ga 05 09 11 - StCatharines · Early Budget Approval and Award of Tender, P08-164, Merritton...

G E N E R A L A G E N D A

Monday, May 9, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item/Subject Page

1................................................................................................................................1 Economic Development & Tourism Services, Economic Development St. Catharines Spectator and Entertainment Facility Project Update

2................................................................................................................................6 Fire & Emergency Management Services, Prevention Fees for Preventable False Alarms

3................................................................................................................................8 Ad Hoc Budget Review Committee 2011 Schedule of Rates and Fees

4..............................................................................................................................11 Corporate Support Services, Clerks Amendment to Procedural By-law 2007-311 Motion Respecting Recorded

Votes

5..............................................................................................................................12 Planning Services, Development Revision to By-law 2011-33, Schedule A, Regarding Amendment to By-law 62-86 (Zone 7) to Allow for Residential Development 38 Lincoln Avenue; Owner:

1473941 Ontario Limited (Mr. Anthony Continelli)

6..............................................................................................................................13 Planning Services, Policy Community Improvement Plan, Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program

Agreement, Municipal Address: Formerly 26 Abbot Street West; Owner: Formerly

Premier Conglomerate Group Inc.; Agent: Mr. Timothy Collins (Associated

Brownfields)

7..............................................................................................................................15 Planning Services, Policy Community Improvement Plan, Application for Financial Incentive Grant

Programs; Municipal Address: Formerly 61 Moffatt Street; Owner: Premier

Conglomerate Group Inc.; Agent: Timothy Collins (Associated Brownfields)

8..............................................................................................................................17 Financial Management Services, Property Management Property Matter Excess Land in front of 291 Carlton Street, Realty File

No. 99-09

9..............................................................................................................................18 Financial Management Services, Property Management Property Matter Excess Land 12A Romko Court, Realty File No. 06-11

10............................................................................................................................19 Transportation & Environmental Services, Engineering and Construction Early Budget Approval and Award of Tender, P08-164, Merritton Community

Centre Life Safety System Upgrade

Recreation & Community Services, Programs and Cultural Services 2011 Dragon Boat Festival

Corporate Support Services, Clerks Correspondence List for the Mayor and Members of Council

Boards, Commissions, and Standing Committees of Council

Extras

In Camera Session

Financial Management Services, Property Management Property Matter License (In Camera Pursuant to By-law 2007-311, Section

11............................................................................................................................20

12............................................................................................................................22

13............................................................................................................................23

14............................................................................................................................24

15............................................................................................................................24

16............................................................................................................................24

G5.3(c), A Proposed or Pending Acquisition or Disposition of Land by the

Municipality), Realty File No. 08-60

G E N E R A L A G E N D A

FIFTEENTH MEETING, REGULAR, MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL

General Committee - Monday, May 9, 2011, in Council Chambers Meeting following Item Number 7 on the Council Agenda

Item No. 1

Report from Economic Development & Tourism Services, Economic Development

Date of Report: May 2, 2011

File: 68.45.109

Subject: St. Catharines Spectator and Entertainment Facility Project Update

RECOMMENDATION That the report from Economic Development and Tourism Services Economic Development, dated April 26, 2011, regarding the St. Catharines Spectator and Entertainment Facility Project Update be approved;

and that Council approve in principle, on the basis of satisfactory funding and planning arguments the construction of a spectator and entertainment facility in downtown St. Catharines;

and that the St. Catharines Spectator and Entertainment Facility Project be submitted to the Federal and Provincial Governments for funding review;

and that Staff be authorized to retain the services of a P3 Canada pre-qualified vendor to undertake a value for money assessment if required during the funding review;

and that Staff be authorized to prepare a request for proposals to retain the services of a professional Event Management Group to provide advice on the design and planning of the facility;

and further, that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary by-law.

SUMMARY This report addresses the process to investigate and commission the construction of a new Spectator Facility in St. Catharines.

Through an RFP process, Deloitte and Touche were commissioned to prepare a Spectator Facility Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study is an integral part of a longer process to apply for P3 Canada Funding which may contribute up to 25% of construction costs for the facility. An endorsement of the project by Council in

-2- General Agenda May 9, 2011

conjunction with the completed feasibility study will trigger eligibility to prepare further documentation, including a Value for Money (VFM) assessment.

This documentation and the merits of the project are assessed by the P3 Canada Board whereby they will accept or reject the proposal. Acceptance of the project will generate a variety of procurement protocols including, business case and financial modeling, detailed design and planning documentation.

BACKGROUND On June 9, 2008, a motion creating the Downtown Spectator Facility Task Force was approved by Council. The Task Force was charged with assisting in the investigation of the potential construction of a 5,000 seat arena and spectator facility.

On September 30, 2009, a motion to submit the downtown Spectator Facility project for funding review to the Government of Canada P3 program was approved by Council. As a result, on November 2, 2009, a motion to develop and prepare an RFP to undertake a feasibility study for the proposed downtown Spectator Facility was approved by Council.

REPORT

Spectator Facility Feasibility Study The City retained Deloitte to evaluate the feasibility of the St. Catharines Spectator and Entertainment Facility Project such that a private developer and the City could develop, design, construct, finance, market, operate and maintain the Facility on a municipally-owned site within the downtown core of the City. Specific elements of the feasibility review included the following:

Defining St. Catharines market area;

Analyzing current and projected market demographics;

Analyzing competitor facilities;

Identifying users and forecast usage levels;

Determining the potential financial impact on the Citys capital and operating

budgets;

Outlining potential funding sources;

Estimating the economic impacts for the City; and

Evaluating, at a high level, project risks.

The feasibility study has been summarized in the following:

The St. Catharines market is projected to be able to support OHL attendance in the range of 4,225 fans per game playing within a new multi-purpose spectator event facility. A facility in the range of 5,300 to 5,600 seats (including standing room) would service this demand.

An appropriate construction allowance is estimated to be in the range of $8,500 to $10,000 per seat, or roughly $45.0 million to $56.0 million.

Within the greater St. Catharines / Niagara region, there exists a number of entertainment venues that will be competitive with a proposed new spectator facility in St. Catharines. This competitive landscape includes a number of existing venues in Hamilton, Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Toronto, and involves both venues and promoters creating competition for artists and events and, in turn, venues and promoters creating competition for the entertainment spending of consumers.

Arena revenues are projected to be almost $1.937 million in Year 1, growing to over $2.131 million by Year 5. Operating expenses, prior to capital reserves and management fees, are estimated at almost $1.965 million in


Year 1, yielding a net operating loss of approximately $28,000. Including capital reserves and management fees, the Spectator Facility is projected to realize a net operating loss of approximately $328,000.

It is projected that the Facility would be able to support some $8.1 million in cash-flow supported debt (assuming a 6.00%, 20-year debenture). As such, the Net Funding Gap for realizing a new 5,200-seat (5,450-capacity) Spectator Arena is estimated at $36.9 million.

Positive economic benefits presumed to accrue from the project include:

During Construction o $64.3 million in direct and indirect spending; o $34.0 million in employment income growth; o 485 person years of employment; and o $7.5 million in direct tax revenue to the federal and provincial

governments.

During Operation o $5.8 million annually in direct and indirect spending; o $2.4 million annually in employment income growth; o 80 person years of employment annually; and o $2.9 million annually in direct tax revenue to the federal and provincial

governments.

Over the first five years of operation, including construction, the St. Catharines Spectator Arena is projected to impact significant economic benefits on the community / region, including:

o $95.1 million in direct and indirect spending; o $46.6 million in employment income growth; o 885 person years of employment; and o $22.7 million in direct tax revenue to the federal and provincial

governments.

These impacts would be in addition to other impacts which the presence of such a building could be expected to impart, including:

o Quantitative and qualitative benefits associated with hosting an OHL Team;

o Economic development benefits; o Event hosting; and o Incremental investment.

Site Analysis In the study Deloitte was tasked with reviewing three alternative sites for the proposed Spectator Arena. These sites include:

1. the existing Gatorade Garden City Complex / Jack Gatecliff Arena; 2. the Lower Level Parking Lot site; and 3. the Niagara Regional Police building on Church Street

The Gatorade Garden City Complex / Jack Gatecliff Arena site has the advantage of user group familiarity. In addition, the site is concluded to be large enough to accommodate a new facility, as well as accommodate the requirements for transport truck access, on-site parking and have sufficient off-street parking within 500 metres. However, development staging will be an issue (as the site currently houses the arena where the Niagara Ice Dogs currently play) and additional land acquisition by the City will be required.


The Lower Level Parking Lot site has the advantage of creating an iconic presence overlooking Highway 406, as well as complementing the Citys planned downtown performing arts centre and existing entertainment zone on St. Paul Street. Soil and other geotechnical issues may, however, serve to significantly increase the cost of development at this location.

The Church Street site has the advantage of being close to a number of businesses and is well serviced by municipal transit. However, a lower street presence (compared to the other two locations under consideration), coupled with the need for the City to acquire portions of this site and compatibility concerns, render this location the least preferred.

Both the Gatorade Garden City Complex / Jack Gatecliff Arena site and the Lower Level Parking Lot site have a number of advantages as well as significant potential disadvantages, and the study recommended that the City undertake additional due diligence on these sites in order to identify a preferred location. The Church Street site was concluded to be the least preferred of the three sites evaluated.

Spectator Facility Taskforce The last Spectator Facility Taskforce (February 17, 2011) reviewed the Deloitte report and discussed the project at length. The following points summarize the commentary by the Taskforce:

Confirmation of the current Gatorade Garden City Complex / Jack Gatecliff Arena site as the preferred site of the three identified in report.

Confirmation of the need to maintain a community facility (to replace Rex Stimers pad) and for a dedicated venue for events (OHL hockey, concerts, etc.). There was discussion about maintaining community needs and user conflicts, e.g. address limited parking and/or access for community users during events at larger facility.

Agreement that a professional management group will operate the venue and manage bookings.

Agreement that a professional management group providing advice during the design and planning process will have a better outcome in terms of commercial and operational aspects of the facility.

The P3 process was discussed and it was acknowledged that additional documentation will need to be prepared to meet the P3 requirements (i.e. Canada P3 Board approval of the project).

During the discussion, the Taskforce made two specific resolutions to go forward to City Council with respect to the project:

1. That a professional Event Management Group be commissioned to advise on the design and planning of the facility and that an RFP be prepared for that commission forthwith; and

2. That a twin pad facility be built at the existing Gatorade Garden City Complex / Jack Gatecliff Arena site; with dedicated parking for the community facility and sufficient seating to meet OHL requirements and commercial production needs for the main Spectator Facility. It was determined that the management group would best qualified to advise on the specific number of seats required.

P3 Canada Funding Status On September 15, 2009, the Federal Government announced the P3 Canada Fund with the issuance of the Round One call for project submissions. The Government of Canada established the $1.2 billion P3 Canada Fund to support public infrastructure projects procured via public-private partnerships (P3s).

For an eligible project, P3 Canada may make available a non-repayable grant of up to 25% of construction costs this includes planning and design components, but


not operational financing. The Spectator Facility proposal has already satisfied initial registration requirements. In general terms, the following outlines the next steps to satisfy P3 Canadas eligibility requirements for them to adopt and fund a project:

City of St. Catharines endorsement of the project A completed Feasibility Study Preparation of a Value For Money (VFM) assessment Preparation of a procurement plan to address financing and staging of

construction Preparation of a comprehensive business case assessment

Satisfaction of the above points will make a project eligible to go before the P3 Canada board as early as March 31, 2012, where they will deliberate on a decision to accept or reject their support for funding the Spectator Facility.

On May 4, 2011, PPP Canada launched the third round of the P3 Canada Fund. The following highlights the key milestone dates related to this round of funding.

June 30, 2011 City of St. Catharines must submit application to P3 Canada as per application criteria described in P3 Canada Fund Application Guide & Application Form (Round Three May-June 2011)

Fall 2011 P3 Canada board completes assessment and screening of application and makes a decision regarding approval or rejection of P3 Application

March 31, 2012 subsequent to approval of Application from P3 Canada Board, robust business case must be prepared and submitted by March 31, 2012

June 30, 2012 after review and approval of business case, decision to commence construction occurs on June 30, 2012

Staff Commentary As a result of the Taskforce meeting and as part of the overall project management process, Staff reviewed the site to incorporate a twin pad facility on the site. The cost associated with two pads is not feasible based on two main concerns.

Firstly, the footprint requirements for a larger, contemporary facility would also need to accommodate service access and loading bays for events as well as onsite corporate suite and staff parking. Given the relatively small footprint, a twinned facility compromises these requirements and, in Staffs opinion, may also compromise the commercial and operational viability of the main Spectator Facility.

Secondly, user conflicts between the community ice surface and the main Spectator Facility will be an ongoing concern in terms of managing community access during large events and maintaining rental levels at the community surface.

Notwithstanding these comments, Staff acknowledges community user needs for a replacement facility once the Rex Stimers pad is decommissioned.

Staff also requests of Council an official motion to endorse the Spectator Facility in order to progress the P3 Canada application.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS To prepare the P3 Canada documentation and prepare the Value for Money statement, Staff anticipates the need to commission an appropriately qualified consultant. It is estimated that the P3 documentation could be prepared for approximately $30,000.

In addition, to support the above consultants and provide ongoing advice to the facility designers and planners, an Event Management Group should be commissioned on a retainer basis ahead of their actual tenure once the facility is operational. This value of this commission is yet to be determined as it may be able


to be structured into the whole of cost for their services once the facility is operational.

In addition, a preliminary estimated operating budget has been developed based on an assumption of a total project cost of $42,500,000 for a 5,000 seat facility (Appendix A ). The potential impact on Median House (with Current Value Assessment of $196,750) ranges from the highest impact of $27.04 (2.32%) to $6.75 (0.58%). It should also be noted that this is intended to provide a preliminary estimate of budgetary impacts and does not take into consideration any potential equity contributions that may result from a private sector partnership. This will be determined in the value for money assessment as required by the P3 Canada Fund.

CONCLUSION Staff requests that Council acknowledge the recommendations made by the Spectator Facility Taskforce and the consequent amendments made by Staff. These recommendations are:

To approve the commissioning of an Event Management Group To approve the process to apply for P3 Canada funding To approve in principle, on the basis of satisfactory funding and planning

arguments, the construction of a Spectator Facility at the current Gatorade Garden City Complex / Jack Gatecliff Arena site

To acknowledge and address the need for an additional community facility in lieu of the above mentioned discussion and proposal.

Item No. 2

Report from Fire & Emergency Management Services, Prevention

Date of Report: April 13, 2011

File: 10.57.28, 68.13.99

Subject: Fees for Preventable False Alarms

RECOMMENDATION: That the report from Fire and Emergency Management Services Prevention, related to suggested rates and fees for 2011, be amended to reflect a graduated fee schedule with respect to preventable false alarms. FORTHWITH.

BACKGROUND As part of its 2011 Rates and Fees submission, Fire Services proposed a new fee be established related to preventable false alarms. The proposed fee for this service was $1,620 plus HST.

The intent of this report is to provide clarification to the types of responses that would be subject to the proposed fee, as well as to revise the suggested fee to one which uses a progressive cost recovery scale.

REPORT Preventable false alarms are an ongoing problem within the City of St. Catharines as in the rest of the province and are a costly endeavor. Upon receipt of an alarm of fire at a property, Fire Services must respond with a full structural fire assignment until it can be confirmed that no fire conditions exist at a property. This response results in fire vehicles and Staff being unavailable to respond to other incidents in

http:68.13.99http:10.57.28


the city. In addition to this, direct costs related to these responses include fuel costs and wear and tear on the vehicles.

In many cases, preventable false alarms can be attributed to the failure of property and business owners to take appropriate actions to avoid false alarms.

Following the first preventable false alarm response, Fire Services will follow up with the property/business owner by letter outlining the rates and fees for preventable false alarms.

Following the second preventable false alarm response, Fire Prevention personnel will visit the property to discuss measures which may be implemented to eliminate the preventable false alarm. Any recommendations or suggestions will be forwarded to the owner along with a second reminder of the rates and fees associated with preventable false alarms.

Following the third preventable false alarm response, Fire Services will review the cause of the alarm and determine if appropriate measures were taken by the owner to avoid the preventable false alarm. If the business or property owner has taken all appropriate actions to avoid the preventable false alarm, no fee will be charged. If no action has been taken, the applicable rate will be applied.

All subsequent responses will be treated in a similar fashion to that above.

Preventable false alarms will include: a) false alarms caused by failing to maintain a building fire alarm or

sprinkler system in accordance with applicable codes and standards

b) failure to notify Fire Services in advance of fire drills, monthly tests of fire alarm/sprinkler system, persons working on fire alarm/sprinkler system

c) failure to take necessary actions during construction to prevent false alarms (i.e. use protective covers over smoke detectors during drywall sanding, cleaning around detectors, etc.)

d) failure to maintain adequate heat in a sprinklered building to prevent freezing of fire sprinklers

e) failure to implement suggested measures to prevent alarm system activations (i.e. not installing protective covers over manual pull stations, failing to provide fire sprinkler protective cages)

f) other preventable false alarms will be evaluated on an individual basis and the Fire Chief or his/her designate will use their discretion at making a determination to charge the applicable fee

Progressive Cost Recovery Scale To remain consistent with a number of fire departments in the province, a progressive cost recovery scale will be used. This scale will use a twelve month moving start date measured from the date of the first preventable false alarm.

By implementing a graduated fee for preventable false alarms, building owners will be given a fair opportunity to remedy situations which are causing preventable false alarms thus avoiding any fees.

Upon the third false alarm in a 12 month period, a fee of $300.00 plus HST will be applied.

Upon the fourth false alarm in a 12 month period, a fee of $400.00 plus HST will be applied.


Upon the fifth false alarm in a 12 month period, a fee of $500.00 plus HST will be applied.

Upon all subsequent false fire alarms within the 12 month period, a fee of $1,640.00 plus HST will be applied.

This fee is based on the current MTO rate of $410.00 per vehicle with a Fire Services structural response of four vehicles.

Notification of Clients The public will be informed of the introduction of the preventable false alarm fee through a number of venues. This will include notification through the Garden City Current as well as on the city website. Most buildings in which this fee may be applicable are also required to have fire safety plans which are approved by the Chief Fire Official. As part of the review and approval process for these plans, notification of the applicable fee for false fire alarms will be included.

The Fire Prevention Office also conducts building owner/manager seminars throughout the year where information on this new fee will be provided, while a newsletter designed for this same target audience is presently in the planning process and would include this type of information.

Finally, as part of the implementation of this fee, all building/business owners will be advised of the fee in writing following the first preventable false alarm.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications to the City of St Catharines as a result of the recommendations of this report.

CONCLUSION By introducing a graduated system of fees for preventable false alarms, building and business owners will be given time to develop a plan to eliminate preventable false alarms in their buildings. If building and business owners are aware and prudent of their responsibilities with respect to fire protection systems, this proposal should reduce or eliminate the need of Fire Services to respond to preventable false alarms.

Item No. 3

Report from the Ad Hoc Budget Review Committee


File: 10.57.28

Subject: 2011 Schedule of Rates and Fees

RECOMMENDATION That the 2011 Schedule of Rates and Fees be approved;

and that the City Clerk maintain the list of Rates and Fees for public inspection in Corporate Support Services Clerks;

and further, that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary by-laws. FORTHWITH.

http:10.57.28http:1,640.00


BACKGROUND The City has established user fees to charge the person using the service a share of the cost of providing the service. The use of the service is at the option of the individual. The amount the user pays is a function of the amount of service used. The level of use of service is controlled by the user.

City Council, at its October 3, 2005 Strategic and Corporate Planning meeting, delegated the review of the Schedule of Rates and Fees to the Ad Hoc Budget Review Committee.

REPORT The Ad Hoc Budget Review Committee has reviewed the 2011 Schedule of Rates and Fees and recommends their approval (see Appendix B attached).

Prior to the passing of a fee or a charge by-law, public notice must be given and a public meeting held. The following process will be followed:

a. This report was prepared establishing a public meeting date giving a minimum of 7 days notice.

b. A copy of the Proposed Rates and Fees is made available in Corporate Support Services Clerks. In addition, a copy of the Proposed Rates and Fees was placed on the Citys website.

c. Additional information is available by contacting Financial Management Services.

d. Those persons wishing to be heard at the public meeting at which the Rates and Fees proposed by-law is intended to be passed shall apply in writing to the City Clerk before the commencement of the meeting.

Parking Fees Included in the 2011 Schedule of Rates and Fees are the 2011 Parking Infractions and the 2011 Parking Rate Structure.

The net revenue from operation of all parking facilities is deposited into the parking meter reserve fund. These funds are then used for the payment of all outstanding debentures on parking facilities, maintenance of existing facilities, and for the acquisition and establishment of future parking facilities.

Parking Rates were last increased by the City of St. Catharines on January 1, 2007.

The 2006 Parking Budget report discussed the replacement of the Carlisle Street Parking Garage with a new parking facility. At that time, parking permit fees and parking meter fees were projected to increase annually to provide funds for the new garage.

The financial model, as presented with the 2006 Parking Budget, to provide funding for the replacement of the Carlisle Street Parking Garage was as follows:

1. Hourly rate increase from $1.25 to $1.50 to be considered;

2. Monthly permit rates to be increased by 10% annually starting January 1, 2007. Rates to be reviewed in 2012 depending on the financial performance of the parking system;

3. Meter revenue transfer to the Operating Budget to be discontinued;

4. Parking permit volume discounts to be phased out;

5. Parking Infraction Notice (PIN) to be increased for an expired meter based on the increases to the hourly parking rates.


To date, Items 4 and 5 have been implemented with Item 3 implemented in phases (2011 budget transfer - $150,000; 2012 budget transfer - $75,000; 2013 budget transfer - $0). Items 1 and 2 are included in the 2011 Rates and Fees and are currently being recommended for approval.

Construction of the new Carlisle Street Parking Garage will be completed in the fall of 2011.

To fund this incremental cost of the parking system, rate adjustments will be required as follows:

1. The hourly rate will be increased from $1.25 to $1.50 per hour effective May 3, 2011. This rate will be reviewed annually depending on the financial performance of the parking system.

2. Monthly permit rates will be increased by 10% effective May 3, 2011. This rate will be reviewed annually depending on the financial performance of the parking system.

3. The Parking Infraction Notice (PIN) Fees will have the early payment option removed at this time. Staff will review and report back on parking enforcement at a later date.

Further adjustments to the Parking System rates and hours of operation will be addressed in a future report upon completion of the Carlisle Street Parking Garage and the operation of the Performing Arts Centre.

In discussing the proposed changes to the parking rates at the Ad Hoc Budget Committee meeting of April 4, 2011, various items were considered. It was noted that funds were budgeted in 2010 for the conversion of Pay/Display machines to be able to accept credit cards. The Ad Hoc Committee considers this conversion a necessity and recommends it be completed in 2011. Staff have indicated that this conversion should be completed in conjunction with the rate changes to the Pay/Display machines. Consideration of removing on-street parking meters and replacing them with Pay by Space or Pay/Display machines was also discussed. This is a multi-year replacement program and will be the subject of a future report. Also included in the report will be the consideration of introducing gradated rate parking. Gradated rate parking is the determination of the cost of parking depending on where in the system one parks.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The approval of the 2011 Rates and Fees ensures the ability to provide essential services while ensuring maintenance of infrastructure.


Item No. 4

Report from Corporate Support Services, Clerks


File: 10.12.1, 35.2.2

Subject: Amendment to Procedural By-law 2007-311 Motion Respecting Recorded Votes

RECOMMENDATION That the report from Corporate Support Services, dated May 5, 2011, be received and that Council adopt the recommendation to implement a Consent Agenda and a Discussion Agenda;

and that recorded votes are automatically required on the items that are pulled by Council for the Discussion Agenda;

and for items on the Discussion Agenda, that the Mayor only be required to vote to break a tie;

and that the City Solicitor be directed to amend Procedural By-law 2007-311 to reflect these changes. FORTHWITH.

SUMMARY Transparency and accountability are hallmarks of progressive government institutions. In November of 2009, former Councillor Foss requested Staff look at AMO and FCM best practices for transparency and accountability. More recently, Staff has been asked to look at the feasibility of using recorded votes for all Council motions. Staff are of the opinion that Council is required to vote on a number of items that are routine in nature and that a recorded vote in these instances would not enhance transparency but would bog down the effectiveness of Council. Conversely, all matters before Council that deal with planning applications or involve significant expenditures would be an appropriate use of recorded votes.

BACKGROUND At the Council meeting of May 2, 2011, Councillor Siscoe tabled a motion to refer to a public meeting, on May 9, 2011, proposed changes to procedural By-law 2007-311 to require all votes of Council to be recorded. The motion further directed Staff to prepare a report for discussion and recommendations to the proposed amendment to By-law 2007-311.

REPORT The use of recorded votes for Municipal Council motions throughout the province of Ontario is generally conducted on an as requested basis. Municipalities generally have a protocol in their procedural by-law that stipulates the mechanism for recorded votes. The City of St. Catharines current procedural by-law allows for any member of Council to request a recorded vote immediately prior to or immediately after a vote being taken.

Staff polled 10 similar or slightly larger sized municipalities, including Burlington, Oakville, Oshawa, and Markham to review their practices on recorded votes. In all instances these municipalities only have recorded votes when requested by a member of Council. It should be noted that the City of Burlington has received a request from one of their Councillors to record all votes of Council.

Notwithstanding the above findings, Staff are of the opinion that if Council adopts a mechanism for automatic recorded votes, some overall changes should be put in


place to ensure Council meetings are conducted efficiently and effectively. Specifically, Staff would recommend that Council revert to a Consent Agenda and a Discussion Agenda.

This process was in place previously in the City of St. Catharines and is currently being used in other Municipalities, such as Oshawa. The premise of this system is that all reports for Council are listed on a Consent Agenda. Council votes on this Agenda as a whole. If there are any items on the Agenda that a Councillor desires discussion on, they ask that the item be pulled. These items would then be placed on the Discussion Agenda. Council could then implement an automatic recorded vote on all Discussion Agenda items.

Additionally, all decisions on planning applications and financial expenditures in excess of $500,000 would be automatically placed on the Discussion Agenda.

This type of protocol would reduce the number of items that require a recorded vote. Therefore, transparency can be increased without significantly extending the length of the General Committee portion of the meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications with the above recommendation; however, if Council were to direct Staff to record all motions of Council, then Staff would recommend an automated mechanism for doing so. Staff have researched various options and have determined that the estimated cost of implementing and automated mechanism for recording votes would be approximately $25,000. While funds have been included in the budget for Council chamber upgrades, there is no provision within that budget for this specific item.

Item No. 5

Report from Planning Services, Development


File: 60.35.963

Subject: Revision to By-law 2011-33, Schedule A, Regarding Amendment to By-law 62-86 (Zone 7) to Allow for Residential Development 38 Lincoln Avenue; Owner: 1473941 Ontario Limited (Mr. Anthony Continelli)

RECOMMENDATION That By-law 2011-33 pertaining to lands known as 38 Lincoln Avenue be amended by deleting Schedule A attached thereto and replacing it with a Schedule A reflective of the 15 metre setback line illustrated in Appendix C to this report, as approved by Council on February 14, 2011;

and that no further public notice be given since the revision is determined to be minor;

and that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary by-laws to give effect to Councils decision;

and that the Notice of Decision required by the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, be processed by the City Clerk;


and that upon expiration of the appeal period, the City Clerk be directed to forward an application to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval of the proposed zoning by-law if any appeals are received;

and further, that the Clerk be directed to make the necessary notifications. FORTHWITH.

BACKGROUND On February 14, 2011, Council approved amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to enable future residential development on the subject lands. By-law 2011-33 was passed by Council on February 28, 2011, in order to implement its decision.

REPORT Subsequent to Councils passing of By-law 2011-33, it was found that the Schedule attached to the by-law did not reflect Councils approval in the matter of minimum building setback to the westerly property line. Specifically, a 15 metre (50 feet) setback was provided in this location as a buffer to the Trillium Rail (see Appendix C). Councils intent in this regard was clearly expressed in its approval granted on February 14, 2011, although the actual Schedule to the by-law adopted by Council omitted this setback line. It is recommended that the Schedule attached to By-law 2011-33 be replaced accordingly in order to correctly reflect Councils decision. This is considered to be a technical amendment and no further public meeting is required. Council is required to pass a by-law to give effect to this change.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable.

NOTIFICATION It is in order to advise 1473941 Ontario Limited, c/o Mr. Anthony Continelli, P.O. Box 162, 18 Front Street North, Thorold, Ontario, L2V 3Y9.

Item No. 6

Report from Planning Services, Policy


File: 60.32.556

Subject: Community Improvement Plan, Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement, Municipal Address: Formerly 26 Abbot Street West; Owner: Formerly Premier Conglomerate Group Inc.; Agent: Mr. Timothy Collins (Associated Brownfields)

RECOMMENDATION That the Staff Recommendation outlined in the report from Planning Services Policy, dated April 28, 2011, respecting the amendment to the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement, be approved;

and that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary by-laws and documents as outlined in the report. FORTHWITH.


BACKGROUND City Council, at its regular meeting held April 20, 2009, enacted a resolution approving an application under the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program for the property formerly known as 26 Abbot Street West resulting in the execution of an agreement (dated December 21, 2009) between The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines and Premier Conglomerate Group Inc.

History At its regular meeting of February 28, 2011, General Committee deferred Item No. 94 which dealt with the assignment of the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant and the amendment to the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement. The Agent has subsequently advised Staff that the assignment is no longer requested resulting in this revised report.

REPORT The original agreement included a parcel of land (described as PART BLOCK 8, PLAN 30M-362) which has been subdivided into two (2) parcels (PLAN 30R-12141, PARTS 1 & 2). Part 2, PLAN 30R-12141 has been sold to an adjoining property owner; hence a new agreement is required regarding the TIG payments.

Staff Recommendation That the City Solicitor be directed to prepare an amendment to the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement (dated December 21, 2009) between The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines and Premier Conglomerate Group Inc. regarding the revised property description;

and that Premier Conglomerate Group Inc. be required to enter into the amended Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement;

and that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary by-laws and documents;

and further, that the Clerk be directed to make the necessary notifications.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Should Council approve the recommendation in this report, the amended Agreement will result in a minor reduction of the future TIG for this site. Planning Services would remind Council that the TIG is based on the increase in the property taxes that followed the redevelopment of the property.

NOTIFICATION It is in order to advise Mr. Timothy Collins, Associated Brownfields, 80 King Street, Suite 903A, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2R 7G1, and Mr. Tunde Fowler, Senior Financial Analyst, Corporate Services Department, Regional Municipality of Niagara, 2201 St. Davids Road, P.O. Box 1042, Thorold, Ontario, L2V 4T7.


Item No. 7

Report from Planning Services, Policy


File: 60.32.574

Subject: Community Improvement Plan, Application for Financial Incentive Grant Programs; Municipal Address: Formerly 61 Moffatt Street; Owner: Premier Conglomerate Group Inc.; Agent: Timothy Collins (Associated Brownfields)

RECOMMENDATION That City Council approve the report from Planning Services Policy, dated April 28, 2011, respecting the Application for Financial Incentive Grant Programs for 61 Moffatt Street as outlined below;

and that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary by-laws and documents as outlined in the report. FORTHWITH.

BACKGROUND In February 2006, City Council approved the report from Planning Services regarding planning studies and possible community improvement plan amendments for the Oakdale Moffatt Area. A group of landowners in the area, including Mr. Rob Baiocco, President of Premier Conglomerate Group, provided funding for the City to hire a consultant to carry out the study. This contribution for the area-wide study is not an eligible cost under the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program. In order to not delay development proposals until the Community Improvement Plan programs were in place, the Director of Planning Services indicated he would recommend the inclusion of any expenses incurred after June 18, 2007 (see Appendix D).

On September 29, 2008, Council granted approval to designate the lands of the Oakdale Moffatt Neighbourhood as a Community Improvement Project Area. The by-law was approved on February 2, 2009, with no appeals being filed.

REPORT On March 14, 2011, Planning Services received an application under the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program and the Municipal Application and Permit Fees Refund Program. The Agent on behalf of the Owner has provided the required information for Staff to proceed to obtain Council Approval. The Owner is proposing to redevelop the property and construct 18 single detached dwellings (attached as Appendix E).

Staff Recommendation That City Council approve the applications under the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program and the Municipal Application and Permit Fees Refund Program from the Agent on behalf of the Owner of the property formerly known as 61 Moffatt Street;

and that the Eligible Expenditures be retroactive after June 18, 2007;

and that City Council direct that the Building Permit Fees for the 18 single detached dwellings be refunded when all municipal approvals are obtained, authorization to occupy received, and all documentation received;


and that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement between Premier Conglomerate Group Inc. and the City of St. Catharines and any necessary by-laws authorizing the execution of the agreement and other related documents;

and further, that the Clerk be directed to make the necessary notifications.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 1. Subject to Councils approval of this report and based on the Tax Increment

Based Incentive Grant Program, the Owner would be eligible to receive a grant of 90% of the Net Increase in Assessment multiplied by the Tax rate in the 1st year (Commencement Year), reducing 10% each year thereafter (up to nine [9] years).

2. The City and Region would retain the remaining 10% of new taxes in year 1 (Commencement Year), increasing 10% each year up to a maximum period of nine [9] years.

3. No funds will be advanced to the Owner under the Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program until new taxes are generated based on a Supplemental Assessment from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

4. The estimated Eligible Expenditures total approximately $3,355,130.00.

5. The annual grant returned to the Owner will be from the increased property taxes levied on the property.

6. The Region, as in other cases, will partner with the City on this project in terms of the return of taxes.

CONCLUSION This is the third development west of Oakdale Avenue to proceed since Council granted approval to designate the lands of the Oakdale Moffatt Neighbourhood as a Community Improvement Project Area.

NOTIFICATION It is in order to advise Mr. Timothy Collins, Associated Brownfields, 80 King Street, Suite 903A, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2R 7G1, and Mr. Tunde Fowler, Senior Financial Analyst, Corporate Services Department, Regional Municipality of Niagara, 2201 St. Davids Road, P.O. Box 1042, Thorold, Ontario, L2V 4T7.

http:3,355,130.00


Item No. 8

Report from Financial Management Services, Property Management


File: 16.7.99

Subject: Property Matter Excess Land in front of 291 Carlton Street, Realty File No. 99-09

RECOMMENDATION That the property in front of the dwelling at 291 Carlton Street as shown on Appendix F and described as being Part of Lot 1, Plan TP-22 and shown as part 10 on reference plan 30R-9492, being approximately 5016 square feet in the City of St. Catharines, Regional Municipality be declared surplus and disposed of pursuant to Real Property By-law 2007-309, as amended;

and that Staff be directed to deviate from By-law 2007-309, as amended, in regard to the requirements to notify school boards;

and that Legal Services be directed to prepare any necessary documents and by-laws.

SUMMARY This report requests that City Council declare a parcel of excess land in front of 291 Carlton Street as shown on Appendix F as surplus to City needs in order that Staff can proceed with disposing of the property.

REPORT The subject property is on the northeast corner of Regional Road 83 (Carlton Street) and Wood Street. The land was held by the City for overflow parking abutting Lancaster Park. Recreation and Community Services has advised that this parcel is no longer required.

The subject property is not developable in isolation due to its location in front of 291 Carlton Street. The highest and best use of the land is to be joined with the rear property as a contribution to the value of 291 Carlton Street.

In order to ensure the land is not needed by the City for any City purposes, information about the property is circulated to the Citys Property Coordination Committee. The Committee is made up of members from Planning Services, Legal Services, Transportation and Environmental Services, and Recreation and Community Services. This circulation has been completed, and there was no objection to the disposal of this excess parcel of land.

Niagara Region was also circulated information on this property as Carlton Street is a Regional Road. Niagara Region has requested a 1.18 metre road widening along Carlton Street and a 6 metre by 6 metre daylighting triangle at the corner of Wood Street and Carlton.

Once the land is declared surplus, Staff can the take the necessary steps to sell the land for market value based on highest and best use. Market value is determined by an independent qualified appraiser. Staff will negotiate the best possible price and report back to City Council with a recommendation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Approval of this report does not have any financial implications.


CONCLUSION Staff make the above recommendation to publicly declare the subject land as surplus in order that the disposal process may continue.

Item No. 9



File: 16.7.99

Subject: Property Matter Excess Land 12A Romko Court, Realty File No. 06-11

RECOMMENDATION That the property known municipally as 12A Romko Court Street as shown on Appendix G and described as being Lot 41, Plan M-57 in the City of St. Catharines, Regional Municipality be declared surplus and disposed of pursuant to Real Property By-law 2007-309, as amended;

That Staff be directed to deviate from By-law 2007-309, as amended, in regard to the requirements to notify school boards, and the Regional Municipality of Niagara;

SUMMARY This report requests that City Council declare a parcel of excess land at 12A Romko Court as surplus to City needs in order that Staff can proceed with disposing of the property.

REPORT

The subject property, known municipally as 12A Romko Court is a remnant of walkway between Romko Court and Ernest Street. The access to Ernest Street is now blocked by a seniors development fronting on Ernest Street eliminating the reason for a walkway.

The walkway is 10 feet wide by 100 feet. Due to its size the parcel is not developable in isolation, and therefore, only of value to an abutting owner. Staff request that Council permit Staff to deviate from the requirement to notify school boards and the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

Real Property By-law 2007-309, as amended, requires that City Council must publicly declare excess real property as surplus before it can be sold.

In order to ensure the land is not needed by the City for any City purposes, information about the property is circulated to the Citys Property Coordination Committee. The Committee is made up of members from Planning Services, Legal Services, Transportation and Environmental Services, and Recreation and Community Services. This circulation has been completed, and there was no objection to the disposal of this excess parcel of land.

Once the land is declared surplus, Staff can the take the necessary steps to sell the land for market value based on highest and best use. Market value is determined by an independent qualified appraiser. Staff will negotiate the best possible price and report back to City Council with a recommendation.


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Approval of this report does not have any financial implications.

CONCLUSION Staff make the above recommendation to publicly declare the subject land as surplus in order that the disposal process may continue.

Item No. 10

Report from Transportation & Environmental Services, Engineering and Construction


File: 18.45.246

Subject: Early Budget Approval and Award of Tender, P08-164, Merritton Community Centre Life Safety System Upgrade

RECOMMENDATION That the report from Transportation & Environmental Services Engineering and Construction, dated May 4, 2011, respecting Early Budget Approval and Award of Tender, P08-164, Merritton Community Centre Life Safety System Upgrade, be approved;

and that early budget approval be granted for additional funds of $50,000 for the Merritton Community Centre Life Safety System upgrade which will be included in the 2011 Capital Budget;

and that approval be granted to award the tender for the Merritton Community Centre Life Safety System Upgrade, Project Number P08-164, to G.E. Galbraith Electric Limited at their bid price of $134,700.00 plus HST;

and further, that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary by-law. FORTHWITH.

REPORT Tenders for Project No. P08-164, Merritton Community Centre Life Safety System Upgrade, closed on May 3, 2011. All extensions and the total for each tender were checked and no errors found. The tender prices are listed below for each of the two tenders received:

Tender Tender Price Tender Price Submitted By Submitted (Including 13% H.S.T.)

G.E. Galbraith Electric Limited $134,700.00 $152,211.00

Kraun Electric Inc. $134,900.00 $152,437.00

The 2008 Operating Budget included funds to upgrade the existing electrical system and to upgrade the emergency lighting system at Merritton Community Centre. During the projects tender period, a requirement for asbestos removal was confirmed within the community centre. A tender addendum was issued to incorporate the removals into the current tender due to the coordination needed between the specialized subcontractors.

http:134,700.00


Staff recommends a contract be awarded to the low bid G.E. Galbraith Electric Limited. It is not anticipated that tendering at a future date will result in more favourable pricing and retendering will delay project completion until after 2011s Labour Day weekend.

There are additional costs associated with the project for consulting engineering services and testing.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2008 project has total funding of $115,000 and available construction budget of $95,000. The costs for asbestos removal have not been previously budgeted.

Staff recommends early budget approval in the amount of $50,000 from the 2011 Capital Budget be used to fund the additional costs associated with the asbestos removal at the Merritton Community Centre.

Item No. 11

Report from Recreation & Community Services, Programs and Cultural Services


File: 68.32.151

Subject: 2011 Dragon Boat Festival

RECOMMENDATION That the report from Recreation and Community Services Programs and Cultural Services, dated May 2, 2011, regarding the 2011 Dragon Boat Festival, be approved;

and that the City of St. Catharines enter into an agreement with Wellspring Niagara Cancer Support Foundation regarding the proceeds, sponsorships, participation, expenses, and promotion;

and that the City of St. Catharines issue a Park Permit for Start Me Up Niagara for the provision of Food and Beverage sales at the 2011 Dragon Boat Festival;

and that the City enter into an agreement with Pan American Dragon Boat Limited for the purpose of renting equipment for the 2011 Dragon Boat Festival at a cost of $4,960.08 and enter into an agreement with Pan American Dragon Boat Limited related to boat rentals for the Festival;

and that the City of St. Catharines enter into an indemnity and insurance agreement with the Canadian Henley Rowing Corporation for the rental of Henley Island and the Historic Henley Rowing course during the Dragon Boat Festival at a cost of $6,650.00;

and further, that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary documents and by-laws. FORTHWITH.

http:6,650.00http:4,960.08


SUMMARY The intent of the this report is to recommend entering into an agreement with Wellspring Niagara Cancer Support Foundation and Start Me Up Niagara in the planning and carrying out of the festival; entering into an agreement with the Royal Henley Rowing Corporation to rent the Historic Henley Rowing course; and finally entering into an agreement with the recommended preferred supplier, Pan American Dragon Boat Limited, for boat rental for the 2011 event.

BACKGROUND For a number of years, the St. Catharines Museum (the Museum) has been operating an annual Dragon Boat Festival on the Historic Henley. The event draws hundreds of participants and is designed as a fundraising activity to support on-going programming at the St. Catharines Museum and Welland Canals Centre, Wellspring Niagara Cancer Support Foundation, and Start Me Up Niagara.

The dragon boat festival is a major fundraiser for the Museum Past Dragon Boat Festivals have raised between $10,000 and $30,000 per event for the Museum. All funds raised are directed towards educational programs and projects at the Museum, such as History Hall, Outreach Kits, special exhibitions, etc.

This event is scheduled to be held on July 23, 2011.

REPORT An agreement is required for use of the Henley Rowing Course One of the attractions of the St. Catharines Dragon Boat Festival is its location on the historic Henley Rowing course. The Dragon Boat Festival rents Henley Island every year at a cost of $6,650.00. It is required that the City enter into an Indemnity and Insurance agreement with the Canadian Henley Rowing Corporation in order to continue to use this historic location for the 2011 Dragon Boat Festival.

An agreement is required with both festival partners In 2011, both Wellspring Niagara Cancer Support Foundation (Wellspring) and Start Me Up Niagara will again engage in fundraising activities as partners during the St. Catharines Dragon Boat Festival. An agreement is required with Wellspring regarding proceeds, sponsorships, expenses, and promotion. Start Me Up Niagaras agreement will be executed through a standard parks permit for their provision of food and beverage at the event. There is no applicable fee as the event is being held at Henley Island which is not a City property.

Wellspring will receive all pledges by registrants, as well as undesignated pledges; the Museum will receive all other fees and revenues, including but not limited to registration fees, vendor fees, parking fees, and sponsorships; and Start Me Up Niagara will receive all the proceeds from food and beverage sales at the event.

In addition, Wellspring will seek sponsorships for pledge incentive prizes, and the Museum will pursue additional sponsorship opportunities once identified.

Wellspring will handle all responsibilities related to the administration of pledge forms and ensure that volunteers are present on or before the day of the festival to administer pledges. Start Me Up Niagara will handle all responsibilities relating to the Food & Beverage Service, including food/beverage procurement, preparation, and serving. Wellspring, Start Me Up Niagara, and the Museum will all be represented on all promotional materials for the festival. In addition, Museum staff, volunteers, and festival volunteers have been trained to provide boat steering and all other on-site roles.

An agreement is required with the dragon boat supplier The Dragon Boat Committee, endorsed by the Museum Advisory Committee, recommends that a rental agreement be entered into with Pan American Dragon Boat Limited to rent the boats for the event and for the associated insurance. This

http:6,650.00


agreement will include the rental of all related equipment for the event including boats, paddles, personal flotation devices, drums, steering oars and fenders. The principal terms and obligations include a rental fee of $4,960.08 not including taxes, of which $1,653.36 is to be paid upon acceptance of Agreement and the balance by July 22, 2011.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications listed below are expected to be offset by the revenues earned through this event.

Rental of Boats and equipment: $4,960.08 Rental of Henley Island: $6,650.00

Three quotes were obtained in the selection of a provider for the dragon boats and related equipment as per the Citys procurement policy. The Museum Advisory Committee is recommending Pan American Dragon Boat Limited as the provider. Although they have the second lowest bid, they offer superior equipment, experienced and trusted management and staff and fair and reasonable pricing.

CONCLUSION The St. Catharines Dragon Boat Festival is a very successful yearly fundraising event for the St. Catharines Museum and also provides the City of St. Catharines the opportunity to partner with community organizations to support social services within the city. The recommendations in this report allow the St. Catharines Museum to continue to move forward in carrying out this event in 2011.

Item No. 12

Report from Corporate Support Services, Clerks


File: 10.12.13

Subject: Correspondence List for the Mayor and Members of Council

RECOMMENDATION That the Correspondence List for the Mayor and Members of Council, dated May 9, 2011, be approved. FORTHWITH.

REPORT Corporate Support Services Clerks has submitted for the approval of Council, a Correspondence List comprised of various communications. (See Appendix H attached).

http:10.12.13http:6,650.00http:4,960.08http:1,653.36http:4,960.08


Item No. 13

Report from Boards, Commissions, and Standing Committees of Council

File: 35.60.99

Arena Partners Committee....................................................... Councillor Harris

................................................................................................. Councillor Phillips

................................................................................................. Councillor Williamson

Clean City Committee .............................................................. Councillor Williamson

Community Advisory Committee for an Integrated

Community Sustainability Plan ........................................... Councillor Elliott

................................................................................................. Councillor Washuta

Culture Committee ................................................................... Councillor Elliott

Development Process Review Committee ............................... Councillor Phillips

Downtown Development and Revitalization Committee........... Councillor Elliott

................................................................................................. Councillor Siscoe

Fire Services Planning Committee........................................... Councillor Burch

................................................................................................. Councillor Dodge


................................................................................................. Councillor Stevens

................................................................................................. Councillor Washuta Graffiti Committee .................................................................... Councillor Washuta

Green Committee .................................................................... Councillor Harris

Lincoln County Humane Society .............................................. Councillor Kushner

Mayors Advisory Committee for Black History ........................ Councillor Burch


Mayors Advisory Committee for Older Adults.......................... Councillor Stevens

Mayors Advisory Committee on Accessibility .......................... Councillor Harris

Mayors Youth Advisory Committee ......................................... Councillor Stack

Niagara District Airport Commission ........................................ Councillor Washuta

Niagara Wine Festival Board of Directors ................................ Councillor Secord

Port Dalhousie Business Association....................................... Councillor Stack

Port Dalhousie Heritage District Advisory Committee .............. Councillor Stack


Public Art Advisory Committee................................................. Councillor Elliott

Recreation Master Plan Steering Committee ........................... Councillor Burch


................................................................................................. Councillor Harris



St. Catharines Downtown Association ..................................... Councillor Siscoe

St. Catharines Folk Arts Council .............................................. Councillor Dodge


St. Catharines Heritage Committee ......................................... Councillor Siscoe

St. Catharines Museum Advisory Committee........................... Councillor Harris

St. Catharines Public Library Board ......................................... Councillor Phillips


St. Catharines Transit Commission.......................................... Councillor Dodge


Spectator Arena Taskforce Committee .................................... Councillor Burch




................................................................................................. Councillor Secord

Student Housing Liaison Committee........................................ Councillor Harris

................................................................................................. Councillor Kushner


User Group Committee for the Downtown Arts Centre ........... Councillor Elliott

http:35.60.99

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________


Item No. 14

Subject: Extras

Resolve into Council for Item No. 9, Other Business, and Item No. 10, the Reading of the By-laws.

Item No. 15

File: 10.12.1

Subject: In Camera Session

Be it Resolved that this meeting of the General Committee be adjourned to the In Camera Session for the purpose of discussion of the following (IN CAMERA) Item Number 16.

Item No. 16



File: 16.7.99

Subject: Property Matter License (In Camera Pursuant to By-law 2007-311, Section G5.3(c), A Proposed or Pending Acquisition or Disposition of Land by the Municipality), Realty File No. 08-60

(Copies enclosed in the Thursday packets for the Mayor and Members of Council.)

Cjty of St. Catharjnes

Estimated Operating Budget Impact Spectator facility (5.000 seats)

Estimated Project Budget

Construction Budget

Professional Fees

Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment

Other Costs: Site Development. Commissioning and Contingency

Estimated Total Project Budget

Source of Funding

Fund Raising

Federal Gas Tax allocation for LEED design

P3 Canada Fund (25%) I Provincial Funding

Civic Project Fund (Note 1)

Debenture

Operating Budget Impact

Debenture - 30 year @ 6%

Internal Loan from Civic Project Fund (Note 2)

2011 Budget - Garden City Arena Operations

Net Cash (Year 5) - pg. 54 Deloitte Study

Operating Budget Impact ($)

Operating Budget Debenture Impact (%) (Note 4) Operating Budget Impact of using Civic Project Fund Operating Budget Impact

Impact on Median House (with Current Value Assessment of $196,750 and City taxes of $1 ,165.98- 2011)

Note 1 Civic Project fund - Available funds Balance December 31, 2010 Internal loan Seymour Hannah Performing Arts Centre - Hydro Generation Note if not liquidated

Note 2 Oebenture vs Internal Loan from Civic Project Fyod 30 year /6% I $20m 30 year I 4% I $20m Project Carrying Cost savings

Note 3 Operating Budget Impact of ysjng remaining Cjyjc Project funds Current Operating Budget Funding from Civic Project fund SeymOLir Hannah Revenue Operating Budget Impact ($)

Operating Budget Impact(%)

$33,000.000

3.200,000

2,400,000

3,900,000

42,500.000

(5,000,000)

(1,000,000)

$36.500,000

$2,626,031

(293,124)

(1 ,007,225)

464,000

$1 ,789,682

2.32%

2.32%

$27.04

$37,822,334 (8,483,766) (7,754,000) 21,584,568

1.438,921 1,145,797 2~3. 124

1,012,420 (445_.009) 567,411

0.74%

Lowest

$33,000.000

3,200,000

2,400,000

3,90Q,oqo

42,500,000

(5,000,000)

(1 ,000,000)

(10,625,000)

(20,000,000)

i5:875,ooo

$422,683

(1 ,007,225)

464,000

($120,542)

-0.16% 0.74% 00~%

$6_.75

A

http:1,165.98

1 B 2010 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND FEES

2010 PROPOSED FEES - 2011

2011 Changes DESCRIPTION FEE HST TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL

Corporate Support Services

City Documents- Photocopies

By-laws, Deeds, Agreements 1-3 pages 2.04 0.26 2.30 1-3 pages (certified) 2.97 0.39 3.36 4-6 pages 2.97 0.39 3.36 4-6 pages (certified) 3.85 0.50 4.35 7-10 pages 3.85 0.50 4.35 7-1 0 pages (certified) 4.74 0.62 5.36 over 1 0 pages 4.74 0.62 5.36 over 1 0 pages (certified) 5.89 0.77 6.66

Condominium Agreement (Executed) 4.74 0.62 5.36

Election Poll by Poll Results 44.25 5.75 50.00

Fencing Report 3.85 0.50 4.35

Freedom of Information (Municipal) and Protection to Privacy Act:

Application Fee 5.00 5.00

photocopies - per page 0.20 0.20

manual search each 15 minutes 7.50 7.50

preparing a record for disclosure each 15 minutes 7.50 7.50

Minutes of Council & Standing Committee- annual - in advance 66.37 8.63 75.00

DVD of Minutes of Council & Standing Committees 8.85 1.15 10.00

Minutes of Council or Committees per extract 0.93 0.12 1.05 per extract (certified) 2.04 0.26 2.30

Minutes or Reports - complete 2.97 0.39 3.36 - completed and certified 4.74 0.62 5.36

Photocopies - miscellaneous 0.33 0.04 0.37

Site Plan Agreement (Executed) 4.74 0.62 5.36

Subdivision Agreement (Executed) 4.74 0.62 5.36

Voter's List - individual 8.85 1.15 10.00 - Set (All Wards) 53.10 6.90 60.00

Ward and Poll Maps - Election - City Wide 4.82 0.63 5.45 Ward 1.94 0.25 2.19

Zoning Area By-law with maps 4.74 0.62 5.36

Zoning Area By-law Map certified 6.77 0.88 7.65

COMMISSIONING OF DOCUMENTS

Initialing and/or Sealing and/or Signing only of document fully completed condition 10.48 1.36 11.84

2010 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND FEES 2010

DESCRIPTION Certified Copy of Document

GENERAL BUSINESS LICENCES

Adult Entertainment Parlour- Owner

-Operator

Amusement arcade per sq.ft.

gross usable floor area

Auctioneer

Body Rub Parlour: Owner who does not operate his own parlour OR owner operates own parlour

Operator

Person other than a licensed owner or operator

performing, offering, soliciting or making

available body rubs in or at a parlour

Business Licence Compliance Letter

Business Licence Refund Fee

Drive-in Theatre

Hawkers and Peddlers - Resident, per year, per location

PLUS Agreement Fee to a maximum charge

of two locations; Agreement Fee to be applied in instances where a licence is issued involving use of a municipal sidewalk or road allowance.

- per location per square foot - minimum fee

- Non-resident, per year, per location

PLUS Agreement Fee to a maximum charge of two locations; Agreement Fee

to be applied in instances where a licence is issued involving the use of a municipal sidewalk or road allowance.

- per location per square foot - minimum fee

Licenced (SOP) event/tournament - per hour - per day (8:00a.m.- 11 :00 p.m.)

Master Plumber - New Licence

Master Plumber - Renewal

Master Plumber/Plumbing Contractor- New Licence Master Plumber/Plumbing Contractor - Renewal

Niagara Grape & Wine Festival

- Resident in authorized location along grande parade route

- Non-resident in authorized location along grande parade route

Public hall

Non-profit or charitable

Refreshment Stand/Booth/Place

Restaurant- Inspection regard less of number of tables

FEE 10.48

3 ,200.00

1,100.00

0.50

50.00

3,100.00

110.00

110.00

15.00

30.00

175.00

200.00

15.00 500.00

615.00

15.00 500.00

40.00 100.00

77.00 51 .00

77.00 51.00

55.00

110.00

155.00

116.00

140.00

140.00

HST TOTAL 1.36 11.84

3,200.00 1,100.00

0.50

50.00

3,100.00

110.00

110.00

15.00

30.00

175.00

200.00

15.00 500.00

615.00

15.00 500.00

40.00 100.00

77.00 51.00 77.00 51 .00

55.00

110.00

155.00 116.00

140.00

140.00

2

PROPOSED FEES - 2011

2011 Changes FEE HST TOTAL


DESCRIPTION

Second Level Lodging Houses

Theatre - Per Screen

Transfer fee

LOTTERY LICENCES

Lottery Approval Fee

Raffles Prize not exceeding $500 Prize exceeding $500 under $50,000 Lottery at bazaar - each time

Bazaar Wheel - per day - per wheel

Break Open Lottery Tickets (per box)- Regular

Bingo - 3% of actual prize payout

Marriage Licences

MEETING ROOM RENTAL - CITY HALL

Economic Development & Tourism Services

MARKET SQUARE

Daily Rate Lease llolder Daily Rate Charitable - Daily

S~mmer Vendor Permit (May 1st to Ootoeer d1 st) 1 Stall per stall

Wintei"IIVendor Permit (~~oven,ber 1st to April 30ti'l) 1 Stall - per stall

Lease holder (6-12 months) - per month - per stall Marketing fee - per month - per stall Hydro

Vendor Permit All Season (indooFto~;~tdoor) monthly

For agreement and day use vendor permits inside the Market Square building charge 1/2 the fee for 1/2 stall use.

FEE HST

200.00

175.00

10.00

30.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

100.00

33.33 4.33

25.00 25.00 15.00

230.00

220.00

NEW NEW NEW

79.00

3


2011 Changes TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL

200.00

175.00

10.00

30.00

5.00 3%

5.00

5.00

3%

3%

100.00

37.66

25.00 25.00 25.60 Remove 15.00 15.00

REMOVE 239.99 REMOVE

REMOVE 220.60 REMOVE

38.00 12.00 12.50

76.00 REMOVE

3.25

1.95

4.94 1.56 1.63

28.25

16.95

42.94 13.56 14.13

~H~yg~r~Q-----------------------------------------7~9~.0~0~----------~7~&~.0~0REMOVE

Private non-market uses - per day - commercial - non-profit - charitable

Per Hour Surcharge (for use beyond regular business hours) (subject to change) Monday to Friday Saturday

Sunday

Cancellation Fee Per booking

275.00 125.00

21.70 32.55 43.40

25.00

275.00 125.00

21.70 32.55 43.40

25.00

300.00 150.00

21.70 32.55 43.40

50.00

39.00 19.50

2.82 4.23 5.64

6.50

339.00 169.50

24.52 36.78 49.04

56.50

4

2010 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND FEES 2010 PROPOSED FEES - 2011

2011 Changes DESCRIPTION FEE HST TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL ~lew '/ORders wt=lo lease ey seasoR ORO A'IORtR free. REMOVE

Additional Hydro rates may apply NEW Additional Sound System rates may apply NEW

Financial Management Services

CITY DOCUMENTS Assessment Roll - 1-3 pages 2.04 0.26 2.30

- 4 - 6 pages 2.97 0.39 3.36 - 7- 10 pages 3.85 0.50 4.35

Budget - Capital 5.40 0.70 6.10 - Operating (Summary) 22.57 2.93 25.50

Financial Statements 18.06 2.34 20.40

Financial Statements 22.56 2.94 25.50 and Information Return

LICENCE MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES

DOG LICENCES -Spayed or neutered 25.00 25.00 - each additional spayed or neutered 25.00 25.00

(maximum 3 per household)

Dogs under 6 months old 25.00 25.00

Male/Female Dog 45.00 45.00 - each additional male/female dog 50.00 50.00 (maximum 3 per household)

Late Fee (Purchase After January 31) 10.00 10.00

Licences for new residents (after June 30th) and dogs acquired after June 30 (proof required)

spayed or neutered 12.00 12.00 - each addition spayed/neutered 12.00 12.00

male/female dog 22.00 22.00 - each additional dog 25.00 25.00

Kennel Owner - Registered with Canadian Kennel Club 100.00 100.00

Replacement Dog Tags 1.00 1.00

N.S.F. CHEQUES (Service Charge) 23.81 3.10 26.91 23.89 3.11 27.00

REGISTRATION OF TAX ARREARS CERTIFICATE (Preliminary work to expiry of redemption period) 984.00 984.00 1,000.00 1,000.00

- Advise Interested Parties 50.00 50.00 80.00 80.00 - Preparation of Extension Agreement 390.00 390.00 500.00 500.00 - Search Title 50.00 50.00 80.00 80.00 -Sale by Tender 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,400.00 1,400.00

TAX ACCOUNT STATEMENT OR TAX BILL - Duplicate Copy 9.52 9.52 8.85 1.15 10.00

TAX CERTIFICATES (Includes Local Improvement Search) 40.00 40.00


DESCRIPTION

TAXES - ADDITIONS TO THE ROLL- PER BILLING - Water Billing - Waterworks - Weed Cutting - Private Drains - Fenceviewers - General Accounts Receivable - Hydro -WSIB 5% of Addition Amount

TAX BILLING FOR MORTGAGE COMPANY Annual Fee on Final Payment Listing - Per Roll Number

TAX SEARCH- MORTGAGE COMPANY (Mortgage Holder Without Interest)

TAX STATUS- VERBAL REQUEST (Law Firms Only)

TAX/WATER TITLE INSURANCE- CONFIRMATION LETTER

WATER STATUS- VERBAL REQUEST (Law Firms Only)

WATER ADMINISTRATION FEE

FINAL DEMAND I NON-COMPLIANCE FEE

WATER ACCOUNT STATEMENT OR WATER BILL - Duplicate Copy

Water Service Call

Regular Time (7:30a.m. - 7:30 p.m., Mon. to Fri.) Overtime (7:30p.m.- 7:30a.m., Sat., Sun. & Holiday)

- Residential - regular time -overtime

- Commercial - regular time -overtime

- Minimum charges, actual cost if greater Water Turn off- regular time includes turn-on

- overtime - residential - regular time- commercial - overtime - commercial

NOTE: WATER TURNED OFF ON REGULAR TIME AND TURNED BACK ON ON OVERTIME IS CHARGED AT THE OVERTIME RATE.

WATER TURNED OFF ON OVERTIME AND TURNED BACK ON WITHIN TWO (2) HOURS OF BEING TURNED

OFF IS CHARGED AT THE OVERTIME RATE.

WATER TURNED OFF ON OVERTIME AND TURNED BACK ON AFTER TWO (2) HOURS OF BEING TURNED OFF IS CHARGED AT TWO (2) TIMES THE OVERTIME RATE.

FEE HST

33.33 4.33

33.33 4.33 33.33 4.33 33.33 4.33 33.33 4.33 33.33 4.33

NEW

40.00

15.00

15.00

25.00

NEW

14.29 1.86

9.52 1.24

9.52 1.24

71.22 9.26 90.45 11 .76

71.22 9.26 90.45 11 .76

63.26 8.22 80.34 10.44 88.13 11.46

111.93 14.55

5


2011 Changes TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL

37.66 30.97 4.03 35.00 37.66 30.97 4.03 35.00 37.66 30.97 4.03 35.00 37.66 30.97 4.03 35.00 37.66 30.97 4.03 35.00 37.66 30.97 4.03 35.00

30.97 4.03 35.00

40.00 10.00 10.00

15.00

15.00

25.00

15.00 15.00

16.15 13.27 1.73 15.00

10.76 8.85 1.15 10.00

10.76 8.85 1.15 10.00

80.48 102.21

80.48 102.21

71.48 90.78 99.59

126.48

6

2010 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND FEES

2010 PROPOSED FEES - 2011

2011 Changes DESCRIPTION FEE HST TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL

Fire & Emergency Management Services

FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION

Administrative

001 - Occupant Load Posting 70.43 9.16 79.59 93.90 12.21 106.11 002 - Fire Regulaton Compliance Letter (Insurance report, records search) 82.16 10.68 92.84 109.55 14.24 123.79 003 - LLBO Letter special Occasion Permit and Clearance Letter for Property 82.16 10.68 92.84 109.55 14.24 123.79 004 - Fire Route Application/Administration 211.28 27.47 238.75 281 .70 36.62 318.32

Site Inspection

100- On site Inspection Residential - Single Detached Dwelling 176.06 22.89 198.95 234.75 30.52 265.27 101 -On site Inspection Residential- Duplex 223.01 28.99 252.00 297.35 38.66 336.01 102 A - On site Inspection Residential 3 to 6 units 281.70 36.62 318.32 375.60 48.83 424.43 102 B -On site Inspection of each additional residential unit over 6 units (Low Rise) 20.01 2.60 22.61 26.68 3.47 30.15 103 A - On site inspection Residential High Rise up to 6 storey 516.45 67.14 583.59 103 B - On site Inspection Residential High Rise per floor above 6 stories 20.02 2.60 22.62 26.69 3.47 30.16 201 A - On site Inspection Commercial and Industrial first 900 m2 (1 0000 sq ft) 305.18 39.67 344.85 406.90 52.90 459.80 201 B - On site Inspection Commercial and Industrial each additional 450 m2 (5000 sq ft) 46.95 6.10 53.05 301 A - On site Inspection of Multi Unit Hotels and Motels up to 2 stories 340.39 44.25 384.64 453.85 59.00 512.85 301 B -On site Inspection of Multi Unit Hotels and Motels each additional storey 62.60 8.14 70.74 400 - Private Home Day Care Inspection- 5 children or less 176.06 22.89 198.95 234.75 30.52 265.27 401 - Day Care Centers - More than 5 Children 316.91 41.20 358.11 422.55 54.93 477.48 402 - Homes for Special Care 316.91 41 .20 358.11 422.55 54.93 477.48 403 - Group Home Inspection 293.44 38.15 331.59 391 .25 50.86 442.11 404 - Nursing Homes 453.85 59.00 512.85 405 - Rest Homes & Seniors Homes 453.85 59.00 512.85

Fire Prevention Miscellaneous Fees

500 - Administrative Services - Per Hour 62.60 8.14 70.74

501 - Fire Prevention Officers Request for Assistance - Hourly Rate 62.60 8.14 70.74 502- Fire Prevention Services for Fire Extinguisher Training 185.00 24.05 209.05 503 - Re-lnspection of Premises and Fire Safety Plan Review 156.50 20.35 176.85 504 - Refreshment Vehicles Inspection 93.90 12.21 106.11 505 - Fire Works Display Approval 199.54 25.94 225.48 266.05 34.59 300.64 506 - Open Air Burning 129.1 1 16.78 145.89 172.15 22.38 194.53 507 - Prescribed Burn 328.65 42.72 371.37 438.20 56.97 495.17 508- Preventable False Alarms NEW 1,620.00 210.60 1,830.60 509 - Fire Suppression and Investigation Charges NEW Invoice plus 15% 600 - Training Tower Facility- per day 250.00 32.50 282.50

Planning Services

CITY DOCUMENTS Basic Street Maps (Paper Prints Only)

1:20,000 (Black & White) 4.07 0.53 4.60 1 :20,000 (Colour) 6.00 0.78 6.78

http:1,830.60http:1,620.00

7

2010 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND FEES 2010 PROPOSED FEES - 2011

2011 Changes DESCRIPTION FEE HST TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL Garden City Plan (Draft) (Without Binder NEW 15.57 0.78 16.35

HERITAGE:

Heritage Book: "Footsteps Through Time" 30.28 3.94 34.22 30.28 1.51 31.79

Heritage Districts Commemorative Posters Queen Street & Area (Black & White) 6.56 0.85 7.41 Yates Street & Area (Colour) 12. 11 1.57 13.68 Both Posters 15.14 1.97 17.11

Heritage Resource Inventory 13.42 1.74 15.16

Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District Study Heritage Assessment Report (August 2000) 7.30 0.95 8.25

- no charge for residents of study area

Port Dalhousie Heritage Resource Inventory (1998) 13.54 1.76 15.30

Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District 7.30 0.95 8.25 Guidelines for Conservation and Change (March 2001)

- no charge for residents of study area Queen St. Heritage Conservation 7.30 0.95 8.25

District Study - (District Plan) - no charge for residents of study area

Yates St. and area Heritage Conservation 7.30 0.95 8.25 District Study

- no charge for residents of study area Mapping Requests for Ministry of Environment Approvals 44.25 5.75 50.00

Microfilm Prints 0.93 0.12 1.05

Microfi lm 35mm print of plans -

Official Plan (With Binder) 20.80 2.70 23.50 20.80 1.04 21 .84

Official Plan (Without Binder) 15.57 2.03 17.60 15.57 0.78 16.35

Official Plan (certified) 25.97 3.38 29.35 25.97 1.30 27.27

Official Plan Schedule 'B' (Land Use Plan) 14 X 22 inches 5.09 0.66 5.75 5.09 0.25 5.34 24 X 43 inches 10.18 1.32 11 .50 10.18 0.51 10.69

Photocopies - miscellaneous 0.33 0.04 0.37

Plan reproduction (General) per m2 white print paper 2.74 0.36 3.10 minimum 2.74 0.36 3.10

Property/Addressing Mapping - Per Page 5.09 0.66 5.75 -Set of 15 76.32 9.93 86.25

Queenston-Hartzel Smart Growth Study A

Date post:	23-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangduong
View:	218 times
Download:	4 times