okay good good afternoon we're gonna call a mystery should finance committee to order please colleagues and staff and members of the audience are you ready for some more financial fun because that's what's gonna happen for the next 20 minutes or so if you look at the agenda there's three reports four reports the fourth one is a scheduling recommendation but the first three reports are with respect to changes under bill 108 to the finances of the region and so what mr. Dyer is going to do he's going to give us a slide presentation that encompasses and touches on all three of those different areas in terms of the development charges mm-hmm and the and the operating expenses and so on and and then after his presentation we'll deal with each report individually so we can contain the questions to that aspect of his presentation rather than jumping all over the place okay does that make sense okay great so any declarations between interest seeing none we have no delegations mr. Dyer it's all yours thank you very much mr. chair and as indicated I have a presentation that will provide an overview of the first three items on on today's agenda the majority of the slides actually focus on on bill 108 but then I'll touch briefly on how that report connects with the impact of the provincial funding changes and then in turn how that report has an impact on the periodic financial report and our projections to year-end in terms of the region's overall financial position and so in the planning and works agenda there was a report on bill 108 which covered I think amendments to 11 or 12 pieces of legislation the report on ANF is specific to schedule three of bill 108 and how it impacts how it impacts the development charges Act and one portion of the Planning Act an attempt to take that 20 page report and put it into something a brief and and hopefully understandable dispite way of background the housing supply action plan you'll recall those consultations started in the fall of last year and staff brought forward a report in January which formed the region's formal input to the ministry back near the end of January and the input specifically relating to development charge is just kind of paraphrasing a rather lengthy report at the time was that staff felt that there was no evidence that reducing development charges would reduce the price of housing nor would it increase in order to provide an increase in housing supply the the view of staff is that house prices are a function of the market and that a reduction in dcs would not translate into any appreciable reduction in housing prices and that in fact reducing or eliminating development charges which which was being contemplated at one point specifically with respect to water and sewer would create significant financial challenges for growing municipalities and might just have the opposite effect of preventing or delaying the emplacement of important infrastructure in order for development to happen and that basically summarizes the problems at least from staffs perspective of restricting or reducing municipal development charges it would result in additional competition for a limited amount of funding that's available between both growth related infrastructure and the the management of all of our existing assets the staff position was that reductions in develop charges would not necessarily be passed on to homebuyers that the existing tax and ratepayers would be picking up the additional costs associated with infrastructure not funded by development charges creating a disincentive in some cases for new residents to support new housing and that costs transferred to succeeding homeowners these would be cost that they would not benefit from and in some cases may not be able to afford and so fast forward to the early part of May and bill 108 is introduced amends twelve or thirteen pieces of legislation including the development charges act on section 37 of the Planning Act in a way that would reduce the ability of miss apologies to collect development charges to fund growth related infrastructure would delay the payment of development charges which in turn would require more growth related debt to be issued and in the view of staff would further shift growth on to the cost of growth on to existing taxpayers we've heard a couple times over the last few days you know this notion that growth pays for growth the staff position clearly through multiple reports is that that is not the case the development charges Act specifically does not allow for growth to pay for growth and that is as a result of ineligible services of mandatory exemptions of certain and for certain discounts as well so the rules as they currently exist do not allow for growth to pay for growth if enacted that change is proposed in bill 108 would take us even further away from that and how does it do that well it would do it through in terms of eligible services it would restrict the development charge to what commonly referred to as hard services transportation so roads and bridges water wastewater storm transit waste diversion police and fire would be the only services that would be eligible under the development charges Act other services that are currently eligible which the province refers to as soft services would no longer be eligible under the development charges actus includes paramedic services airport library at the local level recreation parks and leisure parking and cemeteries all those services would no longer be part of the development charges act in its place the province is proposing to amend section 37 of the Planning Act to create a new framework or regime referred to as a community benefits charge which would allow municipalities to recover some capital costs relating to soft services the quantum is not known the expectation is that the amount that would be recoverable under a community benefits charge would be significantly lower than what is currently available under the development charge additional provisions there as is a development are exemptions for the creation of a second dwelling unit in a new residential building that's new to the to the proposed development charges Act importantly it would freeze the determination of development charges for a particular development at the later of site plan application date or zoning application date so right now those development charges are determined and paid at the time a building permit is issued this would freeze the development charge at an earlier date in some cases a much earlier date which in turn would then reduce the amount of development charge charges collected over the life of a bylaw and then I'd say even perhaps more concerning than the freezing would be that bill 108 is proposing to create what we've referred to as a six payments over five years starting at occupancy payment plan and this is for commercial industrial institutional and new multi residential development and leaving the new multi residential development piece aside the staff view is that this actually has nothing to do with the supply of housing and yet is included in this bill and this is as opposed to collecting these building permits re collecting these development charges at the time a building permit is issued so right now for any commercial industrial institutional development we collect the dcadt building permit under the proposed plan the first payment would start at occupancy not at building permit issuance and then there would be five further installments on the one-year anniversary of that first payment so in terms of implications why is this important why are municipalities taking such a strong stand with respect to bill 108 on the one hand it has a relatively small impact on the region's development charge our development charges almost all hard services it would as I said earlier remove the paramedic services the library the airport and a portion of the planning studies from our development charge which is a 2% of our current rate and about 4% of the new calculated rates it does have a significant impact on development charges for a single tear or for a local municipality that provides parks and leisure and recreation services and in those cases that component of the local development charge is typically a much more significant and ranges anywhere between thirty to seventy percent of current development charges here within the region so notwithstanding the relatively small impact on the rates themselves it does have a number of financial implications so first of all the region has issued what we refer to as growth related debt in other words debt that we've issued to fund the growth related component of a project that will recover from future development charges we've done that for paramedic services we've done that for airport in a very small case in in in the case of library but in each case those future development charges which are about nine hundred and twenty nine hundred and thirty thousand dollars a year would not be able to be recovered from development charges and so that would revert to the tax base potentially as early as 2020 we have certain projects in our 2019 capital program the municipal comprehensive review comes to mind where we had a million dollar contribution from development charges for that work to be completed that would no longer be eligible should bill 108 be enacted and has definitely has impacts in the future when we look ahead at their ten-year capital program for Airport for example on triggers one triggers two and three alone we're contemplating about seventy four million dollars of growth related debt over the next ten years that is debt that would still be required on the assumption that the projects would proceed but we would not have development charges as a source of funding to offset the debt servicing costs shifting further costs onto the property tax base and then the delayed payment plan would result in more growth related debt being issued so as a municipality that is very mindful if you will of the amount of debt that we're issuing regardless of the source of funding it will put increased pressure on our overall amount of debt issued the community benefits charge it is a challenge right now there is much that would have to be determined through the regulation and we don't have a regulation at this point and so it is not possible to predict the revenue and and left out of the slide is the calculation would be in the form of a percentage a prescribed capped percentage of the value of the property at the time that a building permit is issued we don't know what the percent would be we don't know how a percent would be shared in a two-tier structure and therefore it makes it impossible for us to estimate at this point what the revenue might be but as I said earlier it is the staffs expectation that it will be significantly lower than what we're eligible for under the development charges act right now and so throughout the report there are a series of recommendations for input that that staff have included I'll go through these fairly quickly first of all Airport and paramedic services we're suggesting should be considered as hard services no reason for us that paramedic services is treated as a soft service while police and fire are treated as a hard service and Airport we certainly believe is something that should be considered a hard service staff recommend actually just straight out that we that a community benefits charge regime should not be implemented it's not clear to us at all how this is helpful there's an existing framework in place right now to recover soft services through the development charge why we need a different framework with a different study and a different bylaw and different rates is unclear if the province feels that development charges have to be reduced a better way to do it would be to leave soft services in the development charge itself within the existing framework and simply impose some kind of cap why it has to be through a separate regime with different rules and we believe actually a lot more administration and red tape makes this in our view an unnecessary and unhelpful addition staff believe that the determination of development charges and the payment of development charges should stay at the time that a building permit is issued if a deferred payment plan remains a statement that installments may be added to the tax roll and have priority lien status would be helpful that is not clear in the legislation right now and to provide some additional time for analysis and consultation on the draft regulation and then the final one to delay any changes to allow municipalities to plan for the transition to whatever the new regime is as far as the next steps is we understand them Standing Committee on justice policy is meeting on Friday deadline for written submissions is the end of the day Friday Clause by SAW clause by Clause consideration is scheduled for Monday and three hours of debate on the bill have been scheduled for June the 4th and staff are expecting the bill to then in whatever form it ends up in to be approved relatively quickly most of what I've just gone through will come into effect on a date to be proclaimed by the lieutenant governor and presumably that's to allow time for the regulation to be drafted and put in place so there there's a summary of the twenty page report on bill 108 where there's a staff recommendation for committee two to support the recommendations and to formally submit them to the to the ministry so Craig Gunn maybe despite what I said from the onset because there are different kinds of issues maybe we should deal with the development charges of any questions on the development charges and then deal with the recommendation counts to Clark but they're really just about clarification one has to do with some mechanics according to the summary the the amendment allows a municipality to impose Community Benefit charges against land what does against land mean um I think it's similar language that's used in the development charges Act so basically you know on on the issuance of a building permanent of land is happening then it allows municipalities to impose a developed to impose a in this case a community benefits charge on land as it's just tell it's just how it's it's just how they express express it much the same way in the decedent and and and I'm kind of curious about how to how to how to make the connection between consolidation of paramedic services and exclusion of paramedic services from the hard costs yep as are we it's a it's a really good question I don't think they're related at least not in this context the paramedic services has always been considered a soft service and and it was so in the development charges act because it was a service that required a mandatory ten percent deduction on capital cost so when you're actually calculating the development charge you actually we actually we have to discount soft services by 10 percent police and fire never had that 10 percent discount so there's that distinction that that historical distinction that exists within the development charges act but I think we would say it's actually unrelated to the potential consolidation of paramedic services really good question okay councillor Harris thank you for your presentation I know we're heading into lunch hour and so I'm not gonna debate you perhaps on some of your first slides to suggest that development charges are not a factor in the increased cost of housing especially for families because I wholeheartedly believe that it actually is and but I will ask you with regards to bill 108 and the timing of that how if any would it impact the exercise that we're undertaking right now and potentially you know the the approval I think it's a mid-june of what this bill would have on that any any factors with what we're what does before Regional Council now in terms of the DC plan we're there any factors that we would have to go back and look at based on this bill and I guess the timing of the implementation of bill 108 is there a set day and when the regs would hit and everything else I mean ours is August first so if you could just help me with the timelines of the actual enactment of the changes yep so we three mister chair we've tried to summarize this in a section of the report so I'll I'll do my best to go through at least at least how we understand it right now so it would appear that the bill itself is is moving towards approval we think and we think by the middle part of June but again most of the changes to the development charges Act do not come into effect upon Royal Assent they'll come into effect at a date to be proclaimed by the province it's not clear at all to us what state the regulation is in whether it's been drafted whether it's in the process of being drafted whether it's at the early stages that part is not certainly certainly not clear to me right now when now it happened it could take it could take some time I think I think what we heard earlier you know early on just after bill 108 was introduced that they were you know looking at potentially having the regulation ready by the fall whether that has changed or not is not clear but your question is is is is valid in terms of our process so we have a development charges bylaw that expires on July the 31st so here's two possible scenarios if the Act were to have received Royal Assent and the regulation completed and the enforced date proclaimed let's say before August the first the bill would basically freeze the existing soft services development charges at their current rate so in our case library paramedic services Airport and planning studies rather than approving a new rate based on the new background study the rates under the existing bylaw would continue to be in place until some point in the future that date is not clear there'll be a prescribed date at which any existing soft services dc's there'll be a sunset date on those particular development charges so so so basically we could have a situation where we could have hard service rates approved under our new background study and by law soft service rates remaining in place under the old bylaw if the Royal Assent date and the regulation comes after I'd say like after August the 1st then we simply carry on we would pass a new bylaw under the development charges act as it's currently written right so with the existing rules in place and then we would be subject to whatever transition exists in the final version of bill 108 and at some point would have to revisit the soft service rates in the new bylaw yes it does make a lot of sense I guess was there any has there been any conversations knowing that other municipalities are actually going through their DC by law review about the same time we are if in fact it's their intention to have this proclaimed prior to August 1st because that would I mean is there is I guess our bylaw expires so therefore we have to have one but is there any you know what changes in to the fact that we should delay for after Billings Proclamation or laughter so three mr. chair there are somewhere in the vicinity of 80 to 90 municipalities in the province that are working through the background study processes right now the challenge is under the existing rules our bylaw cannot live after July 31st and so we feel that it's important to continue on with the process and we'll adapt it as necessary depending on what happens with bill 108 over the next little while the the risk to the region would be we would get to August 1st and we would not be in a position to impose a development charge because the current Act has a specific five-year limit and will be at our five-year limit on July the 31st okay counselor counselor by finish coat I'm sorry counsel herb Thank You mr. chair under the the new timing were the development charges not paid at occupancy as opposed to the building permit and then spread out over five years or four years the financing of that is a responsibility of the individual municipalities we're basically bankrolling it for the province the three mister chair well put okay sorry who did you say we're bankrolling well no I guess it wouldn't be the province I'm sorry not the province that the developers they don't want to develop Mike I'm sorry oh yeah yeah yeah yes we'd be financing the developer for sure yeah expand on that that answer just a little bit mr. chair you know it we have about 25 to 30 percent of the development charges that we collect are in the commercial industrial area we have a requirement particularly on the water and wastewater side for infrastructure to be in place prior to development occurring and so if what's being proposed is and that's already a challenge for us now in terms of the financing of the construction of new infrastructure specifically on the water and wastewater side this we'll make those challenges even more significant because money that we would have received at the time of a building permit issuance is now going to be spread out over over a five-year period but starting at occupancy and so if you had a you know 12 to 18 to 24 month construction project that project it's seven years later by the time we've received all of our funding in the meantime all of that infrastructure has been built and we have to pay for it and when we have to pay for it we have to finance it somehow and so my comment that I made was that this will directly impact the amount of debt that we will issue because again that infrastructure particularly water and wastewater a little bit lesser extent on roads that infrastructure needs to be in place for development to happen and if we're not collecting until five six seven years later we're gonna need to borrow them we're gonna need to to increase borrowing in order to get that infrastructure in place which by extension the debt servicing costs go onto the tax bill so for next year I think you've identified already approximately nine hundred and twenty three thousand dollars that we're gonna have to put onto the tax bill to fund debt servicing for development charges that are no longer eligible as per the Act that that's correct and in that case that nine hundred and twenty three thousand dollars is debt that we've already issued right that's debt that's on our books right now predominantly for airport and live sorry airport and paramedic services okay mr. Murray and then children yeah and and just to belabor this a little bit further the other I think really significant concern and complication is just the administrative burden of tracking the collections over a five year period and some question actually about how we can secure those collections because when it's tied to building permits you pass the development charges we'll give you a building permit this I think there's real questions about how do we ensure the subsequent payments once a building is occupied exactly yeah absolutely and we'll be having a discussion with our credit rating agency next week about our borrowing plans over the next five years okay Thank You chair Edmond Thank You chair Strickland I was just going to actually make the comment but mr. Murray made it down more eloquently than I but we not only are becoming a banker for developers we're now going to become a collection agency and this directly flies in the face of this provincial government it keeps talking about reducing red tape and I just want to reply to a councillor Harris I specifically asked Minister Clark directly that question and got no clarity said our DC's have to be in place by August 1st you're now bringing in a new regime my sense is that they will freeze the status quo because all of the local tier municipalities are going through the same exercise as well but I got no clarity when I raised that issue okay Telstra Foxton this is a home as we all know this is a myriad of problems if you look at not just what you've brought here to do baby our building apartments have to be self-sufficient they have their self budget and everything else and they only rely on the municipality should they get in trouble and then they have to pay us back well now we've become a loan master to this that the building department as well and as mr. Murray stated we an and chaired Redmond we now become a bank a collector but what happens so you said building to you sometimes they take five you should look at what will happen what's happening with the but automotive and the redevelopment and that and and you're talking multiple years and then on top of that they take occupancy and and we have another crash and they walk away and we're left with a huge debt debt that it's not the municipalities that have this debt it's not the region that has this debt it's the tax payer that will have this debt they won't be able to afford to buy homes because they have to pay off this debt through their taxes this is a horrendous situation okay thank you for that counselor Foxton Kelsey Galloway well thank you mr. chair well earlier today we talked about unintended consequences and I'm wondering if one of the unintended consequences of this is that we simply don't have the infrastructure available when the developers want it and you just have to say to them oh we don't have that road we don't have the money to build it and maybe we're gonna get into more front end agreements which we've tried to stay away from but that might be an unintended consequence to where the developer is gonna have to front end certain things outside of the development charge regime in order to be able to proceed with their particular project whether it's a residential development or whether it's industrial commercial or institutional that may not happen overnight but it could be after a few years our capital budgets will have to be trimmed significantly and the infrastructure that the developers require and rely on just won't be there and and the only way to get them there is if you're willing to pay on a on a front end agreement which we've had some of those in the past but they're not popular and but on the other hand there could be some unintended consequences they may not be right away but it could be down the room and even it's the front end in agreement so it takes some time but the infrastructure into place okay councillor Joe it I my dear for me okay I thank you through the chair so I'm wondering Craig I don't have a great question for you I'm just as frustrated as everybody else but I'm hoping that can we get a copy of this particular presentation it really does can we do that absolutely thank you okay I see no further speakers so I'm just gonna have one comment and that is you know basically this is going to we're gonna collect less dollars under the RDC and then the dollars that we do collect we're gonna have to collect over a longer period of time that will impact your ability to build infrastructure and also have possible negative consequences on our capital budgets and also possibly increase our taxes in order to fund infrastructure that we deem advisable to build so we can have some growth so I'd really have struggled with the the policy objectives as stated I think we all can agree that we need to make housing more affordable I think by using tax policy rather than the development charges would give us better opportunities to do that and I know we're gonna have a report in a minute about our operating impacts as the changes to funding from the province which are significant and then we're gonna have to deal with in 2020 but this change I think is is fundamentally more difficult for municipalities it's going to be difficult to deal with operating reductions in grants but this changed the development charges Act where we have to collect over a period of five years is something that I don't think is in the in the best interests of the region of Waterloo and certainly in the best interest of the province so I hope the premier and his team are listening and similar to their their flexibility on public health funding for this year they have some flexibility and listening to Miss apologies and making some changes to achieve some positive outcomes because this doesn't get us there so there's a recommendation Eric we have someone to move that recommendation councillor Foxx and councillor herb all those in favor that's carried thank you very much hey Craig on to the next one the Raptors the Raptors are going to start so unfortunately councillor Fox then I can't I can't follow this up with with good news maybe a slight little bit of good news from from yesterday but the the second report on the agenda provides an update on provincial funding announcements four weeks ago I stood before you with my first presentation on thinking that oh by the end of May we'll have a much much better idea about how this is gonna play out and I would say nothing could be further from the truth at this point and I'll explain why so just a very brief recap housing we got about three million dollars for some new funding programs we had a minor reduction to the chippie funding in 2019 public health we have the downloading of costs to municipalities through cost-sharing formula changes over four years originally effective as of April the 1st of this year now as of yesterday's announcement we understand reversed for 2019 it's our understanding that they're still going to happen it's not clear when whether that's January 1st or whether that's April 1st and maybe that should be my opening remark on these next few slides is we're basing this largely on media stories from yesterday we don't have anything formal in writing from the province at this point ok we'll update the slides accordingly for next time public so public health so Children's Services again the downloading of cost to municipalities through formula cost-sharing formula changes we understand now reverse for 2019 as well provincial funding frozen at 2018 levels which was based on 2017 costs there was nothing that I heard yesterday that changes the paramedic services funding but again remains to be seen once we get updated funding letters from from the various ministries Ontario Works administration there's perhaps one little bit of good news while the cost per case was frozen at last year's levels the higher caseloads have made additional funding available we expect there's actually minimal levy impact to the region in 2019 we had a 30% reduction in funding in in 2019 for employment services and I believe there's a staff report on today's community services committee agenda that deals with that adjustment provincial gas tax previously frozen at 2018 levels you may recall that there was a plan to double the gas over a three to four year period we understand that's not happening a reduction to the Grand River Conservation Authority about four hundred and fifty thousand dollars or so and the consolidation and probably should say consolidation and reduction of grants for police services and a new competitive application process that they're working through so the schedule that we have in the report we have duplicated here but then we've circled the public health and children's services components because I think at this point we understand that those will not be effective in 2019 and so that certainly helps us for that certainly helps us for 2019 still creates significant challenges in a twenty twenty year there are four or five areas that we haven't received funding notices for yet as listed on the screen the most significant of those is probably the Sunnyside per diem funding we get in the area of fifteen million dollars or so from the province so waiting to hear on that one so I'm just gonna I'm just gonna pause there I think mr. chair that and this table in particular summarizes the the cumulative impact of the provincial actions this includes you'll see the bottom the the item just before the total the debt servicing costs no longer recoverable from DC's under bill 108 that we just talked about is about a million dollars in 2020 and so right now our estimate of the incremental budget impact going into 2020 is in the eight and a half to ten and a half million dollar range so that's on top of our base position that's correct we have a draft at so that's an additional approximately two percent that's correct okay so if we're opening positions typically around three we're looking at an opening position of around five more or less more or less okay that's for information is there anything any questions from that okay okay for the for the rollback in 2019 but but as I understand it the proposed cuts that were announced for April first this year have been rolled I stopped but they're still gonna happen in 2020 so it's just a temporary reprieve but the changes and the funding formulas and the the the decrease in the allocation is still in impacted in 2020 right that's my understanding right now based on the limited information that we have okay all right okay thanks no further questions Oh Chester no if I just that I think there was some question about paramedic services and so I would say paramedic services is a really big question mark given yesterday's announcement which said you know we're we're gonna maintain funding at 2018 levels I think was the wording so that's already what what's shown on this slide is maintaining funding for paramedic services at 2018 levels which is actually 2017 actuals and you'll recall our cost for paramedic services are going up the funding formula had been 5050 so what's not clear on paramedic services is whether they're going to maintain the funding formula at 5050 which means we might get more than this in 2019 or whether they're going to maintain funding at 2018 levels in which case we've got this whole in 2019 and a further hole in 2020 so that I would say is a pretty big question mark at this point public health is a little more clear Children's Service is a little more clear paramedic services still big question mark okay thanks that clarification mic counselor herb just for clarification so on the public health and in 2021 the two point four and the paramedics point four in as well is that where it goes from an eighty percent subsidy down to a seventy-five or where the percentage changes is that what that figure reflects through mr. chair so on public health absolutely so the understanding we have is we go to 70/30 cost-sharing split for 24 well originally it was going to be as of April 1st so presumably in 2020 right new 30 when we go into 2021 the intent was to shift that to a 60/40 or cost-sharing split hence the additional cost in 2021 and 2022 in the case of paramedic services this simply reflects the I would say the the the lost subsidy based on service levels that we already have in place so there's always been a one-year lag with respect to funding for service expansion and so in the case of our 2019 issue papers they come into effect on July 1st of this year service expansion happens and then the cost is annualized into 2020 but it's always a year behind so we don't get the subsidy on that annualized cost until we get into 2021 so what we've tried to show here is simply the impact of decisions that council has already made and what we're considering now the lost subsidy that we had that we had previously planned for and then for few and if I may for future service expansions of course that creates a very different costing model because there we anticipate there will be no incremental subsidy to show when we bring future paramedic services expansions forward ok thank you so I have chair Redmond and then councillor Galloway that I think we need to move on so with apologies for daughter more timely sharing I did receive a letter from the premier yesterday late in the day and his reference is after listening to the concerns of our partners and following the advice of my minister of municipal affairs and housing our government has made the decision to maintain the Emir cost-sharing adjustments for land ambulance public health and child care services so that's the way you interpreted it Craig and that's what it says in this letter okay Kelsey Galloway well in regards to paramedic services I mean if we were to take them at their word and that may be difficult but they seem to be sympathetic to the fact that councils have made budgets and they would honor those funding commitments which would suggest in the case of paramedics that we would be getting a 2015 increase increment because we based our budget as everybody else did on getting those funds so let's hope that that's their interpretation it should be if that's the principle the the other thing I'm curious about and and I know you don't have a crystal ball Craig although sometimes we we think you do in public health what happens when it goes to this new super agency and we just get a an invoice how do we know these numbers are even close to what we might be invoiced because we're not gonna have a say anymore so these members could go through the roof because when you go to these kinds of agencies well they're the only thing that counts you know there are no other services that they worry about they just worried about their own and they just send out invoices and then the percentages are going up as well of how much we have to we have to pay so there's a real risk is there not in those numbers so 3 mr. chair absolutely and we've acknowledged that in the report and I'll just give you a couple of examples of of the risks to those numbers on the top line so and I would I would preface it by saying that those figures are are based on the public health but basically based on the 2019 public health levy contribution that we have so there's there's a couple of things that will change once the new boards of health are created then they will pass a budget how that budget compares in total to the combined budgets that exist right now we in Waterloo Wellington Dufferin Guelph Halton and Peel is unknown certainly the province has indicated an expectation that there will be cost savings as a result of said amalgamation but but that is that that is one factor that that may that that may change these the figures on this slide the other piece is once a budget is so the the process presumably that the new board will follow is though they'll they'll strike a budget they'll know how much provincial funding they're getting and if we use the seventy percent example that we'll create then the remaining 30 percent that has to be apportioned across all of the member municipalities within that Health Unit and it's not clear to us what that cost apportionment formula will be it could be based on proportionate share of weighted assessment it could be based on proportionate share of population it could be a mix of the two it could be something else entirely that could impact us either either positively or negatively it's it's just not clear at this point well and I agree that the way it's calculated will be a bit of a wild card and we there may well be winners and losers as we've seen in other similar efforts what I'm more concerned about is you're gonna have a single-purpose body who don't have to give any regard to what the transit costs are what the road costs are what the EMS costs are what all the other costs are the policing costs everything else that we have to take into account and they're just gonna hand us an invoice and it'll be completely irrespective of all other things that are going on in our lives here and they're just going to expect payment and whether or not you know I mean there's all kinds of good things that public health can do and spend more money on we all know that we can spend more money on any service that we provide but when you have a single-purpose body who really has levy I mean indirect levy ability how do you control that now maybe they have a mechanism and there could be savings in in regards to administration but how do you control the the overall costs on a go-forward basis it's a big concern I think we all should have okay thanks there's certainly lots of unanswered questions and I think what stops trying to do is is based on the information that they do know put together the financial implications recognizing that they may change over time and that time could be within three to six months and that leads us into the next report on the year-end projections for financial results and I'm I'm wondering Craig if you're able to do this in one slide or less yes that one okay yep so I would say you know the main message in the in the periodic financial report based on results to the end of April and projecting to the end of this year is that you know generally on leaving aside provincial funding shortfalls we're projecting a you know a relatively small favorable variance in the million dollar range or so it's still early days but you know things are looking okay based on the subsidy shortfall as it existed when we finalized the report on Thursday we were projecting a two to four million dollar shortfall based on the announcement from yesterday that shortfall would be reduced to 1.2 million maybe lower depending on the treatment of paramedic services subsidy and so if that was the case then that would put us that would move us off of projecting an overall shortfall deficit in regions operations for the year to being you know roughly a break-even slightly positive position okay and so the recommendation is that we get another report typically we don't get another report until August but stuff's recommending we get a report in June actually we're recommending a report in August based on results to the end of June normally we would be back to you usually in late September early October but we think given the uncertainties it would be appropriate for to provide a supplemental financial report and projection as of as of mid-year and the final slide here just sets out the anticipated staff reports that we're expecting over the next couple of cycles including reports on various program areas that now may or may not be affected by subsidy adjustments this year budget projections provincial funding updates I think you can expect from us in June and August and the additional financial report that we would bring forward in mid-august okay so councillor Galloway know maybe a question but could you move that recommendation again seconder then we'll take your questions so move about Calais for Galloway seconded by Councillor Schantz councillor Galloway just a comment mr. chair just to say that thanks to staff for what looks like a fairly favorable position early in the year nonetheless but also it's quite indicative mr. chair of the the only level of government in Canada that does not have deficits that we have to then download to other people to help pay for okay thank you I have no deficits we can't run a deficit by law all right so moved and seconded all those in favor that's carried thank you very much mr. Dyer the next one is a development charge background study and bylaw review we've changed that schedule as well do you have a slide for that or I don't know okay so it's based on our public input meeting we've decided to extend the schedule a little bit to allow for more public input and to also further digest these changes under bill 108 to development charges so you have a mover and seconder for that councillor no on counselor keeper all those in favor that's carried information correspondence other business next meeting a motion to adjourn councillor Fox and councillor Armstrong all those in favor that's Carrie thank you very much Craig and team appreciate that