PUBLIC – Minutes of the Gatineau City Council committee of the whole meeting held in the committee room of the Maison du citoyen, 25 Laurier Street, Gatineau, on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, at 10:38 a.m., at which were present, Ms.
Read full translation
Parking Lot Tax
Presentation by Christian Tanguay, Richard Kouamé, and Renée Guénette.
The objectives of the presentation are: • to present revised rate options for the parking tax; • to present options for revising the 2025 budget to allow for a $10 million reduction in parking tax revenues; • to issue recommendations to the council regarding the options to be implemented by the administration.
- Revised rate options for the parking tax;
- Situation for 2026 and following years;
- Recommendations;
- Options for revising the 2025 budget to allow for a $10 million reduction in parking tax revenues;
- Next steps;
- Appendices.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
CE-FIN-2025-001 The executive committee recommends modifying the rates in Règlement 965-2024 according to the following rates:
CE-FIN-2025-002 The executive committee recommends modifying the adopted 2025 budget (CM-2024-898), specifically the $10 million reduction in parking tax revenues and the $10 million reduction in infrastructure investment expenditure, for a revised budget of $876,960,468.
CE-FIN-2025-003 The executive committee recommends modifying the Investment Plan - Infrastructure Maintenance Component of the City of Gatineau for the years 2025, 2026, and 2027 adopted (CM-2024-899), in order to change the funding source for adopted infrastructure projects from 'cash' to 'loan bylaw' for a total amount of $10 million in 2025.
CE-FIN-2025-004 The executive committee recommends mandating the finance department to return to the council in July 2025 to evaluate the possibility of using 2024 operating surpluses, budgets available in 2025 during the first quarterly review, and the amount allocated to the land acquisition initiative in the 2025 budget, in order to review the scope of the $10 million reduction in infrastructure investment expenditure in the 2025 budget and the amount of financing required via loan bylaw.
A question and comment period took place. Councillor Steve Moran provided explanations on the recommendations presented and thanked the Finance Department for the work done over the last two weeks on this file. He explained the regulatory and budget modifications that must be adopted in order to follow up on the mandate given by resolution on March 18th.
Councillor Anik Des Marais wished to confirm her understanding of the elements presented on page 19, which justify the recommendations presented today. Additional explanations were given by Renée Guénette, who added that this table is reviewed annually. Ms. Des Marais also asked for information on the Surplus Policy, and Ms. Guénette provided explanations on the four steps provided for therein.
Councillor Jocelyn Blondin mentioned that he is against the formulated recommendations; he believes that a delay should have been given to merchants so that they could modify their infrastructure in anticipation of a future tax. Regarding page 12, he asked for details on the use of the amount allocated for boulevard de l’Europe. Ms. Guénette explained the detail presented on page 14 for the extension of the boulevard, mentioning that the construction of the school was delayed by the gouvernement du Québec. Analyses are underway for a return in June-July to confirm if these sums can be used in 2025.
Mayor Maude Marquis-Bissonnette mentioned that the government has indeed confirmed the postponement of the reconstruction of this school, adding that the planned sums will possibly not have to be spent this year, but that the project remains important.
Councillor Bettyna Bélizaire raised concerns regarding the sums planned for the extension of boulevard de l’Europe. She understands the issues the City is facing, but she would like this option to be the last resort.
Councillor Daniel Champagne welcomed the political decision taken regarding expenses and the powers given to municipalities. He also asked for additional explanations regarding the revenues associated with a tax increase. He mentioned that $8 million in interest would have to be paid by citizens, and that projects could therefore not be carried out due to this additional expense. Mr. Champagne asked if the parking tax is deductible for merchants. Richard Kouamé mentioned that it depends on the financial situation of each business. Mr. Champagne believes that the proposed adjustments show that the council is listening to the business community, but that it will imply significant budgetary exercises for the coming years. He mentioned that it is important that everyone can work together, that solutions must be found elsewhere than in property tax increases, and that revenues must be diversified.
Councillor Mike Duggan mentioned the increase in the City's budget between 2024 and 2025. He mentioned that abandoning certain projects, with better-integrated measures, could allow for a reduction in the impact on merchants. He made comments on the decision taken regarding the imposition of the parking tax.
Councillor Mario Aubé highlighted the work done by the administration, which shows where the budget is going over time. He believes that the reduction of the PIVM (Infrastructure Maintenance Investment Plan) through a loan bylaw is not bad. Mr. Aubé returned to a question addressed last November regarding eco-fiscal measures vs. the need to balance the budget. He asked if other possibilities had been analyzed to reduce expenses in other budget items. He believes that the parking tax is too big a bite compared to revenue diversification. Mr. Aubé asked what the forecasts for 2026 will be. He also asked what the risks associated with the legal proceedings currently underway are, and if sums must be provided for this purpose. Regarding the question relative to the options analyzed, Me Christian Tanguay mentioned that the work was done following the mandate given by the council (page 4): maintenance of projects and services. The proposed option is therefore the most viable based on the mandate given by the council. Concerning the ongoing litigation, no comment can be made. Me Tanguay did, however, explain the regular processes put in place upon the service of any recourse. Concerning the 2026 budget, Ms. Guénette mentioned that it is still being developed and that decisions will have to be made by the council. Mr. Kouamé added that within the framework of the finance committee's work, various elements are taken into consideration regarding revenue diversification for 2026. Regarding the ability to backtrack on services or projects, Mr. Champagne asked what the possibilities would be. Me Tanguay explained that the commitments of each of the projects must be looked at in order to be able to make a statement. Regarding recommendation 4, Councillor Marc Bureau asked if the deadline scheduled for July 2025 is not too far off, and explanations were given by Me Tanguay.
Read full translation
Presentation on the 'matchstick house' study and actions for built heritage protection
- Contextualization;
- Presentation of the study on 'matchstick houses';
- Actions for the protection and enhancement of built heritage;
- Next steps.
A question and comment period took place. Councillor Caroline Murray highlighted that the presentation demonstrates the importance the SUDD (Urban Development Department) places on heritage, adding that we obviously preserve what we know better. She also emphasized the importance of clearly communicating the history of 'matchstick houses' as well as the actions planned in the strategy. Councillor Jocelyn Blondin mentioned that it is important to preserve heritage. He also asked what will be done in other sectors to protect other heritage buildings, particularly small worker houses. Christine Gonthier-Gignac mentioned that this issue is important, that the focus has been on 'matchstick houses', but that the work currently being done concerns all of the City of Gatineau's built heritage. She mentioned the criteria and tools used to determine the buildings that will be included in this inventory.
Councillor Daniel Champagne mentioned that there had been previous commitments to adopt new PPU (Special Planning Programs) before the 2025 election. Regarding the proposed timeline, Mr. Champagne wishes to communicate a message to citizens, reminding them that there will be several opportunities for meetings to fully understand the upcoming steps. Furthermore, he questioned whether there would effectively be a moratorium on the demolition of 'matchstick houses'. Ms. Murray confirmed that there will be no moratorium, but that we must act with caution until the inventory is finalized (as per provincial indications).
Councillor Catherine Craig-St-Louis asked for clarification on the concept of a 'landscape unit'. Ms. Gonthier-Gignac provided information on the work completed and upcoming, with details provided by Guillaume St-Jean.
Councillor Mike Duggan mentioned that 'matchstick houses' present a particular challenge for the CDD (Demolition Review Committee). He asked at what level this type of study could help them in their analyses. He also asked if there is a distinction to be made between individual houses and those where several are present in close proximity. He further mentioned that the preservation of certain houses is sometimes difficult and questioned the condition of materials regarding decisions to be made. He also raised questions regarding possible reconstructions. Ms. Gonthier-Gignac mentioned that it will be the inventory, rather than the study, that will provide information on the characteristics of the buildings to support the CDD. She also provided certain clarifications on the value of houses present in a cluster vs. individual houses, while mentioning that each file must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The issue of the replacement project is an important criterion in the CDD's decision-making, but the condition of the building must also be taken into account.
Councillor Steve Moran made comments regarding the study conducted and the historical importance of 'matchstick houses' for the City of Gatineau. He mentioned that the role of heritage will need to be reviewed in the revision of the PPU. Owners of 'matchstick houses' must also be supported at various levels. Mr. Moran asked if the question of having a 'matchstick house' district had been considered. He also asked what resources are made available to owners to have their house cited/classified. Mr. Moran also asked if the inventory must be tabled or adopted by the municipal council. Regarding the inventory, Ms. Gonthier-Gignac explained that it has been a legal obligation since 2021 and that it must be adopted by 2026. Regarding clusters, for the establishment of a heritage site (district), she explained that work is underway, but that there is no conclusion yet regarding the options selected. For citation, Ms. Gonthier-Gignac explained that there must be a city process and a process carried out by the owner. Mr. St-Jean explained that there is no established process, but that requests received are studied by the SUDD.
Councillor Louis Sabourin wished to specify that the online consultation for the PPU is finished (March) and that there will be open houses to come. Ms. Gonthier-Gignac mentioned that there was record online participation. Mayor Maude Marquis-Bissonnette highlighted this strong participation. She is happy with today's presentation, as several questions have been raised in recent years regarding heritage preservation. It is important to work on our identity, and heritage is part of it. She made comments on the revision of the PIIA bylaw as well as the adoption of the built heritage inventory. The Mayor thanked the administration for the presentation.