[00:00:04]
>> I'LL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR TUESDAY,
[1. Opening Statement]
MAY 21ST, 2024, TO ORDER, AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.FROM TIME AND MEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIFE DENE FIRST NATION.
WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES, AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS METIS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT, ANYTHING FURTHER FOR THE AGENDA?
NO NOTHING ELSE TO ADD AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, AND WELCOME BACK.
NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.
DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY? SEEING NONE.
NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO REPEAL AND REPLACE
[4. A memorandum regarding whether to repeal and replace Land Administration By‐law No. 4596, as amended.]
THE LAND ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW NUMBER 4596 AS AMENDED.MS. BASSI-KELLETT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, WITH PLEASURE.
TODAY ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENTING THE DRAFT LAND ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW OVERVIEW AND THIS ADVANCES AND EXPANDS UPON INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO GPC IN MARCH OF 2024.
CURRENTLY, WE ARE INCLUDING A CLAUSE-BY-CLAUSE OVERVIEW ON PROPOSED CHANGES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS.
THIS DRAFT TODAY PRESENTS A MODERNIZED VERSION OF OUR LAND ADMINISTRATION SO THAT THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH THE CITY ACQUIRES, LEASES, SELLS, OR DISPOSES OF LAND, ALL WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF OUR AUTHORITY UNDER THE CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES ACT AND THE MUNICIPAL LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICY OF THE GNWT, ARE UPHELD AS THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE FOLLOW.
ADMINISTRATION HAS INCLUDED THE COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
WE'VE TAKEN THEM ALL INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THEY, OF COURSE, ARE PROVIDED HERE WITH THE COMMENTS, AND THE FINAL DRAFT TODAY DOES REFLECT OVERALL THE BEST PRACTICE AND WHAT WE NEED TO SEE AS A LAND ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW IN YELLOWKNIFE.
THIS IS RECOMMENDED TO GPC FIRST BEFORE COUNSEL CONSIDERS, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO TAKING ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONTENT AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. BIG THANKS TO STAFF FOR COMING FORWARD WITH US.
IT WAS A BIT OF WORK, BUT IT WAS EASIER, AT LEAST FOR ME TO READ AND UNDERSTAND QUICKLY THE DIFFERENCES.
WE'LL BRING IT UP TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION.
COUNCILOR? [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] COUNCILOR FACET.
>> WELL, ROB GETS HIS NOTES AND NOTES AND BINDERS READY.
JUST A COUPLE OF HIGH-LEVEL QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION.
WE JUST LOOKED AT THE WORK PLAN LAST MEETING.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HEAVY WORKLOAD AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE EXPECTING IN OUR NEAR AND MID AND LONG TERM FUTURE.
I GUESS MAYBE JUST A COMMENT FROM ADMINISTRATION ABOUT HOW THIS ALIGNS.
WILL IT MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER OR MAKE IT HARDER? ARE THERE OTHER KNOCKOFF IMPLICATIONS ON WORK THAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE AFTERWARDS?
>> THANK YOU. MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.
THIS ONE HAS BEEN A LONG TIME IN MAKING BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME, LET'S JUST SAY ANTIQUATED LANGUAGE AND PROCESSES WITHIN OUR EXISTING LAND ADMINISTRATION BY LAW THAT DON'T MEET BEST PRACTICE.
BUT I WILL TURN THINGS TO MS. WHITE TO SEE IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE ON HOW THIS WILL FIT INTO OTHER BIG TASKS THAT ARE BEFORE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
IT WAS INCLUDED AS ONE OF THE TIER 1S IN THE WORK PLAN THAT WAS BEFORE GPC LAST WEEK.
HAVING THIS COMPLETED IS ACTUALLY GOING TO NOT JUST BENEFIT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO THE COMMUNITY.
WE'RE LOOKING TO REMOVE SOME OF THE STEPS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF LAND PROCESS SOME OF THEM THAT WE HAVE TO DO NOW.
YOU SEE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT COME FORWARD TO YOU AND THEN HAVE TO GO BACK TO OTHER PROCESSES, EITHER WITH THE GNWT OR WITHIN OUR OWN DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS LOOKING TO STREAMLINE IT FOR BOTH APPLICANTS AS WELL AS FOR THE WORK THAT WE DO, AND THIS WILL ALSO SUPPORT THE WORK WE DO IN CREATING NEW PLANS OF SUBDIVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT GOING FORWARD.
IT'S A WIN-WIN AND IT IS ON THE WORK PLAN, AND IT'S BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR GOING FORWARD IN 2025 AND '26. THANK YOU.
>> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION AT THIS TIME, I JUST THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE LINE BY LINE, AND ALSO THE TABLE SUMMARIZING THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK THAT WAS RECEIVED, REALLY HELPFUL.
JUST WANTED TO CHECK IN ON OUR FRIENDS FROM THE YELLOWKNIFE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
I NOTICED THEY SUBMITTED A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
I'M JUST WONDERING, WAS ANY FOLLOW-UP MEETINGS TAKE PLACE TO TALK THROUGH THESE OR ARE THEY PRETTY CLEARLY ADDRESSED IN ADMINISTRATION'S PERSPECTIVE?
>> THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THEY ARE CLEARLY ANSWERED
[00:05:02]
HERE WE HAVE NOT HAD AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE BACK FROM THEM.ONCE WE POSTED THIS, I GUESS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN MARCH. THANK YOU.
>> I'LL START, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN THERE ANY TIME YOU LIKE.
I GUESS WE'LL START WITH THE REQUEST FOR LAND WITHIN THE MISSILE BOUNDARY.
JUST IN GENERAL, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS FROM WHEN SOMEONE APPLIES TO WHEN THAT GETS TRANSACTED?
>> THANKS. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION WHEN SOMEBODY APPLIES FOR MUNICIPAL-OWNED FOR LAND THE CITY HAS UNDER OUR CONTROL, OR IS IT ANY LAND?
>> I GUESS BOTH BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DICTATE IN HERE UNLESS I MISSED THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE'D LIKE TO ELABORATE.
>> TWO VERY DIFFERENT PROCESSES.
I'M NOT GOING TO RUN THROUGH THE STEP-BY-STEP FOR EACH OF THESE PROCESSES.
IF IT IS COMMISSIONER'S LAND OR OTHER LAND THAT IS NOT HELD BY THE CITY, THEN THERE IS A SEPARATE PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE INITIATED WITH THE CITY AND THE GNWT.
THAT'S A SEPARATE PIECE. IF IT IS CITY-OWNED LAND WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY, WE HAVE AN APPLICATION PROCESS, IT IS ONLINE FOR BOTH LAND DISPOSAL AND LAND LEASE.
FOR PURCHASE AND LEASE AND FILL OUT THE APPLICATION TO A COMPLETE APPLICATION.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO MEET WITH US.
WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS ON THAT STANDARD APPLICATION, COULD INCLUDE A SITE PLAN, COULD INCLUDE OTHER STUDIES MAY INCLUDE OTHER ITEMS UNDER BY-LAWS THAT THE CITY HAS.
THINK ZONING BY LAW, THINK SEWER WATER BY LAW.
WE TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THAT AND EACH RESPONSE TO A CLIENT IS TAILORED TO WHAT THEIR PROPOSAL IS.
IT COULD BE A LARGE REQUEST FROM ADMINISTRATION OR IT COULD BE SOMETHING SMALL.
IF WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION, IF WE'VE ALREADY SERVICED THE LOT, IT'S USUALLY A RATHER STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION.
IF IT IS A LOT THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST AND THERE'S OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, IT MAY BE A MUCH LONGER PROCESS. THANK YOU.
I GUESS TO FOCUS ON THE QUESTION.
I'M MORE TALKING ABOUT LAND THAT IS IN OUR CONTROL, BUT NOT FOR SALE ON OUR WEBSITE OR DO A BALLOT DRAW.
IF SOMEONE DOES ALL THAT WORK AND DOES AN APPLICATION, DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE THAT AT THE END, OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> THANK YOU. AGAIN, IT DEPENDS.
NO, THERE IS NO INHERENT RIGHT THAT BECAUSE YOU MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR CITY OR MUNICIPALLY-OWNED LAND THAT YOU WOULD GET TO PURCHASE IT OR LEASE IT AT THE END OF THAT.
IT COULD BE ASSIGNED AS ANOTHER USE.
IT COULD BE THAT WE HAVE A MUNICIPAL NEED FOR THAT LAND OR THE MUNICIPALITY IS CURRENTLY USING IT, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE VISIBLE ABOVE GROUND, IT MAY BE UNDERGROUND.
WE HAVE TO REVIEW ALL OF THAT INTERNALLY AND IF WE KNOW UPFRONT THAT IT'S SOMETHING WE CURRENTLY USE, WE'RE GOING TO TELL THE APPLICANT RIGHT AWAY.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THEM GO THROUGH A LARGE PROCESS IF WE KNOW THAT THERE'S INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERGROUND OR IT'S PART OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEXT 2-5 YEARS. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS. HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANYONE GET LAND THAT'S NOT ON OUR INVENTORY CURRENTLY AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS EVER IN YOUR TIME HERE? BASICALLY, I DON'T SEE HOW SOMEONE WOULD SPEND ALL THAT MONEY IN TIME AND EFFORT, AND THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO BUY THE DIRT AT THE END.
IS THAT A REALISTIC PROCESS TO HAVE AS A DISPOSAL OPTION, OR IS THERE OTHER OPTIONS?
>> SOME PEOPLE WANT LAND FROM THE CITY AND THEY GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, EVEN THOUGH ADMINISTRATIONS OUTLINED THAT IT'S UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN.
THEY WANT TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GO BEFORE COUNSEL, AND THEN THEY HOPE THAT COUNSEL WILL CHANGE THE DECISION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S EXACTLY IT. MS. WHITE.
THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE ASKED FOR LAND, AND WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T SUPPORT IT FOR X, Y, Z REASON, AND THE APPLICATIONS WILL ALWAYS IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO CARRY IT ON, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE THAT APPLICATION, AND WE WILL PROCESS IT. THANK YOU.
>> DIFFERENT SECTION, SECTION 5, ESTABLISHING A PRICE OF LAND, FEE SIMPLE DISPOSAL.
PRICE OF LAND IS EQUIVALENT TO THE APPRAISED VALUE OR DEVELOPMENT COSTS, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER.
DOES THIS PREVENT US FROM SELLING LAND FOR BELOW THOSE TWO NUMBERS?
>> IT DOESN'T PREVENT US FROM SELLING LAND LESS THAN THOSE AMOUNTS, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN DO THAT.
THE CAUTION ALWAYS FROM ADMINISTRATION TO COUNSEL WILL BE WHAT HAS ADMINISTRATION USED THE LAND FUND TO DEVELOP THE LAND.
THERE'S ALWAYS A COST FOR US TO SERVICE LAND, SURVEY THE LAND, CREATE THE LOT, ET CETERA.
THAT WILL ALWAYS BE OUR BASELINE, AND THE ASSESSED OR APPRAISED VALUE IS WHAT IS DONE BY THAT THIRD PARTY THE INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY.
[00:10:02]
THERE ARE MECHANISMS WHEREBY THROUGH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, THAT THERE COULD BE AN OFFSET OF PRICE.THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY REDUCING THAT AMOUNT, BUT IT WOULD BE OFFSET FROM ANOTHER FUND.
THERE ARE MECHANISMS OUT THERE THAT ALLOW FOR SOME REDUCTION, AND WITHIN THIS BY LAW, THERE ARE OTHER PROCESSES AS WELL.
THAT COULD BE UTILIZED BY THE CITY.
IF WE DO LET'S SAY A PLAN SUBDIVISION, WE DO A FULL COMPREHENSIVE MARKETING PLAN, BALLOT DRAW IS WHAT'S SELECTED AND SAY, THERE'S 20 LOTS AND WE ONLY SELL THREE OF THEM THROUGH A BALLOT DRAW, THEN THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO MOVE TO ANOTHER PROCESS IN ORDER TO SELL THOSE LANDS.
AGAIN, OUR ADVICE WOULD ALWAYS BE MAKE SURE WE ARE COVERING THE COSTS THAT WE PUT INTO IT BECAUSE THOSE COSTS AND PROFITS WE CALL THEM PROFITS.
THEY'RE RECOUPED AND PUT BACK IN THE LAND FUND AND THEY'RE USED FOR THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE OUT TO MAKE ALL THIS MONEY.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS RECOUPING OUR COST, PUTTING THAT PROFIT INTO OUR LAND FUND, AND USING IT FOR THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU. JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE.
I KNOW WE'RE EQUATING APPRAISED VALUE TO MARKET VALUE, BUT THOSE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE APPRAISED VALUE IS WHAT AN APPRAISER SAID IT'S WORTH? MARKET IS WHAT EVERYONE PAYS FOR IT.
I CAUTIONED DEVELOPMENT COSTS, THE MARKET DOESN'T CARE WHAT YOUR COSTS WERE.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE A REPEAT OF WHAT WAS IN NIV.
WE HAD LOTS FOR TEN YEARS SITTING AND WE DIDN'T MOVE IN THE PRICE MEANINGFULLY, SO IS IT IN THE BY LAW OR BE IN MAYBE PROCEDURES OUTLINING WHEN WE GO TO AUCTION, THAT KIND OF STUFF? WHAT'S THE BEST SPOT FOR THAT?
>> THANK YOU. THE BEST PLACE TO PUT THAT IS IN THE OPERATING PROCEDURES THAT ADMINISTRATION USES WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH WHETHER IT'S A PLANT SUBDIVISION OR WHETHER IT'S A ONE OFF PIECE OF LAND.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IN THE BYLAW.
BY LAW IS THE RULES, AND THEN THOSE PROCEDURES ARE HOW WE DO IT.
IF STEP A DOESN'T WORK, THEN WE MOVE TO STEP B.
IF STEP B DOESN'T WORK, MOVE TO STEP C. HOPEFULLY, THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> PROCEDURES ARE INTERNAL, THAT DOESN'T COME TO COUNSEL, I APPRECIATE.
BUT IF THERE IS A UPDATE TO COUNSEL OR THAT COMES BACK FOR US TO SEE THOSE PROCEDURES IN PLACE, THAT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL.
AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT THE NEXT SET OF VISION WE DO OR ANYTHING WE DO WISE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE SITTING ON IT FOREVER, WAITING FOR INFLATION TO RECOVER OUR COST.
I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY LAST QUESTION ON THIS SECTION, WITH YOUR LAST ANSWER, SO THAT'S IT FOR ME.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THE LAND A MINUTE BY LAW, DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THEY PUT INTO THE LINE BY LINE HERE.
THAT WAS GREAT CLARIFICATION ON MY PART.
OF COURSE, AND I BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE IN THE PRIOR DISCUSSION.
MY ONLY CONCERN, OF COURSE, WOULD BE A LEGAL CHALLENGE, MAKING SURE THAT IT'S ALL UP TO SNUFF IF THE G&WT DECIDES TO BRING IT TO COURT, BRING THAT QUESTION BACK.
>> THEY ARE ALWAYS WELCOME TO UPDATE THEIR 1998 POLICY.
HOWEVER, IN THE MEANTIME, THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THEIR POLICY. MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, WE'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THIS, DONE SOME EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF THIS BECAUSE, OF COURSE, WE DO TAKE THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
WE DO WANT TO OPERATE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS, AS I MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET OF WHAT THE CITY'S TOWNS AND VILLAGES ACT ALLOWS US TO DO, ALONG WITH THE MUNICIPAL LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICY.
I DON'T KNOW IF MR. JOHNSON HAS ANYTHING OR MR. [INAUDIBLE] THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF EXTENSIVE WORK FOR US ON THIS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TODAY IS IN FULL COMPLIANCE AND DOES MEET THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AND THE RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE AS WELL.
>> PERHAPS, I'LL SEE IF MR. JOHNSON HAS ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD.
>> I JUST ADD THAT OUR POSITION IS IN THE BRIEFING PROVIDED TO COUNSEL AND PROVIDED TO THE G&WT.
I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO THINK OF THIS.
YOU KNOW, IMAGINE THE G&WT TRY TO BRING A WHOLE SUBDIVISION ONLINE AND SELL 100 LOTS.
I THINK EVEN THEY WOULD AGREE THAT UNDER THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH OUR BY LAW PROCESS, AND SO OUR ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY, WELL, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU BRING ONE LOT ONLINE.
THERE MAY BE SOME DISAGREEMENT ON THAT POINT, BUT WE'VE MADE OUR ARGUMENTS CLEAR AND IF COUNSEL WISHES TO CONTINUE TO ADOPT THOSE POSITIONS, THE WELCOME TO. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. VERY MUCH, APPRECIATE THE RE CLARIFICATION AND THE STRENGTH OF PROPOSAL. MUCH APPRECIATED.
>> THANKS, MAYOR. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE SIDE BY SIDE.
THAT WAS IT ANSWERED SO MANY QUESTIONS THAT, IN THE MEMO, IT SAYS TWO WEEK BEFORE, BRING IT TO COUNSEL.
MY ONLY THOUGHT IS JUST CONSIDERING THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESPONSE TO THE LAST TIME, PROBABLY SOME PUBLIC INTEREST NOW THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVE A SOLID PROPOSAL GOING FORWARD,
[00:15:01]
IS JUST THAT WE LEAVE THIS FOR A MONTH OPEN FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK, AND THAT ANY FEEDBACK.THAT DOESN'T COME BACK TO COUNSEL, SORRY FOR A MONTH BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO WEEKS THAT GIVES PEOPLE A WEEK TO GIVE FEEDBACK, HAS TO BE INTO A MEMO TO COUNSEL FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL.
MY ONLY THOUGHT IS JUST LET'S GIVE THE PUBLIC THE CHANCE ON SUCH A SIGNIFICANT BYLAW AMENDMENTS THAT IF THEY ARE SO INCLINED, THEY CAN, WHETHER WE GET NONE, FINE, BUT I'D RATHER GET NONE AND HAVE GIVEN THE TIME AND SPACE THAN BE ACCUSED OF TRYING TO RUSH SOMETHING THROUGH IN A WEEK AND A HALF OR TWO WEEKS.
THAT'S MY ONLY THOUGHT ON PROCESS BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO COUNSEL.
BUT THANKS AGAIN ON THE ACTUAL HEAVY LIFTING.
>> THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING IS JUNE 10, SO IT'S THREE WEEKS MINUS ONE DAY.
IF WE WAIT TIL THE JUNE 24, WE'RE AT THE FIVE WEEKS.
>> THE NEXT HEARING GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE BY LAW, IT WOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD JUNE 10 AT 7:00 P.M.
SORRY, COUNCILOR BERT, WERE YOU LOOKING TO MAKE, NO, THAT'S THE NEXT MEMO.
I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE DRAFT AS PRESENTED.
I THINK ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE FACED OVER THE YEAR, PROVIDED CLARITY, PROVIDED UPDATES.
REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT'S BROUGHT FORWARD.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT COMES FORWARD FOR FIRST READING.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING.
NO. IT WILL COME FORWARD ON MONDAY, JUNE 10 AT 7:00 P.M, OR MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
BUT IF THE IF IT'S GOING OUT FOR
>> SORRY, MY APOLOGIES. FIRST READING NEXT MONDAY, MAY 27 AT 7:00 PM WHICH THEN GIVES TWO WEEKS SO THEN IT'S THE 30TH, SORRY JUNE 10TH.
GIVES AT LEAST TWO WEEKS BEFORE WE GET TO SECOND AND THIRD.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A MEMORANDUM
[5. A memorandum regarding whether to direct Administration to bring forward a draft Development Incentives By‐law.]
REGARDING WHETHER TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO BRING FORWARD A DRAFT DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW AND TO CLARIFY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO COME FORWARD IN THE DRAFT BY LAW WOULD BE THE ITEMS OUTLINED IN TABLE A.TABLE B WOULD BE A DISCUSSION FOR A FURTHER DATE.
HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS AND ALL THAT STUFF, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO WORD SMITTHING OF TABLE B AT THIS TIME.
MS. BASSI-KELLETT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, WITH PLEASURE.
MODERNIZING THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES THAT THE CITY CAN PROVIDE HAS BEEN A KEY PRIORITY FOR COUNCIL, AND CERTAINLY IT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN WANTING TO TACKLE, GIVEN THAT WE KNOW THAT AS WE INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT IS NEEDED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AS WELL.
WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH ENDLESS RESOURCES.
NOW, IF ONLY WE HAVE THOSE ENDLESS RESOURCES.
WITH THE RESOURCES THAT THE CITY HAS AT HAND, INCLUDING FUNDING THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THROUGH THE FEDERAL HOUSING ACCELERATION FUND, THERE ARE SOME VERY PRAGMATIC REALITIES OF WHAT WE CAN OFFER.
TODAY, ADMINISTRATION PRESENTS A SUITABLE OPTIONS THAT CAN BE THE FRAMEWORK FOR A MODERN DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW.
WE ARE SEEKING COUNCIL DIRECTION TO BEGIN TO UNDERTAKE THAT WORK.
AS CHAIR ALTI HAS NOTED, THERE ARE TWO TABLES THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT TODAY.
ONE OF THEM, OF COURSE, HAS THE SUITE OF INCENTIVES AND RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE AT HAND IN 2024 TO BE ABLE TO ADVANCE.
THE SECOND TABLE, OF COURSE, HAS THE FULLER SUITE OF ALL OPTIONS THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2025 WITH TIME AND RESOURCES ASSIGNED APPROPRIATELY.
TODAY, WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION ON THIS.
WE KNOW THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO COUNCIL, AND WE KNOW IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AS WELL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR DISCUSSION AND ULTIMATE DIRECTION. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL.
COUNSEL WARBURTON, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR MCCLENDON?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
THANKS FOR ALL THE WORK AND FOR LAYING IT OUT IN TABLES A AND B.
APPRECIATE TEEING UP THE DISCUSSION FOR BUDGET 2025 OR WHENEVER WE GET TO TABLE B,
[00:20:03]
IT'S GREAT TO BE ABLE TO MULL OVER SOME OF THOSE THINGS BEFOREHAND.FIRST QUESTION ON THE SECONDARY DWELLING INCENTIVE, WILL THESE GRANTS BE FIRST COME FIRST SERVE FOR 10 GRANTS IN 2024? IF SO, AT WHAT STEP IS THE GRANT AWARDED, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BUILDING PERMIT, OCCUPANCY PERMIT ETC.
>> THANK YOU. FOR THE SECONDARY SUITES, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SOMETHING EITHER IN SOMEONE'S HOME OR AN ACCESSORY UNIT, SAY ABOVE GARAGE OR SEPARATE DWELLING IN SOMEONE'S YARD.
THE GRANT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WITH THE CHANGES TO THE RECENT ZONING BY LAW, TWO YEARS AGO NOW, A NUMBER OF THOSE CHANGES DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS AND SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS PROVIDING A GRANT, WHICH WOULD BE HELPFUL WHEN PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT AND BUILD, WHETHER IT'S WITHIN THEIR HOUSE OR SOME NEW STRUCTURE.
IT WOULD BE AT THE TIME THAT A COMPLETE BUILDING PERMIT IS SUBMITTED TO THE MUNICIPALITY, SO THAT THEY NOT ONLY COULD HAVE THE MONEY TO BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, BUT THERE ARE OTHER FUNDING OPTIONS OUT THERE.
ONE THING WE ALL SHOULD BE AWARE OF AND PROMOTE IS THAT HALF FUNDING IS STACKABLE WITH OTHER PROGRAMS SO THERE ARE OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS OUT THERE THAT HOMEOWNER COULD UTILIZE THIS MONEY IN SUPPORT OF OBTAINING ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT.
AT THIS POINT, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS AT THE TIME A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
NO OCCUPANCY, NOT WHEN IT'S FINAL, BUT WHEN IT'S ISSUED. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M SURE UPFRONT MONEY WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED AND MOVE THINGS ALONG, SOUNDS GREAT.
I THINK JUST ONE COMMENT IS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON WHEN APPLICATIONS WOULD OPEN, GIVE SOME LEEWAY SO PUBLIC CAN KNOW THIS IS WHEN THIS PROGRAM OPENS.
I'M SURE WE'LL DO THAT. NEXT QUESTION IS JUST ON THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE.
USED IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT INCENTIVES.
>> I SEE, THAT'S A DISCUSSION AT THE CITY OF WINNIPEG IS WELL TODAY. MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
>> A BIG DISCUSSION BY MANY MUNICIPALITIES.
MS. WHITE, I KNOW YOU'VE DONE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU. RIGHT NOW, CMHC DOES HAVE A VERY BROAD BUT IT'S WELL USED ACROSS CANADA DEFINITION OF WHAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS.
RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO UTILIZE THAT HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THIS DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW WERE PASSED IN 2024 BEFORE OUR HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT IS DONE, WE WOULD UTILIZE THE CMHC DEFINITION.
ONCE WE HAVE OUR HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPLETE AND WE REVIEWED IT AND SEEN ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THERE, WE MAY LOOK TO, FURTHER DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS WITHIN A YELLOWKNIFE CONTEXT.
AGAIN, NOT CHANGING WHAT THAT DEFINITION IS, BUT MAYBE CHANGING THE COHORT OR THE POPULATION THAT IT APPLIES TO SO RATHER THAN JUST BEING A 30 PERCENT OF THE HOUSEHOLDS INCOME, YOU THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE VERY TOP OR VERY BOTTOM PERCENTILE OF INCOME EARNERS.
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AMOUNT FALLS WITHIN WHAT IS THE AFFORDABLE SO WE WOULD NEED TO FIND THAT SPECTRUM, WHICH RIGHT NOW CMHC SAYS IS THE 30TH PERCENTILE OF INCOME EARNERS TO THE 60TH PERCENTILE OF INCOME EARNERS.
WE NEED TO SEE IF THAT ACTUALLY HOLDS TRUE FOR YELLOWKNIFE, AND MAYBE WE NEED TO EXPAND OR CONTRACT THAT TO TAILOR IT FOR US.
BUT RIGHT NOW AND EVEN IN THE FUTURE, THAT BASE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS THAT 30 PERCENT OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME GOING TOWARDS RENT OR A MORTGAGE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION DOWN THE ROAD.
WOULD WE KNOW WHAT SPECIFICALLY THAT NUMBER WOULD BE AT THIS POINT IN ORDER FOR A UNIT TO QUALIFY AS AFFORDABLE UNDER THE INCENTIVE?
>> WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE USING NUMBERS FROM THE 2021 CENSUS AND SO IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR, SAY, A BACHELOR VERSUS A ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM YES, WE HAVE THOSE NUMBERS.
THOSE ARE ACTUALLY BASED ON THE MEAN INCOME FOR HOUSEHOLDS AND SO WHAT WE WOULD DO AND THAT INFORMATION IS ON STATISTICS CANADA'S WEBSITE, WE CAN FIND WHAT THAT 30TH-60TH PERCENTILE IS FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AND WE CAN TAILOR WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE WITHIN THAT RANGE.
THERE IS THE MIDDLE BUT THERE IS ALSO WHAT THE TOP AND BOTTOM END OF THAT RANGES.
IT GOES ONLY UP TO THREE BEDROOMS SO THAT'S
[00:25:04]
BACHELOR TO THREE BEDROOM IN THAT AFFORDABLE/ MISSING MIDDLE RANGE.WE DON'T SEE ANY NUMBERS FOR FOUR BEDROOMS, FIVE BEDROOMS, OR ANY OF THAT. THANK YOU.
BEFORE I START, I REALLY CAUTION CONVERSATION A AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THE DEFINITION IS SINCE YOU ASKED, SO CMHC ACTUALLY USES CURRENTLY IN TOWN THE MEDIAN RENTER INCOME THEY DON'T USE HOUSEHOLD INCOME.
I CAUTION AT ANY TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE TO NOT DEVIATE FROM WHAT CMHC DEFINES.
THAT'S WHAT THE FEDS USE, IS WHAT THE TERRITORY USES.
THAT'S WHAT BANKS USE SO AS BEING SPECIAL FOR THEIR OWN DEFINITION, I HIGHLY CAUTION THAT BECAUSE THE REST OF THE PLANT DOESN'T OPERATE ON A DIFFERENT DEFINITION.
SECTION B1, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES.
UPDATE JOINING BY LAW TO REQUIRE MORE SPACE AND THEN BELOW, IT SAYS, LOCATE MUNICIPAL PARKING SPACES SO IS THIS TWO THINGS? IS IT ONE REQUIRING MORE SPOTS FOR DEVELOPERS AND THE CITY OR IS IT JUST A CITY DOING PARKING SPOTS?
>> CAN I JUST CONFIRM WE'RE TALKING ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES? THE INTENT ON THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THE CITY IS LOOKING AT PARKING SPACES ON STREET PARKING THAT WE ARE MAKING THEM AVAILABLE, BUT IN AREAS THAT THEY ARE NEEDED.
JUST GOING TO USE ACCESSIBILITY, COUNCIL, AS AN EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE ONE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE WITHIN THE WHOLE FRONTAGE OF THAT BUILDING SO IT'S FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK.
THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DO IN KIND TO MAKE IT MORE REASONABLE WITH WHERE WE PLACE THOSE. THANK YOU.
>> THEN FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND STUFF, WOULD THIS BE REQUIRING MORE SPACES IN THOSE TWO? IS THAT THE BY LAW CHANGE WE'RE LOOKING AT?
>> IT IT DEPENDS ON WHERE WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY, BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT PARKING ZONES.
IN THE DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW, UNDER THE NEW ZONING BY LAW, THOSE PARKING STANDARDS HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED SO IT WOULD DEPEND ON, NOT IN THE DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS WHY WE WERE LOOKING TO HAVE IT AS A CITY OFFSET SO WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE COMPENSATING FOR THE REDUCED PARKING THAT IS BEING REQUIRED ON SITE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. SECTION F, HOUSING SPECIFIC OPTIONS, SECONDARY DWELLINGS.
WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT, AND THEN WE HAVE A BONUS IN THERE FOR BELOW MARKET RATE.
IS THERE A REASON WE'RE USING A DIFFERENT METRIC?
>> THANK YOU. SOME OF THIS TERMINOLOGY COMES OUT OF DIFFERENT CMHC HOUSING PROGRAMS. HONESTLY, THE COMMENT PREVIOUS FROM COUNCILOR WARBURTON IS RIGHT WE WANT TO USE THEIR DEFINITIONS AND SO DEPENDING ON THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THEY HAVE, THEY ALSO USE DIFFERENT TERMS SO WE'RE TRYING TO MATCH AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT EXCLUDING ANYONE.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITMENT THAT WOULD BE MADE FOR SECONDARY DWELLINGS WOULD ACTUALLY BE SOMETHING THAT IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN US, POTENTIALLY CMHC AND PROPERTY OWNER, AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE REGISTERED ON TITLE SO THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR THAT.
YES, THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY TERMED THIS WAY TO OBTAIN POTENTIALLY STACKABLE FUNDING. THANK YOU.
JUST KNOWING THAT PUTTING CAVEATS AND TRACKING THAT IS INCREDIBLY ONEROUS, WHAT'S THE PLAN, IF ANY, TO ADMINISTER THAT?
>> THANK YOU. SHOULD THIS GO FORWARD, WE WILL BE WORKING WITH A THIRD PARTY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A STANDARD AGREEMENT CREATED AND THAT THERE'LL BE JUST A STANDARDIZED PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH.
YES, THERE'LL BE A LITTLE BIT OF ADMINISTRATION ON OUR SIDE, BUT WE HAVE OBTAINED HALF FUNDING TO ASSIST WITH OUR ADMINISTRATION OF THESE PROCESSES. THANK YOU.
IT SAYS, ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE REQUIRED FOR FUNDING APPROVAL.
WHAT'S THE THOUGHTS BEHIND THAT? BECAUSE APPROVAL BY COMMITTEE TO ME SEEMS INCREDIBLY RISKY TO CHANGES.
>> THANK YOU. I REALIZE THE WAY THAT THIS IS WORDED CAME ACROSS, NOT THE WAY I MEANT.
WHAT I MEANT WAS BEFORE THE BY-LAW COMES FORWARD IS WE TAKE THIS SUGGESTION TO THE COMMITTEE, GET THEIR COMMENTS TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES, NOT THAT EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION WOULD NEED TO GO.
IT DID NOT COME ACROSS CLEARLY, SO I APOLOGIZE.
BUT IT WAS FOR THE BY-LAW AS A WHOLE, NOT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION. THANK YOU.
[00:30:01]
THE IS INCENTIVE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN.[INAUDIBLE] ANY VACANT LAND OR ANY PROPERTY SOMEONE WANTS TO DO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON OR DOES IT REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR SOMETHING ELSE TO QUALIFY?
>> IT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. WHEN WE WERE FORMULATING THIS, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS ENHANCE WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BY-LAW.
WE HAVE A BROWNFIELD INCENTIVE RIGHT NOW AND ZERO PEOPLE APPLIED FOR IT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE PREVIOUS BY-LAW.
I WAS LOOKING FOR A WAY TO, WE KNOW WE HAVE SOME PROPERTIES THAT MAYBE COULD USE A LITTLE HELP IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WITH REGARDS TO THIS.
WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY INCENT PEOPLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE PROPERTIES, WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH ANALYSIS, WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH CLEANUP? THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS REPLACE THE WHOLE STIGMA BEHIND BROWNFIELDS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL AND STILL PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT HOPEFULLY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY ACCESS TO HELP CLEAN UP SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WE DO HAVE, AND WE KNOW WHICH PROPERTIES THESE ARE. THANK YOU.
>> JUST FOR CLARITY, THEY COULD APPLY FOR THIS BEFORE YOU DO A BIG DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR ANY KIND OF PLAN.
I SEE A NOD THERE. THANKS. NUMBER EIGHT, WHAT IS SCAFA?
>> IT IS THE PRIDE AND JOY OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, NOT JUST THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BUT THE CITY ADMINISTRATION OVERALL.
IT'S AN INSURANCE PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR RESIDENTS THAT HELPS THEM COVER THE COSTS OF UNANTICIPATED ISSUES WITH THEIR WATER AND SEWER SERVICING.
I'M GOING TO GET LOST ON THE DETAILS OF THIS ONE NOW WITHOUT MR. GREENCORN HERE.
UP TO THE PROPERTY, THEIR ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF, I BELIEVE, THAT WE WILL UNDERTAKE WORK AND REPAIRS.
IT IS A DE FACTO INSURANCE PROGRAM THAT'S QUITE UNIQUE TO YELLOWKNIFE.
MOST MUNICIPALITIES DO NOT HAVE THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THE ACRONYM IS THE SERVICE CONNECTION FAILURE ASSISTANCE FUND.
>> THANK YOU. I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH FOLKS TRYING TO DO SECONDARY SUITES BEFORE OR MORE UNITS AROUND THE WATER AND SEWER BY-LAW.
I I GUESS THAT'S PLANNED TO BE UPGRADED AT SOME POINT, RIGHT? SO IT MAKES THIS WHOLE PROCESS EASIER.
>> I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
NOT THAT IT IS AN IMMEDIATE UPDATE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES WILL HELP PEOPLE GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS WHERE IT IS.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE ACTUALLY HAVE THIS SPECIFIC FUNDING HERE, IS WE RECOGNIZE THERE ARE SOME AREAS WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY WHERE THESE UPGRADES MAY BE REQUIRED.
AND THROUGH THAT CONVERSATION IS WHERE I UNDERSTAND SCAFA MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING ON TOP OF THE HALF FUNDING.
IT'S KIND OF AGAIN, GOING BACK TO STACKABLE AND MAKES IT A REALISTIC COST FOR PEOPLE IF THEY DO HAVE TO DO UPGRADES TO THEIR SEWER AND WATER CONNECTIONS IN ORDER TO PUT IN ADDITIONAL SUITES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION.
MAY WE DO IT NOW OR IS THERE MORE QUESTIONS FIRST? GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. JUST GOING TO PULL IT UP HERE.
I GOT A BIT OVER READ YOU. MY MOTION IS TO REMOVE SECTION E, WHICH IS THE WIN YOUR SPACE SECTION, AND THE ENTIRE SECTION G FROM TABLE A.
SECTION E RATIONALE IS BASICALLY IT'S NOT IN THE WORK PLAN, WE HAVEN'T BUDGETED IT, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS IS, SO I'D MUCH RATHER PUSH THIS TO A DISCUSSION FOR BUDGET 2025.
WHEN WE HAVE TIME AND SPACE, I THINK [INAUDIBLE] HAS ENOUGH WORK.
I WAS A JUROR ON THIS YEARS AGO AND THIS IS INCREDIBLY TIME-INTENSIVE FOR STAFF.
IF WE CAN PUSH THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THEN SECTION G, WE ARE NOT MONTREAL OR EDMONTON OR EVEN GRAND PRAIRIE, GOD FORBID.
WE ARE A REMOTE NORTHERN CITY WITH FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON DEVELOPMENT THAT DRASTICALLY INCREASE THE COST OF BUILDING HERE VERSUS MOST OF THE COUNTRY.
DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF BUILD, COSTS HERE ARE OFTEN 30% OR MORE VERSUS ALBERTA, WHEREAS ALREADY EXPENSIVE BUILDING PROJECTS ARE BEING CANCELED ALL OF THE COUNTRY.
SEEING A FEW LARGE PROJECTS BEING BUILT AROUND TOWN, IT'S EASY TO FORGET THAT WE WENT OVER 15 YEARS WITHOUT MORE THAN A DOZEN PURPOSE BUILT RENTAL UNITS COMING TO THE MARKET. THINK ABOUT THAT.
15 YEARS OF NO RENTAL STOCK BEING BUILT.
WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS AN ANOMALY.
WHAT WE'RE SEEING BEING BUILT TODAY MIGHT SLIGHTLY EASE THE HOUSING SUPPLY ISSUE BUT IS FAR FROM ENOUGH UNITS TO ACTUALLY START AFFECTING PRICES, INCREASE VACANCY RATES.
IN SHORT, WE STILL NEED TO BUILD A LOT MORE HOUSING UNITS OF EVERY SIZE AT A TIME WHEN NATIONALLY HOUSING STARTS ARE STARTING TO TREND DOWN DRASTICALLY.
ON TOP OF THIS, THE ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY YELL LIFE IS INCREDIBLY SMALL.
YOU CAN COUNT THEM ON ONE HAND.
THESE ARE FOLKS CURRENTLY BUILDING AT VARIOUS SCALES FROM FOUR PLEXES TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON IS HIGH INTEREST RATES, HIGH CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
YOU NEED TO IMPORT ALMOST ALL THEIR LABOR AND OPERATING IN AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT FINANCING ENVIRONMENT.
MOST OF THE PROJECTS YOU SEE BEING BUILT TODAY ARE SO FINANCIALLY
[00:35:01]
CHALLENGED THAT MANY REQUIRE CMHC INSURANCE TO BE EVEN VIABLE.DEPENDING ON THE PROGRAM, CMHC APPLICATIONS ARE TAKING ALMOST A YEAR TO BE APPROVED AND TIMELINES ARE GETTING LONGER WITH THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IS TRYING TO ACCESS THE SAME PROGRAMS. MANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, AS I'VE RECENTLY EXPERIENCED, ARE INTERNALLY TIGHTENING THEIR LENDING WITH SOME LARGE BIG FIVE BANKS NOT FUNDING ANY MULTIFAMILY AT ALL.
IN SHORT, THE FINANCING WORLD IS HARD.
REQUIRING AFFORDABLE UNITS AND DEVELOPMENT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY REMOVING THE MOST LIKELY UNIT SIZES, BATCHES, AND ONE-BEDROOMS. TO MEET THAT AFFORDABILITY METRIC WILL MEAN MOST DEVELOPMENTS WON'T BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, INCLUDING MOST WE'RE SEEING BUT RIGHT NOW IF THIS POLICY WAS IN PLACE.
THIS POLICY APPROACH DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ECONOMIC REALITY OF BUILDING HOUSING AND WILL SIMPLY MEAN PROJECTS WON'T PROCEED AND THEY WON'T HAPPEN.
THESE PENALTIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT SUBTLE.
THERE ARE 100 OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A UNIT WITH MULTIPLE ONE-BEDROOMS OR BACHELORS.
THIS WOULD INCLUDE MANY OF THE HOUSING PROJECTS BEING BUILT TODAY IF THIS DISINCENTIVE WAS IN PLACE.
THIS DISINCENTIVE WOULD MEAN WE WOULD SEE A REDUCTION OF ALL TYPES OF HOUSING BEING BUILT, NOT JUST THESE TWO.
THESE ARE OFTEN THE ONES THAT ARE USED TO MEET THE AFFORDABILITY METRICS OF FINANCING.
WITH ALL THIS IN MIND, YOU CAN SEE WHY DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PROPOSED ARE SO IMPORTANT, NOT JUST FOR THE DEVELOPERS WE HAVE BUT TO ENCOURAGE, INCUBATE AND HOPEFULLY ENABLE OTHER SMALL DEVELOPERS TO BUILD BASE SUITES, DETACH SECONDARY SUITES, OR EVEN VENTURE INTO A SMALL MULTIFAMILY IF THEY'RE BRAVE.
THIS WILL ONLY HAPPEN IF WE REMOVE BARRIERS, NOT ADD TO THEM BY ADDING COSTS THROUGH DISINCENTIVES.
THEY'RE NOT SUBTLE COSTS. THESE ARE HUGE COSTS.
THIS APPROACH OF EXTRACTING VALUE FROM A DEVELOPMENT MAY WORK IN LARGER CITIES WITH A ROBUST AND COMPETITIVE DEVELOPMENT MARKET BUT WE SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THAT YELLOWKNIFE NOR WILL WE SEE THAT IN FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
THE FACT WE'RE OFFERING A VACANT LAND INCENTIVE TELLS YOU THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT MARKET ACTIVE IN THE CITY.
IF WE HAD A HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT MARKET, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE SO MANY VACANT LOTS.
IF OUR GOALS ARE LARGER BEDROOM COUNTS AND MORE AFFORDABILITY, LET'S INCENTIVIZE THOSE, WHICH WE HAVE IN THIS INCENTIVE BY-LAW.
I HAVE MUCH SUPPLY AS POSSIBLE.
DON'T PUT UP FINANCIAL BARRIERS, WHICH WILL ONLY MAKE IT HARDER TO BUILD IT. THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU. TO DIVIDE IT UP, JUST ADMINISTRATION, THE.
>> ANY COMMENTS REGARDING REMOVING WIN YOUR SPACE FROM THE 2024 TABLE, MISS BASSI-KELLETT?
I AM GOING TO LOOK TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TEAM TO ACTING DIRECTOR KEITH SELZER.
I'M ASSUMING THAT EVERYONE IS QUITE OKAY WITH THIS, BUT OVER TO YOU, KEITH.
>> THANK YOU, YES, AND THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS ON THAT.
AS COUNCILOR WARBURTON POINTED OUT, IT IS A STAFF TIME INTENSIVE ENDEAVOR.
IT'S TRANSITIONED INTO AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP WEEK, WHICH THE ENTREPRENEURS FOUND VERY VALUABLE.
IT'S GOT THE TRAINING ASPECT OF IT.
THERE'S PROGRAMMING THAT'S HAPPENED LAST YEAR.
I BELIEVE IT'S PLANNED FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL.
SO THE WIN YEAR SPACE ASPECT HASN'T HAPPENED FOR A WHILE, BUT SOME OF THE BENEFITS TO BUSINESSES HAS CONTINUED AND THE COST OF THAT PROGRAM IS QUITE VARIABLE AS IT'S HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON HOW MUCH FUNDING WE GET.
THERE WAS A LARGE GBT INDUSTRY TOURISM INVESTMENT SUPPORT PREVIOUSLY.
ALSO, MANY BUSINESSES SUPPORTED IN THE PAST.
SO THE COST OF THAT VERY HARD TO HIT, AND YES, HIGH STAFF INTENSITY.
PUSHING THAT IS FINE WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY DEPARTMENT.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE SUPPORT FROM COUNSEL, IF PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK TO IT, YOU CAN, IF NOT, YOU COULD JUST DO NODDING HEADS. COUNCILOR PAYNE?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I DO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
JUST A QUESTION. I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE USED THIS IN THE PAST, AND IT'S BEEN QUITE POPULAR.
WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD JUST TRANSFER THAT MONEY TO SAY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO RUN THEIR OWN PROGRAM, AND TAKE OUT THE DEMAND HOURS THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PUT IN? IS THAT A POSSIBILITY?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK WE'D WANT TO TAKE SOME TIME TO THINK THAT ONE THROUGH, WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD WANT TO CONTINUE WITH WIN YOUR SPACE OR IF WE'D WANT TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS MORE BROADER IN ITS FOCUS AND TRYING TO STIMULATE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT IN [INAUDIBLE].
BUT I WILL SEE IF MR. SELZER HAS ANYTHING MORE TO ADD.
>> YEAH, I ECHO CITY MANAGER'S POINTS.
THE CHAMBER HAS LESS STAFF POWER THAN WE DO, AND IN PARTNERSHIPS WITH THEM, WE'VE HAD TO TAKE ON A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT WORK ALREADY, SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S A PLACE THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO PASS SOME OF THAT WORK.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST CURIOUS.
>> COUNSEL FEQUET, THEN COUNCILOR HENDRICKSON.
[00:40:01]
>> THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION.
RECOGNIZING WE LOOKED AT THE WORK PLAN LAST WEEK, BUT THAT WAS A HIGH LEVEL WORK PLAN, AND IT DIDN'T INCLUDE ALL ONGOING THINGS.
COUNCILOR WARTON MENTIONED THIS WASN'T IN THE WORK PLAN.
I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION FROM ADMINISTRATION ON, WAS THIS WORK ANTICIPATED INTERNALLY ALREADY OR WOULD THIS BE IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED I GUESS LAST WEEK?
>> IT'D BE IN ADDITION, SO WE'D HAVE TO CUT SOMETHING ELSE. MISS BASSI-KELLETT?
>> MS. WHITE, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD FROM WIN YOUR SPACE YK?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WOULD BE SOMETHING IF PUT IN WOULD BE FOR 2025 ANYWAYS.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN STARTED FOR 2024.
SO NO, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT.
SO IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH PUSHING IT BACK, THEN IT'S ABSOLUTELY OKAY.
THAT WAS PART OF THE WORK PLAN. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILOR HENDRICKSON AND COUNCILOR ARDEN SMITH AND DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE?
>> THANKS, MAYOR ALTY. YEAH, I'M FINE WITH PUSHING IT TO A DISCUSSION FOR 2025.
MY OTHER THOUGHT WOULD BE AND DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THIS NOW BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU DON'T HAVE THE CUFF, BUT AS I WAS THINKING OF IT OVER THE WEEKEND AND THEN AS COUNCILOR WARTON WAS BRINGING IT UP, IS ALSO LIKE WHAT'S THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROGRAM BEEN? BECAUSE I CAN'T THINK OF A BUSINESS THAT WENT THROUGH THIS AND IS STILL AROUND, AND MAYBE I'M WRONG.
I SEE COUNCILOR COCHRANE POINTING THIS OUT.
WITH THE OTHER INCENTIVES GOING ON THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FROM A BUSINESS SIDE OF THINGS, DOES THIS REALLY COUNT AMONGST THE BEST ONES? I KNOW IT'S A GOOD PR ITEM, BUT I THINK AS COUNCILOR PAYNE WAS SAYING, MAYBE THERE'S OTHER THINGS WE CAN DO WITH THE CHAMBER, WHETHER THEY RAN IT OR SOME OTHER WORK THAT WE COULD DO AROUND THAT.
I'M FINE WITH KICKING IT TO 2024, BUT ALSO, IF IT DOES COME BACK IN THE FUTURE, I'D WANT TO HAVE THAT THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT'S THE ACTUAL EFFICACY OF TIME AND THEN MONEY SPENT ON A PROGRAM IN TERMS OF ACTUAL OUTCOMES WITH THE BUSINESSES THAT ONLY HAVE STARTED THROUGH THIS PROGRAM. THANKS.
>> I THINK LONG ARM OF THE NORTH IS THE ONE THAT'S STILL OPERATING.
BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO WON SECOND AND THIRD FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND YEAR.
SO WIKI GOLD WAS, I THINK, ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, BUT TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT IF THE MEMO HAS TO COME FORWARD IN THE FUTURE. COUNCILOR ARDEN SMITH?
>> THANK YOU. JUST AN ADD ON TO THAT, I GOT TO REMEMBER WE WERE GOING INTO COVID AND A LOT OF BUSINESSES REALLY TOOK A HIT.
SO WHEN YOU'RE A START UP, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THAT MOMENTUM, AND A MAJORITY THEY'RE LUXURY PRODUCT AND LUXURY PRODUCTS JUST TOOK A HIT.
SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE, MY QUESTION IS, IN PREVIOUS YEARS, WHAT KIND OF BUDGET DID WE HAVE FOR THIS, NOTING THAT OTHER BUSINESSES AIDED WITH THIS, PROVIDED ASSISTANCE, SPACES, SUCH AS THIS, WHAT KIND OF BUDGET ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AND CONSIDERING INFLATION? HOW DO WE SEE THIS GOING FORWARD FOR BUDGET 2025?
>> IF I RECALL, AND I WILL ASK MR. SELZER TO WEIGH IN IF HE HAS ANY RECOLLECTION AS WELL.
A LOT OF THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE CITY WAS IN KIND IN TERMS OF ORGANIZING, COORDINATING, GETTING THE PROGRAM OUT, WORKING WITH THE POTENTIAL LANDLORDS AND DIFFERENT PARTNERS THAT COULD BE ADDING TO WHAT THE TOTAL PACKAGE LOOKED LIKE FOR WIN YOU SPACE.
A LOT OF IT WAS THE TIME SPENT BY OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM.
I'LL ASK MR. SELZER AND MR. JOHNSON, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. KEITH, OVER TO YOU FIRST.
>> YEAH. AS I SAID, QUITE VARIABLE, INCLUDING THAT THE LANDLORDS ACTUALLY DONATED A GOOD CHUNK BECAUSE IT WAS FORGET IF IT WAS FREE RENT FOR A YEAR AND MULTIPLE MONTHS WERE REQUIRED TO BE DONATED BY THE LANDLORD.
I THINK IT WAS ONLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ZERO AND 15,000 OR SOMETHING FROM THE CITY, BUT STAFF TIME WAS THE BIG, BIG CONTRIBUTOR TO IT, BUT I BELIEVE THE TOTAL BUDGET WAS IN A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
BUT A LOT OF THAT WAS IN KIND DONATIONS FROM VARIOUS BUSINESSES AND DONATIONS AND CASH DONATIONS.
NOT A TON OF OUT OF POCKET COST,
[00:45:01]
BUT A LOT OF STAFF COST.>> I'M IN COMPLETE SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT TO PUSH THIS.
SORRY, IT'S A TUESDAY THAT FEELS LIKE A MONDAY AND MY BRAIN IS JUST NOT CATCHING UP WITH ME.
I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITH THIS PROGRAM IS A LITTLE BIT MORE, I GUESS, TRAINING FOR THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GOING INTO THIS.
I DO REALIZE THAT IT'S A LOT OF STAFF TIME THAT'S INVOLVED WITH IT, BUT AS COUNCILOR HENDRIKSEN DID POINT OUT, THERE ARE A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE APPLIED FOR THIS ONE YEAR SPACE THAT ARE NO LONGER AROUND.
SO REALLY GIVING THEM THE THE TOOLS TO MAINTAIN AND TO SUSTAIN IS VERY IMPORTANT.
AGAIN, FROM A BUSINESS BACKGROUND EVEN WITH MY UMPTEEN YEARS OF BUSINESS BACKGROUND, IT REALLY TOOK EVERYTHING I POSSIBLY HAD TO MAINTAIN MY OWN, WHICH WAS ALREADY A PRE EXISTING.
TO GO FROM YOUR FOUNDATION ALL THE WAY UP IN BUILDING UP YOUR OWN BUSINESS, IT'S DIFFICULT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO BE IN THE ONE YEAR YOUR SPACE ARE GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE TOOLS, NOT ONLY JUST IN BUSINESS SENSE, BUT BEING HERE IN THE NORTH.
THE IDEAS THAT COME FORWARD, YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT IT HAS TO FUNCTION WITH THE COMMUNITY.
IT'S GOT TO BE A SERVICE THAT'S PROVIDED THAT THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO WANT AND HOW TO KEEP THAT BALL ROLLING.
>> THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ONE COMMENT.
I WOULD REMIND COUNCILOR HENDRIKSEN THAT THOUGH [INAUDIBLE] MAY BE GONE, IT IS NOT FORGOTTEN.
YOU CAN GO FROM SCRATCH BAKERY AND BOVA AND GET YOUR CURRY BUNS STILL TO THIS DAY.
TWO QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.
THE FIRST IS HAS ITI COMMITTED TO CONTINUE FUNDING FOR SAID PROGRAM IF WE CARRY ON WITH IT?
>> MS. BASYE CALEB [PHONETIC].
>> I'LL ASK MR. SELZER IF HE HAS ANY IDEA.
>> NO. I DON'T KNOW. I'M QUITE CERTAIN THAT THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY FUNDING FOR IT, BUT WE HAVEN'T INQUIRED ABOUT GETTING THAT FUNDING TO CONTINUE THIS PROGRAM.
>> THANK YOU. WHEN IS THIS INDICATED ENTREPRENEURIAL WEEK?
>> SOME TIME IN OCTOBER, I BELIEVE. MS. BASYE CALEB.
>> THANK YOU. YES. IT'S TYPICALLY BEEN IN OCTOBER.
>> THANK YOU. I FULLY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR US TO HAVE THIS FURTHER DISCUSSION IN BUDGET 2025, BUT WITH THE STAFF TIME, THE INDICATION OF NOT A CROSS JURISDICTIONAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT UPON THIS, AND NOT BEING IN THE WORK PLAN, I WOULD PREFER TO BRING THIS UP FOR NEXT YEAR'S DISCUSSION.
I THINK IT'S STILL A GREAT PROGRAM.
IT'S JUST VERY STAFF INTENSIVE.
HOW WILL WE EVER NOT FIND OUR NEXT [INAUDIBLE] WITHOUT IT? OPEN FOR 2025. SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT FOR THIS ONE.
>> THANK YOU. SEEING GENERAL SUPPORT FOR REMOVING IT FROM THE TABLE, MY TWO CENTS ON IT WON'T EVEN ADD IT TO 2025, I'D LOOK MORE TO 2026 OR BEYOND JUST BECAUSE I WANT SOME KEY STUFF DONE LIKE THE VISITOR CENTER GOVERNANCE.
UNTIL WE GET SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS COMPLETE, I WOULD SAY PAUSE.
HOWEVER, CONTINUING ENTREPRENEURSHIP WEEK MEANS CHECK WE'RE STILL PROVIDING THE SUPPORT, BUT I THINK WE CAN GET BIGGER BANG FOR OUR BUCK WITH SOME OF THOSE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE ALREADY ON A MEN'S WORK PLAN.
WE WILL STRIKE THAT FROM TABLE A AND IT'LL BE POSSIBILITY FOR TABLE B IF ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO BRING THAT FORWARD.
THE SECOND PART REQUEST WAS TO DIVIDE THE DISCUSSION ON ITEMS, G, THE DISINCENTIVES.
NUMBER 1 IS PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR NOT INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN A DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT.
NUMBER 2 IS PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLING UNITS WITH NO BEDROOMS, I.E., BACHELOR UNITS OR ONLY ONE BEDROOM.
MS. BASYE CALEB, WOULD ADMINISTRATION LIKE TO SPEAK TO REMOVING G1 AND G2?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
MS. WHITE, I'LL ASK YOU TO WEIGH IN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL GO ONE AND THEN TWO.
THE FIRST, WHICH IS THE PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR NOT INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A LARGER DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS TRYING TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WHEN UPFRONT, A DEVELOPER IS LOOKING TO DO ANYTHING WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN THAT THEY UNDERSTAND.
WE, AS THE MUNICIPALITY ARE ASKING FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THERE ARE OTHER INCENTIVES WITHIN THIS BY LAW,
[00:50:02]
SO LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE STACKABLE, WHICH WOULD OFFSET OR BE A GREATER INCENTIVE THAN HOPEFULLY THIS DISINCENTIVE IS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.WHEN WE DID THE MATH JUST ON THE MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN, IT'S LESS THAN 10 UNITS THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY EVEN ACCOMPLISH, AND WE DEFINITELY NEED MORE THAN 10% OF OUR HOUSING STOCK TO BE IN THE AFFORDABLE RANGE.
DOING IT FROM A PURELY MATH STANDPOINT, THIS DISINCENTIVE IS HOPEFULLY NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO GENERATE ANY INCOME BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING PEOPLE TO NOT DO THIS AND GO TOWARDS SOME OF THE OTHER INCENTIVES WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THEIR DEVELOPMENT LESS COSTLY OVERALL IF I'M MAKING SENSE.
I'M SEEING NODDING HEADS. THANK YOU.
SHOULD SOMEONE CHOOSE TO, AND THIS HAPPENS IN MANY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, AND EVEN HERE, PREVIOUS BY LAW, YOU COULD HAVE A PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR NOT PUTTING IN PARKING.
YOU COULD MAKE A PAYMENT AND NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BY LAW.
SHOULD SOMEONE CHOOSE AND THEY WANTED TO DO SOME OTHER KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, THEN THIS WOULD BE THE FEE.
WE'LL TAKE THIS FEE AND PUT IT BACK INTO THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES TO CREATE AN INCENTIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE WITHIN THAT DOWNTOWN AREA.
THAT WAS THE THINKING BEHIND NUMBER 1.
NUMBER 2, THIS ONE WILL BE AS A RESULT OF OUR HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
WHAT THAT HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT IS GOING TO TELL US IS IT'S NOT JUST THAT WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL ANECDOTALLY KNOW THAT WE DO.
WHAT IT'S GOING TO TELL US IS WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE THREE BEDROOMS OR TWO BEDROOMS OR ACCESSIBLE.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TESTS AS RESULTS GOING TO COME OUT OF THIS ASSESSMENT, WHICH WE SHOULD THEN BE TYING WHAT OUR INCENTIVES ARE TRYING TO CREATE.
RIGHT NOW IF YOU JUST LOOK STRAIGHT AT THE STATISTICS CANADA DATA FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, AND YOU LOOK AT WHO IS LOOKING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S 23% OF OUR POPULATION, AND THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE FAMILIES, SO A ONE BEDROOM OR A BACHELOR SUITE ISN'T GOING TO SATISFY THEIR NEEDS EFFECTIVELY.
WHILE IT MAY BE AFFORDABLE FOR THEIR HOUSEHOLD INCOME, IS IT ACTUALLY MEETING THEIR NEEDS? WHEN WE LOOK AT MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILIES, SAME THING, ARE THEIR NEEDS BEING MET BY A ONE-BEDROOM APARTMENT THAT SURE THEY CAN AFFORD, BUT ARE THEY ACTUALLY LIVING? WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE CAN STILL BE DEVELOPED.
IT'S JUST IF WE KNOW WE NEED, SAY, 300 NEW THREE BEDROOM AND 200 NEW FOUR BEDROOM, THAT THOSE ARE PRIORITIZED.
WITH THE OTHER INCENTIVES, WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT EXTRA MONEY FOR A BUILDER, IF THEY'RE GOING TO ADD BEDROOMS, AGAIN, SAME AS PREVIOUS, WE'RE LOOKING TO CREATE A GREATER INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO CREATE UNITS WITH MORE BEDROOMS. IF THEY STILL FIND THAT THERE IS A MARKET TO DO THESE BACHELOR OR ZERO BEDROOM UNITS, THEY CAN, BUT THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
NOW, IF THAT HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, COMES BACK AND SAYS, WE NEED 150 BACHELOR, THEN WE WOULD HOLD.
WE WOULDN'T DO THIS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT OUT THERE.
IN THE CASE THAT THERE'S NO NEED FOR ANY MORE OF THOSE, WE CAN THEN PUT THIS INTO PLAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILOR OBERTON [PHONETIC] SPOKE TO IT, SO I'LL GETS YOU TO CLOSE IF YOU HAVE FINAL COMMENTS, BUT COUNCILOR FOREKEP [PHONETIC].
>> THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. I WAS JUST HOPING THE ADMINISTRATION COULD ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THE TIMING.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
WHEN DO WE ANTICIPATE THAT BEING RECEIVED, COMPLETED, MADE AVAILABLE?
>> WE'RE LOOKING AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER AS THE TIMELINE TO COMPLETE THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BY OUR CONSULTANT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS COMING TO GPC NOW FOR DISCUSSION.
WHEN YOU SAID YOU WOULD HOLD ON G2, DEPENDING ON THE NEEDS, HOW DOES THAT TIMING LINE UP?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO, IF GPC GIVES US DIRECTION, WE WOULD COME BACK WITH A DRAFT BY LAW BASED ON WHAT IS IN TABLE A.
MY THINKING AND TIMING ON THIS IS WE INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE FOR ITEM NUMBER 2 DISINCENTIVE.
BY THE TIME IT MAKES IT THROUGH TO THIRD READING, WE SHOULD HAVE A DRAFT IDEA FROM THE CONSULTANT WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO NEED NUMBER 2 OR NOT.
THEN WE COULD, AT THAT POINT, GIVE YOU OUR ADVICE AND OR CONSULTANTS ADVICE.
[00:55:01]
AS WELL AS IT CAN BE IN THERE AND NOT BE USED GOING FORWARD AS WELL.IF THAT HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMES BACK AND SAYS, WE NEED 150 BACHELOR UNITS, HYPOTHETICALLY.
LET'S SAY IT SAYS THAT, THEN WE COULD ALTER IT.
I WAS PREPARING TO HAVE IT READY AND THEN REMOVE IT IF NEEDED TO BE REMOVED RATHER THAN HAVING TO THEN COME BACK AND ASK TO HAVE IT PUT IN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT MAKES SENSE.
I'M CURIOUS ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN, DISINCENTIVIZING THE BACHELOR OR THE ONE BEDROOM UNITS.
IS THERE MORE THAT WE COULD DO.
I THINK I HEARD COUNCILOR OBERTON MENTION ANOTHER OPTION COULD BE, WHETHER IT'S IN PLACE OR IN ADDITION TO THE DISINCENTIVES, WOULD BE WHAT MORE CAN WE DO FOR THE MULTIFAMILY THAT WE AREN'T ALREADY DOING HERE? OBVIOUSLY, I SEE SOME INCENTIVES RELATED TO THOSE TYPES OF DWELLINGS, BUT ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERED OR ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS YOU THINK WE COULD EXPLORE IF WE WANTED TO GO HARD ON THAT?
>> I'M GOING TO BE HONEST, I'M NOT 100% SURE THE DIFFERENCE YOU'RE MAKING FOR MULTI DWELLING BECAUSE THERE ARE SPECIFIC UNDER THE HALF PROGRAMMING, SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS FOR THE MISSING MIDDLE, WHICH DOES INCLUDE, WE'LL CALL LOWER DENSITY, BUT STILL MEDIUM DENSITY DWELLINGS THAT ARE MULTI UNIT, BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING MOSTLY IN THE DOWNTOWN OR WHAT WE HAVE PERMITTED RECENTLY ARE DEFINITELY HIGHER DENSITY, MULTI-UNIT.
IT'S THAT MISSING MIDDLE THAT WE'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON THROUGH THIS FUNDING.
THERE ARE OFF SHOOT BENEFITS THAT WILL HELP SHOULD SOMEONE WANT TO DO A 70, 80, 90-UNIT DWELLING DOWNTOWN, BUT THE MAJORITY WE'RE AIMING FOR IS THAT MORE MEDIUM DENSITY, MISSING MIDDLE, MAX THREE-AND-A-HALF STORY DWELLING ROW HOUSE, THAT'S WHERE THESE INCENTIVES ARE TRYING TO HIT THE HARDEST IN A GOOD WAY.
SORRY, LET'S BE CLEAR, IN A BONUS WAY. THANK YOU.
>> NO, THINKS THAT. I RECOGNIZE THAT ONE THERE, NUMBER 4.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER INCENTIVES YOU WOULD COME ACROSS IN YOUR RESEARCH, OR BEST PRACTICES ABOUT OTHER WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE THAT, OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT'S ALREADY IN HERE.
THAT'S JUST WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MCCLENDON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF REMOVING G1.
I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT OUR COMMUNITY DOES NEED MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS, AND I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY LOW BAR TO CLEAR.
HAVING A CARD AND A STICK MAKES TOTAL SENSE TO ME.
THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY ADMIN, TOTALLY AGREE WITH.
IT FEELS TO ME LIKE A BIT OF A BIGGER CONVERSATION.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND ADMIN TRYING TO GET IT READY AND THEN COULD TAKE IT OUT IF NECESSARY, BUT JUST WARY, SPOOKING DEVELOPERS, IT FEELS TO ME LIKE A CONVERSATION TO HAVE AFTER THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF REMOVING 2, BUT NOT IN FAVOR OF REMOVING G1.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILOR HENDRICKSON.
>> I STRUGGLED WITH THESE SECTIONS OVER THE WEEKEND, BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN WE FIRST TALKED ABOUT HOUSING RIGHT AFTER WE WERE ELECTED, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I FOCUSED ON WAS THE DISINCENTIVES, BUT A LOT OF THAT FOR ME COMES BACK TO VACANT LAND, WHICH WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT BECAUSE OF PATA, SO BACK TO OUR GNWT FELLOWS.
I WOULD SAY MY GUT INSTINCT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT COUNCILOR MCCLENDON WAS JUST SAYING AROUND, [LAUGHTER] FROM A PROCESS GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE I WOULD SAY, LEAVE IT IN, AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS REMOVE IT.
BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT COUNCILOR MCCLENDON JUST SAID AROUND NOT WANTING TO SPOOK INVESTMENT.
BECAUSE TO ME, THESE REQUIRE MORE THAN JUST ONE 15-MINUTE CONVERSATION AT GPC.
I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO REMOVE THEM, NOT DO ANYTHING NEW RIGHT NOW AROUND THIS.
BUT I DO THINK THEY'RE VALUABLE TO HAVE CONVERSATION.
THE DIRECTOR HIGHLIGHTED ALL OF THE HOW THESE INTERPLAY WITH EACH OTHER.
I'M NOT SURE I FULLY HAVE WRAP MY HEAD AROUND ALL OF THOSE INTERPLAYS YET, AND I REALLY THINK WHEN WE'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY PUT A STICK TO SOMETHING, EVEN THOUGH I'M A BIG FAN [LAUGHTER] OF THAT, BECAUSE IT ALWAYS COSTS LESS, FOR ONE, BUT ALSO IT DRIVES HOME WHAT WE WANT AS A CITY.
I THINK WE NEED MORE TIME ON THESE TWO ITEMS. THAT'S WHERE MY GUT IS RIGHT NOW.
>> SO IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THEM FOR NOW?
>> COUNSEL PAYNE, THEN DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST A QUESTION.
HAVE THESE PAYMENT IN [INAUDIBLE] BEEN AN ISSUE BROUGHT UP BY DEVELOPERS,
[01:00:05]
OR IS IT LOOKED AT MORE OF A TOOL THAT CAN BE USED BY THEM WHEN IT MAKES SENSE FINANCIALLY?>> MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE.
>> WITHIN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, NO, IT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP BY DEVELOPERS.
ELSEWHERE DISINCENTIVES ARE USED FOR VARIOUS THINGS, NOT JUST FOR HOUSING.
THIS EXAMPLE IS JUST FOR HOUSING.
HOWEVER IT IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL THAT A MUNICIPALITY USES MORE AS A GUIDANCE TOWARDS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT IN SPECIFIC AREAS, WHICH IS WHY AS YOU SEE THE ONE IS TARGETED ONLY IN THAT DOWNTOWN AREA, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC OUTLINE WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR ZONING BY-LAW.
IT'S LOOKING TO AFFECT CERTAIN CHANGE IN CERTAIN AREAS, BUT IT DOESN'T APPLY.
IT'S NOT LIKE A BLANKET ACROSS THE CITY, IT'S JUST A FOCUS IN ONE AREA.
NO, IT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP BY DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. TO ME IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE HERE, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING RIGHT NOW.
BUT I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING IT, BUT DEFINITELY BE INTERESTED IN HAVING MORE CONVERSATIONS IN THE FUTURE.
>> YOUR PREFERENCES ADMINISTRATION COMES FORWARD WITH THE DISINCENTIVES. DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. [INAUDIBLE] COUNSEL HENDRICKSON, I HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING OVER WITH THESE.
DISINCENTIVES DO MAKE SENSE ON A POLICY LEVEL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A BIT OF A CART BEFORE THE HORSE HERE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE NEED OF THE HOUSING ASSESSMENT NOT BEING FINISHED UNTIL SEPTEMBER.
I WOULD SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THEM FOR NOW, BUT I WOULD NOT BE AGAINST THEM COMING BACK AFTER WE'VE HAD THE HOUSING ASSESSMENT DONE, AND THAT WE COULD HAVE A LARGER DISCUSSION UPON WHAT THESE WOULD LOOK LIKE. THANK YOU.
>> I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS, BUT I WOULD NOT BE AGAINST IN THE FUTURE FOR THEM TO COME BACK.
>> PERFECT. POSSIBILITY FOR 2025, WITH FURTHER ANALYSIS IN A MEMO.
FOR MYSELF, I AM IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THEM WITH THE OPTION FOR THEM TO COME BACK.
BUT WHEN THE CITY OF MONTREAL LOOKED AT IT, THEY DID AN ANALYSIS, AND THEY DID IT ZONE BY ZONE, AND SO DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY WERE SHOWN TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING IN.
I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT $5,000 PER UNIT, COULD BE 10 UNITS, THAT'S $50,000 THAT WE'RE ADDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT KILLING A DEVELOPMENT AND ADDING ZERO HOUSING TO TRY TO GET 10 HOUSES.
SO WE WANT TO SEE THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT PROJECTS ARE STILL GOING TO BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WITH 10% OF THE UNITS BEING AFFORDABLE.
THEN THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF FOR CONSTRUCTION.
AGAIN, ONCE WE GET THE HOUSING NEEDS STUDY, AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK IT'LL BE GOOD WITH THE ROUND TABLE, WOULD BE TO HAVE THESE TWO QUESTIONS.
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU TO ADD 10% OF YOUR UNITS AS AFFORDABLE UNITS? WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU TO CREATE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THREE OR FOUR, AND THEN MAKING SURE THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW IS BEING ABLE TO MEET THAT? LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
BUT AT THIS TIME I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THEM FROM TABLE A.
TO SECOND ROUND, AND JUST TO NOTE, I'M HEARING MAJORITY IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THEM FROM TABLE A AT THIS TIME. COUNCILOR [INAUDIBLE]
>> THANKS. MAYBE JUST TO CLARIFY.
I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THEM.
[LAUGHTER] SIMPLY FOR THE REASON OF THEY'RE HERE, AND I THINK THEY ARE A REALLY GOOD CRACK AT TRYING TO REFLECT THE CHANGE THAT COUNSEL HAS BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT FOR OUR TERM SO FAR, AND APPRECIATE ADMIN'S ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.
I'M NOT DECIDING ON WHETHER THEY'RE VALID OR NOT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE TIMING.
THAT'S HOW I WOULD MAKE MY FINAL DECISION.
MY QUESTION RIGHT NOW WOULD BE, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS LOOK LIKE AS FAR AS, I HEARD ADMIN MENTION TAKING THESE, CREATING IN THE DRAFT BY-LAW, SO WHAT IS THE TIMING? WHAT IS THE STEPS FOR INCLUDING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT'S EXPECTED TO HAPPEN?
[01:05:03]
WE DID DO A LITTLE BIT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EARLIER IN THE YEAR BEFORE WE CAME AND DRAFTED ALL OF BOTH TABLE A AND TABLE B.
TABLE B IS, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT IS RECOMMENDED, ALL OF THE ITEMS IN TABLE B.
IT'S JUST TABLE A IS WHAT WE WITHIN OUR FUNDING CAN DO RIGHT NOW, AND RECOMMEND.
GOING FORWARD, ONCE I UNDERSTAND FROM GPC, WHICH ITEMS IN TABLE A, WE ARE TO GO FORWARD WITH, THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD DO THE DRAFT OF, AND THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO, I'M THINKING TO GPC, BECAUSE THAT'S THE FIRST TIME YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT DRAFT, BECAUSE THE LAST RESOLUTION OF COUNSEL WAS TO CREATE THE SUITE OF INCENTIVES.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. SO YES, WE WOULD COME BACK. SORRY I'M TALKING THIS OUT.
WE WOULD COME BACK TO GPC, AND THEN WE WOULD GO TO COUNSEL FOR FIRST READING, AND THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY IN THERE.
IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
THEN WE COULD REACH OUT TO THOSE WHO HAD ALREADY PROVIDED SOME COMMENTS ON OUR ORIGINAL, I BELIEVE WE USE PLAY SPEAK AS WELL, AND WE CAN GO BACK OUT AND SAY, "HEY, HERE'S WHAT THE DRAFT NOW LOOKS LIKE, ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR CONSIDERATIONS?" THANK YOU.
>> JUST TO BUILD ON THAT, AND SO HOW DOES THE POTENTIAL ROUNDTABLE ON DEVELOPMENT, OR DOES IT LINE UP TO INFORM THIS PROCESS IN ANY WAY? IT DOESN'T. THANK YOU FOR THE SHAKING OF THE HEAD.
>> I'M STILL HEARING GENERAL SUPPORT TO FOUR OR THREE THOUGH, TO REMOVE THIS FROM TABLE A.
GOING FORWARD TO COUNCIL, WE WILL REMOVE G1 AND G2.
IF COUNCILORS WANT TO ADD IT BACK IN AT COUNCIL, WE CAN DO IT AT THAT TIME.
BUT COUNCILOR WARBURTON TO JUST CLOSE THIS POINT.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THERE'S TWO REALLY LARGE POLICY THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING AROUND HERE. ONE IS AFFORDABLE.
WE'RE NOT EVEN AGREEING WHAT THAT DEFINITION IS, AND THAT IS IMMENSELY IMPORTANT IF YOU ASK THEN TO FINANCIALLY PAY THAT SHE HAS DEFINITIONS, AND I KNOW EVEN BETWEEN THE TWO OF US ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DEFINITION.
WE HAD TO FIND THAT FIRST. THE SECOND ONE WHICH IS MUCH BIGGER IS SHOULD THE MARKET SUBSIDIZE HOUSING? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IT TO DO.
YOU'RE ASKING THE MARKET TO PURPOSELY WRITE SOMETHING DOWN THAT INVESTED IN TO SUBSIDIZE RENT ON SOMEONE.
THE OTHER RENTERS IN THAT BUILDING WILL DO THAT.
IT'S NOT MAGIC MONEY, HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.
IF YOU TAKE A DOLLAR OFF THAT RENTAL UNIT THAT'S CHEAPER WHICH WE'RE MAKING THEM TO DO MORE AFFORDABLE, WHERE IS THAT GOING TO GO? IT JUST GOES TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
THE MARKET DOING NON-MARKET THINGS, I CAUTION THAT BECAUSE IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
THEN THE COMMENT OF THIS BEING DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC, THE MOST EXPENSIVE PLACE TO BUILD YELLOWKNIFE IS DOWNTOWN.
WE'RE TAKING THE AREA WHICH IS THE HIGHEST DENSITY BUILDS, AND WE'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S WHERE WE ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO DO THE MOST AFFORDABLE CONSTRUCTION. IT'S OPPOSITE.
MOST AFFORDABLE STUFF IS SECONDARY SUITES, BASEMENT SUITES, THAT STUFF'S AFFORDABLE.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WORD AFFORDABLE AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE SAME SENTENCE BECAUSE THOSE TWO THINGS THEY JUST DON'T WORK WITHOUT HEAVY GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY.
TO CLOSE, THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT ON THAT.
AND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO SOME MORE ROBUST POLICY DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL HELP KIND OF FRAME THIS LATER. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. FOR THE QUESTIONS, COUNCILOR [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST HAD ONE ON THE EAS INCENTIVE.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU HAD EXPLORED OTHER THAN JUST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LIKE WHY IT WAS RESTRICTED AND NOT JUST OPEN TO ANY OTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
>> THE RATIONALE FOR INCLUDING THAT IN THERE IS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS WHAT THIS SPECIFIC AREA IS.
MIXED USE WOULD INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL IS THE MOST SENSITIVE CLEANUP REQUIREMENT IN ORDER FOR A BROWN FIELD TO BE REMEDIATED TOO.
IF IT MEETS RESIDENTIAL, IT WILL ALWAYS MEET COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE.
HOPEFULLY, THAT IS A CLEAR ENOUGH ANSWER. THANK YOU.
>> IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID, JUST MAKE SURE BECAUSE WHEN I READ THAT, YEAH, I ASSUME THAT WAS ONLY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ACCESS THIS INCENTIVE, BUT WHAT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING OR JUST THAT TO MEET THE RESIDENTIAL STANDARD, AND EVERYTHING OBVIOUSLY ABOVE THAT IS LOWER THAN THAT STANDARD, THAT WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED?
>> AGAIN, MAYBE THIS IS A WORDING ON MY PART.
[01:10:04]
IF THERE IS ANY REMEDIATION, ON ANY SITE WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, AND EIS WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THIS PROGRAM, AND THE INTENT IS TO ALSO ASSIST IN HAVING THAT CLEANED UP TO THAT RESIDENTIAL STANDARD.IF SOMEONE SAY WANTED TO DO THE COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM AND THEN RESIDENTIAL ON TOP, THAT THAT WOULD BE AFFORDED.
IT'S THAT RESIDENTIAL IS THE MOST SENSITIVE USE AND WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THIS.
I'M HOPING I'M CLARIFYING IT BY TALKING IT OUT.
I'M SEEING SOME NODDING HEADS.
YES, IT IS NOT JUST TO SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USE, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTIAL COULD BE DEVELOPED IF A SITE IS REMEDIATED. THANK YOU.
>> I THINK ONCE WE GET TO THE BY-LAW PART 2, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S FLESHED OUT CLEAR.
>> THANK YOU. THAT LAST ANSWER WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR, AND THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE?
>> NO QUESTIONS. JUST A COMMENT.
I'M SO GLAD TO SEE THE HAFK THE HOUSING ACCELERATING FUNDING COME INTO FRUITION SO QUICKLY.
IT'S ADDRESSING A BUNCH OF POLICY AREAS WITHIN THE CONCLUSIONARY ZONING, THE MISSING MIDDLE, AND THE MISUSE DEVELOPMENT GRANT.
IF ANYBODY FROM THE FEDS ARE LISTENING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU.
>> I'M SURE THEY'RE ALL LISTENING RAPTLY BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT WEBCAST OR THEY CAN WATCH IT LATER. COUNCILOR HENDRIKSEN.
>> THANKS. NO QUESTION. I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THE POINTS THAT COUNCILOR WARBURTON WAS MAKING THERE BECAUSE I AGREE IN MANY WAYS, BUT I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO BRING TO THIS IS REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE MARKET IN HOUSING AND SHOULD THE MARKET SUBSIDIZE HOUSING, WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT OUR WHOLE INCENTIVE TABLE IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZING MARKET.
IT'S ABOUT A BALANCE FOR ME, AND THIS IS WHY I DON'T WANT TO MOVE FORWARD YET WITH THOSE DISINCENTIVES IS BECAUSE THIS IS A BIGGER POLICY DISCUSSION OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE IN HOUSING, AND IT REALLY HAS A ROLE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE KNOW THERE IS A THRESHOLD WHERE BELOW THAT PEOPLE NEED HOUSING.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF YELLOWKNIFE CAN'T DO IT ON OUR OWN.
WE NEED THE SUPPORT OF OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
FOR ME, THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSION COMES IN, AND THAT'S WHERE I'M NOT OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD THOSE DISINCENTIVES NOW.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE MARKET SHOULD PLAY A ROLE BECAUSE WE'RE SUBSIDIZING THE HECK OUT OF THE MARKET IN MANY WAYS, NOT CURRENTLY WITH A LOT OF WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT WITH THE GOAL OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
FOR ME, IT'S THAT POLICY DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AROUND HOW DO WE BALANCE THOSE INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES, RECOGNIZING THAT.
THE MARKET ISN'T ACHIEVING WHAT WE NEED NOW, SO WE HAVE TO STEP UP INTO THIS CONVERSATION, AND SO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE SPURRING THAT GROWTH WITHOUT DOING AS THE MAYOR SAID, NOT GETTING ANYTHING BECAUSE WE TRIED TO GET 10 UNITS.
IT'S LIKE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DISINCENTIVIZING SOMETHING MOVING FORWARD.
I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXTUAL INTO MY THINKING BEHIND IT BECAUSE WELL, I DO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT COUNCILOR WARBURTON SAID AROUND, YOU DON'T WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT THERE, DOING THE HARD WORK AND TAKING THOSE FINANCIAL RISKS, WE ALSO NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR GOAL AS A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IS TO DO TOO, IS TO TAKE THOSE FINANCIAL RISKS ON PEOPLE TO INCENTIVIZE HOUSING.
I'LL FINISH WITH THAT. THANKS.
FOR MYSELF, I DID WANT TO I THINK MOST OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED THERE, THERE.
JUST THINKING OF IN PARTICULAR COOPS, I SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION IN MISSING MIDDLE AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE GRANTS NOT JUST BE 25% FOR COOPS, WHICH ARE NON PROFITS, BUT ALL THE WAY TO THE CITY DONATING LAND IF A COOP WANTS TO BE ESTABLISHED.
JUST WONDERING IF ADMINISTRATION HAS CONSIDERED THAT AND WHETHER THEY'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF CONSIDERING THAT. MS. BASSI-KELLETT?
>> SO DID NOT LOOK AT COOP SPECIFICALLY.
HOWEVER, IT'S SOMETHING IF WE'RE GIVEN DIRECTION TO GO BACK AND DRAFT, I CAN DEFINITELY HAVE THOSE NUMBERS RUN.
THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BOTH LEGALLY THE WAY THAT THEY'RE SET UP VERSUS OTHER TRADITIONAL SO SAY LIKE HABITAT AS AN EXAMPLE.
BEFORE I GIVE YOU AN ANSWER, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THAT IMPACT ACTUALLY IS, AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO BRING THAT AS A RESPONSE IF WE BRING FORWARD A DRAFT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I DON'T WANT TO HANG UP THE WHOLE DISCUSSION WITH THAT.
I THINK IT'S LIKE IF HABITAT COMES FORWARD TO US OR CO-OP COMES FORWARD TO US.
BUT I BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS STEPPING FORWARD
[01:15:04]
WITH CAPITAL FUNDING FOR CO-OPS, AGAIN, THAT OPPORTUNITY JUST LIKE WE PARTNERED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT.WE DONATED THE LAND, THE FEDS DID THE CAPITAL.
IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, THAT'S THE NONPROFIT.
I AGREE THAT OTHER NONPROFITS ARE IN THE SOCIAL HOUSING, BUT I THINK A COOP I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF DONATING LAND.
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE VACANT TAX ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSING THAT AT A FURTHER DATE.
THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ANTICIPATED DATE FOR DRAFT BY LAW, LOOK FORWARD TO THAT COMING.
AGAIN, JUST TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE DISINCENTIVES.
FOR ME, TOO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BIT MORE ANALYSIS, BUT ALSO TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT OUR INCENTIVES ARE DOING.
HAVING THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO, IF WE DO NEED THAT ONE IF THE CARROTS AREN'T ENOUGH AND THE STICKS ARE NEEDED, BUT I DON'T WANT TO LOSE 200 UNITS JUST BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO GET 10 UNITS, SO THAT BALANCING ACT.
>> I JUST WANTED TO SECOND SUPPORT FOR THOSE TWO THINGS YOU MENTIONED, THE INFO ON CO-OPS, POTENTIALLY DONATING LAND, WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT.
THAT WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO THE INFORMATION AND CAN VACANT LAND TAX ARE STICK THERE.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL ROBERTON.
>> THANKS. DEFINITELY CO-OPS AND VACANT LAND.
I THINK THOSE ARE BIGGER STICKS AND WE THINK THOSE ARE, ESPECIALLY ON THE VACANT LAND.
I ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO UM, REALLY KIND OF WORK ON THAT PART.
THEN THERE'S SOME COMMENTS AROUND HOUSING TYPES.
I WAS VERY CLEAR IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD, SOMEONE THAT BUILDS A TOWER WITH ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS IS NOT THE SAME PERSON THAT BUILDS TOWNHOUSES IN FOUR PLEX.
I WANT TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS HERE WHEN WE GET INTO A BIGGER POOL DISCUSSION, IS LIKE APPLE AND ORANGE HERE.
WE'RE NOT NEW YORK. LET'S TRY TO DO THINGS THAT THEY DO THERE. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. I DO APPRECIATE THE INCENTIVES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD AND THAT CAN BE PIGGYBACKED ONTO OTHER FEDERAL RULES LIKE THE MULTI GENERATIONAL, THE GREENER HOMES GRANT.
OUR CONTRIBUTION CAN BE EVEN MORE.
WE WILL BRING THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL NEXT MONDAY NIGHT, MAY 7 AT 7:00 P.M WITH THE AMENDMENT OF REMOVING E AND G FROM THE TABLE.
WITH THAT, WE'VE REACHED THE END OF OUR AGENDA.
IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOVE BY DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE, SECOND BY COUNCILOR MCCLENNAN.
ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE, WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY AT THE BIKE RODEO ON SUNDAY. HAVE FUN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.