, and so, yeah.
[52:44] Organizations that are speaking after me can speak better about
[52:46] it, but I don't think that the funding level. Is
[52:51] going to disincentivize, and I think if we send this
[52:53] back to committee, to try to work out a perfect
[52:55] formula. You're now talking, trying to get all the projects
[52:58] done within 2025 2026 construction cycle. And I just think
[53:02] that's a bad idea. We have the ability to get
[53:05] some projects up running now, and also it's a maturity
[53:08] for projects to start applying now for funding so that
[53:10] they can. Have a project done by the end of
[53:12] 2025. Okay, and last question. And can just be. A
[53:16] brief answer, but is the mediation also have funding that
[53:20] can potentially. Be contributed on some of these projects. If
[53:26] providers are coming forward. So, yes, with the caveat of
[53:31] I have my own council. The provincial maid council that
[53:35] we'd have to talk to. We've met. And we have
[53:38] a meeting, I believe, at the end of the month.
[53:39] Where? We are wanting to work better with the city.
[53:43] On these projects. President McCallum has been pretty clear he
[53:45] wants this working in partnership across the board. But, yeah,
[53:49] there's potential there for sure. We have to go through
[53:51] our channels. But I think? There's a high potential there,
[53:56] and that's why we want to see this go. Because
[53:58] then we can get some other machinations going. But if
[54:00] we come and say we're, the only ones contributing. The
[54:04] question is going to be why? Let's go to Regina.
[54:07] Or Prince Albert. Where they're meeting us halfway. Okay, thank
[54:12] you. I think that's it for speakers, so thank you
[54:15] very much. We'll go to our next speaker, Cameron Chicat.
[54:21] Another veteran at the podium, so I know I don't
[54:23] have to tell you the rules. So feel free to
[54:24] go ahead. Anytime you're ready. Yes. The resident Nerd has
[54:28] appeared. As always, I want to thank Jason for stealing
[54:31] most of my punchlines. Well done, I think. We're really
[54:34] on the same page. Camera chick at CEO of Saskatchewan
[54:41] Landlord association really wanted to provide some value in this
[54:45] conversation by crunching some numbers because I'm a numbers guy.
[54:48] So I circulated a brief committee this morning. Much thanks
[54:52] to the clerk's office. But first of all, there's been
[54:55] some rumors. About the lack of consultation. Around half. I've
[54:58] been around that long. But this lovely mailer. Came out
[55:01] to every citizen in Saskatoon, so the concerns around consultation,
[55:05] I think, are moot. Because citizens have this, they have
[55:08] the opportunity to engage in the program. And I think
[55:11] if they want to. They have every opportunity to look
[55:13] for agendas every Wednesday at 430, and those are posted.
[55:17] So I really want to encourage committee to hold on
[55:20] the fact that admin has prioritized consultation. And then on
[55:25] the matter at hand. The incentives. We're here today. Although
[55:29] we don't represent a whole pile of affordable housing providers.
[55:32] I have the pleasure of working with dozens of them
[55:35] in Saskatoon and across the province. And it's my pleasure
[55:39] today to offer our support for the incentives. And we
[55:42] asked the question, will these incentives get more shovels in
[55:45] the ground much? To the question that his worship just
[55:48] posed and the brief that I circulated, the punchline there.
[55:52] Is. They will not directly incentivize unless, as Jason said,
[55:59] There are significant investments from other levels of government, and
[56:02] I put four scenarios before you of an actual affordable
[56:05] housing development that I sit on the board of. 36
[56:09] units, three stories. Mostly one and two bedroom apartments. And
[56:14] you can see that without a $3 million forgivable mortgage
[56:19] from CMHC. Affordable this affordable housing development is just not
[56:24] possible. Where rents are at. And that's essentially what Jason
[56:28] said as well. Without significant investment from other levels of
[56:31] government. These incentives. Won't do what they're meant to do.
[56:37] But they are such a valid piece. In being able
[56:40] to go to CMHC and saying, we have $27,000 per
[56:44] unit. So. I'm not putting a doom and gloom cloud
[56:48] over these incentives. They're great and. We're here to support
[56:51] them, however. They are just a piece of the puzzle.
[56:55] A three piece puzzle in terms of provincial and federal.
[56:59] Investments. Because the debt service costs, as you saw in
[57:04] my brief, are staggering. Even that 50 year mortgages which
[57:08] is what this calculation is based on. At a 5%
[57:12] interest rate. The debt service costs. Are the largest operating
[57:17] costs for affordable housing developments. And when you're guided by
[57:21] the Shims provincially, that's what's required. So in addition to
[57:25] this brief, I'll just say that most affordable housing developments
[57:29] will use a mixed market approach so that they can
[57:32] subsidize some of the affordable units with market rate rentals.
[57:35] And that's kind of a win win for both sectors
[57:38] where you have market rate rentals as well as affordable
[57:41] in the same building. That just helps the top line
[57:44] revenue. In the event that there isn't as much investment.
[57:47] So I put these numbers before you. Just to give
[57:48] you kind of a real world example of what a
[57:51] developer. What camponi? What? Quint might be going through. When
[57:54] they're crunching the numbers, they look at these. Viability spreadsheets
[57:59] really closely because they need to make it work for
[58:02] 20 years because there is no operational fund. Funding from
[58:06] other levels of government. It's typically capital. Right. But I
[58:11] will offer a couple comments regarding the incentives in the
[58:14] next minute and 15 seconds. It certainly appears, though, on
[58:19] the city owned land incentive, that the city's actually lining
[58:23] their pockets with federal housing dollars by charging for the
[58:27] land but increasing the incentive. These are federal dollars. So
[58:32] if the city wants to come to the table with
[58:35] their own skin in the game, You should be providing
[58:38] that land at a discount and not at a million
[58:41] dollars an acre, because. What you're doing is charging a
[58:43] million dollars an acre, but giving $50,000. Incentive, whereas you
[58:49] could stretch that $50,000 incentive by charging less for the
[58:53] land. So that's one amendment we'd strongly consider because the
[58:56] purpose of half. Is not to line the municipality's pockets.
[59:00] And I'd also like to see some. Additional clarity, as
[59:02] Ms. Terasoff outlined in her written submission on how much
[59:06] money is being allocated to each incentive. So that we
[59:09] have clear lines of sight where the money is being
[59:11] spent, and that's merely just to have transparency and accountability.
[59:15] And finally, I'd suggest not having 20 year operating agreements,
[59:20] I'd reduce those to ten. Because not for profit, for
[59:24] profit housing providers don't want to be handcuffed for that
[59:26] long and that flexibility is really important. So with that,
[59:30] I'm available for questions. Great. Any questions for our speaker?
[59:38] Councilor block. Thanks to your Davies. And thanks for being
[59:41] here, Mr. Shakat. I guess just in your last comment
[59:44] about the timeline. Reducing from 20 to ten. Could you
[59:49] just expand on that a little bit? Because I think
[59:53] part of the idea of the fund is to expand
[59:55] that affordability as long as possible. Certainly, I just think
[59:59] 20 year agreements tend to scare providers off. That. It's
[1:00:04] been a long standing kind of standard. I know. The
[1:00:07] municipal scan showed 20. Years in other municipalities. I just
[1:00:12] think providers prefer a bit more flexibility. And having ten
[1:00:17] year agreements. I think, or ten or 15 provide that
[1:00:21] flexibility. You're partnering with mission based organizations, so the notion
[1:00:27] of affordability. Is important. But what providers don't want to
[1:00:32] be saddled with is 20 year rent control agreements. That
[1:00:36] prevent them from raising rent at all and not being
[1:00:39] able to maintain the investment in their properties over the
[1:00:42] long term. So I just think the time horizon is
[1:00:44] a little too long in the housing landscape and might
[1:00:47] come with some risk and scare some folks off. So.
[1:00:51] In your view. Sorry. In your view. It could maintain.
[1:00:54] A technical, affordable unit in perpetuity. But the rents need
[1:00:59] to be raised at a certain point. When Quint Camponi
[1:01:04] Jubilee residences. Any not for profit or for profit housing
[1:01:09] provider gets the property tax bill and it's up 5%
[1:01:13] or gets the insurance bill. That's up 10%. And they
[1:01:16] can't. Raise rent. They take money out of other line
[1:01:20] items, be it staff for supportive housing, be it. Repairs
[1:01:25] and maintenance. Regardless of your political position on rent control.
[1:01:32] It's a dollars and cents. At the end of the
[1:01:33] day, there needs to be money. At the bottom line
[1:01:36] to ensure that they can reinvest. And ensure that they
[1:01:39] can maintain those properties over the long term. So we
[1:01:42] want to make sure they can raise rents adequately. They're
[1:01:44] mission driven organizations, I can tell you, I sit on
[1:01:47] the board of Jubilee. Our average rental rate increases are
[1:01:51] two to 5%. Typically at or below inflation, and we
[1:01:55] just want to make sure that's possible. And we don't
[1:01:57] want to handcuff providers for 20 years, because after 20
[1:02:01] years, if they haven't been able to raise rents significantly.
[1:02:04] They don't have a nice nest egg. To reinvest. Buy
[1:02:06] new furnaces, put new shingles, replace windows, all of those
[1:02:10] capital investments. Thanks very much. You're welcome. You sparked another
[1:02:17] question here, Councilor Goff. Thanks. I actually had turned off
[1:02:22] my mic because I thought my question was answered. But
[1:02:24] of course, there's another one in my mind now. I'm
[1:02:29] wondering. So you're referring to mission based organizations when you
[1:02:32] talk about. Other assurances that rents will remain affordable. These
[1:02:38] incentives are not only available to those organizations. And in
[1:02:44] the role that you're here today, the primary role that
[1:02:47] year, today you represent. Housing providers who exist in all
[1:02:51] ends of the spectrum. And not all of whom are
[1:02:55] exist in the not for profit space. So I'm just
[1:02:59] curious to hear. Any comments you have about. How we
[1:03:05] ensure the long term affordability of market. Of affordable units
[1:03:10] provided by market landlords. I think the operating agreements are
[1:03:16] a way you do that. I can tell you most
[1:03:17] market rate providers that I represent largely in my day
[1:03:21] job won't sign 20 year agreements. What we've seen in
[1:03:25] years gone by is buyout clauses where they might sign
[1:03:29] a 15 year agreement. But after ten years, if the
[1:03:31] numbers just aren't penciling, they'll. Actually buy out the remainder
[1:03:35] of the agreement. It's like a prepaid cell phone. Plan,
[1:03:38] right? If you upgrade before the date, you have to
[1:03:40] pay $300 if you want to. Get out of your
[1:03:43] affordable. Operating agreement. You actually have to give some of
[1:03:47] the money back that you had worked really well. With
[1:03:50] the Wrap program 25 years ago that was administered provincially.
[1:03:55] I think operating agreements are fine. I'm just. 20 years
[1:03:59] is a long time. The housing landscape changes drastically, and
[1:04:02] I don't want the handcuff. To scare providers away from
[1:04:07] participating in the program. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other
[1:04:12] questions? I think you're good. Thank you. I'm not sure
[1:04:17] why Councilor Goff is staying on my queue list. Do
[1:04:21] you want to hit your button? On and off. Oh,
[1:04:24] there we go. No. Yeah, we're good. Perfect. We will
[1:04:29] go to our next speaker, Angela Bishop. Angela bishop has
[1:04:38] two people. Do you guys want to speak together? Yes.
[1:04:47] Okay. Feel free to introduce yourselves. Sure. Kate. Good day.
[1:04:51] Honorable committee members. My name is Zessary Shorte. I would
[1:04:55] also like to take a second to address the gallery
[1:04:58] as I'm here with my colleagues. Amy Bellage, our new
[1:05:01] executive director and Adam Colrich, the project manage. Manager for
[1:05:06] Hart Road. As a Mati woman and the board chair,
[1:05:09] we stand before you in support of the inflammation of
[1:05:12] the proposed incentives aimed at fostering the development of a
[1:05:17] more affordable housing through the housing accelerator fund. We are
[1:05:21] here on behalf of one of the largest Mati housing
[1:05:24] providers in Saskatoon camp. Camponi housing corporation and sas native
[1:05:28] rentals. This year we are celebrating 50 years as a
[1:05:32] Mati led provider of purpose, built, supportive and affordable housing
[1:05:36] in the city. I would now like to turn it
[1:05:38] over to the chair of the trustees and the joint
[1:05:40] oversight committee for the Hart Road project. I'm a little
[1:05:44] shorter. I just want to say I feel a little
[1:05:47] bit like the poor cousin coming. To this meeting today
[1:05:54] because. We really don't have. Two significant concerns in relation
[1:05:59] to. The housing accelerator fund and the proposals that are
[1:06:03] being put forward. Primarily because there's definitely a need within
[1:06:08] the community and not so. With those opening comments. I
[1:06:14] just want. To. Make those comments and that I don't
[1:06:18] realize I wasted 20 seconds saying that. So. Good morning.
[1:06:23] My name is Angela Bishop. I am chair of the
[1:06:26] joint oversight committee overseeing the Heart Road project, an innovative
[1:06:31] housing project in Blair Moore. Upon completion of phase one
[1:06:35] of the heart road project, we will have added 73
[1:06:38] much needed residential units to the affordable housing stock. And
[1:06:43] we'll have invested $40 million into the community. We have
[1:06:47] over 300 families on our waiting list, and it's growing.
[1:06:51] We know there is a need for affordable housing. So
[1:06:55] we commend your efforts in presenting recommendations to address this.
[1:06:59] Pressing issue of affordable housing in our city. The thoughtfulness
[1:07:05] and dedication exhibited in this report underscores the city's commitment
[1:07:10] to finding sustainable solutions to our housing challenges. In creating
[1:07:15] incentives and developing solutions. We are breaking ground, we are
[1:07:20] breaking barriers, we are creating. Opportunities, and we are building
[1:07:24] up communities. And for this you are commended. Your vision
[1:07:29] is an inclusive vision. It doesn't just focus on affordable
[1:07:33] housing. And I commend the committee on the comprehensive nature
[1:07:36] of. These proposals. As you well know. Saskatoon, like many
[1:07:42] other growing urban centers across this country, faces a persistence
[1:07:46] shortage of affordable housing options. The shortage not only impacts
[1:07:51] vulnerable populations, but also affects the overall socioeconomic fabric of
[1:07:57] our community. Access to safe and affordable housing is a
[1:08:01] fundamental human right, and addressing the issue is paramount to
[1:08:04] fostering more equitable and inclusive communities. Housing is one of
[1:08:10] the main factors determining well being. Unsafe housing leads to
[1:08:15] mental and physical health problems. We heard about it this
[1:08:18] morning. Greater mortality rates. And substance abuse. As an indigenous
[1:08:23] housing provider and as a mat woman, we are seeing
[1:08:27] all these problems in our communities and within our own
[1:08:30] families at much higher rates than other people across this
[1:08:33] country. There is a cost to not addressing these issues,
[1:08:38] although there are many intersecting issues. Cost of living crisis,
[1:08:42] affordability crisis, homelessness crisis. Hope is not lost on us.
[1:08:49] By investing in increasing housing in Saskatoon. We invest in
[1:08:53] health, we invest in jobs, we invest in a better
[1:08:56] future. I hope that city council will act on the
[1:09:00] recommendations advanced by committee, and we can invest in housing
[1:09:04] together. As a mat housing provider. Again, it is imperative
[1:09:08] to underscore the critical importance of addressing the housing needs
[1:09:12] of indigenous communities. In a supportive and culturally appropriate manner.
[1:09:17] At Camponi, we like to say we are more than
[1:09:20] just a Mati housing provider. We also offer tenant supports.
[1:09:25] We recognize the need to provide additional supports to our
[1:09:29] tenants who may not have. The rental acuity to maintain
[1:09:33] stable housing. We recognize that our tenants are among the
[1:09:36] most vulnerable. And marginalized populations, Saskatchewan. We bear witness to
[1:09:41] these issues every day. Our people's base disproportionately high rates
[1:09:46] of homelessness, overcrowding, and inadequate housing stemming from. Historical injustices,
[1:09:52] systemic discrimination, racism, and socioeconomic disparities. So we commend your
[1:10:00] efforts. Thank you. You guys are a great duo, I
[1:10:04] won't lie, but I'm just. Going to open up for
[1:10:06] questions here. Your worship. Feel free to go ahead. Thank
[1:10:10] you very much. And it's nice to see Ms. Bishop.
[1:10:12] And welcome to the Camponi. Team as well. I do
[1:10:16] remember meetings around the work to get the heart road
[1:10:19] project off the ground. And. There had been points along
[1:10:24] the way where you had some funding, but not enough
[1:10:27] to get it. Going? And so I'm just wondering, because.
[1:10:33] Similar actor. I guess we heard from Mr. Merkerty from
[1:10:36] the media nations. As a housing provider. Do you also
[1:10:45] feel that this changes the game by having. This kind
[1:10:49] of funding. In hand. If there's a project to be
[1:10:54] able to leverage those other. Orders of funding from other
[1:10:58] potential funders. And really accelerate the amount of units that
[1:11:02] are getting built here in our community to meet that.
[1:11:04] Need. Absolutely. I think that right now we're also facing
[1:11:10] challenges in relation to phase two and trying to close
[1:11:14] a gap and over $20 million gap because projects have
[1:11:18] become more costly. And so that project is shovel ready,
[1:11:23] but we're not able to get funding approvals. Because. We
[1:11:28] don't have other than our own equity. I mean, we
[1:11:30] own the land. We don't have funds to leverage, like
[1:11:34] we don't have commitments to leverage other funding, so absolutely,
[1:11:38] it's really important. I think that this housing accelerator fund
[1:11:44] not only creates space for that project, but also space
[1:11:48] for other projects that we may be embarking on in
[1:11:51] the near future. And that. We do have a number
[1:11:56] of, like, our inventory. The houses that we have, we
[1:11:59] have over 350. And the age of those houses. Many
[1:12:05] of them. Are. A lot older. They're not necessarily in
[1:12:12] the best condition. Some of them have unfinished basements, and
[1:12:17] what we're seeing is that. The housing stock that we
[1:12:20] have may not necessarily be suitable for the housing needs
[1:12:24] within our community. And so that will also create space
[1:12:27] for us to, let's say, for example, we have a
[1:12:30] single family dwelling to end up. Increasing or growing our
[1:12:35] portfolio. So do an infill where. You would maybe level
[1:12:40] that one of those properties. And then multiply it by.
[1:12:45] Four. So I think that. This really provides those incentives
[1:12:50] in that. And I just want to echo. Jason. 's
[1:12:55] sentiment in that and that there's no formula that is
[1:12:58] perfect. We'll take what we can get. And as is
[1:13:03] the practice of our Mati community, we'll make it work.
[1:13:07] Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Councilor Goff. Thank
[1:13:13] you, Chair, Davies. And thank you. For. Your whole team
[1:13:17] for being here. Nice to see you all again. And
[1:13:21] in real life this time instead of virtually. That's great.
[1:13:24] I'm wondering if you can give me some indication of
[1:13:27] kind of how many funders or programs. Are represented in
[1:13:33] the heart road phase one project. And it's okay if
[1:13:39] it's an estimate, but I'm curious to know. In terms
[1:13:42] of. Getting that project off the ground. Was that application
[1:13:47] to one or two programs or. Is there contribution from
[1:13:50] a number? I think we had received definitely contributions from
[1:13:55] three levels of government. And I can't recall necessarily. That
[1:14:03] we also have relationships with existing partners because. We're trying
[1:14:08] to build community and. We're trying to like, we'll have
[1:14:11] a community. Kitchen. We'll have a gym and those sort
[1:14:15] of things. So we're reaching out to other kind of
[1:14:18] service providers in the community to help. To, I guess.
[1:14:25] Empower our tenants through either programming or through. Sort of
[1:14:30] interconnecting those services. And that the other thing that I
[1:14:36] just want to say is that. We also will be
[1:14:40] bringing back what we call the wraparound services program, and
[1:14:43] that will be offered. At Heart Road and also to
[1:14:48] the rest of our tenants, because. We find that the
[1:14:54] lack of support also contributes to the sustainability of our
[1:14:59] clients, who are often faced with the impacts of intergenerational
[1:15:03] trauma, and I can speak to that quite confident. Comfortably
[1:15:08] and with knowledge because I have also been impacted by
[1:15:11] intra. Intragenerational trauma. I will say one thing that I'm
[1:15:15] really proud of Camponi's history. I actually was a tenant
[1:15:19] of Camponi. But for their culture of care attitude. I
[1:15:25] mean, if I had been anywhere else when I was
[1:15:27] a student, I'm pretty sure I would have been booted
[1:15:30] out the door. And I'm pretty happy for the supports
[1:15:35] that I got from the staff and that. Have a
[1:15:38] really good organization in that. And I eventually became a
[1:15:42] lawyer and that. And so don't hold that against me.
[1:15:46] But. It was. With that support and that safety net
[1:15:52] and people being there. So really, when I talk about
[1:15:55] housing, I talk about supportive housing. Thank you. Thanks. I
[1:16:00] think that's a really helpful perspective and appreciate your answer
[1:16:04] to my question. Next councilor block. Thank you, chair Davies.
[1:16:08] And thank you for your presentation this morning, Ms. Bishop.
[1:16:11] And Ms. Charte. I was inspired by you sharing your
[1:16:15] story, so thank you for that. I'm just wondering, you
[1:16:20] say that you don't really see any issues with what's
[1:16:22] being proposed today, despite its imperfections. Are you okay with
[1:16:28] a 20 year agreement in that case? Yeah. At this
[1:16:33] time. Really? We see that there's a real urgency to
[1:16:36] move things along, right? We can't be holding things up
[1:16:41] from my perspective, because. We have people who are in
[1:16:47] need of housing and that, and we'll have to end.
[1:16:50] Up making that work. Some of our agreements have been
[1:16:53] for longer terms, so we're used. To those types of.
[1:16:57] Arrangements and that sort of stuff. So from my perspective,
[1:17:03] The most important thing is making sure that we can
[1:17:05] fill that need. Like I said, we have. 300 families
[1:17:09] that are on our waiting list, and it grows every
[1:17:12] single day. It's really sad because some of them are.
[1:17:17] Kind of all clunked together. And other accommodations. So at
[1:17:22] this point in time, like I said, no formula is
[1:17:26] perfect. Maybe not all of the things that are being
[1:17:29] proposed are perfect, but definitely we support this because we
[1:17:34] see a need, and we will definitely be able to
[1:17:36] leverage this in relation to Hert. Road, but also in
[1:17:40] relation to kind of future. Developments and that sort of
[1:17:45] stuff. So. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. Don't
[1:17:50] see any other speakers for you. So thanks again for
[1:17:52] coming. And our next speaker we have is Karen Kobison.
[1:17:59] Morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. Before
[1:18:01] I introduce myself, I just want to take a minute
[1:18:04] to acknowledge. That our housing colleagues, relatives and friends in
[1:18:13] the room today. We've been working on this. Since April
[1:18:16] 5, 2023. I'm sure Admin has been doing it a
[1:18:19] little bit. Longer. But that was the day that we
[1:18:21] all came together in that room at station 20 west.
[1:18:23] And started to have these conversations. And really looking to
[1:18:27] the outcomes of where we are today. So I just
[1:18:29] want to take a moment to acknowledge and thanks our
[1:18:32] team. And again, my friends and colleagues in the housing
[1:18:34] industry, we've been here a lot recently, so today. My
[1:18:39] name is Karen Kobison. I sometimes come to you wearing
[1:18:42] different hats. Today I'm coming as a resident of Saskatoon,
[1:18:47] of Saskatchewan, and a citizen of Canada, which we all
[1:18:51] are. And I think that everyone today here would agree
[1:18:55] that we are called to serve our communities and with
[1:18:58] that comes responsibility to be good stewards of these public
[1:19:02] resources, these fundings. Are people. On our assets. And so
[1:19:10] I do understand the permitted uses of half, and I
[1:19:13] do understand what we're doing here today, and I'm 100%
[1:19:16] fully supportive. As my sister Angela mentioned. This will go
[1:19:21] a long way to moving the needle on housing in
[1:19:24] our community. One of the things that concerns me, though,
[1:19:27] and it was actually brought up by the doctor, this
[1:19:30] morning is that I live in that neighborhood. Those people
[1:19:35] are my neighbors. We all know that we will do
[1:19:38] whatever we can to help. What I see and what
[1:19:41] is concerning to me. Are the vacant, boarded up apartment
[1:19:46] buildings. The houses that are underutilized, uninhabitable. And I would
[1:19:53] urge you to consider. I don't know what the right
[1:19:56] timeline should be on these affordable housing agreements. Yes, we
[1:19:59] need to get new housing built. But what does that
[1:20:02] look like in the future? How do we move people?
[1:20:06] To free up space for more people, so. We don't
[1:20:09] have 300 families on a waiting list ever again. They
[1:20:13] need to move forward and. They need to continue to
[1:20:16] grow. So I would ask you to consider, and I'm
[1:20:20] going to take you a little bit. Into the future.
[1:20:23] When we build all the new units that we need,
[1:20:25] and I don't think we're actually going to scratch the
[1:20:27] surface with this today. We are going to make a
[1:20:29] good start. But the Saskatoon and region home builders Association.
[1:20:35] Has estimated in its latest housing market outlook report that
[1:20:38] Saskatoon alone is going to need about 24,000. Housing units
[1:20:43] between now and 2030 to meet population growth. So when
[1:20:47] we think of it as the affordable housing piece supporting.
[1:20:51] Let's say the lowest income earning quartile. Of that, we'll
[1:20:55] need about 8000 units. And I don't think this can
[1:20:58] just be accomplished by building new all the time. I
[1:21:01] think we have to understand the unintended consequences of building
[1:21:05] new all the time. People will need to be relocated.
[1:21:09] They potentially will need to be in new. Environments. Perhaps
[1:21:14] not where they're familiar, because it's what they can afford.
[1:21:18] So I would like us to take a look at
[1:21:20] the neighborhoods where we have assets. Where we have. In
[1:21:26] our possession, whether it's land. I think I also understand
[1:21:31] the city doesn't. Really own buildings in those neighborhoods. But
[1:21:34] can we look at a future where we can fund
[1:21:37] or help leverage. Like Angela said, Camponi or matination or
[1:21:42] somebody like, what are those partnerships and collaborative opportunities. Looking
[1:21:46] like into the future. So today. I think that these
[1:21:55] assets and the future. What does this look like beyond
[1:21:58] half. In a 20 year agreement. I don't think the
[1:22:03] same people. I don't think the same people are going
[1:22:05] to be living in those units 20 years later, but
[1:22:07] maybe they are. Depending on the population target. Right? So
[1:22:11] I just want to introduce today something for us all
[1:22:14] to think about. And it is called. Asset based community
[1:22:19] development. And it's just a philosophy. That links our micro
[1:22:25] assets to our macro environment. So this comes to us.
[1:22:30] Through the foundational elements of clear and common purpose, which
[1:22:35] we already have, that we're all here today. Community engagement
[1:22:38] coproduction. Relationships and trust and then results in accountability. So
[1:22:44] it highlights capacity, skills, knowledge, connections and potential of what
[1:22:49] we already have in the community today. So I applaud
[1:22:53] the housing accelerator fund. Thank you again so much to
[1:22:55] the administration team. For including me personally where I work
[1:22:59] and the other places where I am active in the
[1:23:03] consultations. And I really am supportive of this. And thank
[1:23:08] you, committee and council, for your work. Great. Thank you
[1:23:11] very much. You do have a question from councilor block.
[1:23:16] There we go. Thanks, chair Davies. And thanks for that
[1:23:20] information. Ms. Cobison. I'm just wanting to know if you
[1:23:23] could give us an example of what you mean by
[1:23:24] that asset. Based community development, macro, micro. Yeah. So I
[1:23:32] had to say a lot of words there in a
[1:23:33] short period of time. Thank you for your questions, Mr.
[1:23:35] Chair. So it would be an example of that would
[1:23:39] be. To, for example, work with Camponi. They have housing
[1:23:43] like they have existing stock that might need. To be
[1:23:47] bulldozed. New infill, four units on a site, for example.
[1:23:52] So that's like a micro asset, right? That house that
[1:23:55] Angela is referring to? But how? They still need funding
[1:23:59] for that type of work, too. And it's in the
[1:24:03] right community. The people already live there. So we just
[1:24:05] look at it as that tiny little asset in that
[1:24:07] community, whether it's an apartment building, a single family home,
[1:24:10] a vacant lot. And how can we start from within
[1:24:14] and build our way out and to me, the micro
[1:24:17] asset that has the macro effect is also a bottom
[1:24:20] up approach rather than top down and. I think sometimes.
[1:24:24] That's really a stronger way to go about things. And
[1:24:28] in here below, how would the city play a role
[1:24:30] in that? No girl. You know what? Again? Am I
[1:24:37] going to rock the boat if I say things like
[1:24:38] zoning approval for four units as of right. Perhaps looking
[1:24:43] at how can we leverage city own land doesn't necessarily
[1:24:46] maybe mean the piece that we talk about. On the
[1:24:53] Lakeview Community center parking lot. Maybe it is. Some of
[1:24:56] the vacant lots that are available in meadow Green or
[1:25:00] Mount Royal or Pleasant Hill or wherever they meet. I
[1:25:05] think that there's really a lot of ways that we
[1:25:06] can communicate, that we can. Collaborate, and I just think
[1:25:09] we can almost come up with new ideas. So how
[1:25:12] the city plays. A role in that is. Whatever council
[1:25:15] thinks would be a great idea. Thank you very much.
[1:25:18] Thank you. Not seeing other speakers or any questions, so
[1:25:22] thank you. We do have other speakers. Kristen thomps. Welcome.
[1:25:31] Well, hello. Hopefully. Last but not least. My name is
[1:25:35] Kristen Toms. I'm the executive. Director with Quint Development Corporation.
[1:25:41] We're a nonprofit housing provider in Saskatoon, and so I
[1:25:45] have read through the housing accelerator. Fund incentive report. And
[1:25:49] first off, I'd like to say that it is great
[1:25:51] to see incentives like capital subsidies and tax abatements for
[1:25:54] agencies like ourselves when we're considering housing developments. Those are
[1:25:58] the types of incentives that we're looking towards. I also
[1:26:01] want to say that I really appreciate the focus on
[1:26:03] affordable housing. I think it really reflects the commitment of
[1:26:06] the city in terms of social equity and community well
[1:26:10] being. So I'm not really up here. To labor the
[1:26:14] conversation about the need for affordable housing. But just in
[1:26:16] terms of what affordable housing is to us. And for
[1:26:19] us, it's more deeply affordable housing for those in most
[1:26:22] need. And I think it does align with the report.
[1:26:25] You do identify the low income households. Those folks below
[1:26:28] the shim rates. And when we consider households that rely
[1:26:31] on. Say, provincial income support affordability really does need to
[1:26:36] align with. The income support, shelter loans or things like
[1:26:40] the Saskatchewan housing benefits. So when we keep that in
[1:26:43] mind. I think affordability in terms of incentives, they need
[1:26:46] to be a little bit of aggressive. So we're looking
[1:26:48] at the city's proposed incentives. For sure. The incentive itself
[1:26:54] doesn't necessarily have legs to stand on alone, but I
[1:26:56] agree. With the speakers that came before me definitely can
[1:27:00] be stacked. So there is obviously opportunity on a provincial
[1:27:04] level, not as strong as there is on a federal
[1:27:06] level. So I think. For agencies like Quint, we would
[1:27:11] have to look at stacking these incentives. And really looking,
[1:27:16] again, deeply affordable. So, thinking about rental rates. The incentives
[1:27:22] have to cover a good, significant portion. Of those upfront
[1:27:27] costs to keep it sustainable long term. So sustainable as
[1:27:30] a housing provider, but. Affordable for the tenants that are
[1:27:34] moving into those units. So what I'm, I guess bringing
[1:27:37] to the table is I don't think it's. The city
[1:27:40] and the city alone that needs to do this. I
[1:27:42] think you're one stakeholder of many. And so I appreciate
[1:27:46] what the report. Provided. But what I would like to,
[1:27:52] for folks to consider, I think. Just had some other
[1:27:55] things to say, but I think the speakers ahead of
[1:27:57] me talked about it. So maybe the only thing that
[1:28:00] I would add to that is there might be some
[1:28:01] play in terms of tax abatements. I will be honest.
[1:28:06] I'm a little bit of an imposter here. Standing up
[1:28:08] here. I don't. Know a lot about the tax abatements
[1:28:10] within the city. I do understand that five years is
[1:28:13] a general practice, but when we're talking about those agreements.
[1:28:16] So, councilor block. You're identifying those 20 year partnership agreements.
[1:28:21] Is there play to look at tax abatements that extend
[1:28:23] to the length of those agreements? So if an agency
[1:28:26] like Quint, when I think of federal programming, there's a
[1:28:29] lot of investment in the loan stream versus the contribution
[1:28:32] stream. So, like, say, an agency like Quint. Stacks the
[1:28:36] incentives at the city level, maybe with the provincial level
[1:28:39] and federal level, and there is additional carrying. Costs. What
[1:28:42] can the city do to support housing providers like ourselves
[1:28:45] that can keep. Those operational costs lower. For those 20
[1:28:51] year agreements. And in terms of just to comment on
[1:28:56] raising of rents. So I think there needs to be
[1:28:59] a little bit of flexibility in that. Our experience, especially
[1:29:03] through our partnerships with the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation, there is
[1:29:07] a little bit of a request in terms of raising
[1:29:09] those rents. So some types of levers to do that
[1:29:13] if and when affordability is in question and rents need
[1:29:17] to be raised a little bit. So I think. I'll
[1:29:19] end it there. Thank you. Great. Do you have a
[1:29:22] couple of questions here, sir? Your worship? Yeah, actually, I
[1:29:26] think. I just wanted to. And I'm not asking you
[1:29:29] to debate others speakers, but we are. Hearing about a
[1:29:32] concern about lengthening agreements. To 20 years and how feasible
[1:29:37] or viable that would be. I think at the end,
[1:29:41] you kind of made reference to. Flexibility. And so could
[1:29:45] you just comment a little bit more on how your
[1:29:48] recommendation about how we go about? Wanting to have as
[1:29:53] long a time horizon as we can to make sure
[1:29:56] that that affordability stays, but. Also not completely. Tying the
[1:30:02] hands of providers. Yeah. I think in terms of flexibility
[1:30:06] in these agreements, I don't know if I can. Do.
[1:30:11] A deep dive in that. But there has to be
[1:30:14] processes in place that if there is a need to
[1:30:17] flex or change or amend agreements that. There's avenues to
[1:30:22] do that as a nonprofit provider. I think we would
[1:30:25] go into these agreements in good faith. Right. But also,
[1:30:29] like many other agreements, there's these opportunities to amend and
[1:30:32] just to make sure the infrastructure within the city is
[1:30:35] in place to do that. And it doesn't be like,
[1:30:37] okay, whose department it is, and what processors are in
[1:30:40] place. So just thinking of a more administratively after effect
[1:30:44] to have those. Continued conversations after that initial development has
[1:30:48] been established and people have been moved in, and I
[1:30:52] just think in general, like I said, the city is
[1:30:55] one stakeholder in this in terms of dealing. With housing
[1:30:58] and homelessness. So what levers does the city have outside
[1:31:02] of the housing accelerator? Fund to support the. Continue affordability
[1:31:07] of these units once the construction is built, because I
[1:31:09] agree with other speakers like there is a lot of
[1:31:11] investment in the capital cost into development, not so much
[1:31:15] in terms of the carrying costs afterwards. Okay, thank you
[1:31:19] very much. Councilor goff. Thanks. I was going to ask
[1:31:25] a similar question, but I think it's been answered and.
[1:31:27] I will ask our staff to help me understand. The
[1:31:32] tax abatement portion, but I'm also wondering. I'm looking ahead
[1:31:39] in the agenda. And Quint Development Corporation is being provided
[1:31:43] a $20,000 grant for the eviction prevention program. Are those
[1:31:47] the types of operating funding sources I know it's not
[1:31:51] operating in terms of paying your utilities, but are those
[1:31:54] the types? Of programs. Can you tell me about the
[1:31:59] types of programs that quint tries to tie to its
[1:32:01] housing? And where you seek support to make those things
[1:32:05] sustainable. Yeah, just, I think, in a nutshell. A lot
[1:32:09] of people provide eviction prevention programming within their affordable housing,
[1:32:14] and so for us, it has changed throughout the years.
[1:32:17] When it started, we're a community economic development organization. So
[1:32:20] really eviction prevention kind of looked at building folks'capacity and
[1:32:24] their connection to their community and creating ownership in a
[1:32:28] rental environment. But through the years. And through the complex
[1:32:31] issues that our communities are facing, it has moved a
[1:32:33] little bit more into more supportive system, navigation and advocacy
[1:32:38] and stabilization of our tenants to keep them housed. And
[1:32:43] that does come with pretty significant costs. So repair and
[1:32:46] maintenance costs aren't just for sweet turnovers when somebody leaves.
[1:32:49] Repair maintenance often includes keeping people. Housed. So some of
[1:32:54] the victim prevention work we do focuses in those areas.
[1:32:58] Okay, thanks so much. I think that's it for questions.
[1:33:03] Okay, thank you. So it's eleven three right now. I
[1:33:06] know we're going to have some questions. For our administration.
[1:33:09] If we can just hold off on those. And we're
[1:33:10] going to take a quick ten minute break. We'll come
[1:33:12] back at 1113. Thank you.
[1:43:48] And we were done. Our speakers list on this item,
[1:43:50] so I am going to open it up. For administration
[1:43:52] and for questions. So Councilor Goff. Go ahead. Thank you.
[1:43:57] Chair. Davies. Sorry, I'm just pulling up my notes here.
[1:44:04] We got an echo? Do we have the echo back?
[1:44:08] Testing testing testing. Chair, Davies. Maybe try turning your mic
[1:44:13] off. Mic off? Is that any better? Any better? No.
[1:44:19] Did anyone in this room sign into teams and leave
[1:44:22] their mic on? I don't see anybody lighting up on
[1:44:24] the board. I think you're good now. Is it better?
[1:44:33] Just talk long enough when the issue fixes itself. Okay.
[1:44:40] Now I've lost my notes again. Okay. Thank you for
[1:44:48] the report and thank you to all of the speakers.
[1:44:53] And folks who've come to ask questions about this. One
[1:44:56] question that was raised earlier is around the property tax
[1:44:59] abatement portion of the incentives. And we've used this tool
[1:45:02] before. I'm wondering if you can remind me kind of.
[1:45:08] What the format of that is. And whether we can
[1:45:11] consider. Longer term property tax abatements. Great. Thank you. So
[1:45:18] we have used the property tax maven for a long,
[1:45:21] long time for a variety of different things. Under the
[1:45:24] city's act, there is a five year allowance for that
[1:45:26] property tax abatement. So with a standard term set by
[1:45:34] that act, we are fairly limited in what we can
[1:45:37] do. We have been having conversations internally about what are
[1:45:42] some of the options, what could we look at? But
[1:45:46] we are bound by the act. In terms of tax
[1:45:49] payments. Okay. And have we flagged that as a barrier
[1:45:54] to our provincial counterparts. We have definitely had discussions with
[1:45:59] the provincial counterparts that we have discussions with all the
[1:46:01] time. We've also talked about it with CMHC. We haven't
[1:46:06] yet. I don't believe advocated to the province formally to
[1:46:10] request that. Change. I would also note we have been
[1:46:14] seeing across the country that some provinces are going to
[1:46:17] a ten year abatement. And that does help these projects
[1:46:21] in terms of it then becoming an eligible funding source
[1:46:24] or a method of contribution for CMHC to support. So
[1:46:29] it does make a difference. But at this time we
[1:46:33] are limited to the five years. So, to clarify, When
[1:46:37] we commit to a five year property tax abatement at
[1:46:39] the outset of a project CMHC is considering that almost
[1:46:43] a capital contribution to the project. In terms of. The
[1:46:48] supports from various funders when they're looking at kind of
[1:46:51] matching supports or other things. I don't know if it's
[1:46:54] a capital, if they consider it a capital or. Just
[1:46:56] considered an inkind contribution, right? In kind. Okay, yeah, that
[1:47:00] makes sense, but it's. Being considered when people are looking
[1:47:02] at the capital picture, okay? And do we have the
[1:47:06] opportunity to. Consider. A subsequent five year tax abatement after
[1:47:11] a first one is complete or five years is kind
[1:47:13] of the total maximum. Sorry, Mr. Croy. Yeah. Thank you.
[1:47:17] Mr. Chair, if I may jump. In. Just. I know.
[1:47:21] Ms Manus Thursky with the city solicitor's office. Just as
[1:47:24] a bit of. Point of clarification on some because there
[1:47:27] are tax abatements and there are tax exemptions. Some are
[1:47:30] under the act, some are under the policy. Sometimes. They
[1:47:34] get connected together, but Ms. Menosterski can provide just a
[1:47:39] little bit of clarity. And the opportunity to renew. Any
[1:47:43] tax abatements or exemptions. So just Jody master ski with
[1:47:47] the city solicitors office. So further to what Ms. Lacroix?
[1:47:49] Said. The act does prohibit exemptions. Or limit exemptions to
[1:47:56] five years. Rather than abatements. Abatements. There's a little bit
[1:48:00] more wiggle room. Our policy does state that it's a
[1:48:02] five year term, so it is possible for us. To
[1:48:05] take a look at that and see if it's something
[1:48:07] that we may be able to. Consider. Any other questions?
[1:48:16] Sorry. Just hit your mic there. We had a mic
[1:48:21] on problem earlier. Now we can have a mic off
[1:48:22] problem. And so. We've heard a few comments kind of
[1:48:29] about this program being urgent. We need to get projects
[1:48:33] built started this year. And initiated. Are those some of
[1:48:40] those sorts of details that administration can continue? To explore
[1:48:46] and work on in terms of kind of various rounds
[1:48:50] of putting this out there and also. Our relationship with
[1:48:54] service providers that we are kind of entering into contracts
[1:48:56] with through this funding in our regular affordable housing funding.
[1:49:01] Absolutely. I mean, the area of housing, as we know,
[1:49:04] is a big concern, and we have lots going on
[1:49:07] in it. There are lots of conversations, there are lots
[1:49:10] of things being looked at and so we can continue
[1:49:12] to explore that. And explore what new opportunities come about
[1:49:16] as well. Great. And then in your slide presentation, There
[1:49:21] was a slide that was labeled anticipated process, I think.
[1:49:25] And anticipated jumped out to me for sure, but I'm
[1:49:27] just wanting to confirm. With the approvals in the report
[1:49:32] here, does your team maintain the flexibility to put out
[1:49:35] calls for proposals in a different order, along slightly different
[1:49:39] timelines, depending on what you're seeing. In terms of uptake
[1:49:43] in the various portions of the market that you're looking
[1:49:46] to trigger. With the process that we've laid out here,
[1:49:48] and thank you for putting it back up. On the
[1:49:51] screen. Is where we're building in kind of that flexibility.
[1:49:55] So we see going out with that. First call. We
[1:49:57] need to put that out to the market for a
[1:49:59] little while, give them time. To prepare their documents. So
[1:50:03] we anticipate being able to do that in June, to
[1:50:05] go out, and then they will have some time to
[1:50:07] respond. Depending on what we receive back in that call,
[1:50:11] we would then be able to issue another call. So
[1:50:14] we will do it based on the number of proposals
[1:50:17] we see the number of units. How much of the
[1:50:19] money is that taking up? Are we getting any proposals?
[1:50:23] If we get zero proposals? Well, there's a problem and
[1:50:25] we need to reevaluate. I don't anticipate that in 2025.
[1:50:31] Based on the results of 2024. We go out with
[1:50:34] another call. And again, this is because we get an
[1:50:37] additional round of our money. To allocate to this program
[1:50:40] in 2025. So we would again be looking at what
[1:50:44] results did we get? Do we need to refine anything
[1:50:47] in our call or in our requirements? In our criteria.
[1:50:51] To bring out another call. So we do need to
[1:50:54] build in that time. For the proponents to develop their
[1:50:58] proposals. And also, we are looking to align this with
[1:51:02] other calls, especially from Saskalvin Corp. On their funding, which
[1:51:06] would go in the early part of the new year.
[1:51:10] And. Are we totally blind to kind of what readiness
[1:51:14] there might be? In particular the affordable sector for bringing
[1:51:18] forward projects, or do we have a sense of. Whether
[1:51:21] folks have shovel ready projects, for example, or where folks
[1:51:25] might be at in the development of future projects. I
[1:51:27] think we have a fairly good sense because we have
[1:51:30] been working on the development of our housing strategy. Where
[1:51:33] we have good connections with the nonprofit providers in the
[1:51:37] community, so we have a good sense of quite a
[1:51:40] number of projects that are out there where this funding
[1:51:43] would play a role in. Them being able to proceed.
[1:51:46] Okay. And there was further some conversation about the 20
[1:51:50] year incentives. And I have very vocally asked you about
[1:51:55] whether we would look or sorry. Not the 20 year
[1:51:57] incentives, the 20 year requirements for affordability. Over the many
[1:52:00] months we've been discussing future housing policy and half to
[1:52:05] push towards longer term commitments. For the stability. In the
[1:52:11] housing market and the affordable end of that. In terms
[1:52:15] of what you guys are seeing and the conversations you're
[1:52:17] having with the sector. Do you believe there's additional flexibility
[1:52:21] required in either the metric or the timeline? And is
[1:52:24] that something that's already built into this, or is it
[1:52:27] kind of a hard and fast? Thing that we're setting
[1:52:29] up here. We would put this into our criteria. So
[1:52:34] seeing the timeline of 20 years being one of our
[1:52:37] elements that we evaluate on. Based on a number of
[1:52:41] the providers that. Are currently in place in Saskatoon. They're
[1:52:46] very familiar with a 20 year timeline. It is 20
[1:52:49] years is also used by SHC on a sliding scale
[1:52:52] for their rental development. Program, and many CMHC programs also
[1:52:56] require a 20 year term, so it is very familiar.
[1:53:01] If we were to see that. We did our call
[1:53:03] for proposals and we received zero applicants willing. To do
[1:53:07] 20 years, we would reevaluate, okay? We are also building
[1:53:12] in. Similar to what SHC does is you build in
[1:53:15] an annual ability to raise the rates, still maintain them
[1:53:19] within an affordable realm. But you do have the ability
[1:53:22] to change rates. Right? And the shims shift as well.
[1:53:27] The shim shift? Based on what? The. Province determines. So
[1:53:31] some years they change, some years they don't. Okay. And
[1:53:35] in terms of our kind. Of relationship. With providers who
[1:53:39] we'd be entering into a 20 year agreement with, for
[1:53:42] example. What's our ability to kind of be in ongoing
[1:53:46] collaboration with them? We're always evolving the tools that we
[1:53:51] have available, as you said, and we have a housing
[1:53:53] plan coming forward. What is our commitment in terms of
[1:53:56] kind of working with those providers to continue making what
[1:53:59] we've committed to together possible. I think. What we would
[1:54:05] be able to do is to have those ongoing dialogues.
[1:54:09] Part of this will be an ongoing kind of monitoring
[1:54:13] element, so we will maintain those relationships with the providers
[1:54:16] throughout the term. Of that agreement to be able to
[1:54:19] work with them. I think that we are going to
[1:54:22] see a lot of change in this sector, both in
[1:54:24] what the city's role might be, what other levels of
[1:54:27] government are doing as well, and what the providers need.
[1:54:31] So we will have to maintain those relationships. And I
[1:54:34] think that's where. We're absolutely heading. Thank you. And then.
[1:54:41] We heard a little bit about concern related to focusing
[1:54:44] entirely on new builds. I know our commitments. Under the
[1:54:47] half program require us to have those new starts. Is
[1:54:50] your team looking at any potential programs, either through half
[1:54:53] or through. The housing plan. Related to renovations or other
[1:55:00] less capital intensive forms of development. It's definitely an area
[1:55:05] that has come up in the conversations, especially through the
[1:55:08] housing strategy. Development. So it is something that is on
[1:55:11] our radar. It is not one of the initiatives we
[1:55:13] put forward under half. We did identify that that's an
[1:55:18] area of need, and I think the housing sector, especially
[1:55:21] for the affordable housing sector has raised that multiple times
[1:55:25] that that is an area of need for a dedicated
[1:55:27] funding program. So it's something that we don't have a
[1:55:31] current plan for how to address. That, but it will
[1:55:34] be part of those ongoing conversations. Okay. And then finally,
[1:55:38] with respect to. The initiatives under the housing accelerator fund.
[1:55:43] There isn't an outline here about kind of how many
[1:55:46] dollars are going to. Be going into achieving those other
[1:55:51] initiatives. Can you just give us a little bit of
[1:55:53] an update? On the overall. Kind of use of funding
[1:55:57] landscape for half. Absolutely. So our total funding bucket is
[1:56:01] 41.35. Million. We've said 35 million towards incentives. 15 million
[1:56:09] of that we've specifically identified. Right. Now for city owned
[1:56:13] land to be able to do the development prep work
[1:56:16] on those sites. So at the time. When we put
[1:56:21] that together, we were still working on just some assumptions
[1:56:23] around sites, and we didn't. Know how much money might
[1:56:25] be needed to make them development ready. If there was
[1:56:28] a site that was contaminated, for example, What steps do
[1:56:32] we have to take and how much does that cost?
[1:56:34] So we built in. A fairly big bucket there. If
[1:56:38] funding is not needed to support that work, then we
[1:56:41] would move it to the general incentives. So 35 million
[1:56:45] total for incentives, including that 15 million, the remaining dollars.
[1:56:49] Are being put towards all of our other initiatives. The
[1:56:53] main dollars spent there are for the staff to do
[1:56:57] the work, to make all the changes. We're making. The
[1:57:02] advertising, all of those kinds of things. Whatever money we
[1:57:05] don't spend, we will reallocate to another initiative. But we
[1:57:08] need to complete the initiatives. Some of them require some
[1:57:12] dollars. To do that. Okay, so, in short. The line
[1:57:16] items that have been assigned to some of the other
[1:57:18] initiatives. Are our best estimates. We're our best estimates at
[1:57:22] the time of application. And if there's anything left? We
[1:57:26] will reallocate it to incentives. We have to spend all
[1:57:28] of the money that we receive under this program in
[1:57:31] the timeline of the program. So we will put that
[1:57:35] if there is more money coming, and we need to
[1:57:37] put it towards the development incentives, then we will do
[1:57:40] that. If there is a site that requires additional dollars
[1:57:43] to get it up to development ready state, then we
[1:57:46] will do that. We will be reporting on an ongoing
[1:57:50] manner to council on status. Okay, thank you. Next we
[1:57:55] have your. One question I wanted to follow up on
[1:58:00] was regarding the city owned land incentive. Because I'm still
[1:58:06] wanting to make sure I understand, but. There's 50,000 as
[1:58:11] opposed to 27,000 in the case of city own. Land.
[1:58:15] Some of the speakers raised the question of whether this
[1:58:18] is just. A way of essentially paying ourselves back for
[1:58:23] the land. I know we've already debated how. To deal
[1:58:26] with city owned land. Can you speak a little bit
[1:58:28] more to. How the grant is structured. And to what
[1:58:33] extent we are expecting to recoup market based costs on
[1:58:38] those or when we make those decisions? Because I know
[1:58:41] there's reports coming back on that. Yeah, so, right. Now,
[1:58:44] what our intention with the incentive is, is to recognize
[1:58:48] that we are going to have additional requirements. For developments
[1:58:53] on the city owned land site, so. We are going
[1:58:56] to specify we are looking for at least x number
[1:59:00] of units, for example, or we're looking for x number
[1:59:04] of large family units, those kinds of things. So we
[1:59:06] are. Going to have higher requirements that we're putting on
[1:59:10] those sites right now because. We don't have a final
[1:59:14] decision from council on how we're going to proceed. With
[1:59:17] the city owned parcels. I can't give an exact answer
[1:59:21] on how those dollars might be used. We would anticipate
[1:59:26] that if we're assigning a 50,000 per unit. Grant on
[1:59:31] that parcel. It goes towards eligible capital costs from the
[1:59:36] proponent. And land costs could be part of that. But
[1:59:41] if, for example, the decision is that we have a
[1:59:44] city owned parcel that's $0. They may still be using
[1:59:48] that 50,000 per door for capital costs on that project,
[1:59:52] so. It's not an intentional effort to bring money back
[1:59:56] to the city for the cost of city owned land.
[1:59:59] So the 50 is tied to. Higher requirements. Demands or
[2:00:03] requirements not to land costs. And. We'll have a further
[2:00:09] conversation about the land hospital. So if we were, for
[2:00:13] example. To offer the land at a dollar. Perhaps we
[2:00:17] don't need to offer $50,000. Per door. But perhaps we
[2:00:20] do because we're looking for something very complex. Right. Okay.
[2:00:23] I appreciate that clarification. It may be good in future
[2:00:28] reporting to make that a bit more explicit, because you
[2:00:31] could read it a different way. So, anyway, but thank
[2:00:34] you. Councilor jeffries. Thank you, chair Davies and I had
[2:00:42] a very similar question, and just as I wasn't, necessarily
[2:00:46] clear from the report around the city owned land. So
[2:00:49] to be clear, The idea here. Isn't about essentially having
[2:00:53] a higher incentive in order to maybe move the city
[2:00:57] sites more. Quickly. This is. About having. A trying to
[2:01:03] think of the right term here, but having more requirements
[2:01:06] or having. Perhaps things that are not being provided. As
[2:01:13] much in the market. That require additional financial support or
[2:01:17] incentive in order to get them across the finish line
[2:01:19] is that a fair statement? Yes, I would say so.
[2:01:23] Okay. Can you, Miss Anderson, speak to. I guess what
[2:01:30] I'm trying to understand is when I look at some
[2:01:32] of the incentives, here on the affordable piece, and I
[2:01:35] see those as I think the number was $27,000. Per
[2:01:38] unit, plus some other pieces there around, permitting. And then
[2:01:43] for the corridor growth areas and other areas, $10,000 per
[2:01:47] unit. Can you speak to the work that you and
[2:01:51] your team did? To actually identify. The number you felt
[2:01:57] that was actually going to perhaps get some projects across
[2:02:00] the finish line. As opposed to. Not. I guess I'm
[2:02:04] just trying to understand. The specific numbers that were landed
[2:02:10] upon here. Because, of course, the goal is, as we
[2:02:14] all know, across the board to actually get more units
[2:02:18] built, not simply to provide an incentive to something that
[2:02:21] already was likely going to be financially viable or get
[2:02:24] built in the first place. I'm wanting to better understand
[2:02:28] that process of figuring out what those numbers would be
[2:02:31] to get more things across the finish line. Sure. And
[2:02:35] it's a bit of a difficult question because we were
[2:02:37] looking at it in terms of how can we stretch
[2:02:40] the dollars as much as possible to get as many
[2:02:43] units possible? So that was part of what we factored
[2:02:46] in in terms of we need to hit a certain
[2:02:49] number of baseline units, which is where our three to.
[2:02:54] Five year trend was prior to the half money. And
[2:02:56] then we need to add additional units on top. So
[2:02:59] we wanted to try to stretch the dollars where we
[2:03:01] could. And then we were also looking at. Bringing more
[2:03:06] to the table than we have perhaps in the past.
[2:03:09] The 27,000 per door. Would basically be a matching contribution
[2:03:13] to what the province typically provides under their programs for
[2:03:18] a unit. So it was an element of can we
[2:03:22] both come to the table with that same amount to
[2:03:26] provide for these developments to move ahead. In terms of
[2:03:31] the 10,000 we were looking there because it is market
[2:03:35] rental. Where we're trying to drive them to particular locations.
[2:03:41] That they might already be viable, but we want them
[2:03:43] in specific areas, so providing a lesser dollar. Value to
[2:03:47] those and also because they're not hitting the affordable market.
[2:03:50] So that's some of the rationale that went there, but.
[2:03:55] We weren't looking at these dollars as. Fully making the
[2:03:59] business plans work. For these developments, many of them have
[2:04:04] to bring together multiple layers of government funding to make
[2:04:08] them work and $27,000 per door. As you heard, several
[2:04:12] of the speakers lets them go. To those other governments
[2:04:16] and say, look, we have something. We're going to be
[2:04:18] able to move forward. Can you come to the table
[2:04:21] as well? The $10,000 a door on the market rental
[2:04:24] is purely an incentive, and in the background. The many
[2:04:29] years where we've done incentives, our incentives have never been.
[2:04:33] Intended to make the business case work. So I think.
[2:04:39] There is definitely. Some piece there where this is purely
[2:04:42] an incentive to help drive towards our goal, not to
[2:04:46] make the business plan work 100% for development. Sure, that's
[2:04:50] fair. And I appreciate the context. Around that. In thinking,
[2:04:55] just back to the city owned land piece. What would
[2:05:00] have prevented. Administration from bringing forward. A higher level incentive,
[2:05:06] like $50,000 per unit, based on something that was broader
[2:05:12] and having more criteria in place. For it. But not
[2:05:17] limiting that to city owned land, because, of course, It
[2:05:21] is possible to achieve. All of those other things on
[2:05:25] things, on sites that aren't owned by the city. I'm
[2:05:27] just trying to understand better, perhaps, why the decision was
[2:05:31] made. To recommend. Sending folks in that direction as opposed
[2:05:37] to. Other sites that might be viable and could actually
[2:05:44] meet the same goals that we're looking. For. I think
[2:05:47] I understand your question, so I will try to answer
[2:05:49] it. So. We were looking at one the additional requirements
[2:05:54] we could put on because we own the land and
[2:05:57] would look at a contract through sale, potentially, depending on
[2:06:00] what council determines where we have additional triggers. That we
[2:06:03] can put there. So that little bit of extra control,
[2:06:07] we felt, was a way we can add additional requirements.
[2:06:11] The other piece is. Because we have such a tight
[2:06:14] timeline to actually produce new units, we have to have
[2:06:17] final building. Permits issued within the term of this program.
[2:06:20] So it's a very tight timeline, and we felt that
[2:06:23] on the city owned land, at least on some of
[2:06:25] the parcels, we will have the ability to get those
[2:06:28] out fairly quickly and to drive the applicants on that
[2:06:32] to meet the terms. Quickly. So just having those additional
[2:06:36] elements of control. We felt. Were relevant to asking them
[2:06:41] to do more and to giving them additional dollars to
[2:06:45] do that. Okay. So it would be fair to say,
[2:06:49] based on your comments, That. A significant. Portion of that
[2:06:57] decision around the recommendation that's in front of us was
[2:07:00] tied to the really tight timeline that we have under
[2:07:04] half. Not so much that there's something special about the
[2:07:07] city sites other than the ability to have that control.
[2:07:11] And then drive the development within the identified timelines. I
[2:07:15] think that's correct, yeah. Okay. I think that's all I
[2:07:18] have for questions. Thank you, chair. Councilor block. Thanks, chair
[2:07:24] Davies. Ms. Anderson. I think just a couple of questions
[2:07:28] left, and I wanted to just be a little more
[2:07:31] clear. On those additional triggers on city land, and apologies
[2:07:36] if I missed it. If you could just explain. That
[2:07:37] a bit more. So one of our abilities on a
[2:07:41] city owned property, whether we sell it fully or we
[2:07:44] lease. It or whatever we do. We have a contract.
[2:07:50] Through that sale or that lease. And so that gives
[2:07:52] us an additional negotiating room or negotiating power. To say
[2:07:57] we want X, Y and Z added into this and
[2:08:00] that you need to meet this. Whereas if someone is
[2:08:03] coming to us, bringing their own privately held site that
[2:08:06] they already own, we don't have that same. Power. So
[2:08:11] we're able to say. Here are our requirements under this
[2:08:15] funding contract, but it's not quite the same level of
[2:08:18] negotiating power to say we require other things as well.
[2:08:22] I think what I'm trying to get at is what
[2:08:24] problem are we trying to solve? That the folks that
[2:08:28] would otherwise come forward would already have in place understanding
[2:08:31] what the needs are. So part of it might be
[2:08:35] additional requirements beyond what the zoning requires. Where when we
[2:08:41] look at city owned land, we may ask them for
[2:08:44] more different site development or different architectural pieces, which we
[2:08:49] couldn't ask them for under the zoning, so it gives
[2:08:52] us just some additional tools. Are there any other tools?
[2:08:56] I guess I'm just curious what this looks like. Is
[2:08:58] it? Some of them might be more for families. Or
[2:09:00] is there an obligation for more green space around the
[2:09:04] facility. Those are some of the pieces that would be
[2:09:07] built out for city owned land. To understand, on this
[2:09:11] particular site, we see more opportunity for more green space
[2:09:15] or for more family. Units. So I think each site
[2:09:19] that we consider under city owned land would likely have.
[2:09:23] Be a different part of the puzzle. So one site
[2:09:27] may be families, one site may be large families. Ones
[2:09:32] that may not be family size. It might be one
[2:09:34] in two bedrooms. Okay, that makes sense. And so just
[2:09:38] one other area that I wanted to ask about. Through
[2:09:42] the chair. I think I understand that these products must
[2:09:47] be new based on half. What isn't clear to me,
[2:09:51] and maybe I just need a refresher, is if or
[2:09:54] how the city is considering what those incentives might look
[2:09:58] like in terms of. The city's levers to pull for
[2:10:03] conversions of existing. Whether that's in the downtown or elsewhere,
[2:10:07] but looking to accelerate housing through other tools outside of
[2:10:12] half. Just for clarity, when you're saying conversion of existing,
[2:10:17] like an existing building, that's. Not residential currently. I think
[2:10:22] that was one that I was curious about. And some
[2:10:25] of the speakers talk today about. Buildings that don't seem
[2:10:29] to be occupied by anybody. So there's a couple of
[2:10:33] different things, I guess. When I heard the speaker mentioning
[2:10:38] that I was thinking about one of our other initiatives
[2:10:41] under half that is around. Disincentive program for vacant and
[2:10:46] boarded up buildings. So that is a separate program that's
[2:10:50] being developed. With sastium fire to address kind of. The
[2:10:55] existing homes and buildings that are out there that maybe
[2:10:58] are vacant and boarded up, dilapidated and could be used
[2:11:02] for better uses. So that's something that Sastin Fire is
[2:11:04] currently investigating. And developing a program for that. We anticipate
[2:11:09] that will be in the next year. That we'll have
[2:11:12] something to consider there for council. In terms of the
[2:11:17] other pieces for conversion. We have through our vacant lot
[2:11:22] program. We have an allowance for conversion of a non
[2:11:26] residential building. To a residential building and incentives available for
[2:11:29] that. If someone was to take an office building or.
[2:11:37] Some non residential use and make it into residential. That
[2:11:39] would likely meet a requirement for a new unit under
[2:11:42] half. It's not a current residential unit. We cannot consider
[2:11:47] current residential units unless they have been completely removed. From
[2:11:52] being able to be inhabited, so they have to have
[2:11:55] orders on them. No one living in them. Unavailable in
[2:11:59] the market. That's very helpful. Do we have a plan,
[2:12:04] or are we making this widely known in the business
[2:12:08] community so they are aware. Around conversion of existing buildings
[2:12:14] under half. It's not something where we targeted a lot
[2:12:17] of units, because we do see it taking quite a
[2:12:19] lot of time. City of Calgary has a very aggressive
[2:12:22] program for conversion of office buildings to residential, and it
[2:12:25] takes quite a bit of time to do that, so
[2:12:27] it's not something that we have been heavily promoting under
[2:12:31] half. Okay, so what you're saying is it's available. Impossible.
[2:12:35] And that may be something. That we develop more depending
[2:12:37] on how this first space goes. That would be a
[2:12:40] good statement, yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Council, Lawrence.
[2:12:47] Thank you, Chair Davies. I have a couple of questions
[2:12:50] left. Most have been addressed, and these are kind of
[2:12:52] all over the place, so bear with me. The report
[2:12:55] refers to the priority areas, including. The quarter growth areas,
[2:13:04] and I'm just not clear whether or not. The definition
[2:13:08] of those priority areas. Includes our own internal quarter planning
[2:13:15] criteria, or the TDA. That's part of the broader half
[2:13:18] picture. I'm just curious to know, are we using our.
[2:13:23] Definition or the federal definition? We have been using our
[2:13:27] definition. Okay, that's good to know. We heard from some
[2:13:31] of the speakers. In the context of the long term
[2:13:35] affordability piece. Like things that keep operating costs low. And
[2:13:38] so I'm wondering if administration considered. Including some incentives targeted
[2:13:44] around sustainability. And the capital builds as part of this
[2:13:48] package. We will include sustainability in the criteria for evaluation.
[2:13:54] We typically don't see that as being. A key element
[2:13:59] that drives the business plan for some of these projects.
[2:14:03] For example, we know in our vacant law program it
[2:14:06] is part of our criteria, but it's. Not something that
[2:14:10] typically gets them over the goal line. We do see
[2:14:14] projects, considering some elements of that. In their project development.
[2:14:20] They, of course, have to meet the minimum standards, including
[2:14:23] energy efficiency and those types of things. There are other
[2:14:26] programs that also look at that, that we do try
[2:14:28] to connect them with other colleagues in the organization. We
[2:14:31] connect them with and other federal programs as well, okay?
[2:14:36] Can you just say a little bit more about. You
[2:14:38] mentioned that it would form part of the criteria, and
[2:14:40] can you expand on how that criteria would be sort
[2:14:44] of informed or created? So based on after this report
[2:14:51] goes to council and whatever the results are at that
[2:14:53] point in time we will be. Taking the criteria that
[2:14:56] we've outlined in this plan. So, for example, on the
[2:15:00] affordable it includes. The size, the type, the accessibility, the
[2:15:03] level of affordability. And those are some key aspects of
[2:15:06] it. We will also be looking at the proponent and
[2:15:10] their qualifications. How long have they been around? What are
[2:15:13] they willing to do for the term of affordability, for
[2:15:15] example? So sustainability, but would be another element in there
[2:15:19] that we look at and we ask them to explain
[2:15:21] in their proposal how they would address that and what
[2:15:24] they're considering, and then we'll have. A point scoring evaluation
[2:15:29] on each criteria, okay? I think the last question I
[2:15:33] have. Is. It's sort of only peripherally related to the
[2:15:38] incentives, and so if this is best, asked and answered
[2:15:41] at a different point. Please let me know. But after
[2:15:45] our last conversation about identifying city owned land, And sites
[2:15:50] that could be leveraged. I got some questions about some
[2:15:54] of our long term. Lease land holdings and whether or
[2:15:58] not that was captured in sort of the scan of
[2:16:02] possible lands. And so I'm wondering if administration has been
[2:16:06] considering those lands as part of city owned lands in
[2:16:11] this context. In our initial scan, it was not. But
[2:16:16] definitely coming up with that idea, I think was a
[2:16:19] good one. And it is something we will continue to
[2:16:21] look at. We haven't done a really deep dive on
[2:16:24] that yet. There simply hasn't been time to do that.
[2:16:28] But there are multiple long term leases held with multiple
[2:16:32] groups and actually administered by different groups in the organization
[2:16:35] as well, so it will require a fair amount of
[2:16:37] coordination to investigate that option. But. We have it noted.
[2:16:42] So is that something that the administration is sort of
[2:16:44] planning to do in the background, or is that just
[2:16:47] not possible with. The demands that are presently on your
[2:16:52] plate. It's definitely not in our work plan for the
[2:16:54] next couple of months. Yeah, for sure. But I think
[2:16:58] it is a real opportunity for us to look at.
[2:17:00] So it will be on the list. Definitely. I would
[2:17:04] say we'll start something on that this year. Okay, but
[2:17:09] again, With long term leases would have agreement implications and
[2:17:13] all those types of things. Yeah. Okay, I think I'd
[2:17:16] be very interested to hear more about how you plan
[2:17:18] to sort of investigate that. But we can take that
[2:17:20] offline. Okay. Thank you. I think that's it for questions.
[2:17:27] So you're off the hot seat. We'll open up for
[2:17:30] comments. Any comments. And we do have one recommendation, your
[2:17:35] worship. Well, I'll move the recommendation. I know not everybody
[2:17:40] who spoke is still with us, but. I do want
[2:17:43] to thank everybody for coming and engaging on this. And
[2:17:46] I remember the meeting at station 20 west, too. That
[2:17:49] I think Karen, you mentioned, and I really believe it's
[2:17:53] paid. Off. There has not been a lot of time
[2:17:55] to come up. With. A strategy around this, and there's
[2:18:00] lots of options and lots of ways that men could
[2:18:03] have developed this plan, I think. It's commendable that. We've
[2:18:09] got. The support. While maybe not perfect, And recognizing there
[2:18:13] isn't a perfect formula, that we're hearing that this has
[2:18:17] the potential to really make a difference. In our ability
[2:18:20] to get that badly needed housing out there. And the
[2:18:24] strategy to focus on housing, that is. On the more
[2:18:29] affordable side. I believe is a really key way of
[2:18:34] addressing the whole continuum. And also helping us to address
[2:18:41] what's an urging crisis in our community. That's ongoing around
[2:18:45] homelessness and addictions and all of these issues. And the
[2:18:49] level of engagement we're seeing. From providers and partners in
[2:18:54] the sector is very promising to help us keep moving
[2:18:57] this forward and I think what we heard from you,
[2:19:00] Ms. Anderson, is the flexibility that is implied in the
[2:19:03] board. Going to be able to go out, put this
[2:19:06] package out there, hear feedback, see what gets taken. Up.
[2:19:12] And also make adjustments. So. I just really want to
[2:19:15] thank the team. Within the city and also the partners
[2:19:20] and providers. And housing industry representatives. Who've really informed this.
[2:19:27] We need to get more housing built badly. And we
[2:19:31] need to get as many of the options out there
[2:19:33] as possible as quickly as we can. And if this
[2:19:36] can be that catalyst to accelerate it, as the title
[2:19:39] says. Then that'll be a great thing for the whole
[2:19:43] community. So I really want to thank everyone for all
[2:19:46] the work on this great councilor goff. Thanks for Davies.
[2:19:50] I think Mayor Clark covered it well. I also think
[2:19:53] it's important to reiterate. One point that's been discussed here
[2:19:57] today and another that. I'll share. One is that we
[2:20:02] need all orders of government contributing to projects. And some
[2:20:06] of the contributors. Are unexpected or not what we necessarily
[2:20:11] think of around housing. For instance, the federation of canadian
[2:20:15] municipalities administer some funds that can be directed towards housing
[2:20:19] around sustainability and that sort of thing. But what we're
[2:20:22] looking at here is also federal dollars being administered by
[2:20:25] the city, and so. We need to remain focused on
[2:20:30] what it looks like for the city to truly have
[2:20:32] skin in. This game. And so far we are talking
[2:20:34] about that in the form of city owned parcels and
[2:20:37] making those available. And, of course, the tremendous work of
[2:20:40] our staff in putting these incentives together and administering them.
[2:20:44] And that sort of thing. We made some good investments.
[2:20:48] In the last budget around the capacity of our team
[2:20:50] to do this work, to oversee these agreements. Over the
[2:20:53] long term, that sort of thing. We also need to
[2:20:56] continue talking about what our investment in the operation of
[2:21:00] these programs. Looks like over the longer term we have
[2:21:02] housing strategy coming. And we're going to need to continue
[2:21:06] to be a partner on this stuff, so I think?
[2:21:10] We really need to recognize that. Yes. This is an
[2:21:14] important contribution from this city. But there are other roles
[2:21:17] we need to continue playing. And continue exploring all of
[2:21:19] the tools that have been discussed today, including property tax
[2:21:22] incentives and abatements and that sort of thing. So eager
[2:21:26] to see this move forward. Grateful to everybody who's put
[2:21:30] in the work. To figure out how to get this
[2:21:33] moving quickly and in a way that. Is going to
[2:21:37] be used and be usable. And also understanding that those
[2:21:43] same folks. Have hard work ahead to bring forward the
[2:21:47] rest of the work that the city needs to do.
[2:21:50] On this front. Thanks. Great. So that item has been
[2:21:53] moved by his worship. So I'll call the question any
[2:21:56] opposed. And that carries. And looks like we do have
[2:22:02] our speaker back for 7.2.4. And so before we get
[2:22:06] to the speaker, Ms. Lacroix, Planning, Development act changes. Yeah,
[2:22:11] thank you, Mr. Chair. So this report includes several topics
[2:22:14] and some extensive background to provide expanded context on a
[2:22:18] situation the city and the community are faced with addressing
[2:22:22] as it relates to much needed schools. Within Saskatoon the
[2:22:27] desire to preserve as much municipal reserve land as possible
[2:22:31] for actual green space for the community and school benefits
[2:22:35] and balancing all of this with overall housing affordability as
[2:22:39] we've just heard in this previous presentation. We acknowledge all
[2:22:43] of these pillars are of equal importance. To all of
[2:22:46] us. And this report is about finding a way to
[2:22:49] balance this, given the changes, the legislation. Has just recently
[2:22:54] occurred and now requiring municipalities to provide sufficient land for
[2:22:59] schools. Given the complexity of this, I would like to
[2:23:03] just provide just a bit more of an extensive introduction.
[2:23:07] The report is about addressing the urgent situation for lands
[2:23:11] required for the joint use high school and leisure. Center
[2:23:14] in the Homewood Urban center just east of Brighton. It's
[2:23:18] about putting a plan in place to be prepared for
[2:23:21] all future high school sites. And it's about the need
[2:23:25] to provide some additional lands for the joint High School
[2:23:28] leisure center site to accommodate the new east leisure Center.
[2:23:33] The report recommends. The development of a funding model. To
[2:23:37] meet the requirement for the city to provide adequate land
[2:23:40] for new joint high schools, starting with the homewood sector
[2:23:44] and then being prepared for all future high schools. Historically,
[2:23:48] the city has not provided land for elementary nor high
[2:23:53] school sites. The planning and Development act was amended in.
[2:23:57] 2018, requiring municipalities to provide sufficient land for schools. At
[2:24:03] the time the act was changed, there were limited indications
[2:24:07] of how this amendment would be interpreted. And implemented in
[2:24:11] the future. And a general notion. This would be focused
[2:24:14] on lands for elementary schools. The province and school divisions
[2:24:18] have now confirmed future high school sites will be part
[2:24:22] of the legislative changes. Land is required for high school
[2:24:27] sites, and future high school student enrollment is being planned
[2:24:31] for 3600 students. Based on this, it is anticipated high
[2:24:36] school. Schools will require new high schools will be required
[2:24:41] for approximately every four to five new neighborhoods of growth
[2:24:45] based on this. We know a second high school site.
[2:24:48] I see. We have an emergency alert. I'll just pause
[2:24:51] for a moment. Thank you. It's a test. Okay, so
[2:24:56] just to purchase. Sorry. So it will be based on
[2:25:00] every. Four to five new neighborhoods. This means there'll need
[2:25:03] to be a second high school site. Eventually required for
[2:25:06] the Homewood sector, along with an additional future site in
[2:25:11] the Blairmore sector. To support the purchase of these lands
[2:25:14] for. High schools while maintaining the majority of municipal reserve
[2:25:18] land for active and passive recreation. Administration is recommending the
[2:25:24] creation of a new high school. Levy all things considered,
[2:25:28] the future joint high schools are anticipated to require 36
[2:25:32] to 40 acres for two schools. In the associated sports
[2:25:37] fields. Ten acres of this would be sports fields and
[2:25:41] Mr. Would be allocated to support the school's programming and
[2:25:45] community use. The remaining 28 or so acres of required
[2:25:49] lands would need to be purchased. For this purchase, the
[2:25:53] new high school land levy is being proposed at $175.80
[2:25:59] per front meter beginning January 1, 2025. Related to the
[2:26:04] new upcoming joint high schools in East Leisure center. The
[2:26:08] city has committed, providing 23 acres of municipal reserve land.
[2:26:14] The province has identified the need for nine additional acres
[2:26:18] of land given the student population. And a requirement. The
[2:26:22] 32 acres are to support school. And associated sports fields.
[2:26:27] Given the late changes to. The additional land required. Administration
[2:26:33] has been negotiating with the province to develop a plan
[2:26:36] to fund the acquisition of the nine additional acres, the
[2:26:40] province in the letter shown in appendix two of this
[2:26:43] report has agreed to equally share the cost of purchasing
[2:26:47] nine acres of additional land at a cost of just
[2:26:50] over. 3.7 million. The city shares proposed to be funded
[2:26:55] from the new high school land levy proposed in this
[2:26:59] report. The nine acres of land does need to be
[2:27:02] purchased in 2024 and then would need to be financed
[2:27:06] over the next five to ten years, depending on the
[2:27:09] pace of growth and the levy collection to facilitate. This,
[2:27:13] the administration is recommending the new high school land levy
[2:27:17] be approved to be in a short term deficit position.
[2:27:21] With the province indicating the full 32 acres are required
[2:27:25] for the two new high schools and supporting sports fields
[2:27:29] and that the city will need to provide additional lands
[2:27:32] to accommodate the planned leisure center. And supporting parking, which
[2:27:37] is an estimated requirement of four acres. In order to
[2:27:42] help fund the purchase of these four acres. We know
[2:27:44] that 22 acres of the parcel of land will not
[2:27:48] be developed into park space. It will be buildings and.
[2:27:52] It will be parking lots as part of the school
[2:27:55] development. This whole area would normally be funded by the
[2:27:59] parks and rec levee collected for the sector. Where administration
[2:28:03] is therefore recommending the parks and recreation levy reserve be
[2:28:07] utilized to acquire an additional four acres of land to
[2:28:11] support the development of the leisure center. The parks and
[2:28:15] recreation levy policy does allow for these funds to be
[2:28:18] utilized for multidistrict and recreation facilities. It's just not typically
[2:28:24] allocated in that fashion to facilitate the immediate project administration.
[2:28:30] Is recommending capital project 2600. Be increased by ten point
[2:28:35] 84. 2 million to purchase nine acres of land for
[2:28:39] the high school. Sites. Four acres of land for the
[2:28:42] leisure and the land will be serviced and purchased from
[2:28:46] dream. Asset management. Related to the establishment of this new
[2:28:50] levy administration, did meet with the developer liaison committee on
[2:28:54] April 29 to provide an update on the new high
[2:28:58] school land levy and this upcoming report at the meeting
[2:29:02] with the full details available and the per front meter
[2:29:05] cost shared. There were concerns raised with the long term
[2:29:10] affordability of homes in Saskatoon and a wonder if alternate
[2:29:14] sources of funding might be available. The developers recognized the
[2:29:18] benefits of schools and park space to the vibrancy of
[2:29:22] neighborhoods and they're also concerned about the overall affordability of
[2:29:26] lots for housing development. A concern I would say we
[2:29:30] also share, which is why the work on this file
[2:29:33] has been extremely challenging to find the right balance. We
[2:29:37] also know this is the first step in establishing this
[2:29:40] new high school land levy, as we have an immediate
[2:29:43] need to be addressed. As with all levies similar to
[2:29:47] this new one, administration does ongoing reviews, consults with developers
[2:29:52] and builders and reports annually on any changes to the
[2:29:56] levy and the levy rates. So there will be more
[2:29:59] discussions with builders and developers in the future as we
[2:30:03] work to massage. What this levy rate might ultimately be
[2:30:07] and how we can plan for a successful future. Subject
[2:30:11] to city council approval, the new high school land levy
[2:30:14] as described in this report would come into effect January
[2:30:18] 1, 2025. The city solicitor would prepare the appropriate funding
[2:30:23] contribution agreements and then a formal approval for the purchase.
[2:30:27] Of the 13 acres of land will be subject to
[2:30:30] a future report through the standing policy committee. On finance.
[2:30:34] And with that, there are four recommendations in the reports
[2:30:38] and administration is here. If there are any questions? I
[2:30:40] see. We have a couple of questions, but we do
[2:30:41] have one speaker. Did you guys want to wait. Perfect.
[2:30:46] Ms. Burgess, can you hear me okay? Yeah. I can.
[2:30:54] Sorry. I'm operating off my phone. The hotel is doing
[2:30:58] a bunch of tests. And so I'm on my phone,
[2:31:01] Internet. So I did prepare a video, thank God, and
[2:31:05] I'll be here to answer questions following the video. Thanks.
[2:31:08] Perfect. Thanks for making some time. To get in here.
[2:31:12] So we'll give the video. Good morning. Your worship and
[2:31:17] counselors, and thank you so much for allowing me the
[2:31:21] opportunity to address you. Virtually today. Unfortunately, I am out
[2:31:26] of the province and therefore unable to physically be there.
[2:31:29] I am speaking to you today on behalf of the
[2:31:32] SAS, Tune and Region Homebuilders association to express our concerns
[2:31:36] and are strong opposition to the proposed high school levy
[2:31:39] fee, scheduled to start on January 1 2025. Upon further
[2:31:44] investigation, we have serious questions regarding whether the creation of
[2:31:47] this new levee is even permitted and in alignment with
[2:31:50] the Planning and Development Act. Recent discussions with stakeholders involved
[2:31:54] during the legislative change of 2018 2019 suggested that municipalities
[2:32:00] would not have the authority to impose such a levy.
[2:32:03] Therefore, we are seeking a meeting with the province city
[2:32:07] administration. And local developers to gain clarity on this issue.
[2:32:10] Until this matter is resolved, we kindly request that this
[2:32:13] item be deferred to a later. Date. With that said,
[2:32:17] even if it is determined that this levee is permitted,
[2:32:20] we find the proposed rate of $175 per front meter
[2:32:24] to be excessive. Previous discussions led us to anticipate a
[2:32:28] much lower rate of $35 per front meter. Furthermore, the
[2:32:33] lack of consultation on this levy has blindsided our members.
[2:32:36] As evidenced during the meeting of April 29, when it
[2:32:39] was first communicated. The proposed cost impact far exceeds the
[2:32:43] expectation set through previous discussions, creating a significant disconnect between
[2:32:47] the city's approach and the practical realities facing builders and
[2:32:51] developers. As you are aware we are currently in the
[2:32:55] midst of a housing crisis that greatly affects affordability and
[2:32:59] investment in our city. Implementing a levee that adds around
[2:33:02] $2,000 to the cost of an average single family lot
[2:33:06] is said to be implemented at a time when development
[2:33:09] levies on single family lots are already. At historically high
[2:33:12] levels. According to a recent municipal benchmarking study by the
[2:33:16] Canadian Homebuilders Association. Saskatoon's development levees on single family lots
[2:33:22] are the second highest in all of Canada. Only behind
[2:33:25] Surrey BC. This is especially concerning considering that our municipality
[2:33:31] also being a major land developer in the city has
[2:33:34] the capacity to offset these fees without putting on the
[2:33:37] backs of future homeowners. The current rate of escalating costs,
[2:33:41] including this proposed levy, threatens the viability of new construction
[2:33:46] and the broader goal of maintaining Saskatoon as one of
[2:33:49] Canada's most affordable housing markets. Our city is at a
[2:33:53] critical juncture where doubling housing starts in the coming years
[2:33:56] is going to be critical to meeting demand and restoring
[2:33:59] affordability. Adding to our frustration opportunities to mitigate these costs
[2:34:05] through the $40 million federal housing accelerator. Fund have been
[2:34:09] outright dismissed. Stakeholders involved at the outset of this process
[2:34:13] identified this as a top priority for addressing housing challenges
[2:34:16] and affordability. However, the decision was ultimately made to exclude
[2:34:22] this initiative from the application due to an ongoing levy
[2:34:25] review process that was already underway, the same levy review
[2:34:29] process that has been stalled out since November. 2022 with
[2:34:33] no clear timelines for resolution. Given the urgent need for
[2:34:38] housing and the direct impact of Levy has on affordability,
[2:34:42] We strongly urge this committee to reconsider the proposed levy
[2:34:45] and postpone moving forward with the proposal until alignment with
[2:34:49] the Planning and Development act is clarified. As mentioned many
[2:34:53] times over the years, the homebuilding industry requires three things
[2:34:56] from the city to support the development of much needed
[2:34:59] housing. We need certainty, a level playing field, and collaboration
[2:35:04] from the city. This new added levy represents a complete
[2:35:08] move away from these principles. Thank you so much for
[2:35:12] your time. We appreciate your consideration, and we look forward
[2:35:15] to engaging in a much more inclusive and balanced discussion
[2:35:19] on this matter. Thank you so much. Have a great
[2:35:21] day. So I'll just open it up before we go
[2:35:24] to questions. Administration. Administration. Is there any. Questions for the
[2:35:26] speaker. And bhp is doing great.
[2:35:36] Any questions for the speaker? Not seeing any. Thank you.
[2:35:41] Ms. Burgess, I don't see any questions for you, so
[2:35:43] thank you for attending here today. Thank you so much,
[2:35:47] Councilor Lawrence for administration. And you should be good. Yeah.
[2:35:53] Thanks so much. Okay. So thanks very much for this
[2:35:58] report. I know this has been. A very long and
[2:36:02] challenging process to try to find a solution way forward
[2:36:05] here. I'm sure this is in the report. I'm having
[2:36:08] trouble tracking some of the ins and outs. Can you
[2:36:11] comment on the overall impact on available actual park space
[2:36:15] for the neighborhood? And what this does. To. Our plans
[2:36:23] or original concept plan for development of green space and
[2:36:27] recreational space in the community broadly. Yeah. Thank you. Through
[2:36:32] you, Mr. Chair. Again, to put it into context of
[2:36:36] the entire homewood sector, if indeed the city had to
[2:36:40] allocate solely municipal reserve land for elementary school parcels. There
[2:36:46] are intended to be seven new neighborhoods, so those are
[2:36:50] at ten acre par. Parcels per elementary school site. That
[2:36:53] would be 70 acres of municipal reserve land. High schools
[2:36:58] are on the current size they're building. They're an average
[2:37:02] of 36 to 40 acres of land required. So if
[2:37:06] we take that round. It up at eight. At 40,
[2:37:11] we know two high schools will be required in the
[2:37:14] homewood. Sector at full build out, that's another 80 acres.
[2:37:18] So those two combined of 70 acres. And 80 acres,
[2:37:23] or even if he said 70 acres, it's about 140
[2:37:27] to 150 acres. Of municipal reserve land. And for the
[2:37:32] entire homewood sector, there is only a toy, and it's
[2:37:36] again, the dedication of municipal reserve land is driven by
[2:37:40] the Planning and Development act, where developers are required to
[2:37:44] set aside 10% of the developable residential area and five.
[2:37:49] Percent of the industrial commercial areas. So with that, in
[2:37:53] the Homewood sector entirely, there are approximately 430 total acres
[2:37:58] of. Mr. So if we had to take 150 of
[2:38:02] those, that's one third of the entire. Municipal reserve land
[2:38:07] for that entire sector. That would be simply for schools
[2:38:10] and parking lots to sit. On. So it is indeed
[2:38:14] of great concern to the overall quality of life and
[2:38:18] community building and access to green space. And something that
[2:38:22] we want to continue a conversation with the province on
[2:38:25] related to the impacts. Our response to this back in
[2:38:31] 2018 when. The act first changed was to repurpose our
[2:38:36] then community center levy to be utilized to purchase additional
[2:38:40] lands for those. New four new p three schools, so.
[2:38:45] We wouldn't have a core neighborhood park that's half the
[2:38:48] size it currently is. Right. With the land reserve from
[2:38:53] the Mr. Bucket for the schools. Then we're below that
[2:38:59] 10% threshold in terms of the actual. Available land. For
[2:39:04] Mr. Development through you, Mr. Chair. That is correct. The
[2:39:08] act implies that the city would set, use Mr. To
[2:39:12] set aside for the schools. And I'm not sure if.
[2:39:17] The full impact that was contemplated at the time of
[2:39:21] the act changes. In school parcels. Were somewhat smaller at
[2:39:27] the time. So with that in mind, I'm wondering. If,
[2:39:32] and perhaps it's too early to have these conversations, but
[2:39:35] I know, for example, An example of this would be
[2:39:38] at Aiden Bowman. We did a land swap. We have
[2:39:42] land that's available both for school use and for public
[2:39:45] recreational use. I know. We're thinking about. Like an actual
[2:39:49] leisure center facility. I'm wondering about access. To schools, sports
[2:39:54] fields and so forth, and whether or not we're intending
[2:39:58] to negotiate some public or community access to those assets
[2:40:02] in light of the restricted amount of green space. This
[2:40:06] is going to leave us with? To you, Mr. Chair?
[2:40:10] Absolutely. That is the intent of those ten acres that
[2:40:14] will indeed be green. Space and sports fields. Because it
[2:40:19] is municipal reserve land that has been set aside to
[2:40:22] connect with this. We will be using parks and recreation
[2:40:26] levy funding. To design, develop, build those sports fields with
[2:40:31] the full intention they are available for school use and
[2:40:35] they also will be available for community use. Okay, that's
[2:40:39] good to know. And this is, again, maybe a little
[2:40:42] too early to ask this question, but can you describe
[2:40:44] the process that we will have with the province and
[2:40:47] with the school divisions. To. Plan some of the access
[2:40:53] in egress from these sites. These are. Huge. School population,
[2:40:58] this is a school population is going to be larger
[2:41:00] than a lot of Saskatchewan communities. And so, given the
[2:41:04] challenges we've had with some of. These smaller sites, and
[2:41:07] I'm thinking of the school site in Stonebridge, but I
[2:41:10] know it's not unique. Can you describe what our process
[2:41:13] is going to be for ensuring safe access? Vehicular access?
[2:41:17] Transit, pedestrians, cyclists to these sites. What will that process
[2:41:21] look like? And is it underway? Yeah. Thank you, Mr.
[2:41:28] Chair. Through you. It is absolutely underway in earnest because
[2:41:32] of the tight time frames of wanting to get to
[2:41:35] design. There have been no fewer than 25. To 30
[2:41:41] meeting multisectoral meetings hosted over the course of the last
[2:41:45] three or so. Months, and Mr. Roberts has set in
[2:41:47] on most of those, so he can probably tell you
[2:41:49] if it's much more than that. It is a consultant
[2:41:53] that has been hired by the province and the two
[2:41:57] school divisions to do this detailed design. It's looking at
[2:42:01] the layout of the parcel. It's looking at. The requirements
[2:42:04] for parking for the parcel. It's collaborating with our colleagues
[2:42:09] in transportation and transit to talk about how it is.
[2:42:13] We're going to maximize the safe access egress to a
[2:42:17] site. Knowing that school starts at a certain time and
[2:42:21] all 1800 students are going to be arriving within probably
[2:42:25] two minutes of the bell time. So trying to strategize
[2:42:28] on what that might look like? Is going to be
[2:42:31] critically important. That work is well underway. We have a
[2:42:35] number of staff. From our city departments that are involved
[2:42:39] in these conversations. With. Some finalization hoping to come to
[2:42:46] conclusion in the coming months. Okay, I think my last
[2:42:51] question. Is just in the introduction of a new levee
[2:42:55] with. These specific. Projected new schools in mind. Is the
[2:43:01] intent to leave this levy in place in perpetuity, or
[2:43:05] would there be a point where. It would be reviewed.
[2:43:11] If the province decided to take a different approach to
[2:43:14] a new school site designation. Yeah. Thank you. To you,
[2:43:17] Mr. Chair. And it will need to be in place
[2:43:22] for as long as municipalities are required to provide this.
[2:43:26] Amount of land for high schools, but as you say,
[2:43:31] We are still intending to have more in depth conversations
[2:43:35] with the province and with the school divisions. And trying
[2:43:38] to make sure that we future proof ourselves to ensure
[2:43:41] we do have a good balance. Of what land needs
[2:43:45] to be purchased over how many neighborhoods, how frequently will
[2:43:49] schools be built and who needs to provide the funding?
[2:43:53] Or how do we acquire the funding to purchase those
[2:43:55] lands, right? So if we were successful. In. Having the
[2:44:02] province take a different approach, then we might review whether
[2:44:06] or not this is still required. We would absolutely review
[2:44:10] that. And as I sort of hinted at in the
[2:44:13] introduction, we annually review these levees and adjust. For the
[2:44:19] rates per front meter or the criteria by which the
[2:44:23] levees are built for these kinds of things. And it's
[2:44:27] commonly through a conversation with our builders and developers. This
[2:44:31] one has been. A changing situation along the way. The
[2:44:37] original estimation was a 23 acre parcel would be large
[2:44:40] enough. The maximum school enrollment would be 22 to 2400,
[2:44:45] those goal posts have moved. And so part of this
[2:44:48] is in response to that. And how do we make
[2:44:50] sure we address this existing situation and then also future
[2:44:55] proof, ourself? For future. Situations. Okay, well, thanks for the
[2:44:59] update. Councilor block. Thanks, chair Davies. I just want to
[2:45:06] be clear. I think the way I understand this is
[2:45:09] that it's not that the city didn't. Realize that. This.
[2:45:14] School land reserve wasn't going to be inclusive of high
[2:45:18] schools. It's simply the size of these high schools. Can
[2:45:21] you speak a bit more to how this came as
[2:45:25] something that was potentially. Not considered by administration previously. Yeah.
[2:45:32] Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. When the Planning and
[2:45:35] Development act was first changed in 2018. There was little
[2:45:41] information around how it would actually be implemented, what all
[2:45:46] the impacts might eventually be. And notionally, and probably because
[2:45:51] they were most urgent. The concept or thought was it
[2:45:54] would be mainly applicable to elementary school sites, and it's
[2:45:59] only been in the last three years that we've been
[2:46:02] working with our colleagues at the school divisions as they
[2:46:05] plan for this new high school site. That the province
[2:46:08] has been very specific. About the requirement for the city
[2:46:12] to provide. Lands, also for high schools, so it has
[2:46:16] been a bit of a shift. It's been more direct.
[2:46:20] We haven't built a high school since 2009 when the
[2:46:24] Shaw center and joint high schools were built. And at
[2:46:27] the time. The school divisions purchased that land. Okay. So
[2:46:34] we didn't anticipate that it would be inclusive of high
[2:46:37] schools. It was not our anticipation. It has come to
[2:46:41] light recently. In the last three or four years, that's
[2:46:44] been part of our planning. That's where we had set
[2:46:47] aside up to 23 acres of municipal reserve. Hoping that
[2:46:50] would help address it, but it's grown bigger than that,
[2:46:53] and beyond that, we've also had an opportunity to actually
[2:46:57] zoom out and see what the overall impact is to.
[2:47:01] An entire sector. When you take such a significant component
[2:47:05] of multidistrict and district park space to have buildings and
[2:47:10] parking lots sit on. So again, it's trying to find
[2:47:12] that balance. Where green space is so critically important. As
[2:47:17] we have increased densities in the city. There are more
[2:47:21] multi unit dwellings that have no front yards, no backyards,
[2:47:25] they have no green space and proximity to play in.
[2:47:28] So they rely on our neighborhood park. So we need
[2:47:31] to also ensure we're protecting and preserving the integrity and
[2:47:35] the community value of those green spaces. Is it also
[2:47:39] the case that the size is different than would be
[2:47:42] anticipated for high school and is that because. They are
[2:47:46] also in consideration of some of those joint use projects
[2:47:49] like the Shaw Center. To you, Mr. Chair. The size
[2:47:53] of the parcel and the enrollment of students. Has also
[2:47:59] surprised the local school divisions. I'll say. It's the 3600
[2:48:04] student population or enrollment has only been made known to
[2:48:09] us within the last two and a half months or
[2:48:12] three months. Originally. The project, and when we did the
[2:48:18] joint site feasibility study work, it was based on the
[2:48:21] student enrollment of 2200 to 2400. The province is trying
[2:48:26] to maximize efficiencies in terms of how often high schools
[2:48:30] need to be built in large, growing cities and centers.
[2:48:34] This 3600 student enrollment school will be one of the
[2:48:39] largest high schools in western Canada. Okay. So maybe I'll
[2:48:47] just shift. I did have actually just sort of a
[2:48:49] process question with regards to how it's being funded. So
[2:48:52] the increase in that capital reserve, and based on the
[2:48:54] sharing of the problems. It kind of seems that. We
[2:48:58] are not getting that money from the province right away.
[2:49:01] Did I misunderstand that or. Is that just the way
[2:49:05] that has been presented? But that money would be coming
[2:49:08] forth with. To you, Mr. Chair. The funding will is
[2:49:12] imminent. Absolutely. But the city's share of that. Nine acre
[2:49:17] purchase, which is just over 3.7 million, will need to
[2:49:21] be funded by the reserve and thus the required deficit
[2:49:24] position. But the 3.7 or so million from the province
[2:49:28] will be available immediately. We just need to purchase all
[2:49:32] nine acres, essentially, immediately. Okay, I think I'm following that.
[2:49:37] Thanks. I just wanted to shift gears a bit here.
[2:49:42] Can you talk a bit about what options were available
[2:49:45] to the city visa vis the decision to come up
[2:49:47] with $175 per front meter. So the options the city
[2:49:53] looked at is what available municipal reserve land do we
[2:49:57] have? To provide for the additional. Four school lands and
[2:50:04] mitigating the impacts in the community. We took a look
[2:50:07] at what other capital or funding there might be. And
[2:50:12] in conversations with our colleagues in finance, there is no
[2:50:15] other readily available source of land. Funding. Sorry. To purchase
[2:50:21] land solely for school purposes. So we then took a
[2:50:25] page out of the model that we currently use for
[2:50:27] the elementary school. Land levy, and that is to establish,
[2:50:33] similar to our parks and recreation levy is to establish
[2:50:38] a per front meter cost to collect the sufficient funds
[2:50:42] to be able to purchase the lands required to accommodate
[2:50:46] the new high school sites. That's complemented by an allocation
[2:50:50] of. Municipal reserve land. The concern that this. Wasn't well
[2:51:00] discussed with the development community. I know you said that
[2:51:04] there was an information session. Can you explain the limitations?
[2:51:10] In administration's view of how that went down. Thank you.
[2:51:14] And to you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. As I just shared
[2:51:19] sort of the requirement to provide. A parcel that is
[2:51:23] indeed nine or ten acres larger because of the increased
[2:51:27] student enrollment, has only come broadly to light within the
[2:51:32] last two and a half to three months. When we
[2:51:35] first approached this subject, and I would say, because this
[2:51:39] is in the homeward sector, we have had conversations with
[2:51:43] the land developer along the way. Some of the initial
[2:51:49] conversations was presupposing we would need to buy less land
[2:51:54] because we would have some. Mr. And the student enrollment
[2:51:57] population would be less and we could spread that out.
[2:52:01] Over five, possibly six neighborhoods, which gives you more front
[2:52:05] meters over which to collect the levy as we dug
[2:52:09] into the details with the school divisions as the province
[2:52:13] laid out the new plan for high schools to have
[2:52:16] 3600 students. And their legislation then dictates the size of
[2:52:22] the parcel. The number has been evolving. Some of the
[2:52:26] earlier conversations were that that per front meter cost could
[2:52:29] be in a range of front meter. Given that it's
[2:52:35] over fewer neighborhoods, given that we need to buy more
[2:52:38] land than anticipated. It's now at $175 per front meter.
[2:52:43] And it is a number that's larger than. We had
[2:52:46] anticipated or hoped for. It's been an iterative process that
[2:52:51] we've gone through as changes have occurred. From both sides
[2:52:55] of the equation. So I realized this isn't a question
[2:52:59] that is us for us to answer, but are you
[2:53:02] aware of whether the province had considered perhaps a second
[2:53:07] level? To litigate the footprint of the site. Thank you.
[2:53:12] Through you, Mr. Chair. Actually, the province is now pushing
[2:53:18] the schools to look at no lesson, a three story
[2:53:21] high school. And potentially explore a four story high school
[2:53:25] because that was also. Our comment was related to building
[2:53:31] up just like density. Same way we approach infill build
[2:53:34] up versus outs so that you need less land. That's
[2:53:38] exactly the current design iterations. They're going through. It's going
[2:53:42] to be a minimum three story high school, and there's
[2:53:45] potential for them to consider possibly a fourth story that's
[2:53:49] not yet been sort of fully vetted. Okay, so through
[2:53:53] the chair. I think I understand now that. The amount
[2:53:56] of land that is required is based on the number
[2:53:58] of students, not on the design. Of the bill. Indeed.
[2:54:06] How the education regulations identifies appropriate school site size. Is
[2:54:13] based on student population. So there's a required amount for
[2:54:20] a base student population of 1000. It's in. That 4.5
[2:54:23] to 5.7 site, and then for every 100 incremental students.
[2:54:30] An additional .4 land is required to be provided so
[2:54:35] the size of the site. Is absolutely dictated by the
[2:54:39] student population, and some of the implications are also connected
[2:54:44] to the amount of parking being requested, which is part
[2:54:47] of what we're currently working hard with the province. And
[2:54:52] school divisions on that. The current identified parking for. This
[2:55:00] particular site is well in excess of what the current
[2:55:03] zoning bylaw requirements are, so that's part of our conversations
[2:55:07] as well, just around how much parking actually needs to
[2:55:10] be required. On site again to make sure the parcel
[2:55:14] size is as lean and tight as it can be.
[2:55:18] That's a whole nother rabbit hole that I will not
[2:55:20] go down today, given bus. Rapid transit on the way,
[2:55:23] but I will just ask one final question around affordability.
[2:55:27] If you're saying that this is really the only option
[2:55:29] that we have, At our disposal. How do we consider
[2:55:35] affordability in an area like all those new areas? Are
[2:55:39] already very expensive. What are administration's thoughts as those arguments
[2:55:43] have been made? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as
[2:55:47] I said in my opening introductions, That is what has
[2:55:55] made this the most challenging thing. It is about finding
[2:55:59] ways to really balance. Affordability. Necessary schools in the community
[2:56:06] and access to quality green space, so it hasn't been
[2:56:11] easy. And we know that this has implications for affordability.
[2:56:16] We are faced with the need of providing lands for
[2:56:21] school purposes, and this is a new thing. For us,
[2:56:25] so we didn't take this lightly. And that's exactly what
[2:56:30] we've said to the developers. This was not our first
[2:56:34] default. We tried to ensure we had sufficient Mr. Available
[2:56:38] for this particular. Emergent site. It wasn't enough, and we
[2:56:43] still require funding to purchase some additional land levies as
[2:56:48] we look forward with this high school land. Levy. We're
[2:56:52] going to continue to explore options. To massage how much
[2:56:55] Mr. Might be available and. That might be. Assisted. If
[2:57:02] indeed we can work closely with our colleagues at the
[2:57:05] province around what percentage dedication of municipal reserve land might
[2:57:11] be a right number given our changing reality in the
[2:57:15] communities and the need to provide school lands. Thanks. Those
[2:57:20] are my questions. Next we have councilor Jeffries. Thank you,
[2:57:24] chair. Through you to the administration. Is it possible to
[2:57:30] give a little more context to know you did already
[2:57:32] about the discussions that happened with industry around. Not only
[2:57:36] the new levee, but the cost of the levy. It
[2:57:39] was noted, of course, by the speaker. There was a
[2:57:42] quoted number that was quite a bit lower than what
[2:57:45] we're talking about here today? About one fifth. And I
[2:57:49] perhaps could have asked the speaker. Where they got that
[2:57:53] number from. But I'm wondering, perhaps administration had thought this
[2:57:57] was going to be less. Absolutely. Through you, Mr. Chair.
[2:58:03] Originally out of the gate, we presumed we'd need to
[2:58:06] buy fewer acres of land and we also presume that
[2:58:09] high schools would only need to be built perhaps every
[2:58:12] five or six. Neighborhoods. That in and of itself would
[2:58:16] have meant that the levy rate per front meter would
[2:58:20] have been substantially lower. All of our conversations along the
[2:58:25] way have been immediately with the existing developer. As we
[2:58:29] talk about this particular site. I don't know if 30
[2:58:33] was ever a number we locked and loaded, but indeed
[2:58:36] we had talked in that realm of $75 to $100
[2:58:41] per front meter, which would have absolutely been doable if
[2:58:44] we would have only had to purchase ten or twelve
[2:58:47] acres of land and indeed, high schools are only being
[2:58:51] anticipated every. Six neighborhoods. It could have landed somewhere in
[2:58:55] that neighborhood. That's not our current reality. We now know.
[2:59:01] We will need to purchase likely 28 acres of land,
[2:59:04] and we want to continue to explore whether that's the
[2:59:07] right number. Or if we could reduce that. The current
[2:59:11] formula is based over four new neighborhoods, and that's a
[2:59:15] population of approximately. 45 to 50,000 people that that might
[2:59:20] be driving population to merit a new high school. So
[2:59:24] those are the numbers we're going to continue to work
[2:59:27] through and see where there might be opportunities to ultimately
[2:59:31] reduce the per front meter cost for the high school
[2:59:35] land levy. That will be needed to purchase acres. It
[2:59:40] was identified in the report that the developer in this
[2:59:43] case, dream sees the value and benefit in getting this
[2:59:47] project across the finish line. And as a result of
[2:59:50] that has actually offered land that I think it was
[2:59:54] a 15% discount. Has administration. As they calculate this levy
[3:00:02] taken anything like that into account, where we would suggest
[3:00:05] that. Just as the province is not going to pay
[3:00:09] anything for land, for schools, perhaps we are not. Willing
[3:00:12] to pay market rate to developers for schools, recognizing the
[3:00:15] benefit to the developer. In having high school developments actually
[3:00:21] nearby and how that helps them drive land sales. To
[3:00:24] you, mr. Chair. I would say. While this report mentions
[3:00:30] dreamland development because they are the current landowner where we're
[3:00:35] looking. All developers have indeed come to the table related
[3:00:38] to this. It's a similar principle that they provide for
[3:00:42] all the elementary school sites. So with our elementary school
[3:00:46] land, levy, indeed, the developers. Provide the land at approximately
[3:00:51] 85% of market rates and typically what they'll do to
[3:00:55] use to set that rate is a reflection back on
[3:00:58] the past year sales of some RMtm kinds of parcels.
[3:01:03] What that's been going for. What's the average in the
[3:01:06] sale? Of those, and then we set the land price.
[3:01:09] At 15% below what the typical average market rate is.
[3:01:13] So all developers have indeed come to the table, recognizing
[3:01:18] there is a greater benefit to all communities to have
[3:01:21] school amenities. Within neighborhoods. Okay. In thinking about. The levee
[3:01:30] versus another way to go about this. In theory, if
[3:01:32] we were allowed, would be to have more. Mr. In
[3:01:36] a neighborhood. And let's say instead of it being 10%
[3:01:38] it could be twelve, whatever that might be, to be
[3:01:42] clear, and you can just give me a quick answer
[3:01:44] on that. We're not allowed to go over 10% right
[3:01:46] now. That's? Under what the province says we can and
[3:01:50] can't do. Two year worship. Sorry. Just give you a
[3:01:55] promotion to the chair. Through you. Just currently, the legislation
[3:02:01] is ten. There is a component within the dedicated Lands
[3:02:06] act that where there are higher component densities. Where there's
[3:02:12] more than 50 units per hectare and I could have
[3:02:15] this number wrong. That the municipality can require developers to
[3:02:21] set aside some additional Mr. We have nowhere within our
[3:02:26] city currently that reaches anywhere close. To those levels of
[3:02:31] densities. On a neighborhood basis, there might be small blocks.
[3:02:36] Coincidentally, when the regulations changed, Regina and Saskatoon approached the
[3:02:42] province. To request that the municipal that dedication be increased
[3:02:46] from ten to twelve to help address that and. At
[3:02:50] the time it was turned down. It's something. We want
[3:02:53] to reopen that conversation, given we now have a lived
[3:02:57] reality. That we clearly understand what the impacts are of
[3:03:00] that change in legislation. What would the financial implications be
[3:03:05] for lot prices going from 10% to 12% versus having
[3:03:09] a levy because ultimately. That cost is passed along in
[3:03:15] one way or another. It's not magical land that just.
[3:03:17] Appears and then can be built upon. It is funded
[3:03:21] through the development of that neighborhood. Do we have some
[3:03:24] idea of what that looks like. The difference between. One
[3:03:28] and the other. Through you. Mr. Chair, if I may
[3:03:31] just ask for a bit of clarification. So if. Indeed.
[3:03:35] We had 12% a dedication of Mr. Versus 10% of
[3:03:40] dedication. There's sort of two pieces that would be impacted.
[3:03:46] There would be more. Mr. Available to allocate to school
[3:03:50] sites. Thus the front meter charge for levees to purchase
[3:03:54] land would be less. On the other side of the
[3:03:58] books, in the pro forma for neighborhood development for developers,
[3:04:02] they would have 2% less land to develop and sell,
[3:04:06] and I can't speak intelligently. Around what that cost implication
[3:04:10] might be. To them. But it would. So it has
[3:04:15] double sided ledger sort of implications. If there was more.
[3:04:19] Mr. Lot cost would be on a front meter, but
[3:04:25] the overall pro forma for that neighborhood would be less
[3:04:28] for a developer. Yeah. So, I mean, there's cost one
[3:04:31] way or another to. Providing more land for schools if
[3:04:34] it's not going to be purchased by the province of
[3:04:36] Saskatchewan, but we don't know exactly what that looks like.
[3:04:42] One route versus the other. Okay. That's helpful. The other
[3:04:48] question is prompted by an answer that you gave, and
[3:04:51] I know. That we're veering a little. From the report,
[3:04:56] but not too much. You had identified that this would
[3:04:59] actually be one of the largest high schools in western
[3:05:03] Canada. I'm going to ask that maybe we get some
[3:05:06] more. Details offline about that. But as we think about
[3:05:09] that site and think about the land and the configuration
[3:05:12] and everything else. Are we having conversations? With the school
[3:05:16] divisions and the province about access, egress, everything else. My
[3:05:20] understanding is that with the p three schools that. Were
[3:05:23] built, those kind of got plunked down, and there was
[3:05:25] just, hey, this is what they're going to look like.
[3:05:27] Doesn't matter. What the conditions are around it. This is
[3:05:30] how we're building them, and we see what the impact
[3:05:33] of that has been. In particular. I see it in
[3:05:37] Evergreen, but I'm sure that Councilor Lowen, for example, sees
[3:05:40] it in stonebridge. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. Those
[3:05:45] have been the conversations going on, both. With the province
[3:05:49] and then also the local school divisions. Some of that
[3:05:52] is what's driven the school division's request to have ten
[3:05:56] acre parcels of land for elementary schools now set aside
[3:06:00] versus the previous eight acres, it's to help try to
[3:06:03] address the overall configuration. The other is when those first
[3:06:08] p three schools came to be, they landed in neighborhoods
[3:06:12] that were already underway in terms of development, so a
[3:06:16] little less flexibility in terms of being able to respond.
[3:06:19] To the final design. We also have our colleagues in
[3:06:24] transportation integrally involved in school development, and a recent one
[3:06:29] is just the former scion school site that will be
[3:06:33] the new Kree bilingual school. There has been massive consultations
[3:06:38] with our colleagues in transportation about what that site is
[3:06:41] going to look like how busing and access in egress
[3:06:45] is going to happen with that and that's why they're
[3:06:48] at the table now. In the early stages of doing
[3:06:51] the big block kinds of considerations for this high school
[3:06:55] leisure center. Parcel. Sure. And just to be clear, If
[3:06:59] we're thinking back to the last number of high schools
[3:07:01] that were built, Tommy Douglas Bethlehem. If we go blast
[3:07:06] quarter century. Continual. St. Joseph High School, the city was
[3:07:13] not required to. Provide land to provide money towards land,
[3:07:18] anything like that for any of these high schools that
[3:07:21] have been built, kind of, let's say, in my lifetime.
[3:07:25] Through you, Mr. Chair. That's absolutely correct. So it's fair
[3:07:28] to say that this is a new cost and. This
[3:07:32] is if the province just followed what they did previously.
[3:07:35] With high schools. We would not be having to look
[3:07:39] at. A high school. Levy at all. That is correct.
[3:07:47] So ultimately, this is passing the cost on from them
[3:07:51] to us. That wasn't there previously. Correct. Okay. Good old
[3:07:59] download. I think that's all I have for questions. Thank
[3:08:02] you, chair. Councilor Goff. I have no original questions, but
[3:08:09] I do want to make sure I understand everything. I
[3:08:13] don't. They've all been asked. Thankfully. You're going to ask
[3:08:16] all. The questions again. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I'm going to
[3:08:19] go through them all. No. I'm going to pull a
[3:08:23] hillary here and say what I think I understand in
[3:08:25] my own words and ask general manager La Croix correct
[3:08:29] me. So provincial legislation requires us to provide land. That
[3:08:35] requirement has expanded and grown, and we have two tools.
[3:08:40] Mr. Requirements and levees and therefore. We cannot require more.
[3:08:46] Mr. That is not a tool we have available to
[3:08:48] respond to the expansion. And growth of the land requirements.
[3:08:51] So the tools we have are to shrink parks. To
[3:08:57] use the levees. To be able to purchase more land
[3:09:02] or to fund land some other way. Which ultimately require,
[3:09:07] regardless of the routing of those dollars, Is residential tax
[3:09:11] dollars or residential and commercial tax dollars. Have I missed
[3:09:15] anything? Through you, Mr. Chair. No, you've captured that nicely.
[3:09:19] Okay, thanks. And Councilor Goff, are you willing to move
[3:09:23] those four recommendations? Any comments? Councilor
[3:09:33] loan. Thanks, chair Davies. I think I just want to
[3:09:40] start by saying that I'm going to express some frustration.
[3:09:45] In the next few minutes, and I don't want that
[3:09:47] to be a reflection. Of. My feelings about how our
[3:09:52] administration has responded to this challenge. Because I know that
[3:09:56] this is yet another. Situation. Where? Jurisdiction becomes very messy.
[3:10:02] And the things that we didn't used to need to
[3:10:04] take responsibility. For. We are asked to be responsible for.
[3:10:10] I think I share a lot of the concerns that
[3:10:13] were sort of identified through the report. The reduction in
[3:10:20] available green space, I think. Is. Of significant concern to
[3:10:25] me, and I just want to say that. I think
[3:10:28] one of the trade offs that we know is really
[3:10:30] essential for quality of life when we are increasing density
[3:10:34] in neighborhoods when we're offering more multifamily. Units as a
[3:10:40] proportion of the overall neighborhood. We know it's really important
[3:10:43] for people to. Have access to green space for recreation,
[3:10:47] leisure, community building. And so I'm quite concerned about. Our
[3:10:52] shrinking ability to offer that in new neighborhoods. And I
[3:10:55] know administration shares those concerns. So this is a general
[3:11:00] comment. I also think the size and the scope. Of
[3:11:07] a facility like this certainly gives me pause, sort of
[3:11:10] from a traffic planning perspective. I'm concerned to hear about.
[3:11:16] The abundant parking that's being pursued because, of course, the
[3:11:21] more single vehicle trips made to a site like this,
[3:11:24] the more challenging it is to provide a safe context
[3:11:26] for those arriving on foot and by bike. We also
[3:11:30] are trying to facilitate a modal shift in the community,
[3:11:33] and so I hope. We can keep an eye on
[3:11:36] that as those negotiations proceed. Having schools is absolutely essential
[3:11:42] to the health of communities. And this is in no
[3:11:45] means a criticism or. A skepticism about the necessity of
[3:11:49] having these schools. But. It's creating. Problems for us.
[3:11:59] Which. I think are complicated to explain to the public.
[3:12:03] And here we are in a situation where we're creating
[3:12:05] new levees, which is really the only way for us
[3:12:08] to do this without having. A broad property tax impact.
[3:12:13] And so do I want to introduce new levees? No,
[3:12:16] but I want the industry and the general public to
[3:12:18] understand that this is the most appropriate way to fund
[3:12:21] these investments that we're being asked to make for which
[3:12:23] we do not. Have designated revenue tools already. So is
[3:12:29] it exciting for us to approve a new levee today?
[3:12:32] No, but this is necessary. For us to keep these
[3:12:35] costs off property tax and to try to equalize the
[3:12:39] investment in these schools as much as possible. So I
[3:12:42] appreciate very much the problem solving. I know this has
[3:12:44] been incredibly complicated, and the stick handling that administration has
[3:12:47] done on this file. I'm frustrated that we're in this
[3:12:50] position. I absolutely want to see these schools. As part
[3:12:54] of our growing city, but I hope we can continue
[3:12:57] to negotiate with the province in a way that protects
[3:13:00] our interests of having available park space. Of having not
[3:13:04] to be asked to make investments in areas of jurisdiction
[3:13:08] which belong to other orders. Of government. And councilor Jeffries.
[3:13:15] Thank you, chair, and I will just quickly inject. A
[3:13:20] question. If our administration will allow that or the chair
[3:13:23] will allow that, it actually would be directed towards Miss
[3:13:27] Manistrosky. And it was identified. That perhaps what we're looking
[3:13:32] at here with a levy would not be allowable under
[3:13:35] the planning and development Act. I gather. I like to
[3:13:38] think that the things that we come up with tend
[3:13:41] to be legal. Or based on good legal advice, and
[3:13:44] I just would hope to very quickly have your assessment
[3:13:48] and thoughts about what has been proposed here and how
[3:13:52] that falls under our authority. Through you, Mr. Chair. There's
[3:13:59] nothing that I can think of that comes to mind
[3:14:01] that would prohibit us from. Creating such a levy. Having
[3:14:04] said that, I can certainly review the act and provide
[3:14:10] something further offline. But. There are no red flags right
[3:14:15] now in terms of our ability to take this approach,
[3:14:18] and it would be fair to say, functionally, this is
[3:14:20] really not. Different in terms of what we're looking at
[3:14:23] or funding than the existing levy that we have that
[3:14:27] funds elementary school sites. Yeah. Thank you. That's what I
[3:14:31] was just going to add. It mirrors exactly what we're
[3:14:34] doing with the elementary school land levy, which has now
[3:14:37] been in place. For roughly ten years. And we've never
[3:14:43] had any questions to date about the authority to have
[3:14:46] that levy in. Place. Correct. Okay. Thank you. So now
[3:14:50] I'll move to comments. Which. Is what I heard today
[3:14:56] here from our administration. Are three things. One is that
[3:15:00] we're doing our very best to make sure that as
[3:15:03] we build new neighborhoods. Not only do we have the
[3:15:07] amenities that folks need, whether. That's things like schools and
[3:15:11] high schools, but we're trying to create places that are
[3:15:14] really livable, and to me, that means providing as much.
[3:15:18] Park space as we possibly can. Under the regulations that
[3:15:21] we have right now, around 10% municipal reserve. And I
[3:15:26] think it was well noted. And I can't remember if
[3:15:29] it was one of my colleagues or member of administration.
[3:15:32] About the fact that we have some areas now that
[3:15:35] in our new neighborhoods that are very dense. And the
[3:15:39] fact is, That you can go. I can go show
[3:15:43] you some of the parks right now in Evergreen where
[3:15:45] we have significant density. Of multi unit sites and the
[3:15:49] only place for families and for kids to go play
[3:15:52] and to enjoy the outdoors is actually in our public
[3:15:55] spaces because they don't have backyards and they don't have
[3:15:59] play places on site. And we could go to the
[3:16:02] east side of Evergreen, east of McCorman right now. Or
[3:16:06] how about 5 hours from now and you'll see some
[3:16:09] of those playgrounds? Absolutely. Teeming with kids, especially on a
[3:16:12] nice. Night like tonight. And primarily we're talking about families
[3:16:16] and kids that otherwise don't. Have a place to play
[3:16:20] in their own backyard. So one of the principles for
[3:16:23] me in all of this is not taking that away
[3:16:26] from kids. And families. In order to. Pay for or
[3:16:32] create land for high schools, and understanding that both of
[3:16:36] these principles are important. So one of the things that's
[3:16:41] going to be important for me to keep an eye
[3:16:42] on, on all of this is as we push and
[3:16:45] Cajole and lobby. And ask the province to reconsider some
[3:16:51] of the pieces, either around not funding land or not
[3:16:55] having sufficient municipal reserve to be able to dedicate some
[3:16:58] of those lands to schools. But as we make progress,
[3:17:03] or as we hope to make progress. I heard it
[3:17:06] very clearly today that. Any levy like this that exists
[3:17:10] if the cost goes down, if we have other sources
[3:17:12] of revenue. Or we no longer need to provide as
[3:17:15] much land. That the levy itself goes down as well,
[3:17:19] and that's something that gives me comfort here. But the
[3:17:22] central issue that we're dealing with today, and I know
[3:17:25] it was already mentioned, by colleagues. And this is something
[3:17:27] that I think bears repeating, is this is a download.
[3:17:32] These are costs that 20 years ago we were not
[3:17:35] asked to bear. And these are costs that today we
[3:17:38] are being asked to bear. And when our level of
[3:17:42] government is asked to bear these costs, it's not some
[3:17:45] nebulous. Cloud of money that suddenly floats down and makes
[3:17:49] sure that land is available for new high schools. The
[3:17:51] fact is, it has to come from somewhere. And we
[3:17:54] have a principle, generally speaking. That growth pays for growth.
[3:17:58] So that means. It starts to go into. This method
[3:18:03] of funding. So I want everyone to understand who's watching,
[3:18:08] and I want folks in the development community to understand
[3:18:11] that although you may be frustrated today, With this report.
[3:18:17] And. With the way that we've addressed this issue as
[3:18:21] it relates to a levy, the fact is that we
[3:18:24] are only doing this because, a, we believe in building
[3:18:27] high schools and making sure that that happens, as I
[3:18:30] know our development community does as well, but because the
[3:18:33] province of Saskatchewan has said they no longer want to
[3:18:36] pay for things that they used to pay for. And
[3:18:38] if. You want to aim your frustration in one direction.
[3:18:45] We're not the ones who are bringing this forward. We're
[3:18:47] not the ones who. Are forcing this issue. The fact
[3:18:50] is that we've got a growing province. We have growing
[3:18:52] communities. And we have an order of government that no
[3:18:54] longer wants to pay for something anymore. And that's why
[3:18:58] we're in this position. So I hope that folks will
[3:19:01] understand. That. And that we share our feedback and concerns
[3:19:05] accordingly. Thank you, chair. Great councilor block. Thanks, chair Davies.
[3:19:12] I think I'll try to focus my comments on the
[3:19:15] affordability piece. It's not lost on me that we've covered
[3:19:22] two huge topics today, and the first half is dealing
[3:19:25] exclusively with trying to make housing more affordable, and now
[3:19:28] we're dealing with one that's going to make it more
[3:19:30] expensive. And I think. It's all centrally coming down to
[3:19:36] who's got skin in this game to try. To make
[3:19:38] our city and our province more affordable, that we can
[3:19:43] develop in a way that people can afford to live
[3:19:45] here. And I would hope that as we go forward
[3:19:49] with talks with the provincial government and the development community
[3:19:53] that we are all reminded that we're in it together
[3:19:55] and that we all need skin in that game. And
[3:19:58] that the amount of leverage that the city can come
[3:20:01] to bear is one piece of it. And our ability
[3:20:03] to find allies with other municipalities. I think is there.
[3:20:09] Although as the fastest growing city in the province, perhaps
[3:20:12] the pressures aren't. Quite. As. Harsh as it is in
[3:20:17] our community right now, so I still think that those
[3:20:20] allies are important. The big city mayor's caucus could be
[3:20:23] a support, but truly the developers have a strong voice.
[3:20:29] In. How government makes decisions. And so I guess my
[3:20:35] comment is that I hope that we can find a
[3:20:37] way to work together to understand that affordability is in
[3:20:41] the best interest of every single municipality in this province.
[3:20:46] And that finding a better way forward. Is good for
[3:20:49] all of us. Thanks. Not seeing any other comments, so
[3:20:53] it's been moved by councilor Goff. So I will call
[3:20:56] the question. Any opposed? And that carries. So while we
[3:21:03] move back in our agenda, We will be remiss that
[3:21:06] I need somebody to adopt the minutes I missed that
[3:21:10] so. We're going to have to go back to the
[3:21:11] start of the meeting if we can. Get the speakers
[3:21:13] back. So let's move by Councilor Lowen. I'll call the
[3:21:16] question and the opposed. That carries. And so that will
[3:21:20] take us to 7.2.120 24 assistance to community groups, cash
[3:21:25] awards. Ms. Lacroix yeah, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This
[3:21:29] report provides an overview of the recommended grants under the
[3:21:32] Assistance Community Groups for 2024. The Assistance to Community group
[3:21:37] social services subcommittee. Is a committee appointed by city council,
[3:21:41] and the members include Gary Bowden, chairperson, who is here
[3:21:45] with us today and has spent his entire morning with
[3:21:48] us. Aaron Ganye, Jody Glines, Emily Gabor and Tayaba Sultana.
[3:21:55] The committee has reviewed all requests followed by the guidelines
[3:21:59] set out in the policy. Their recommendation includes support totaling
[3:22:04] over 585,000. Represent support to 29 agencies. Appendix one provides
[3:22:11] a full list of the agencies. The grant is also
[3:22:15] administered in part with collaboration under the CESt and collaborative
[3:22:20] funders and the United Way of Canada. There are two
[3:22:23] recommendations in the reports and administration and the subcommittee chair,
[3:22:27] Mr. Bowden, are here. For any questions. So, Councilor goff.
[3:22:34] Thank you, Chair Davies. And I want to thank the
[3:22:37] folks who've been with us all. Day. To represent this
[3:22:44] work, and it is really important collaborative work, so thank
[3:22:46] you very much. And I know that. There's always huge
[3:22:52] demand on these grants. And I apologize if I missed
[3:22:55] it in the report, but I'm wondering. If there's a
[3:23:00] summary. Of. Kind of what the value of the applications
[3:23:04] to this grant. Were this round. There were 58 applications
[3:23:10] requesting a total of just over $2.8 million worth of
[3:23:14] grant. Funding, and we have just over 585,000 available for
[3:23:20] funding. So over five times. Subscribed, correct. And we've had
[3:23:25] this discussion before. Which brings me to my next question.
[3:23:31] And that is. Around. The underway review of the program.
[3:23:41] And the report says that we will be getting some
[3:23:43] reporting later this year for that. And I'm looking forward
[3:23:47] to that. Respecting. The program and the policy. I'm wondering
[3:23:53] if that reporting will speak to the capacity of this
[3:23:56] program. I know we had a little bit of a
[3:23:59] preview of that. When? In the budget documents this past
[3:24:03] year. Signaling this being a pressure point, but I'm wondering
[3:24:07] if there will be proposals related to the capacity of
[3:24:09] this program in that reporting. Yeah. Thank you. Through you,
[3:24:12] Mr. Chair. Yes, absolutely. That's part of what the review
[3:24:15] is. Year over year. For the past decade or more,
[3:24:19] we've been oversubscribed. The current $2 per capita rate was
[3:24:25] set sometime, I'm going to say close to 1999. Maybe
[3:24:29] 2000. So now, going on 24, 25 years ago, that
[3:24:33] $2 per capita. So while it grows by the. Percentage
[3:24:38] population growth. What we are seeing is the number of
[3:24:41] folks struggling with affordability and requiring support of social serving
[3:24:46] agencies has grown disproportionately to the actual. Population growth of
[3:24:51] Saskatoon. So that part of the reporting will be to
[3:24:55] talk about. A new, targeted per capita funding for this
[3:25:00] grant and has been exploring what other municipalities are indeed
[3:25:04] looking to allocate towards. Social support to social serving agencies.
[3:25:10] Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Great. And
[3:25:16] you move those recommendations. Awesome. Thank you. Any other questions
[3:25:22] or comments? And I just like to echo those comments.
[3:25:26] Thanks very much for your work on this. You're, welcome
[3:25:28] to come to every committee meeting. A formal invite will
[3:25:31] come in the mail, so we appreciate you being here.
[3:25:33] The support. So, again, thank you. So carry on to
[3:25:38] 7.2.220 24 rec and community development tax abatements. Mr. Gray.
[3:25:42] Yeah. Great. Here we are, coming in on the home
[3:25:45] stretch. Probably will end a minute. Or two before time.
[3:25:49] This report. Is the summary of tax abatements being recommended
[3:25:53] for approval for eligible organizations qualifying under three different support
[3:25:58] programs. This is recommending a total of just over $1
[3:26:02] million in tax abatements to 30 eligible organizations. Five organizations
[3:26:08] under the recreation and sport tax ab. Abatement program for
[3:26:12] about 140,018 organizations under the Assistance to Community grant social
[3:26:19] services totaling 717,007 organizations in the Culture grant program. Totaling
[3:26:27] approximately 180,000. Appendix one includes a list of all organizations
[3:26:32] for each of the programs and the abatements they are
[3:26:35] being recommended for. This amount has been accounted for within
[3:26:39] the 2024 operating budget. And include the amount shown, include
[3:26:44] the city and library portion of the taxes, the education
[3:26:48] portion of the taxes are administered, as we know, by
[3:26:51] the province and. They typically follow the city for. Education
[3:26:56] portion up to 25,000. Anything beyond that, the city applies
[3:27:01] to the province for the formal abatement. There's one recommendation.
[3:27:05] And administration is available for any questions. Any questions? Not
[3:27:11] see any comments. Somebody willing to move that recommendation. Councilor
[3:27:16] Lawrence. Great call. The question any opposed? That carries. Brings
[3:27:22] us to the end of our agenda, I believe. Heavy
[3:27:25] agenda today. I don't see any motions. Any urgent business,
[3:27:28] Mr. Croix? None. You don't want to talk about your
[3:27:31] retirement dates, plans, what you have? Carry on. Anybody given
[3:27:35] notice today? Not seeing any. We do not have an
[3:27:40] in camera session, so I will call our meeting adjourned.
[3:27:43] Two minutes before.