Affordable housing, renovictions and vacant home tax

Okay. Hi, everybody. It's ready to call the meeting to order. It's Tuesday, November. The 25th, and it is just after 06:00. So this is our city council meeting. And we're going to start off right away with asking you to stand if you are. Able so that we can recognize our national anthem.

All right, thanks, everyone. Just a moment of silent reflection before we move on.

Thank you so much and our territorial acknowledgment. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work here in Guelph, a city built over rich indigenous histories. Guests here. We should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land and the people who live. Here today. And the generations to come. If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause. And make those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call Guelph has served as. Traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the Anawanarok and the Honashoni this land. Is also held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the credit. First Nation and quo flies directly adjacent to the Holdeman track. And as part of a long established traditional hunting grounds for the six nations of the Grand river. Many First Nations Inuit and may teach. People who have come from across Turtle island call home today. All right. Thank you, everyone. Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof for the items in front of us. Don't hear or see

anything. So I'll consider that matter closed. And right off the top we do have confirmation of open minutes. It will pop up on the screen here that the minutes of the open council meeting held October 15, 28th to 29th, and the open minutes of the committee, the whole held on October 7, 2025, be confirmed as recorded and without being read. Would anyone like to jump on that one for me? Alt will help me. Houser will second. That. Perfect. Anything else on those minutes, anybody? Hearing and seeing none. I'm going to call the vote. Is anyone against the minutes? Nobody. So that's unanimous. Thank you. Moving along. We have our consent. Report the diversity plan. For the Guelph Police Services Board. And the city of Guelph. Source protection plan, proposed amendments and endorsement. Those are the only two. Would someone be willing to move those? Or let me first ask, does anyone need them? Pulled at all. No. Okay. I saw a couple of hands come up here, I think Richardson and Clawson. Thank you, we'll move consent. Is there anything further on that? Hearing? None. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against those consent items?

Hearing? None. That is unanimous. Thank you. We also have the council consent agenda with only one item on there, which is the Ontario Big city mayor's resolution on paramedic safety and violence against. Paramedics. Do you mind giving me 30 seconds? Thank you. So would someone be willing to move and second it for me? I'll go Quran and I'll go Richardson. Thank you. So just kind of following the bouncing ball here a little bit. The Ontario big city mares. Caucus. We actually passed this at Amo up in our Amo meeting, along with Marco, which. Is the other group of marriage. And when that would pass unanimously, it was sort of asked if we could bring this to all. Of our municipalities to try to gain some speed around this issue. Because it really did revolve a lot about paramedics. It was brought first to the joint social services and land ambulance committee with the county. And that was where this was originally placed. And it, too, was passed unanimously there at the committee. Level. As you

follow the bouncing ball. Now, usually things that have anything to do with land, ambulance and such can then come back to us here. Looking to endorse as well. And basically what it is, in a nutshell, is that we are asking the federal government to look to amend the criminal code to bring in protections for first responders, especially as an example of our paramedics that are not under the same sort of category, as other peace officers would be for violence against. Them at all. And I think it does send a good statement of that advocacy work to try to do that. That's my 30 seconds. I hope that was okay. Any questions? No. Moved and seconded. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against that advocacy? No one. Thank you, everybody. That's unanimous as well. So now we're moving into the items for discussion because we might have a couple of not might. We do have a couple of delegations here and there. The first one is the affordable housing programming and policy update. With one delegation, which is Ken Thompson, which I think will be here in person. Is Ken here? Yes. Come on down, Ken. Thank you. And for anyone delegating tonight, just so you

know, no more than five minutes. You will hear a chime at the four minute and 32nd mark, which gives you your 32nd. Warning. And then that means at the five minute mark, your microphone is turned off and we don't like that when that happens. So please make sure that when you hear that warning that you know, your time is almost up. Stick around after your delegation just in case there's a follow up question. From myself or my colleagues. Okay, Ken, thank you very much for joining us tonight. And I'll turn the floor over to you. Thank you. I'll be less than five minutes. Good. Evening staff, council and Mayor Guthrie. My name is Ken Thompson, and I'm pleased to be delegating this evening on behalf of the vacant housing tax working group of get involved Guelph. A community organization. That supports residents in being active participants in local decision making. I address this body on this issue previously. And tonight I'm offering a few thoughts about how we think the tax should be implemented to ensure maximum efficacy and also garner the most community support. We, as you know, are strongly in favor of a vacancy tax at 4% of assessed value. As. Are over 810 Guelph residents who signed an informal petition on our

website. As of this morning. Although we would have preferred the tax to be implemented via mandatory declaration, we understand that urgency and resource constraints favor a complaint based system at this time. This approach. Will certainly make progress on the vacancy issue, but for reasons of equity and program effectiveness, we still believe that Guelph's tax will eventually, eventually need mandatory declaration, at least periodically, to sort of census or inventory the vacant units in town tonight. I wish to share five quick suggestions. For implementing the vacancy tax. First, the staff report indicates that self declaration will be an option, which, of course, has merit. However. In Hamilton, 90% of vacant units were not declared, and this was with a mandatory declaration. We believe that Guelph's vacancy tax should include an incentive for property owners to self declare. For example, self declare properties could be taxed at 3.5% instead. Of 4%, which amounts to 2500 saved annually on a $500,000 home. So a reasonable incentive as currently designed, it is not rational for owners to self declare. Rather, it's rational to wait and hope that nobody notices your vacant home. Second, as noted at committee of the whole, there are compassionate circumstances, such as when the owner of a property has passed away where I think a lot

of people feel that two years is simply not enough time to act on a home. We suggest that you all consider extending the compassionate exemption. Period to three years instead of the currently proposed. Two. Third, it's deeply unfortunate that property is owned as multi residential are exempt from the vacancy tax due to provincial legislation. We recommend that the city appeal to the province to empower municipalities to apply a vacancy tax to multi residential buildings. Fourth, public education and consultation will be critical as the vacancy taxes rolled out. In my experience, many objections to this policy stem from simple misunderstandings about exemptions. For example, if a retired homeowner takes a long vacation or spends several months at a cottage after spending six months in Florida. Their principal residents in Guel. Guelph will, in fact be exempt from the tax. That same exemption applies if a professor or other professional takes a sabbatical and homeowners will not be taxed for vacant basement suites or secondary suites as the property of the primary residence is exempt from the tax. We believe that the city should invest in public education and outreach through town. Ha. Halls and a Haveger say campaign over the next year. Fifth and finally, we believe it would be prudent to treat the first year

of the vacancy tax as an open pilot project. With a complete public review at the end of the year. If exemptions are adjusted in year two, refunds should be issued to homeowners to maintain consistency and fairness from year one to year two. In conclusion, we encourage council to implement vacancy tax as soon as possible to help in some measure alleviate our local housing crisis. The city should incorporate sensible exemptions now while remaining open to further refinement in future. With effective consultation in public education. We believe that the majority of Guelph residents will support this policy. Thank you. Thank you, Ken, for coming and delegating. And is there a follow up right now for Ken. Okay, Councilor Gibson. Thank you, Ken, very much. Really thoughtful insights. I do appreciate because I have been spending a lot of time. Thinking about this policy, thinking about where I'm going to go this evening with supporting it. I'll tell you my biggest hurdle. The exemptions exist, we implement the vacancy home tax. I think it's being funded out. Of the affordable housing reserve this year. It's going to cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars to administer. We start sending out notices of potential vacant tax being levied and people scramble, get into their exemption window fill the home.

It solves the problem. So we can look at it two ways. It solves the problem. Then also, what do we do with the operating costs once the problem is solved. I heard you say pilot program. And I'm wondering if that is the branch that I use this evening to support simply. Because. I fear I'll ask you the question. Would a one year review of the program be suitable in terms of where it's being? Funded from and the efficacy. Of its stated purpose. Okay, let's see if I know how to do this. From last week through you, mayor. To councilor Gibson. Good. So I think if you look at the Hamilton year one review, That would have been enough information for that city to make an indication that the program was worth continuing. And so I think. There will be a lot of information after one year to make a good decision about how to continue this into the future. And I think these types of programs, naturally, the costs change over time. I think the cost will probably be the highest in the first year. And then I think you'll see that they can see

rate decline a lot as it has been seen in the other municipalities that have implemented this sort of policy, and I think the city can look at producing staffing that's dedicated to this, I think. Eventually reach a fairly steady state. That no municipalities in Ontario I don't think have quite reached yet, but I think there'll be opportunity for consistent review. Thanks. And I'll take those questions to staff as well. The administrative burden. I think will be largely unchanging. Will staff up to administer the tax. The issue that I'm having is if we do solve the problem, which is what we all want to do. What happens if we have five vacant homes being taxed and the program ends up costing us right now, we're going to be drawing out of the affordable housing reserve, I believe, to fund it. How do we look at this long term? Anyhow, I'll take those questions to staff. But I do appreciate. Good. I really appreciate. Your delegation. Thank you. Thank you. Great. I don't think I see anything more. Thank you again, Ken. Appreciate it. With that. There

is some correspondence as well. mike my colleagues and counsel so it is back to us in regards to the recommendations can i just get at least someone to table the recommendations for me Okay. I'll go with Clawson and Koran. Okay. Thank you. Now. This is going to potentially jump around a little bit, okay. Because we have the motions that were done at committee. The whole. And they kind of stayed as they were because we were waiting for the memo, the memo is now here, and it has the options here. So we have to sort of table what came from committee of the whole. And then we'll look to maybe amend. Okay, based on our conversation that we had at committee, the whole. And based on where the memo was at, so can I just. Have. The motions put up for us. Because we kind of arranged. Right. Okay.

So, clerks, feel free to jump in whenever you want to hold my hand as we walk through. This, okay? That's okay. I cannot read that fast. I'm sorry. Do you mind if we put that back up? Okay, cool. Thank you. So. Much. One seems legit. Right. It's advocacy. It's an information report. There's really nothing there that I don't think needs to be amended. I think. We should all be okay with that. Yeah. So do you mind if we just call the vote on number one? Okay. Councilor Gaur. Go ahead. Just the question. You were working on page seven of the staff memo. They're recommending motions for council consideration. Around advocacy just so that I understand. What? 1234 on page seven of the report. Replace number one here or be additional to number one here. Yeah, so I don't have it in front of me. I'm only going by memory, but I believe the motions on page seven of the memo are specific to around Bill 60. Yes, which is a separate issue. I'd like to do at the end of this. Do. You know

what I mean? I want to do renovation. And vacancy tax and get that settled and then we'll do the bill. 60 advocacy ones. That were on page seven. Everyone following me? So far. Okay, so I'm going to call. The vote. I'll split these out because I have to split them out because I think we're going to amend a couple of them, right? So I'll call the vote. On number one. Okay. Is anyone against the first one? Nobody. Okay, perfect. So now on number two. It looks like maybe you yourself, councilor Galler, would like to table councilor downer. Do you want to table an amendment for the second one? Which would be? If we can pull it up on the screen? Yes. This is from the memo. One of the other motions we could do when we talked about having to bring this forward, that's right. And so this brings it back into Q two instead of the next year. And the staff be directed to draft a rental renovation. Bylaw and a rental replacement bylaw for council's approval by June 30, 2026. Subject to the inclusion of 640,000 funded from the affordable housing reserve in

the 2026. Budget update. So. Thank you. So I think councilor Galler was moved. Do you care? I just moved it. Okay, perfect. Councilor downers, move in that amendment. Councilor Galler. Will second that. Okay. And just so everyone remembers, too much of this funding has already been put. In the budget right before I signed off on the budget. It's already there, right? So. The money that's in the budget is going to help accelerate this, and then this is the direction for them to go. And do it. So is there any questions on this amendment before I go further? Go on. Just speaking to the report. There was a trade off and resources related to. Pausing on our green development funds. I just need to confirm with staff. That this is not enacting that. Through the merit of council cron. So the memo does indicate that in order to complete the work on time. We have to make changes to existing work plans, and part of that is the cancellation of the green development framework and standards.

Right. That's what I was afraid of. So. We're making a decision on the amendment based on the timing of this motion that we're pausing on green development standards work. And so that's going to be really tough decision because. Both bodies of work are incredibly important to moving our city forward on the housing portfolio. So is there anything as a response from staff or. Is the choice being laid out as it's written right now. Want to make sure we're fully informed before we're making any decision to the mayor. To councilor quran. It's as written, but I just want to also confirm, though it's not canceling. It outright, but we are deferring it into a future. It's not that. We're never coming back to that body of work, so I just want to really make that clear? It'll be just the deferral, the resources. In the team need to first prioritize this new body of work. Before. Moving back to the green development standards, so I

just wanted to make that clear. Okay, so follow. Up if I could. Okay. If this is deliverable in June of 2026, The pause is a six month pause, then. We'll start the green development framework work. The pause is a six month period because I just don't want to lose the momentum. On that. We've started the public engagement on this and it's pent up. Work that's been deferred for many years. As a city, we're well behind. In this type of work. Green Fellowman, standards are enacted years ago in many other municipalities, so if we're talking six months. I can support this amendment and these motions. Reluctantly, but I want it on record that it's not because I don't think. That. This bylaw work is important? Because it is. I just don't want to lose all. The momentum that we've built on the green development work. Sure. So through the mayor, I can confirm that it will be in the range of that six. Month time frame. I can't completely promise that as we get into this work that it may extend a little beyond that time period. But the other piece that we're trying to assess

and why. We're recommending this delay is also because of the legislation that's changed in Bill 60 as well, and we may just need to reassess the work that's already been done. And reevaluate the scale of that policy and how it's moving forward. So I can commit to. You will hear from us, from staff in 2026 about this work. Whether it is moving forward. In its current form or if there's a change in process because of legislation. Not to believe the green development standard issue because we did give direction to that issue unanimously by the way.

But the real problem is that the provincial legislation has now stopped. It's made it completely illegal cities cannot do green development standards anymore. I was just talking to. Sorry to kind of go. Off the cuff here a little bit, but I was talking to a city councilor in Toronto. And they had the Toronto act. They have their own kind of stuff that they can do. Green roofs, as an example, is a policy in the Toronto area that's also gone now. As well. Anything in regards to that matter is gone. And so we were kind of hoping under the green development standards, that there was some other parcels of it that could still move forward, especially, I think, There was some options around how we could leverage some environmental initiatives around the community permitting planning system. And things like that, and also for tracking and data and things like that, so. I think even though the legislation is saying you can't do that anymore from a building. Permit sort of position and development. There was still other qualities to the green development standards that I think were unique that we wanted as a council to move forward on. So, yeah, I think as a takeaway there as Councilor Koran. Has raised. Getting back to us. Outside

of the scope of the legislation that sort of has killed it is still, I think, something that needs to maybe just be warranted to continue. But we understand. why I don't want to put words in your mouth to our CIO. But almost. Without this sort of trade off option in front of us here, you would have been. Sort of somewhat pausing because of the legislation anyways, am I saying that right? I don't want to commit to a full pause. It's just that we do. Need to reevaluate. The way in which we were approaching this is now being impacted by Bill 60 in some aspect. And we just need to take the time to make sure that we've got it right. And to your point, mayor, got three. Absolutely. We know this is still important. From our environmental and our climate change goals. And it's just no longer mandatory. But is there a way that we can continue to still have it. From a guidance. Or guidelines. And maybe other incentive programs down the line. So it's still moving forward. But. It will be this affordable housing work will take priority in the shorter term and

then. We'll be. Turning those resources back over to the green development standards. All right, thank you for raising accounts for Koran, I believe. I saw. Okay. You're okay. Councilor Gauler. So the only one I have on the list on this amendment is alt and thank you very much through you to the Cao. I was a bit concerned as well. And the clarification is great. It strikes me that essentially what we're doing is this is in the interest of transparency. This is a work plan revision, for the most part, based on the immediacy of what we are attempting to deal with and the reality of what we cannot deal with. Is that correct? Through the mayor? Yes. Okay, so could you just throw that amendment back up on the screen, just so everyone's. Clear. And then we will vote on that. And then we'll move to number three. Okay. I'm going to call the vote then on just number two. Would this be on the just the amendment? Yeah, on just the amendment. Anyone against the amendment? No. Okay. Now I'm going to call the vote

on number two on its own as amended. Okay. The main motion number two only as amended. Is anyone against that? Okay? Nobody.

Okay, we're going to move to number three now. And I guess we'll switch it up Galler. And then maybe. Who wants to throw? Their hand up to second. Okay, Richardson. Okay, perfect. So this one is on the vacancy home tax. The stop ejected to draft the complaint based vacancy. Home tax bylaw for council approval, with a vacant home tax rate of 4% subject to the inclusion of 275,000 in estimated expenditures funded 160,000 from the affordable housing reserve. And 115,000 from the housing accelerator fund. Within a 2026 budget update. So again, The money is in there for this to be accelerated and brought on, okay? Any questions on this one to staff? Okay. Galler, please. Thank you. Through worship. Just clarification from staff. We had a timeline for the rental replacement. Could you help me understand? When council. If council approves this motion, what is the timeline for us to see? The vacant home tax. Being

implemented. Through the mayor to councilor Galler. The intent would be to. Have a report back to council before the end of Q two. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you, worship. All right. And I think Gibson maybe just had a follow up. Too, based on some of the delegation delegation remarks. Perhaps not for the amendment, but for the main motion. I can ask some questions of staff. Would you like me the time to do it? Because number one is fully done. Number two is. Fully done, so that's the time to do it. I have reservations about. The policy prescription here to staff. This is not commentary, even though it sounds like there are questions. When staff gave their initial presentation on this, I believe they said there were 50 homes that they projected. That would be considered. Sort of out of the compliance with the vacant home tax, so we'd be looking to derive that new tax revenue from them. Short of exemptions, however,

How confident are staff that. This policy. Will net out and be net neutral in terms of long term costs. I understand where the funding is coming from. In 26, but. With a diminishing return on investment as a policy goal. Our policy goal is to have a diminishing return on tax revenue coming into the city. How do. The staff. 's opinions on long term neutrality of this policy. And. When would they bring a recommendation to staff saying, roll this up? It's not worth the 20 homes that we're taxing is not worth the $300,000 in administrative costs. Because I see that as a real outcome. Two to three years down the road as people jump into their exemptions. I'll then bring forward reasons why they're vacant. They'll start renovations. They'll look to get tenants. I believe the revenue will quickly disappear. The projected revenue. So how do we prescribe? This long term. Second question. I did like the delegates idea of a pilot program to bring people into quick compliance. To sort of use this as a

tool to drive down vacancy in those homes. But perhaps. Not. The threat of the policy is perhaps as just as powerful as the policy itself. Can I have staff's opinion on that. Through you, mayor. Got three to council gives. Answer the second question first, and then I'll go to the first question. From a pilot project perspective, we did discuss that at a staff level. The pilot concept would not have the teeth that a full blown program would have. The concern on a pilot project would be that property owners may just ride it out. And therefore, in the second year, if it wasn't continued, then. They wouldn't have that continued vacant home tax from that perspective. So talking with others in the municipal sector, it's about that. Not only. The threat of a policy, but. A firm stance against vacant homes that then help swayed those property owners to put them back into the marketplace. Okay.

Councilor Gibson. Councilor Gibson, I think James is just in the middle of trying to answer the first part of your question, too. Is that okay? Sure. Okay, and then going back to the first question. If I remember everything to unpack there. Staff recommended a 2% vacant home tax rate and that was sort of the break even point. With. What we assumed might be. 50 vacant homes out there. We don't have any specific data on that yet. That was an assumption based on some information we had at the city. And. With the vacant home tax going to 4%, obviously, that gives us some significant additional revenue. We've seen in other municipalities. That while the numbers go down. There are continued properties that will remain vacant and the property owners will pay that amount. On an annual basis. So even if we went down to that 20

homework that you suggested there, We would still be relatively in that break even point. We're going to monitor this continually. We're going to bring information back on an annual basis, and if we find that our expenses exceed the actual revenue we would look at. How do we modify that? How do we reduce our expenses? Do we pull the plug on the program, et cetera. But that would be something that I think we need to make decisions based on real data versus assumptions, and that's, unfortunately all we have at this point. Okay, so thank you. Those are great answers. I've spoken my trepidations on the file. I think that if there are 50 homes in our city. In those 50,000 units in our city, across the city, or 50,000 property owners. In our city, we're chasing 1% to less than 1% of homes with this. Administrative tax. I know where the funding is coming from next year, so it's not all on the tax role. There are sources of funding that come from it. I do appreciate your comments about monitoring the costs of this program and its efficacy. I won't get into the question of

whether or not you can scale the administration, because I think two people or three people administering this taxes. The bed is fine as it can get. I don't think that you're looking to add a department of ten to do. This program. So. I will. Support. With. I don't even want to say caution. I'm happy that we're bringing forward the plan, but I am going to be asking for that feedback loop regularly from staff to ensure that this isn't getting rolled into. The tax rule and long term being an administrative cost for the city for what amounts to probably less than half a percent of units across the city. But I do appreciate your conversations. Thank you. Okay. And thank you, councips. James just wants to just state one more comment. Go. Ahead, James. Yeah. I just wanted to jump back in on the motion itself, and I may have been confused, but the motion. Whether it was the accelerated motion that would align from that q two time frame that I answered. To councilor Galler or the motion where we go to public engagement? Which would then push the program out farther into 26, and

therefore there wouldn't be revenue. In 26. So I just wanted to go back and just confirm whether I misspoke. We're going to just put it up so that you and others know exactly what we're doing there. And based on that amendment, Does that capture the one that would help us begin this in Q two? or are you under the oppression that this one does not I'm going to call a friend.

Notice how only one person came down? Thank you. Through the mayor. So this one with public engagement would take a longer timeline to do. That work and bring it back. So that's why it's got funding sources from the affordable housing reserve and. The. Half so that because we would not have revenue expected in 2026 to. Fund that work. So to be clear, then the other one should be tabled. So it's okay. We're getting it figured out. So. Let me just do my normal process. Okay. Would you be willing to remove. Your motion. Okay, thank you. And who was the seconder for that? I think it was Koran. Richardson. Okay. Are you okay with the removal of that? Okay, now I have to ask all of counsel. Is all of counsel okay with the removal of this motion? Okay, thank you. It's officially off the table, and now we're going to throw up on the screen.

The one that is more accelerated, I believe. And. I think we just need the clerks to have a moment.

Through you, Mr. Mayor. I just need clarification on what's being moved by what? Member of council. That is the alternative motion that was provided in the memo. So I just need some clarity from a member of council. Okay. So just. Yeah, everyone just take a breath, okay? Let's just let. Councilor Clawson. I think just emailed something. I just haven't pulled it up yet.

Just point of order. Mayor Guthrie. Yeah, go ahead. My understanding was that the one that we had up on the screen was the alternative one. That we had in the memo. That was the accelerated one, so. The original one. There is no other alternative one for the vacant home ones other than the one that was originally moved.

My understanding, this is a vacant home tax. Portion. And in the memo, this is the alternative one that we just saw. Yeah. Okay. It's okay, everybody. James. And his friend. Are you clear over the network? So from a clarity perspective. So the original motion. That we brought to committee. The whole was an accelerated motion. It was for us to come back in Q two of 2026. At the alternative because we heard. During committee a comment about public engagement. So the alternative motion included in the memo allowed for that public engagement piece. But the program wouldn't then be implemented until 2027. So to be clear, if we want to stay on the accelerated timeline, we should just ratify what came from committee of the whole. Correct, gideon? So what's on the floor right now is exactly what came from committee as a whole. Because the amendment is now off the table. Okay, everybody. So staff are good with that? Yes. Okay. Staying on just the main motion, then, as is. I think Koran had her hand up. Go ahead. Yeah. Again, a question of clarity, because

I understood it would be a limited public engagement. Not zero public engagement. And I think when we're creating a brand new bylaw in the history of our city to say that we're not going to do any public engagement. Center. Really bad message, so. I just want to confirm what level of public engagement, because it was my understanding we would do some, and there would be an engagement period, but not the robust. Kind of full on bylaw work that we would normally do that can take up to a year. So just again. That key nuance is important for my decision making to know that there will be some community engagement on this significant shift in our policy work. so through the mayor to councilor kran i think this itself is part of that public engagement piece that limited public engagement piece where members of the public have had opportunities to come and talk to committee the whole express their concerns as well as today And. That talks about that accelerated public engagement piece that we're. Able to do within the timeline to bring back a bylaw by the end of q two. Okay, so the engagement in this process fully understood. We've had the public come

to us. We've had getting Gulf Guelph and the community say this is a bylaw. We want, but now we go out and write the bylaw. So during the process of writing, the bylaw and after. The bylaw has been written and. Is ready for public consumption. There will be no further public engagement other than bringing it to council. Is that what I understand? yes through the majority councilor crime through that process we'll be bringing it back to council the bylaw in full and the public can engage again in that process Just speaking on that engagement process part. Like, how difficult would it be to still meet the accelerated timeline, but also maybe just do a have your say. Like a have your say survey is at least shareable, can grab some feedback. You're developing the bylaw as a draft anyways. And then. It's just easy for us as council to sort of amplify the have your say survey. Would that be justified? Yeah, we can take that away and see what we can do from that

perspective. And work with our cons team. And get pieces related to that. Okay? So please forgive me as I just respond to that a little bit. When you say takeaway. Does that mean? Maybe you'll do it or you won't. I just want to. Make sure that. We're just. I'm asking totally respectfully. I just want to make sure that I think there's. A lot of heads nodding in the room that we would probably like to have at least. At a minimum, just to have your say. As I said, shareable, easily something for people to engage in. If we were to really. Want to push that forward as a council, would it be worthwhile to. Have a motion that captures that, or could we get confirmation from you that, yes, that will happen. Or from the Cao that. Yes, that will happen. We will make it happen. Thank you. Okay. Do you want to go again?

Just a comment. I just want to thank staff for responding. That was a make or break for me to vote in favor because I actually support the bylaw but I don't want to abandon. A proper engagement process, so that actually flipped my vote, so thank you. Okay, thank you. And Busatel. Yes, thank you. And thank you for that clarification. Just a question. I know. I've attended ward five. Ward meetings in the past. If I were to organize award for information session open house on this. Matter? Would subject matter staff be able to come and include some visuals to explain what this is? And I've attended open houses here as well. This is the night come and walk through and get a sense it's a one night kind of thing. Just because sometimes have your say doesn't engage some of the people that we want to. Be part of this. So through the mayor to council.

I think at this point, It's a little premature to be able to commit to the different types of engagement tactics. That we're going to be able to deliver and also still meet. The timeline of Q two. But you've heard staff, and we hear you, we will. Try to create. Kind of a little bit of light touch engagement, maybe, on pieces. The most impactful pieces of the vacancy tax, like the exemption piece. And so that we can get some feedback. But I just want to clarify. I don't think we're able to commit to town halls or those pieces at this stage, but we will do our best to work with council as we pull the plan together. Okay. Thank you. So, seeing nothing further, I only have one question, and that was? Do we need to at this point? Do an amendment similar to what the delegation said about the three year timeline. Around. A death in the family and they're trying to settle an estate, or is that something. That we don't need to give direction on, on that particular exemption. It's a takeaway for

you as you draft the bylaw. And when it comes back. It may be shown that it's been moved from two years to three years in that draft before we look to vote on it. How would you like that direction? Is it something that you're just taking away, then, or. Is it something that we need to say? Yeah, we want to make sure it's three. Years. We can take that away, and we will work at that process during the bylaw. I'd also like to add, just for clarity, based on some conversation that occurred at committee, the hulk. There's over 45,000 residentially assessed homes of many different shapes and sizes in wealth, some of them being single family, detached condos. Semidetached townhomes, et cetera. There's about two. Percent overall that are multi unit. That are defined by EMPAC as having more than one primary resident. For residents within that. So from a broad perspective, that does not include adus basement apartments et cetera. So just from a

clarity perspective, Those are not what we're looking at from a vacant home tax perspective. We're going to be using impact data and impact codes, so there's only about 2% that have. Multiple units that are primary units. Within the city of Guelph. Great. Thank you. Hopefully can provide. Some clarity and calmness. From that perspective, we appreciate that. Okay. And then the last question I just had was on the ability. To determine. more than just a complaint based system Council has heard me over the past couple of years say that the city of Kitchener, they did a deep dive into this. And what they did is they actually looked at water data, water use data. And over time they could see the houses. That were not being used because the water was not being used. Now, what was interesting in Kitchener's case, their council decided at the time not to move ahead with it at all. Because the water data came back and the entire city of

Kitchener was only 125 homes. Now, you could argue that that's still something that's wrong. Fair enough. But the administrative burden and costs to run the program for just 125 homes didn't match out. So their council actually didn't move forward with it at the time. But regardless of that. It's the tool that was used to try to figure that out. So we're trying to do a complaint based system, which I fully agree with that's. Fine. The whole self declaration part. Is probably way too much at this time, but could we look to do what Kitchener did around looking at water usage to see if we can gather our own data without relying on the public. To do the complaint in the first place. So through you, Tamari Guthrie. I think as part of this program, we'll be looking at all of the data sources that may be available to us legally to support the program. Whether it be. Through a complaint based program, whether it be through utilizing other data sources. That data that the city may have or other data that's publicly available. But we

need to ensure that we're doing that in the right way. All right. I really appreciate that, and. I want to rely on the public, I think. There's a lot of people in the public that will probably identify a lot of these. From a complaint based position. But. I'm just making this up, obviously. But if there was a way of hitting a button. And figuring out with water usage as well, like having both of those programs work simultaneously. The complaint based on the data driven 1 may earn us more candidates for this program. That's all. I'm trying to make my point on so. Thank you. Okay, so now what we're going to do is we're going to. Call the vote on just what came forward from committee of the whole, because that is the accelerated way of doing it. Okay, so I'll call the vote. Is there anyone against that? That's also unanimous. So that's great. I believe we've captured now. Sorry. Can I just go to staff and to clerks? We've captured those main pieces that. Have flown from committee of the whole perfect. Now, what was on page seven of the report? I already

had a request from councilor Busatil that would love to move the advocacy. Pieces around. Bill 60. Galler, would you like to second? Because I know you were just talking about it. Okay, yeah. They'll come up on the screen. Yes. And look, everybody, I'll just talk as they come up on this. Oh, no, it's. Not. I could talk, but it's your emotion. Did you want to say something, or would you like me to jump in? If I could. You go for it. And thank you. The mayor and I were chatting about this. At the time. So this is an advocate. For encouraging. Asking for broader public provincial action to address renovations and other tenants rights issues. And we all know what happened with build 60, but. It's still. Yes, just yesterday. Still worthwhile to present this as a motion going forward. So thank you for that. To the staff and to council. Thank you. And look, some people might argue. Why are we doing this? It just passed yesterday. Right, but just remember, there's always a process with this stuff, right? Yes, it passed, but it's got to go through regulations. It's got to get. Royal sentence, et cetera. So there's always an opportunity here to

try to actually have a little bit of advocacy, even though something might have just passed the day before. So is there any questions on these advocacy pieces, or may I call to vote on that? Okay, katen, go. Ahead. Thank you through Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to agree with you and councilor was still that. There is value in bringing these things forward. We're representatives of our community, and regardless of whether or not we think we're going to be listened to. We should still speak out about these issues because. They are important to those we do represent. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Keaton. With that. I'm going to call. Sorry. Gibson, go ahead. Thank you. Yeah. Fine. Comment. Fine, everyone. There's a reason why some of us chose municipal politics. This is not it. This is provincial. This is stuff that we can weigh in on. But we're always weighing in. So. I wish. Absentia was an option here because. I find this to be energy

that I'd rather spend on other things because there's. Lots of bills that I would love to support, but if I bring them to this council, they won't support them. They won't support calls to support, so. Anyway. It is what it is. Thank you. Okay. No, noted. Thank you. I'm going to call the vote. Is anyone against these advocacy motions? Nobody. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Now just 1 second as I confer with my colleague to the right.

Everybody. I think we're done. That suite of policy changes.

Okay, so thank you very much. To staff. Delegations. Community as well on those matters, so thank you very much. Okay, we are moving along to. Our. Almost last one. It is the advancing of the affordable housing on city owned properties. And again. This was. Flown from committee the whole to today. But we do have one delegation. And it's Roy Simonovsky, I believe, who might be joining us by video. Hi, Roy. It's Mayor Guthrie. We see that you've joined the meeting. We're? Just wondering if you wanted to turn on your video. If you don't want to turn on the video, we also respect that too. But you'd have to unmute then. But you definitely are here.

Oh. Boy. It looks on the screen like you're still muted to us. Do you want to maybe just try unmuting? Okay. Try now. I exist. Okay? Everything is perfect. Everything is perfect. Don't touch anything. Thank you. All right, you got up to five minutes. Okay, Roy, go right ahead. I understand, Mr. Mayor, members of council, thank you for allowing me to speak this evening about the proposed plan to build on lot five, Normany drive. In view of my limited time. In. This is an executive summary of my concerns. They may seem direct or even a bit harsh at times, but I want to stay within my five minutes. I hope you understand. I have sent each council photos via email of the items I am discussing tonight. I'm sorry I missed the deadline. Most importantly, through the presentation. Can you still hear me? No. Yes, we can hear you fine. My wife just came and interrupted me. I hope I get that. Timer cover. She didn't think I was hurt. Okay, so most importantly, through

this presentation, I. Will explain the events that occurred when my son was looking to purchase seven Normandy, the property adjacent to the proposed development. The city told me, which was confirmed in writing via email. The lot was not for sale and that it could not be built on due to city services. Running through it. I will explain that more detail once hearing of this proposal. Residents have been reaching out to each other, and many have said that when they purchased their property, abutting this lot. They were told the same thing, I believe the only difference between them and myself is that we actually received an email to that effect. not just that it said not for sale and cannot be built on in late 2020 My son, in his twenty s at the time, moved to Guelph with the intent to fell down. He found the property for sale at seven Normandy Drive. And I remember the day he told me he was really excited. Home pricing back then was expensive, and he was single. He was single, making the biggest decision of his life. He asked me to provide an opinion on his proposed purchase. When I pulled up to the front door, I

was shocked. The house had no curb appeal and was definitely a fixer upper. The only positive thing I saw was the lot. Next door. At first I thought it was a part of his property, but he explained the parcel. Was owned by. The city of Guelph. In my opinion, the lot was the major influencer for the price of this home and justified the cost for improvements needed. I immediately turned to my attention to the lot and called the city planning department to inquire about its purpose and whether or not they would sell it. A staff member told me there. Was a meeting of a land committee in the next few days and that she would raise it. And let me know. A few days later, she called and said that the lot did contain city services and that it would not be sold and could not be built on. I asked her for an email confirming our conversation which you sent me stating exactly that. I was now confident my son could invest what was necessary to improve this home and improve its value, essentially. Had what would be considered as green space next door and didn't have to pay for. It, even though he had to maintain it at times. Over the past five

years, he has progressively worked to improve his home. In fact, he celebrated placing the last final piece of tremendous fund entrance. In October of this year. In 2023, he married a wonderful woman that didn't mind moving into a house that looked like an old worm out park trailer. But his final piece of the puzzle fell into place of January this year, when their son was born. He had achieved his goals, discussed with me only five years ago. The house is finished. He is married and has a son. My wife and I are so proud of him. Then, on November 4 this year, just as. They were adjusting to family life. He had an off on the door. It was a news organization. CTV asking him about the development proposed for five Normandy Drive. He was shocked and told the reporter that when he bought the property, city hall told him that it could not be built on because of the city services. We understand this project has been in the works for many months, if not more than a year. And not one person. Fought to contact an owner. Of the most affected property that was most affected. No letter, no sign on the property asking for public input? Nothing. Even the report doesn't mention

the impact this development has on the residential. Area, in my opinion, if this development is approved tonight, you are issuing a statement that when it comes to this type of development, the. Public will perhaps be left with the impression that they have no input. Approval of this tonight makes your decision almost irreversible if they don't have enough information to present to. The public. Now, they don't have enough information to ask you counselors to approve and. Proceed. You may be wondering why the neighborhood isn't there tonight, voicing their concern. Concerns. I think I have the answer. The neighbors that have property adjacent to this lot, their homes are situated. Sorry. Roy. Roy.

It got muted there because your five minute limit was up, but. If you just unmute. First of all, unmute, and then I can try to hear you, okay? Okay. There you go. No. There we go. Sorry. No problem. So, Roy, I'm going to give you 10 seconds because. I'm a nice guy. So 10 seconds to wrap up, then your microphone will be cut off. Okay? So go ahead. The exterior of the building my son's put $100,000 into. You can see it in the pictures I sent you. I hope the city will honor their staff when they promised it in 2020 that this will not be built on and e confirmed it in an email. We are working with the clerk's department to get the minutes of that meeting. Please don't let my son down. Thank you. Okay, Roy. Thank you. Just stay on the line with us. Stay on video with us just in case there's a follow up from any of my colleagues at this time. Okay. There is one. So counts. Our billings is going to ask you a question. Okay. Thank you. So through you, Mr. Mayor. I didn't hear the part

where. You wanted to tell us why the other neighbors didn't come forward. The reason was why. Yeah. Thank you for asking that question. Basically, the neighbors have been together chatting about this. But. Their buildings, their homes, their actual homes are 100ft away from complex. They've got big backyards going out to Stevenson street. So they're not even near the fourplex. But they do enjoy the property that's there currently. So they're saying, oh, we've enjoyed this property for so many years. They play games on it and so on. My son lives right adjacent to the property. He's got about 150 foot side yard running. Right there and the building will be. 5ft from his building. So he's going to walk. Sorry. His house at that side is ten foot. He's. Going to walk to his backyard and he's going to have a 32 foot building. Right next to him, 32ft high. And he's got a ten foot garage slope that comes down. I can reach his eave. Trough with my hand. So as he's walking his back here, he's going, to have a 32 foot building. Standing

right there. No need for offense. He's got a wall made in Germany. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you, Roy. I'm just looking around. I don't see. Any other questions. And we do. Thank you for delegating. Okay. Right. If I can just. Say one thing, please. No. Sorry, Roy. I'm so sorry. It seems rude that I say no, but just for our procedural hearing. I appreciate the procedure. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Roy. We appreciate it. Okay, everybody. That was the only delegation on that matter. Before we continue any further, would someone be willing to move the motions for advancing these affordable housing options. So I'll go Busatil. Why don't I go to the screen for? Once I haven't gone to the screen. Katen. I saw your hand up there, Kate, so thank you. Is there any questions of staff at all before we continue? Bobusa till then downer. And then. I'll. Thank you. And through the marriages to the staff. Just clarification. When

the city does building on its own land, its own property, serviced, and so on. I would assume that the city follows. Its site plan. And design guidelines and so on. If you can just. Reassuring. Through Mayor Guthrie to councilor bust Hill. That is correct. I think right now we're very preliminary in the process. And the building as is would go through that regular process. Fourplex isn't subject to site plan, but how we imagine the site would be laid. Out would be required to go through a minor variance, which is through committee of adjustments. So there will be that process. Still, that is required, along with building permits. So there is an opportunity at that time for more feedback from the community as well. Thank you. And through the mayor. Again, just a supplemental question. The delegation talked about the current use of the land. Is that Parkland? Through Mayor Guthrie to councilor bustill. Again. No, the land is zoned. Low density residential. It's one of

the criteria we looked at when choosing the property. Thank you. That's all. All right, thanks. And Downer, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So that was one of my questions. This will have to go through a committee of adjustment application, which is a public process and doubtful that the drawings that we saw are just concepts. They're not necessarily. What we're seeing. And so the preliminary site concept. It could be that that could be flipped with the driveways on the other side as well. I'm assuming. And the building is not right next to the property line as well. Through the mayor to councilor downer. You're correct in that the site does need to be. Engineered through. A qualified person. So it's not final. It is a high level concept. The infrastructure running down the side of the property. Likely limits. Where the building can go directly. But we will be working. Through exactly. Where that building footprint is and how far it's set back from the property

line. With a qualified person who will eventually be selected. And would you consider the comments that you've. Heard tonight as part of that input in looking at that. Through the mayor. Yes, we will definitely consider that. Thank you. Do you have any follow up questions or have they already been asked? The staff memo included an alternate motion for number three, which changes the onus from the affordable housing reserve entirely. Into. The have funding. So if I could just. Ask that that be put on that on the floor. And if I could maybe ask if I have a secondary for that we can. Staff to comment on this. Sort of question. Thank you for seconding. Great. Thank you. And then why don't you follow up with. Staff being able to respond to them. Why, that's a good, I'm assuming a good motion. To stop. Through the marriage. Councilor Galler. So the reason that that was changed is, again, it relates back to the previous council memo in terms of the affordable Housing program policy, program work that needs to get done. So in order to be

able to use the housing reserve, affordable housing reserve for that work. This motion needed to be created in order to use housing accelerated funding to fund the entirety of this project. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Perfect. Thank you very much. So. On the floor right now. We would have.

One and two are fine. And I think three would just have to. Be amended. To what, councilor Galler? Yes, but no. One, two and three are already down, so we're going to leave number one and number two. And we're going to just look to take the vote on the amendment of number three. Okay, I'll call the vote on that then. As anyone against that? Amendment. And the gist of that is that the entire thing would be paid for through the housing. Accelerator fund. Okay. Thank you. So that passes for the amendment on number three. Now there's nothing more. Number one and number two. And now three is as amended. I'd like to call the vote then on the main motion, which is one, two and three. Three is amended. Okay. And I'll call the vote on that right now. Is there anyone against. Nobody. That's unanimous as well. Okay. Thank you. We. Have now, by the way. Thank you. I think. We have not stepped into this space ever. I am very excited about

this. So thank you to staff for figuring this out and bringing this forward. Very. Innovative way. Of building affordable housing in our city, so that's amazing. We are at the chair and vice chair appointment to the joint social services and land ambulance committee. So we are at that time. Of sort of a scheduled calendar where we have to look at that and there is a recommendation. That I know councilor downer would be willing. To move and we'll just have it pop up on the screen. And count sort downer in the blank portion. We'll now name over to you. Yes. Councilor Busatil be appointed as a joint Social services and Land Ambulance committee chair. And vice chair for the term ending November 15. 2026 or until such time as a successor is appointed. And I do so because she's. Doing an excellent job now. And I know she will continue to do so. Perfect. I'm

sorry. You raised a good question. I'm just looking at the wording. It says chair. Vice chair. You're both. I just think it's important. I know, but I think in the public realm, I think. We just need to explain that through the mayor. We rotate between chair and vice chair of the joint social services between the city of Guelph. And the county of Wellington. And currently I'm the chair for two years and previously. I was the vice chair. Great.

oh i'm going to call the vote real quickly here Is anything further on this? Anyone want to grill councilor Busatil on any questions? All right, I'll call the votes. Anyone against? Okay, councilor alt Heming and hawing, but okay, he's good. All right, it's a unanimous vote. All the best to you, Linda. Council, we're still sorry and speaking of councilor Busatill, we are at bylaws, and that is you as well, thank you. That bylaws 2025. 211-1167 and 2002 521-1176 be approved subject to section two eight four. One, one, subsection four of the municipal act. And alt will second that. Thank you. Anything further on the bylaws? Anybody? No. Okay, I'll call. Vote in the bylaws. Anyone against the bylaws? Nobody unanimous. It's a night of unanimousness. Sure you could say that word too. Mayor's announcements. The only mayor announcement I have is see you tomorrow morning,

bright eye, and bush tail at 09:00. And this is just a preview of how fast. We're going to be able to get through the budget tomorrow, right? All right, so keep it up to keep up that speed, it's good. With that. There's nothing further. Oh, you know what? Yeah, it's nothing further. I was going to just talk about the. When's the. Tree lighting. When's the Christmas tree, Lane? Santa Claus parade is. On. 6th. The mayor and council of Christmas tree lighting is on the fifth. And councilor Downer is good to put her microphone on. Spirit of the season downtown in the St. Georgia Square with all the huts and all the activities. Downtown is that 5th, 6th, 7th weekend, and then the weekend after is. Well, we're doing. It two weekends this year, so that's pretty exciting. Perfect. All right. Yeah. Hopefully we can see everybody come out. Support everything that happens in the downtown core. There. It's great. With

that, I'm going to go to the screen only. I'm going to go. Councilor Billings and councilor Katen a second ink for adjournment I'm. Going to call the vote. Is anyone against? Just. Councilor Kaufna. It's unanimous. See everyone tomorrow at 09:00 have a good night, everybody. Thank you.