Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-2022 AGENDA City Council Meeting 4:00 PM - Tuesday, May 10, 2022 Council Chambers/Zoom App Due to the COVID-19, all electronic meetings can be viewed on this page, the City of Niagara Falls YouTube channel, the City of Niagara Falls Facebook page, along with YourTV Niagara. Page 1. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL 1.1. Resolution to go In-Camera (updated) May 10, 2022 - Resolution to go In-Camera 20 2. CALL TO ORDER O Canada: Performed by: Victoria Calder (recorded version) Land Acknowledgement and Traditional Indigenous Meeting Opening 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3.1. Council Minutes of April 12, 2022 Minutes - City Council - 12 Apr 2022 - Pdf 21 - 41 4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be made for the current Council Meeting at this time. 5. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 6.1. Firefighter Award of Bravery Fire Chief, Jo Zambito and Justin Canestraro, President of the Niagara Falls Professional Firefighters Association, will recognize one of the members whom is the recipient of the "Ontario Firefighter medal of bravery." They will be joined by members of the Niagara Regional Police Marine Unit and the Niagara Parks Police Services and Niagara Helicopters. Aaron Tate was nominated for his heroic acts in the summer of 2020 when he entered the the class 5 rapids of the lower Niagara Page 1 of 842 River to attempt to secure a young boy stuck on a rock with water levels rapidly rising. The water took an unexpected turn and Aaron was unfortunately swept away and taken down stream through the class 5 rapids on the river. He was picked up down stream past the power plant by a police boat who heard the radio transmission. 6.2. Key to the City Presentation - Dr. W. Gifford Jones, MD (Dr. Ken Walker) Mayor Jim Diodati to present Dr. W. Gifford Jones (Dr. Ken Walker) with a "Key to the City." 6.3. Niagara Fiesta Extravaganza The first Niagara Fiesta Extravaganza, organized by the Filipino community in Niagara will be held at Firemen's Park on Satu rday, July 30, 2022. The organizers, Eileen Tinio-Hind, Rizzo Gatbonton and Valerio "Mak" Makinano will make a presentation at Council inviting the Niagara Falls City Council and staff, and the community to attend this event, the first in our city. There are four other Fiesta Extravaganza events in selected cities in Ontario. Niagara Fiesta Extravaganza is a celebration of Filipino Heritage and Culture in the region and across Canada with highlights such as Musical Extravaganza, Cultural Presentations, Non-Stop Entertainments, Food Expo, Exhibits, Games and Community Spotlight. 7. PLANNING MATTERS 7.1. PBD-2022-30 - PUBLIC MEETING PBD-2022-30AM-2021-028, Zoning By-law Amendment 5360 Royal Manor Dr (5 Townhouse Units) Applicant: Anthony Vacca Agent: South Coast Consulting (Steven Rivers) 5 Townhouse Units Recommendation: That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the land a site specific Residential Mixed (R3) zone to permit a 5 unit townhouse dwelling, subject to the regulations outlined in this report. PBD-2022-30 - PBD-2022-30AM-2021-028, Zoning By-law Amendment5360 Royal Manor Dr (5 Townhouse Units)Applicant: Anthony VaccaAgent: South Coast Con - Pdf Presentation - PBD-2022-30 - AM-2021-028 - Royal Manor (5 Townhouses) (UPDATED) 42 - 60 Page 2 of 842 Comments from Residents (Redacted) Additional comments from Louise Judge 7.2. PBD-2022-31 - PUBLIC MEETING AM-2021-029, Zoning By-law Amendment 5360 Royal Manor Dr (apartment building) Applicant: Anthony Vacca Agent: South Coast Consulting (Steven Rivers) 3 Storey, 25 Unit Apartment Building Recommendation: That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the land a site specific Residential Apartment 5A (R5A) Density zone to permit a 3 storey, 25 unit apartment building, subject to the minimum landscape open space requirement being maintained at 30% of the lot area. PBD-2022-31 - PBD-2022-31AM-2021-029, Zoning By-law Amendment5360 Royal Manor Dr (apartment building)Applicant: Anthony VaccaAgent: South Coast Co - Pdf Presentation - PBD-2022-31 - AM-2021-029 - 5360 Royal Manor (3 storey apartment) - UPDATED 61 - 76 8. REPORTS 8.1. CLK-2022-09 Fee Waiver Applications - Niagara Children's Centre - The Plasma Car Race Hockey Canada Foundation - Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf Recommendations: That Council approve the Fee Waiver Applications for: 1. Niagara Children's Centre - The Plasma Car Race - in the amount of $368.42 for the waiving of fees for the Gale Centre Arena Floor Rental. 2. Hockey Canada Foundation - Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf - in the amount of $2,644.20 for the waiving of fees for the WEGO bus charter (18 hours). 3. That Council acknowledge the out of budget expenditure (if approved, the fee waiver budget would be over-budget by $12,253.05) and to have Staff find a positive variance to help fund this budgetary overrun. 4. That Council direct Staff to review the fee waiver expenditures prior to the 2023 budget planning process. 77 - 90 Page 3 of 842 CLK-2022-09 - Fee Waiver Applications -Niagara Children's Centre - The Plasma Car Race - Pdf 8.2. F-2022-15 Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of Taxes Under Section 357 and 358 of The Municipal Act, 2001 Recommendation: That Council approve the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes on the various accounts per the attached summary and granted to the property owners listed. F-2022-15 - Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of Taxes Under Section 357 and 358 of The Municipal Act, 2001 - Pdf 91 - 93 8.3. F-2022-18 Monthly Tax Receivables Report - March Recommendation: That Council receive the Monthly Tax Receivables report for information purposes. F-2022-18 - Monthly Tax Receivables Report - March - Pdf 94 - 97 8.4. F-2022-22 2022 Property Tax Rates Recommendation: That Council approve the 2022 Property Tax Rates. F-2022-22 - 2022 Property Tax Rates - Pdf 98 - 101 8.5. F-2022-23 Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes Recommendations: 1. That June 30 and September 30 be approved as the 2022 Final Due Dates for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes. 2. That August 31 and October 31 be approved as the 2022 Final Due Dates for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi- residential Assessment Classes. 102 - 103 Page 4 of 842 F-2022-23 - Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes - Pdf 8.6. F-2022-24 Property Tax Incentives for Hotels That Help Resettle Ukrainian Refugees Recommendation: That Council direct Staff to forego the creation of a one-time property tax credit for Hotels as the City would be at risk of violating Municipal Act 106. F-2022-24 - Property Tax Incentives for Hotels That Help Resettle Ukrainian Refugees - Pdf 104 - 107 8.7. F-2022-25 Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy Recommendation: 1. That Council adopts a new Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy for the City of Niagara Falls 2. That Staff be directed to prepare the necessary by-law to adopt the policy attached as Attachment 1. F-2022-25 - Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy - Pdf 108 - 119 8.8. L-2022-03 On-Demand Surety Bonds Policy Our File No. 2022-71 (Email added from resident) Recommendations: 1. That Council adopt a policy regarding the use of on-demand surety bonds (“Surety Bond Policy”), which will be effective for a two-year pilot period, and which will take the form at Appendix “1” attached to this report; 2. That Council direct staff to update the language used in development agreement templates to permit surety bonds that conform to the Surety Bond Policy as an acceptable form of security; 3. That Council direct staff to report back on the uptake and any challenges encountered with surety bonds within two 120 - 137 Page 5 of 842 years of accepting the first on-demand surety bond under the Surety Bond Policy; 4. That Council direct staff to take all necessary actions, including the execution of all necessary documentation, to give effect to the two-year pilot of the Surety Bond Policy. L-2022-03 - On-Demand Surety Bonds PolicyOur File No. 2022-71 - Pdf Letter from resident 8.9. MW-2022-23 Rural Arterial Roads Emergency Improvements 1. That Council approve the extension of 2022 Road Resurfacing Contract for a change order to include the addition of: a. Kalar Road - From Thorold Stone Road to 190 metres south of Niven Street 2. That Council approve the extension of the 2022 Surface Treatment Contract for a change order to include the addition of: a. Garner Road - Hendershot Boulevard to 150 metres northwards b. Garner Road - McLeod Road to Black Forest Crescent c. Garner Road - Black Forest Crescent to Forestview Boulevard d. Beechwood Road - Lundy's Lane to Nichols Lane e. Beechwood Road - Nichols Lane to McLeod Road 3. That Council approve the use of available funding within the budget for the 2022 Road Resurfacing Contract to fund the change in scope in the estimated amount of $300,000. 4. That Council approve a budgetary increase of $506,000 to the existing 2022 Surface Treatment Contract amount of $582,475 approved in the 2022 Capital Budget, and that it be funded from unallocated Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF) reserves. MW-2022-23 - Rural Arterial Roads Emergency Improvements - Pdf 138 - 145 8.10. PBD-2022-32 Information Report Future Hospice Care Centre for Niagara Falls 146 - 181 Page 6 of 842 Recommendation: That Council receive this staff report for information purposes. PBD-2022-32 - Information ReportFuture Hospice Care Centre for Niagara Falls - Pdf 8.11. PBD-2022-39 Initiation Report: Official Plan Amendment and Housing Policies Housekeeping Amendment Recommendation: 1. That Council receive this staff report for information purposes. PBD-2022-39 - Initiation Report: Official Plan Amendment x Housing Policies Housekeeping Amendment - Pdf 182 - 184 8.12. HR-2022-01 Filling Vacancy for Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Committee (Report added) Recommendation: That Council approve the following two (2) candidates to fill the vacancies for the Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee: - Mr. Brian Kon - Ms. Donna Pierre HR-2022-01 - Filling Vacancy for Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Committee - Pdf 185 - 186 8.13. PBD-2022-40 Public Outreach on the Affordability Task Force Recommendations, Proposed Bill 109 and Missing Middle Housing (Report added) Recommendation: That Council receive this report for information purposes . PBD-2022-40 - Public Outreach on the Affordability Task Force Recommendations, Proposed Bill 109 and Missing Middle Housing - Pdf 187 - 296 9. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda is a set of reports that could be approved in one motion of council. The approval endorses all of the recommendations contained in each of the reports within the set. The single motion will save time. Page 7 of 842 Prior to the motion being taken, a councillor may request that one or more of the reports be moved out of the consent agenda to be considered separately. 9.1. BDD-2022-001 Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC/BDD) Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade SBEC Program Transfer Payment Agreement Recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the SBEC-MEDJCT SBEC Program Transfer Payment Agreement. BDD-2022-001 - Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC/BDD) Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade SBEC Program Transfer Payment Agreement - Pdf 297 - 367 9.2. MW-2022-24 Queen Street – 15 Minute Free Parking Zones (Email from resident added) Recommendations: That Council approve the installation of five (5) short duration (15 minutes or less) parking spaces along Queen Street to support businesses and allow customers up to 15 minutes of free parking to attend the establishment to pick-up or drop-off goods and services. That Council direct Staff to coordinate the final locations with the Downtown BIA and provide the resulting amendments to By -law #89-2000 at the May 31, 2022 Council meeting. MW-2022-24 - Queen Street – 15 Minute Free Parking Zones - Pdf Email from resident 368 - 372 9.3. PBD-2022-33 PLC-2022-006, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Block 106, Registered Plan 59M-484, Forestview Estates 7340-7372 Matteo Drive Applicant: Kenmore Drive Recommendation: 373 - 376 Page 8 of 842 That Council approve the request and pass the by-law to exempt Block 106, Registered Plan 59M-484 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. PBD-2022-33 - Block 106, Registered Plan 59M-484, Forestview Estates7340-7372 Matteo DriveApplicant: Kenmore Drive - Pdf 9.4. PBD-2022-34 PLC-2022-004, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive, Registered Plan 59M-491, Chippawa West 9232, 9234, 9248, 9250, 9256, 9258 , 9266, 9268, 9272 and 9274 Griffon Street Applicant: LH (Niagara) Ltd. Recommendation: That Council approve the request and pass the by -law included in today’s agenda to exempt Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive, Registered Plan 59M-491 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. PBD-2022-34 - PBD-2022-34PLC-2022-004, Request for Removal of Part Lot ControlLots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive, Registered Plan 59M-491, Chippawa - Pdf 377 - 382 9.5. PBD-2022-35 AM-2018-012, Exemption Request to 2-Year Waiting Period for a Minor Variance Chippawa East Draft Plan of Subdivision North side of Willick Road between Sodom Road and Willoughby Drive Recommendation: That Council consider passing the resolution to grant an exemption to the 2-year waiting period for minor variances to allow Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for the proposed development. PBD-2022-35 - AM-2018-012, Exemption Request to 2-Year Waiting Period for a Minor Variance Chippawa East Draft Plan of SubdivisionNorth side of Will - Pdf 383 - 394 9.6. PBD-2022-36 PLC-2022-007, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Block 109, 110, & 111, Registered Plan 59M-484, Forestview Estates 7153-7213 Parsa Street 395 - 401 Page 9 of 842 Applicant: Marken Homes Recommendation: That Council approve the request and pass the by-law to exempt Block 109, 110, & 111, Registered Plan 59M-484 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. PBD-2022-36 - PBD-2022-36PLC-2022-007, Request for Removal of Part Lot ControlBlock 109, 110, & 111, Registered Plan 59M- 484, Forestview Estates715 - Pdf 9.7. PBD-2022-37 PLC-2022-005, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Block 101, Registered Plan 59M-484, Forestview Estates 7381-7421 Matteo Drive Applicant: Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. Recommendation: That Council approve the request and pass the by-law to exempt Block 101, Registered Plan 59M-484 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. PBD-2022-37 - PBD-2022-37PLC-2022-005, Request for Removal of Part Lot ControlBlock 101, Registered Plan 59M-484, Forestview Estates7381-7421 Matte - Pdf 402 - 405 9.8. PBD-2022-38 PLC-2022-008, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58, Registered Plan 59M-491, Lyons Creek Phase 5 9342-9350 White Oak Ave (Lots 19 and 20); 9337-9343 White Oak Ave (Lots 22 & 23); and 4243-4259 Shuttleworth Drive (Lots 57 & 58) Applicant: Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. Recommendation: That Council approve the request and pass the by-law to exempt Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58, Registered Plan 59M-491 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. PBD-2022-38 - PBD-2022-38PLC-2022-008, Request for Removal of Part Lot ControlLots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58, Registered Plan 59M-491, Lyons Creek Ph - Pdf 406 - 412 9.9. R&C-2022-08 413 - 421 Page 10 of 842 NFAG (Niagara Falls Art Gallery) 2022 Fee for Service Agreement Recommendation: That City Council receive for information the one-year (2022) Fee for Service Agreement for the Niagara Falls Art Gallery (NFAG). R&C-2022-08 - NFAG 2022 Fee for Service Agreement - Pdf 9.10. R&C-2022-09 The dissolution of the Coronation 50 Plus Advisory Committee and the Rescinding of the Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Centre Constitution (Report added) Recommendation: That council approve the dissolution of the Coronation 50 Plus Advisory Committee and to rescind the Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Centre constitution. R&C-2022-09 - The dissolution of the Coronation 50 Plus Advisory Committee and the Rescinding of the Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Centre Constitution - Pdf 422 - 423 10. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK The Communications section of the agenda is a set of items listed as correspondence to Council that could be approved in one motion of Council. If Staff feel that more than one recommendation is required, the listed communications items will be grouped accordingly. The single motion per recommendation, if required, will save time. Prior to any motion being taken, a Councillor may request that one or more of the items be lifted for discussion and considered separately. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve/support Item #10.1 through to and including Item #10.6. 10.1. Special Occasion Permit Request - 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest Scott Wright, event organizer, for the 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest is requesting that the City of Niagara Falls declare the "2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest," on June 17,2022-June 19, 2022 as "municipally significant" and "Community Festival" in order to assist with obtaining a Special Occasion Permit from AGCO. Niagara Falls Ribfest - Request for Special Occasion Permit 424 - 426 Page 11 of 842 10.2. Proclamation Request - National Public Works Week On behalf of the many women and men employed to serve our community in the Municipal Works Division, our Director of Municipal Works, Erik Nickel, is kindly requesting the City of Niagara Falls to proclaim May 15 to 21, 2022 as National Public Works Week. Apr 26 2022 NPWW Letter to Council 427 10.3. Proclamation Request - World Ocean Day - June 8th - Motion for Ocean Protection Attached is a resolution in support of recognizing and celebrating "World Oceans Day 2022" on Wednesday, June 8, 2022 and the advancement of ocean conservation in Canada. Municipal cover letter for the resolution - World Ocean Day Oceans Day Resolution - 2022 428 - 429 10.4. Historic Drummondville BIA 2022 Proposed Budget Attached is the Historic Drummondville BIA 2022 proposed budget. This budget was approved by the board during their March 9 2022 AGM. Historic Drummondville - Budget Proposal 430 - 431 10.5. Lundy's Lane BIA - 2022 Budget Attached is the 2022 Lundy's Lane BIA budget as approved by the Board on May 5, 2022. LLBIA 2022 Budget - Final - Approved by LLBIA Board 432 - 434 10.6. Noise By-law Exemption - Chippawa Slo Pitch Tournament and Street Dance The Chippawa Volunteer Fire Association is requesting Council to approve a noise exemption on Saturday, July 16, 2022 until 11:30 PM as they host the Annual SPN Slo-Pitch Tournament and Street Dance. Noise By Law Extension Request 2022.docx Map Lions Park July 2019 435 - 436 11. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK Page 12 of 842 RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receive and file for information Item #11.1 through to and including Item #11.6. 11.1. Resolution - Township of Mulmur - More Homes for Everyone Act Attachedis a resolution passed by the Council of the Township of Mulmur regarding the More Homes for Everyone Act. Resolution - Township of Mulmur - More Homes for Everyone Act Resolution - April 6 2022 437 11.2. Niagara Region Correspondence (Comments from resident added) Attached is correspondence sent from the Niagara Region regarding the following matters: 1) Provincial report and Regional staff comments regarding the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force. 2) Niagara Region Correspondence respecting: PDS 13-2022- 2021 Reserve Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacities. 3) Niagara Region Correspondence respecting: PW 11-2022 Inspection Programs and Condition of Niagara Region Trunk Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure 4) Niagara Region Correspondence respecting: PW 14-2022 Inspection of Regional Water Infrastructure 5) Niagara Region Correspondence respecting PDS 4 -2022 Development Applications Monitoring Report - 2021 Year End 6) Niagara Region Correspondence respecting PDS 9 -2022 2021 Census Series: Population and Dwelling Counts 7) Niagara Regional Report PDS 14-2022 - Proposed Niagara Official Plan Report of the Housing Affordability Task Force (Feb 2022) CWCD 2022-71 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force CLK-C 2022-063 - 2021 Reserve Water and Wastewater Treatment PDS 13-2022 - 2021 Reserve Water and Wastewater Treatment CLK-C 2022-065 -Inspection Programs and Condition of Niagara Region Trunk Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure PW 11-2022 - Inspection Programs and Condition of Niagara Region Trunk Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure 438 - 775 Page 13 of 842 CLK-C 2022-064 - Inspection of Regional Water Infrastructure PW 14-2022-Inspection of Regional Water Infrastructure CLK-C 2022-061 Development Applications Monitoring Report - 2021 Year End PDS 4-2022 Development Applications Monitoring Report - 2021 Year End CLK-C 2022-062 Census Series Population and Dwelling Counts PDS 9-2022 Census Series Population and Dwelling Counts CLK-C 2022-071 PDS 14-2022 - Proposed Niagara Official Plan Comments from resident (Re - Regional Correspondence) A Report on Niagara Falls Downtown Buildings 4274 Bridge Street An appellant's comprehensive non-definitive report of The City of Niagara Falls initiated Downtown Zoning By-Law 2021-40 Part Two Violating the Planning Act(2) Comments from resident (Re - Regional Correspondence) Mr Burdett's comments concerning affordable housing in Niagara Falls Niagara Falls MZO Report final PBD-2022-027 - Request for Council Resolution for a Minister_s Zoning Order for lands bounded by Erie Road, Bridge Street, Queen Street and River Road - Pdf Additional comments from Mr Burdett 11.3. Correspondence from Downtown BIA - Recognition of Downtown BIA at the 2022 Ontario BIA Association Conference Letter attached from the Downtown BIA informing Council of recent recognition at the 2022 Ontario BIA Association Conference in Niagara Falls. (Email from resident added) City of Niagara Falls - OBIAA Award Letter from resident (re - Downtown BIA) 776 - 777 11.4. Resolution - City of Thorold 778 - 781 Page 14 of 842 At its meeting held on May 3, 2022, Thorold City Council adopted the following resolution respecting Council's submission to the Province pertaining to Bill 109 and the recommendations proposed by the Province's Housing Affordability Task Force. Resolution - City of Thorold - Bill 109 Thorold City Council Submission - Bill 109 11.5. Ontario Ombudsman Review The Ombudsman has completed his review into a closed meeting complaint. Ombudsman Ontario - Niagara Falls - May 2022 - Letter 782 - 787 11.6. Comments from Resident - practice of submitting comments to Council Attached are comments from Joedy Burdett regarding our process for submitting comments to published Council agendas. Comments from Mr Burdett (submitting comments to Council) 788 12. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council refer to Staff Item #12.1 through to and including Item #12.5. 12.1. Downtown Security Cameras - Request for Council (Email from resident added) The Downtown BIA is seeking permission from the Niagara Falls' Council to install security cameras on the arches in Downtown. City of Niagara Falls - Security Cameras CLEAN Policy NFBIA Security Cameras revised August 26 2021 Email from resident (Downtown Security Cameras) 789 - 796 12.2. Change of Street Name Request - Jake Hiebert Way Rich Merlino is requesting the renaming of St. Clair Avenue (the portion between Queen Street and Park Street), where Jake's Chip Wagon conducted business for many years to JAKE HIEBERT WAY. Request to rename street 797 12.3. Unlawful activity on Willow Road - Letter from resident's solicitors Attached is a letter from resident, Mr. White’s legal counsel, for further discussion to determine Council direction. 798 - 800 Page 15 of 842 Letter from Solicitors - Unlawful activity on Willow Road 12.4. Letter from resident regarding garbage and rats Attached is a letter from a resident regarding a suggesting to have a by-law that would require landlords to provide enclosed units to house garbage. Letter from Linus Hand regarding garbage and rats 801 12.5. Correspondence from Downtown BIA (Email from resident added) Attached is a letter with multiple requests from the Downtown BIA. City of Niagara Falls - BIA Priority Areas[6] Email from resident (re- Downtown BIA correspondence) Email from resident (Downtown BIA #2) Email from resident (Downtown BIA #3) 802 - 813 13. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 13.1. Letter for Niagara Falls City Council - Request for ban The Founder & Volunteer Community Director, from NiagaraGives, sent correspondence requesting Council to consider a city-wide ban on the public display or usage of pro-Soviet or pro-Ruscist symbols. RECOMMENDATION: As this is a matter not within Council’s jurisdiction it is recommended that it be received for the Information of Council. Re Soviet and Pro-Ruscist Symbols in Niagara Falls 814 13.2. Cross Border Travel and ArriveCan (Added correspondence) Attached is a letter from the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and the Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Authority regarding the Arrive Can application. RECOMMENDATION: That Council endorse the letter received from the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and the B uffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Authority to ask the Government of Canada to continue to market the Arrive Can application as an “optional” tool when crossing the border and that it no longer be a mandatory requirement. 815 - 816 Page 16 of 842 AND that a copy of the letter and Council’s motion be forwarded to the Public Health Agency of Canada, bordering municipalities across Ontario, Members of Parliament for Niagara and Local Area Municipalities in Niagara for support. Mayor Jim Diodati and Councillors - May 10-2022 14. RESOLUTIONS 14.1. PBD-2022-35 AM-2018-012, Exemption Request to 2-Year Waiting Period for a Minor Variance Chippawa East Draft Plan of Subdivision North side of Willick Road between Sodom Road and Willoughby Drive That subject to subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. Council consents to an exemption to the 2-year waiting period for minor variances and thereby allows Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for the development of their Plan of Subdivision that is regulated by By-law No. 2022-06. No.6 - Resolution AM-2018-012 817 15. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA 16. NOTICE OF MOTION/NEW BUSINESS Except as otherwise provided in the Procedural By-law, all Notices of Motion shall be presented, in writing, at a Meeting of Council, but shall not be debated until the next regular Meeting of Council. A Motion may be introduced without notice, if Council, without debate, dispenses with the requirement for notice on the affirmative vote of two- thirds of the Members present. 17. BY-LAWS 2022- 43. A by-law to set and levy the rates of taxation for City purposes, for Regional purposes, and for Education purposes for the year 2022. 2022 Tax Levy Bylaw 5.10.22 818 - 822 2022- 44. A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 142 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan. 823 - 826 Page 17 of 842 Bylaw - Cannabis Official Plan Amendment 2022- 45. A By‐law to amend By‐law No. 79‐200, as amended, to provide updated land use permissions related to the growth of cannabis for both medical and commercial purposes. Bylaw - Cannabis Zoning By‐law No. 79‐200 Amendment 827 - 828 2022- 46. A By‐law to amend By‐law No. 1538 for the Township of Crowland, as amended, to provide updated land use permissions related to the growth of cannabis for both medical and commercial purposes. Bylaw - Cannabis Zoning By‐law No. 1538 (Crowland) Amendment 829 - 830 2022- 47. A By‐law to amend By‐law No. 395 (1996) for Willoughby Township, to provide updated land use permissions related to the growth of cannabis for both medical and commercial purposes. Bylaw - Cannabis Zoning By‐law No. 395-1996 (Willoughby) Amendment 831 - 832 2022- 48. A By‐law to amend By‐law No. 70-69 for the former Township of Humberstone now in the City of Niagara Falls, as amended, to provide updated land use permissions related to the growth of cannabis for both medical and commercial purposes. Bylaw - Cannabis Zoning By‐law No. 70-69 (Hubmerstone) Amendment 833 2022- 49. Being a by-law to amend Site Plan Control By-law No. 2011-113. Bylaw - Cannabis Site Plan Control By-law 2011-113 Amendment 834 2022- 50. A by-law to designate Lots 40, 41, & 49-53 (inclusive), Registered Plan 59M-491, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022- 004). By-law - PLC-2022-004 835 2022- 51. A by-law to designate Block 101, Registered Plan 59M-484, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-005). 836 Page 18 of 842 By-law - PLC-2022-005 2022- 52. A by-law to designate Block 106, Registered Plan 59M-484, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-006). By-law - PLC-2022-006 837 2022- 53. A by-law to designate Blocks 109, 110, & 111, Registered Plan 59M-484, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-007). By-law - PLC-2022-007 838 2022- 54. A by-law to designate Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58, Registered Plan 59M-491, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022- 008). By-law - PLC-2022-008 839 2022- 55. A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws.(By-law added) 2022 MAY 10 By-law Enforcement Officers 840 - 841 2022- 56. A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 10th day of May, 2022. 05 10 22 Confirming By-law 842 18. ADJOURNMENT Page 19 of 842 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution May 10, 2022 Moved by: Seconded by: WHEREAS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and WHEREAS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public is if the subject matter falls under one of the exceptions under s. 239(2) of the Municipal Act. WHEREAS on May 10, 2022, Niagara Falls City Council will be holding a Closed Meeting as permitted under s. 239 (2)(c), of the Municipal Act, namely; (2) A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is; (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; (i) a trade secret or scientific, technical,, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations or a person, group of persons, or organization. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on May 10, 2022 Niagara Falls City Council will go into a closed meeting to consider matters that fall under section 239 (2) (c) to discuss a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality in relation to road widening/driveway and infrastructure purposes to support the new Niagara South Hospital as well as a separate matter involving the former Coronation Building . Under section 239 (2) (i), Council will also consider confidential matters regarding the Niagara District Airport, the Transit Amalgamation, as well as a negotiated purchase of a fire truck. All, if disclosed, could interfere with negotiations. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 20 of 842 MINUTES City Council Meeting 4:00 PM - Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Council Chambers/Zoom App The City Council Meeting of the City of Niagara Falls was called to order on Tuesday, April 12, 2022, at 4:00 PM, in the Council Chambers, with the following members present: COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Jim Diodati, Councillor Wayne Campbell, Councillor Chris Dabrowski, Councillor Vince Kerrio, Councillor Lori Lococo, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Councillor Mike Strange, Councillor Wayne Thomson (all present in Council Chambers) Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni (present via Zoom) STAFF PRESENT: Jason Burgess, Bill Matson, Margaret Corbett, Kira Dolch, Alexa Cooper, John Hiltz, Nick Twardawsky (present in Chambers). Erik Nickel, James Dowling, Chief Jo Zambito, Jonathan Leavens, Julie Hannah, Kathy Moldenhauer, Nidhi Punyarthi, Serge Felicetti, Trent Dark, Carla Stout (present via Zoom) 1. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL 1.1. Resolution to go In-Camera Moved by Councillor Chris Dabrowski Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson That Council enter into an In-Camera session. Carried Unanimously 2. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:38 PM. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3.1. Council Minutes of March 22, 2022 Moved by Councillor Wayne Campbell Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo That Council approve the minutes of the March 22, 2022 meeting as presented. Carried Unanimously 4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Page 1 of 21 Page 21 of 842 a) Councillor Lori Lococo declared a conflict of interest to item #8.1 - CLK-2022- 08, Fee Waiver Applications as the Downtown BIA is one of the applicants in the report, and the BIA is Councillor Lococo's spouse's former employer. b) Councillor Vince Kerrio declared a conflict of interest to Item #7.3 - PBD-2022- 23 (AM-2021-023), Zoning Amendment Application, which includes the relocation of parking for Embassy Suites and Councillor Kerrio owns property next door. c) Councillor Wayne Thomson declared a conflict of interest to Item #7.3, Item #7.4 and Item #7.5 (all Planning matters). d) Councillor Victor Pietrangelo declared a conflict of interest to Item #11.10 - Niagara Region Correspondence and CLK-C-2022-47 and PDS-6-2022 - Niagara Official Plan, as family owns lands that are affected in the areas impacted by the preferred urban settlement area recommendations. 5. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Mayor Diodati extended condolences to the following: • John O'Flynn, retired Health & Safety Administrator for the City. • Julia Ann Johnson, mother of Jeanette Topliffe of our Human Resources Department and mother-in-law of Tim Topliffe from Fire Services. • Claude Collee, father of Doug Collee with our Fire Services Department. b) Mayor Diodati made the following announcements: The NEW MacBain Centre now open! • Facilities open! • Older Adults Programs (60+)—classes/ activities/ yoga/ pickleball • Pool open—swimming lessons, aquatics & lane-swim year-round • Courts for rent—pickleball, basketball, squash, racquetball • Indoor walking track—open all year, always free! • Community & youth programs—check website for offerings! • Special events—check website for details o Sports & Rec Fair—Sat., April 23rd 10AM-2PM o Kids Business Fair—Sat., April 30th 12-4PM • NF Public Library Branch still open at MacBain • MyCity Customer Service Desk remains open o parking tickets/ property taxes/ water bills/ bus passes/ etc Scottish Minister Visit • Also attended by Councillor Kerrio • Right Honourable Angus Robertson, Member of Scottish Parliament, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs & Culture (and Castles) City Council Representatives Niagara Sweep for Kids Bonspiel for Boys & Girls Club Councillors Strange & Pietrangelo MASS Niagara Badminton League Inauguration Councillor Pietrangelo Page 2 of 21 Page 22 of 842 Evan Court’s 90th Birthday Councillor Thomson Mucho Burrito Grand Opening Councillor Dabrowski Ontario Minister of Energy and Atura Power Announcement on Province’s Hydrogen Strategy Councillor Kerrio Grand Openings/ Business Happenings [photos were shown] • Mcuire • WTF—We the Finest Burger • Sticks & Bricks Realty Easter Community Event • Downtown Business Openings: o NeoLITic o Coldwell Banker Momentum Realty, Brokerage o The Captain’s Quarters & Queenie’s Boutique o Moxie Personal Training o Kayzia Couture o De Menezes Reilly Irish Dance o Ahhaa Canada United Way Municipal Cup [video was shown] • Thank you to all staff for great support & winning this year’s municipal cup for United Way fundraising! c) The next Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 10th, 2022. 6. DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 6.1. Key to the City Presentation - Rick Jeanneret Mayor Jim Diodati presented Niagara Falls resident and long -loved Buffalo Sabres play-by-play announcer, Rick Jeanneret, with a "Key to the City." • Legendary sports broadcaster from Niagara Falls Rick Jeanneret • Affectionately known as “RJ” in the Sabres organization • Play by play announcer for Buffalo Sabres • Started with the team in 1971-72 season • Longest tenured play by play announcer with a single team in NHL history • In 1995-96 moved to television and doubled as tv and radio play by play • Best known for his colourful player nicknames, passionate calls! • Happy to present a key to the city from Niagara Falls where Rick lives • Buffalo loves you. We love you! • Your hometown is proud of you! • Can you give us 1 or 2 of your signature calls?! • Jim Diodati, Wayne Campbell, Carolynn Ioannoni, Vince Kerrio, Victor Pietrangelo, Mike Strange, Wayne Thomson, Chris Dabrowski, and Lori Lococo Rick Jeanneret 51 years as a beloved sports broadcaster for the Buffalo Sabres Page 3 of 21 Page 23 of 842 Making his hometown proud! April 12, 2022 6.2. FACS Niagara Caroline Pograbia of Family and Children Services, Foundation Board President and Brett Sweeney of FACS Niagara made a brief presentation to Council which included a proclamation request to proclaim Sunday, June 12th Mountainview LemonAID Day. The presentation will include information pertaining to FACS Niagara working with Mountainview Building Group on a fundraising opportunity and community event to encourage people to raise money to send kids to camp this summer. Moved by Councillor Chris Dabrowski Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange That Council support the request to proclaim Sunday, June 12, 2022 as "Mountainview LemonAID Day" and to support and promote this initiative through the City's social media channels; furthermore that staff send the request to the Niagara Falls Illumination Board to light the Falls yellow. Carried Unanimously 7. PLANNING MATTERS 7.1. PBD-2022-19 AM-2022-004 – Amendments to the Official Plan, Zoning By-laws and Site Plan Control By-law for Cannabis Growing Facilities in the City The Public meeting commenced at 5:17 PM. Alexa Cooper, Planner 2, gave an overview of the background report PBD - 2022-19. Clark Bitter, of 5904 Prospect Street, spoke to this application, expressing his concerns. The Public meeting was closed at 5:48 PM. Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni That the cannabis growing facilities be subject to a 350 metre separation setback from sensitive land uses. Motion Defeated (Councillors Campbell, Dabrowski, Kerrio and Pietrangelo all opposed; Councillor Strange was absent). Page 4 of 21 Page 24 of 842 Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell That the cannabis growing facilities be subject to a 500 metre separation setback from sensitive land uses. Motion Carried (Councillors Ioannoni and Lococo opposed: Councillor Strange absent). Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo That Council permit cannabis cultivation and production in the General Industrial, Heavy Industrial; Yard Storage, Heavy Manufacturing District (Crowland); and Industrial (Willoughby) zones. Motion Carried (Councillor Ioannoni opposed). Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni That Council oppose a Zoning By-law amendment for cannabis cultivation and production in the Prestige Industrial, Light Industrial and Development Holding zones. Motion Carried (Councillor Thomson opposed). Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni That Council accept the growing of Cannabis in indoor agriculture zones with a site plan to include the 500 metre setback and would require a zoning by-law amendment. Motion Defeated (Councillors Campbell, Dabrowski, Kerrio, Pietrangelo and Strange were opposed). Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo That Council not allow the outdoor growing of Cannabis in agricultural zones. Carried Unanimously Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski That Council enter into an In-Camera session at 7:06 PM to obtain legal advice. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Ioannoni abstained from vote). Council Meeting (open Council) was called to order at 7:17 PM. Page 5 of 21 Page 25 of 842 Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio That Council: Zoning: Permit cannabis cultivation and production in the Industrial and Yard Storage Zones within the City limits (For greater clarity 79-200, Crowland, Willoghby) except for prestige and the light industrial zones, and Development Holding zones. Subject to the following regulations: Be wholly enclosed in a building (that is not a residence) with appropriate air filtration, Have no outdoor cultivation, Be 500 metre from sensitive land uses (excluding houses on the same property), Not have outdoor storage, and Not emit any cannabis odour outside of a building. And to accept the rest of the by-law as presented; Official Plan: To permit cannabis cultivation and production in the Industrial designations within the City Limits subject to the following policies: Be in accordance with Federal Cannabis Regulations, Be indoors with appropriate infiltration and ensure no emissions of odour, Be subject to site plan control (this process may require air quality, lighting plants, etc. to mitigate nuisance), Be 500 metre from sensitive land uses, and Prohibit outdoor cultivation. And to accept the rest of the by-law as presented. Site Plan Have all Cannabis Growing Facilities (cultivation and production) subject to the site plan control process. Carried Unanimously 7.2. PBD-2022-22 AM-2021-005, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 7711 and 7725-7739 Drummond Road Applicant: Mountainview Drummond Inc. Agent: Upper Canada Consultants (William Heikoop and Ethan Laman) Two 4 Storey Buildings with 40 Apartment Dwelling Units The public meeting commenced at 7:20 PM. Julie Hannah, Planner 2, gave an overview of the background report PBD- 2022-22. Page 6 of 21 Page 26 of 842 Vraj Patel, of 7533 Oldfield Road, spoke to this application, citing privacy and shadowing concerns. Ethan Laman, acting as the Agent, of Upper Canada Consultants provided a brief overview in support of the report. Matt Vartanian, applicant from Mountainview Building Group, addressed resident concerns regarding privacy issues. The Public meeting was closed at 7:30 PM. Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment to rezone the lands a site specific Residential Apartment 5B Density (R5B) zone to permit two 4 storey apartment buildings with 40 dwelling units, subject to the regulations outlined in this report. Carried Unanimously 7.3 . PBD-2022-23 AM-2021-023, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application Part of 5881 Dunn Street Applicant: 1984351 Ontario Limited (Carmello Menechella) Agent: Sullivan Mahoney (Italia Gilberti) Recognize Existing Office Building, Permit Satellite Parking Lot and Residential Uses Councillor Kerrio and Councillor Thomson left Council Chambers (due to conflict stated). The Public meeting commenced at 7:31 PM. Julie Hannah, Planner 2, gave an overview of the background report PBD-2022-23. Italia Gilbert, acting as the agent, from Sullivan Mahoney, provided a brief overview of the application and was present for questions. The Public meeting was closed at 7:40 PM. Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo That Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as detailed in Report PBD-2022-23 to permit the existing office building and to permit a portion of the required parking for four hotels to locate on the subject lands, subject to the regulations outlined in this report and Appendix 1. Page 7 of 21 Page 27 of 842 Ayes: Mayor Jim Diodati, Councillor Wayne Campbell, Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Councillor Mike Strange, Councillor Chris Dabrowski, and Councillor Lori Lococo CARRIED (Councillors Kerrio and Thomson declared a conflict). 7-0 on a recorded vote 7.4. PBD-2022-24 AM-2021-024, Zoning By-law Amendment Application Part of 5881 Dunn Street Applicant: 1984351 Ontario Limited (Carmello Menechella) Agent: Sullivan Mahoney (Italia Gilberti) Permit the development of 8 on-street and 22 block townhouse dwellings Councillor Vince Kerrio returned to Chambers. The Public meeting commenced at 7:42 PM. Julie Hannah, Planner 2, gave an overview of the background report PBD- 2022-24. The Public meeting was closed at 7:49 PM. Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the lands a site specific Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4) zone to permit the development of 8 on-street and 22 block townhouse dwellings, subject to the regulations outlined in this report. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Wayne Thomson declared a conflict). 7.5. PBD-2022-25 AM-2021-030, Zoning By-law Amendment Application Part of 6170 Stanley Avenue and Part of Lands on the Southwest Corner of Fallsview Boulevard and Robinson Street described as Lots 24, 25, 26, 27 and 33 Plan 27 Applicant: 198451 Ontario Limited (Carmello Menechella) Agent: Sullivan Mahoney (Italia Gilberti) House of Worship The Public meeting commenced at 7:50 PM. Julie Hannah, Planner 2, gave an overview of the background report PBD- 2022-25. Rabbi Zaltzman, of 6417 Main Street, provided comments in support of the application. Page 8 of 21 Page 28 of 842 Italia Gilberti, acting as the agent, from Sullivan Mahoney, provided a brief overview and was present for questions. The Public meeting was closed at 7:57 PM. Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell 1. That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment to rezone the lands a site specific Tourist Commercial (TC) zone to facilitate a four storey place of worship (synagogue), subject to the regulations outlined in this report, and subject to Council’s approval of the recommendations contained in report PBD-2022-23. 2. That the amending zoning by-law include a Holding (H) provision to require a Record of Site Condition. 3. That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment as detailed in this report to amend By-law No. 2016-53 (Wyndham Garden Hotel). Carried Unanimously (Councillor Thomson declared a conflict). Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio That Council proclaim Tuesday, April 12, 2022, a special day of Rebbe's birth, the leader of the Jewish people, a day of virtue for the entire Jewish people. Carried Unanimously 8. REPORTS 8.1. CLK-2022-08 Fee Waiver Applications - Niagara Kids Business Fair - Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Can Am Conference - Cruising the Q - Downtown Board of Management - Crazy Macaws Bike Night - Downtown Board of Management - Chippawa Volunteer Slo Pitch Tournament & SPN Arena Floor Use Councillor Wayne Thomson returned to Chambers. Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange That Council approve the Fee Waiver Applications for: 1. Niagara Kids Business Fair - in the amount of $683.16 for the waiving of fees for the MacBain Centre Room Rental. Page 9 of 21 Page 29 of 842 2. ATU Conference - in the amount of $1000.00 for waiving WEGO bus fares for delegates attending the conference. 3. Cruising the Q (Downtown Board of Management) in the amount of $11,845.62 to waive the fees associated with the road closure costs. 4. Crazy Macaws Bike Night (Downtown Board of Management) in the amount of $9,145.26 to waive the fees associated with the road closure costs. 5. Chippawa Volunteer Slo Pitch Tournament & SPN Arena Floor Use in the amount of $7,121.40 for the waiving of the diamond fees (May 27-29 weekend) and for the Chippawa Arena floor use for the 4 SPN tournament events. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Lococo declared a conflict to the Downtown BIA applications). 8.2. F-2022-16 Reinstatement of property tax penalty and interest rate at 1.25% per month Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski That Council approve the reinstatement of the property tax penalty and interest rate at 1.25% per month, effective May 1, 2022. Carried (Councillor Thomson and Councillor Kerrio were opposed). 8.3. MW-2022-20 Dorchester Road, south of McLeod Road - Road Reconstruction & Bicycle Lane Implementation Neil Mooney, of 7601 Dorchester Road, addressed Council to discuss traffic calming issues. Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange 1. That City Council designate through municipal by-law new bicycle lanes on each side of Dorchester Road between McLeod Road and Oldfield Road; and, 2. That a No Stopping restriction be established on both sides of Dorchester Road between McLeod Road and a point 95 metres south of McLeod Road; 3. That No Standing restrictions be established at all transit stops between Dorchester Road between McLeod Road and Oldfield Road; and that, 4. That parking restrictions be established for the remainder of Dorchester Road between McLeod Road and Oldfield Road. 5. That Staff report back on the possibility of a truck route off of QEW @ Lyon's Creek Road with the installation of a 4 way stop at Jubilee and Dorchester Road and speed limit reductions along Dorchester Road south of McLeod. Page 10 of 21 Page 30 of 842 Carried Unanimously Moved by Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo That Staff report back on the possibility of a truck route, traffic calming measures and speed limit reductions along Drummond Road. Carried Unanimously 8.4. MW-2022-21 Hendershot Boulevard – Parking Control Review Moved by Councillor Chris Dabrowski Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange That Report MW-2022-21 (Hendershot Boulevard - Parking Control Review) be referred back to Staff for further review. Carried Unanimously 8.5. PBD-2022-21 26CD-11-2021-005, Draft Plan of Condominium Modification to Draft Plan Approval (Phased) 4263 Fourth Avenue Applicant: 2766720 Ontario Inc. Agent: Terrance Glover (Urban In Mind Consulting) Councillor Chris Dabrowski left the meeting. Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell 1. That the Draft Plan of Condominium (Phased) for 4263 Fourth Avenue be draft approved subject to the modified conditions in Appendix A, to allow the registration of the condominium plans to proceed in two (2) phases; 2. That the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the modified draft plan as "approved" 20 days after notice of Council’s decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals of the decision have been lodged; and 3. That a modified draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension is requested by the developer and granted by Council. Carried (Councillors Ioannoni and Lococo were opposed and Councillor Dabrowski was absent). 8.6. PBD-2022-28 Development and Housing Monitor Report 2021 Year in Review Page 11 of 21 Page 31 of 842 Direction to staff: That staff report back with information pertaining to the recent Federal announcement regarding housing. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio That Council receive the Development and Housing Monitor Report that reviews the status of development and growth management activity in the City for the year 2021. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Dabrowski was absent from vote). 8.7. PBD-2022-29 Streamline Development Approval Funding Councillor Dabrowski returned to Chambers. Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo 1.That Council endorse the proposed measures contained within report PBD - 2022-29 to implement the Streamline Development Approval Funding; 2.That Council approve any costs incurred beyond the initial $500,000 Provincial advance from the Province be funded Capital Special Purpose Reserves until the final Provincial installment payment of up to $500,000 is received; 3. That Council approve a 2022 Capital Budget amendment, as outlined in Appendix 3, to include this project valued at $1,000,000 funded by the Streamlined Development Approval funding; 4. That $85,000 for estimated annual licensing, support and maintenance costs be referred to the 2023 operating budget process, to be funded through an allocation of property tax levy and/or building user fees; and further 5. That Council authorize the CAO approval authority for any time sensitive matters through single sourced allocations of the Streamline Development Approval Funds up to $1 million in accordance with the program outlined within PBD-2022-29. Carried Unanimously 9. CONSENT AGENDA 9.1. F-2022-17 New Procurement Card Provider Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio Page 12 of 21 Page 32 of 842 That Council receive report F-2022-17 for information Carried Unanimously (Councillor Campbell was absent from vote). 9.2. F-2022-20 Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario – Trust Funds Financial Statements December 31, 2019 Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio 1. That Council approve the draft trust funds financial statements for the year ended, December 31, 2019, the 2019 draft post-audit letter and the 2019 draft management letter; and 2. The Council receive the trust funds 2019 Independence Letter and 2019 Pre-Audit Letter. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Campbell was absent from vote). 9.3. F-2022-21 2022 Niagara Falls Public Library Capital Budget Amendment Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio 1. That Council approve a 2022 capital budget amendment in the amount of $750,000, contingent on a grant approval, for the Stamford Relocation/Renovation project to be funded by the Library Property Reserve contingent on a grant approval; and 2. That Council approve an additional 2022 capital budget amendment in the amount of $300,000 for the Stamford Relocation/Renovation project to be funded by a portion of the 2020 Library operating surplus committed in the Library Property Reserve. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Campbell was absent from vote). 9.4. MW-2022-22 Fern Park Trail and Corwin Park Trail Licence Agreements Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Minster of Government and Consumer Services licence agreements for the development of public trails within Hydro One Networks Inc. corridors. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Campbell was absent from vote). 9.5. PBD-2022-20 PLC-2022-003, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Blocks 59 & 70, Registered Plan 59M-491, Lyons Creek Phase 5 4235, 4237 & 4288-4298 Shuttleworth Drive Page 13 of 21 Page 33 of 842 Applicant: Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio That Council approve the request and pass the by-law included in today’s agenda to exempt Blocks 59 & 70, Registered Plan 59M-491 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Campbell was absent from vote). 10. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 10.1. Proclamation Request - Jewish Heritage Month The B'Nai Brith National Organization of Canada requests the City of Niagara Falls to declare every May as Jewish Heritage Month in the City of Niagara Falls. 10.2. Flag-Raising Request - Croatian Flag The Consulate General of the Republic of Croatia is requesting the Croatian flag to be raised at the City of Niagara Falls on Friday, May 27, 2022. 10.3. Proclamation and Flag-lowering Request - National Day of Mourning The Niagara Regional Labour Council are requesting that the City Council approve a proclamation with respect to the "National Day of Mourning" and that all flags be flown at half-mast at City Hall on Thursday, April 28, 2022. 10.4. Proclamation Request - Moose Hide Campaign Day The Moose Hide Campaign is seeking support of Mayors and municipalities across the country to proclaim Thursday, May 12, 2022 "Moose Hide Campaign Day." Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson That Council approve the request to proclaim Thursday, May 12 2022 as "Moose Hide Campaign Day." Carried Unanimously 10.5. Proclamation Request - The Longest Day of SMILES The Longest Day of SMILES encourages community ambassadors to raise awareness and funds to help a child born with a cleft condition smile and change their life with free, safe, cleft surgery and comprehensive care. Operation Smile Canada is inviting the Mayor of Niagara Falls to proclaim Sunday, June 19, 2022 as the Longest Day of SMILES in the community. 10.6. Proclamation Request - World Hepatitis Day - 2022 The Hepatitis C Care Clinic is requesting Council to approve the request to proclaim Thursday, July 28, 2022 as "World Hepatitis Day" in Niagara Falls. Page 14 of 21 Page 34 of 842 10.7. Proclamation Request - Apraxia Awareness Day A volunteer with Apraxia Kids, is requesting Council to approve the request to proclaim Saturday, May 14, 2022 as "Apraxia Awareness Day." 10.8. Noise By-law Exemption Local Niagara Falls resident is requesting Council to approve an exemption to the noise by-law to allow for music to be played until 11:00 PM on Sunday, May 29, 2022 for an upcoming wedding reception. 10.9. 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest - Fee Waiver Request The Rotary Club Niagara Falls Sunrise is preparing to host the annual Rotary Ribfest on June 17, 18, 19, 2022. They are seeking the approval of Council to waive the license to operate fee of $325.00 for this community event. The fee waiver application will be completed and brought forth at the May 10, 2022 Council Meeting. 10.10. Proclamation Request - Falun Dafa Day The Falun Dafa community is respectfully requesting the City of Niagara Falls to recognize the monumental 30th Anniversary of the Falun Day celebration on Friday, May 13, 2022 by proclaiming this day as the "30th Falun Dafa Day." 10.11. Proclamation Request - 120th Anniversary of Rebbe's Birth - Leader of the Jewish people April 12th marks this special day of Rebbe's birth, the leader of the Jewish people, a day of virtue for the entire Jewish people. (Approved under Item #7.5 on agenda). 10.12. Chippawa Car show and Cruise Nights Cruise Nights will be held every Wednesday night from May 4th to September 28th, 2022 and a one day Car Show on July 3, 2022 at the Chippawa Lions Club. Proceeds at this years events will go to Community Crew and the Chippawa Fire Hall. Organizers are asking Council to approve the use of a food truck on event days only. Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson That Council approve/support Item #10.1 through to Item #10.10 and approve/support Item #10.12. Carried Unanimously 11. COMMUNICATIONS (RECEIVE AND FILE FOR INFORMATION) 11.1. 2021 Niagara Falls Fire Department Annual Report Page 15 of 21 Page 35 of 842 Attached is the 2021 Niagara Falls Fire Department Annual Report for information. 11.2. Resolution - Niagara Region - Safety and Security of Staff and Elected Officials Attached is a resolution from the Region respecting Safety and Security of Staff and Elected Officials 11.3. Resolution - The City of Waterloo - Ontario Must Build it Right the First Time Attached is a resolution of the Council of the City of Waterloo, approved at a Council meeting on March 21, 2022 regarding the Ontario Building Code. 11.4. Resolution - Niagara Region - Ontario's Entrepreneurial Wine Industry Attached is a letter from the Niagara Region respecting Ontario's Entrepreneurial Wine Industry. 11.5. Resolution - Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake - Ontario's Entrepreneurial Winery Industry The Corporation of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, at its regular meeting held on March 28, 2022, approved the attached motion regarding Ontario's Entrepreneurial Winery Industy 11.6. City of Niagara Falls Trust Fund Audit Letters - 2020 Attached are letters from the auditors addressed to Council for the year 2020. 11.7. Resolution - Town of Georgina - Federal Government Sanctions imposed on Russia Attached is a motion passed by Council of the Town of Georgina imposing limitations upon the purchase of goods that can easily be traced to have originated from Russia, and requesting support of this position by other municipalities. 11.8. Resolution - Town of Fort Erie - Climate Change Action Attached is a resolution passed by the Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie at its meeting of March 28, 2022. 11.9. Resolution - Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake - Ukraine Immigration Attached is a resolution from the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake regarding Ukraine immigration. 11.10. Niagara Region Correspondence Attached is correspondence relating to the following matters: 1) Niagara Official Plan: Preferred Urban Settlement Area Recommendations 2) Niagara Region Report - 2022 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates Page 16 of 21 Page 36 of 842 3) Regional Transitional Incentive Timelines 11.11. Resolution - City of Port Colborne - Settlement Area Boundary Review - Niagara Region Official Plan Attached is a resolution from the City of Port Colborne in support of the Township of Wainfleet Re: Township of Wainfleet – Settlement Area Boundary Review – Niagara Region Official Plan. 11.12. Integrity Commissioner Report (IC-14611-0821 - Council of City of Niagara Falls/Ioannoni) Attached, please find the Integrity Commission's letter and the Final Investigation Report dated April 11, 2022 for the above-noted matter. Moved by Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo That Council defer Item #11.12 to discuss in further detail at the next Council meeting on May 10, 2022. Motion Defeated (Councillors Campbell, Dabrowski, Kerrio, Pietrangelo, Strange and Thomson were opposed). Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni That Staff bring back a report to Council on May 31st, 2022 to include the implementation of our In-Camera procedure and have it reflected and updated in the City's Code of Conduct. Carried Unanimously Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski That Council receive and file for information Item #11.1 through to and including Item #11.11. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Victor Pietrangelo declared a conflict to Item #11.10). 12. COMMUNICATIONS 12.1. Niagara Region - Correspondence regarding 2022 Moving Transit Forward - Initial Activities and Next Steps Attached is correspondence from the region regarding the establishment of the transitional Niagara Transit Commission Board. RECOMMENDATION: That Council submit appointment nominee recommendations of Councillor Dabrowski and Regional Councillor Barbara Greenwood, as transitional Board Members to the Regional Transit Page 17 of 21 Page 37 of 842 Commission Board that will be taking the place of the soon to be dissolved Linking Niagara Transit Committee. Moved by Councillor Wayne Campbell Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange That Council submit appointment nominee recommendations of Councillor Dabrowski and Regional Councillor Barbara Greenwood, as transitional Board Members to the Regional Transit Commission Board that will be taking the place of the soon to be dissolved Linking Niagara Transit Committee. Carried Unanimously 12.2. Integrity Commissioner Report (IC-15343-1021 - Council of City of Niagara Falls/Ioannoni Attached, please find the Integrity Commission's letter and the Final Investigation Report dated April 11, 2022 for the above-noted matter. RECOMMENATION: For Council's Consideration. Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni apologized for her actions. Moved by Councillor Vince Kerrio Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski That a suspension of remuneration paid to Councillor Ioannoni in respect of her services as a Member of Council be withheld for 90 days, as recommended by the Integrity Commissioner. Carried (Councillor Ioannoni declared a conflict and Councillor Lococo was opposed). 13. RESOLUTIONS There were no resolutions. 14. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA a) Ratification of In-Camera Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange That Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to act on behalf of the City to execute the Assignment of Lease of the Centre Court Cafe at the MacBain Community Centre from 1939099 Ontario Ltd. to 11th Hour Foods Inc.; that the Mayor, City Clerk and City Solicitor be authorized to prepare, review and execute whatever documents are required to complete this assignment. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Ioannoni was absent from vote). 15. NOTICE OF MOTION Page 18 of 21 Page 38 of 842 There were no notices of motion. 16. BY-LAWS 2022- 36. A by-law to amend By-law No. 89-2000, being a by-law to regulate parking and traffic on City Roads. (Speed Limits on Highways (Part 3 – 70 km/h), Speed Limits on Highways (Part 2 – 60 km/h)) 2022- 37. A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to recognize the use of the lands for an existing building and permit its use for a detached dwelling, duplex dwelling or 3 unit dwelling (AM-2020-015). 2022- 38. A by-law to designate Blocks 59 & 70, Registered Plan 59M-491, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-003). 2022- 39. A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. 2022- 40. A by-law to provide for advance voting prior to voting day for the 2022 Municipal and School Board Elections. 2022- 41. A by-law to regulate the placement of election signs in the City of Niagara Falls. 2022- 42. A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 12th day of April, 2022. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell That the by-laws be read a first, second and third time and passed. Carried Unanimously 17. NEW BUSINESS a) Road Conditions (Kalar Road and Garner Road) Direction to Staff: Councillor Kerrio discussed the poor road conditions on both Kalar and Garner Roads. Staff to come back with a report for the May 10 Council meeting, to include a list of bad roads within the City and to provide options for future repair work; furthermore, to consult with the Amici cycling group to solicit feedback and to share plans for repair. b) Pet Rescue Program Direction to Staff: Councillor Dabrowski discussed the increased number of homeowners whom have a pet. Staff to bring report back to Council for the May 31st Council meeting to include the steps involved to initiate a pet rescue program whereby pet owners place stickers in windows to alert Fire Services of Page 19 of 21 Page 39 of 842 a pet residing in dwelling. Report to include consultation with Fire Services, Communications staff, the Humane Society and the Clerk's Department to provide input and costs involved. c) Parking Downtown Direction to staff: That staff bring back a report to Council to include options that review the cost analysis of offering free parking in our downtown core and to integrate this information with the downtown parking study. d) Waive the Notice of Motion Requirements Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo THAT Niagara Falls City Council waive the Notice of Motion Requirements of the Procedural By-law. Carried Unanimously e) Garbage and Litter Maintenance - trails & parks Direction to staff: • that we immediately prioritize the placement of bins on trails, at parks and at locations with high pedestrian traffic, including the exercise equipment and areas where we have received complaints from the community • Further, we need to consider the increase in litter and increase our resources accordingly to address this for future years • This needs to be an immediate priority as soon as the Spring thaw occurs every year Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo That staff investigate starting a program that would encourage individual residents to go on their own or with their friends or family to clean-up places where they see a need; the program could include: o An online sign-up form o Proper insurance coverage on our property while they’re doing the clean up o A place to pick up & drop off supplies like garbage bags, gloves and pickers • The City of Hamilton has a similar program “Team up to Clean up Hamilton” Carried Unanimously 18. ADJOURNMENT a) Adjournment Moved by Councillor Chris Dabrowski Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell Page 20 of 21 Page 40 of 842 That Council adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Carried Unanimously Mayor City Clerk Page 21 of 21 Page 41 of 842 PBD-2022-30 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: PBD-2022-30 AM-2021-028, Zoning By-law Amendment 5360 Royal Manor Dr (5 Townhouse Units) Applicant: Anthony Vacca Agent: South Coast Consulting (Steven Rivers) 5 Townhouse Units Recommendation(s) That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the land a site specific Residential Mixed (R3) zone to permit a 5 unit townhouse dwelling, subject to the regulations outlined in this report. Executive Summary Anthony Vacca has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a portion of lands known as 5360 Royal Manor Drive. The applicant requests the subject land be rezoned to a site-specific Residential Mixed (R3) zone to permit the construction of a 5 unit townhouse dwelling. The amendment is recommended to convert the existing dwelling into a 5 unit townhouse dwelling for the following reasons: • The proposed development conforms to Provincial policies and the City’s Official Plan as it intensifies the use of land and assists in meeting intensification targets within the Built- Up Area of the City, • The requested zoning by-law amendment is appropriate as the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding development, and • Residents expressed concerns for traffic, servicing and parking. Existing infrastructure is adequate for the proposed development and parking has been provided in accordance with the City's Zoning By-law. A traffic study was prepared and no traffic impacts are anticipated. Concerns for tree preservation will be addressed at the site plan stage through a tree preservation plan, which will identify which trees can be preserved. Background Proposal Anthony Vacca has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a portion of the land known as 5360 Royal Manor Drive totalling 2,939 m2 (0.73 acres). Refer to Schedule 1 to locate the land. The Zoning By-law amendment has been requested to permit the development of 5 unit townhouse dwelling on the subject lands. Schedule 2 show details of the proposed development. Page 1 of 8 Page 42 of 842 The applicant has a concurrent Zoning By-law amendment application for the remainder of the lands to permit the development of a 3 storey, 25 unit apartment building (file AM-2021-029) that is being addressed at tonight’s Council meeting through report PBD-2022-31. The subject lands are currently zoned Residential 1D Density (R1D) zone by Zoning By -law No. 79-200. The applicant is requesting the subject lands be rezoned to a site specific Residential Mixed (R3) zone, with site specific regulations for the maximum permitted width of a driveway in the front yard and minimum interior side yard width. A consent application has been conditionally approved by the Committee of Adjustment to sever 5360 Royal Manor Drive into 2 parcels as shown in Schedule 1, with one parcel subject to this Zoning By-law amendment application. Rezoning of the second parcel is being considered under report PBD-2022-30. Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The subject lands contain a single detached house and two associated accessory buildings/structures. The subject lands have received conditional consent approval (B-2021-020) to sever the lot into two parcels to facilitate the proposed 5 unit townhouse dwelling and associated 3 storey, 25 unit apartment building (AM-2021-029). To the north is Highway 420; to the west are single detached dwellings; and, to the south and east is the Canada 150 Trail and Hydro Canal. Circulation Comments Information about the requested Zoning By-law amendment was circulated to City divisions, the Region, agencies, and the public for comments. The following summarizes the comments received to date: • Regional Municipality of Niagara o No objections to the proposed application. • Ministry of Transportation o No objections, an MTO Building and Land Use Permit(s) is required prior to any on-site construction/works, further technical requirements will be addressed through the Site Plan application. • Building o All required Building Permits to be obtained prior to commencement of any construction/demolition. Review of plans to occur upon Site Plan Control and Building Permit(s) application. • Fire, GIS, Landscape Services, Municipal Works, Transportation Services o No objections to the application or requested site specific regulations, o Technical review will occur at Site Plan stage, and Page 2 of 8 Page 43 of 842 o Parkland dedication to be taken as cash-in-lieu based on a professional appraisal through a condition of consent. Neighbourhood Comments A virtual neighbourhood Open House was held on March 10th, 2022 and was attended by the applicant, the applicant’s planner, and 1 resident. The resident had the following concerns: • Traffic impact to Windsor Crescent • Tree preservation • Servicing • Parking for trail Staff response to the received concerns are detailed below: • A Traffic Impact Assessment was submitted as part of the complete application. The assessment stated that the two proposals are expected to generate 11 AM peak hour trips and 13 PM peak hour trips. This is approximately 1 car every 4-5 minutes. The Assessment concluded there would be no impacts as a result of the proposed development. • A landscape and tree preservation plan would be submitted at time of site plan that would identify trees to be planted and trees that can be preserved • A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report were submitted with the application. The report concluded there was adequate servicing available for the proposed development. City Municipal Works Staff had no concerns with the proposal or the report. • Parking for the trail will continue to be provided via on-street parking Analysis 1. Provincial Policies The Planning Act requires City planning decisions to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Provincial “A Place to Grow” Plan. The proposed development is consistent and conforms as follows: • The proposed development satisfies matters of provincial interest as outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act, • The proposed development is transit supportive, and minimizes land consumption and servicing costs through infill development, • The creation of 5 townhouse units within the Built-up Area will contribute to the City’s annual residential intensification rate and diversify the housing type available to residents, and • The proposed regulations will facilitate the development of the land to assist in accommodating housing needs for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes. Page 3 of 8 Page 44 of 842 2. Regional Official Plan The subject land is designated as Urban Area (Built-Up Area) in the Regional Official Plan. The proposed development conforms as follows: • The proposed development of the property will help contribute to the Region’s residential intensification target within the Built-Up Area, • The proposed development will utilize existing municipal services, and • The proposed development will provide an alternative form of housing and offer more options in the neighbourhood to meet the needs of a variety of households, populations, and income groups. 3. Official Plan The subject land is designated as Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The proposal complies with the intent of the Official Plan as follows: • The proposed development is permitted in the Residential designation and will contribute to providing a variety of housing options in the neighbourhood, • Townhouses are an encouraged form of housing on local roads. The proposal is 17 units per hectare. The required number of units per hectare (uph) is 20 to 40. With the inclusion of the proposed neighbouring apartment building, the development will be in the required 20 to 40 uph range. • The height and building setbacks are consistent with the existing built form and streetscape of the neighbourhood, • The proposed development contributes to the City’s annual residen tial intensification rate by adding 5 townhouse units within the Built-Up Area, • The proposed development makes efficient use of existing services, and • The surrounding transportation network can support the proposed development. 4. Zoning By-law The property is currently zoned Residential 1D Density (R1D) in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200. The amendment has requested a site specific Residential Mixed (R3) zone. The required building height and setbacks for the R3 zone are similar to the existing single detached dwellings in the neighbourhood. As such, the proposed development will maintain the built form of the existing neighbourhood. The changes to the standard R3 regulations are summarized in the following table: ZONE REGULATION STANDARD REGULATION REQUESTED REGULATION Minimum Interior Side Yard 3 metres 1.8 metres Page 4 of 8 Page 45 of 842 ZONE REGULATION STANDARD REGULATION REQUESTED REGULATION Maximum width of a driveway or parking area in the front yard of a lot for unit 1 9 metres 13.4 metres The requested regulations can be supported for the following reasons: • The reduction to the interior side yard is requested to permit the applicant to enclose a basement walkout on the eastern most unit of the proposed townhouse block (unit 5). The proposed 1.8 metre setback is at a pinch point. In the R3 zone, singles, semis and duplex dwellings are permitted to locate a minimum of 1.2 metres from the interior side yard. The proposed parking lot as part of AM-2021-029 will not be impacted from the reduced interior side yard setback. The requested site-specific regulations of 1.8 metres for an interior side yard can be supported. • The purpose of the maximum driveway width is to ensure that the front yard maintains an adequate amount of landscaped open space. The measurement for this provision is taken parallel to the front yard lot line. As the proposed driveway for unit 1 curves to the exterior lot line of the property, the largest measurement for the driveway (taken east- west across the property) is 13.4 metres. As seen in Schedule 2, there is still adequate landscaped open space in the front yard for unit 1. The requested site-specific regulation is technical in nature. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The proposed development will provide Cash-in-lieu for Parkland Dedication, Development Charges and a new tax assessment to the City. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This proposal contributes to developing a strong and diverse housing market that includes accessible housing choices for all residents. List of Attachments Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Site Plan Written by: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Manager, Current Planning Approved - 03 May 2022 Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 May 2022 Page 5 of 8 Page 46 of 842 Page 6 of 8 Page 47 of 842 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 7 of 8 Page 48 of 842 SCHEDULE 2 (Site Plan) Page 8 of 8 Page 49 of 842 5360 Royal Manor Dr –AM-2021-028 Applicant: Anthony Vacca Proposal: To convert the existing house into 5 townhouse units Zoning By-law Amendment Application AM-2021-028 -5360 Royal Manor Dr Page 50 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Location Detached dwellings Hydro Canal 420 Hwy PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Canada 150 Trail AM-2021-029 (3 storey, 25 unit apartment building)Page 51 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Background •Applicant has requested approval for a Zoning By-law amendment. •The land is zoned Residential 1D Density Zone (R1D). •In August of 2021, a severance was conditionally approved for the property. •The application requests a Site Specific Residential Mixed (R3) zone to permit 5 townhouse units. •A separate but related zoning by-law amendment has been applied for to permit a 3 storey, 25 unit apartment building (file AM- 2021-029) on the remainder of the property. This is being considered today on Council’s agenda through PBD-2022-031.Page 52 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Proposed Zoning –R3-XX Max. width of a driveway in the front yard 13.4m (max: 9m) Min. interior side yard width 1.8m (3m req’d)Page 53 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Rendering Page 54 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Open House –March 10 Comment/Concern Staff Response •Traffic impacts to Windsor Crescent •The Traffic Study estimated 11 AM and 13 PM peak hour generated trips. This is approx. 1 car every 4-5 minutes. No impacts are anticipated. Transportation has no concerns. •Tree preservation •Tree preservation will be dealt with at site plan through a submitted landscaping and tree preservation plan. •Servicing •The submitted servicing and stormwater management reports concluded there was adequate servicing available. Municipal Works has no concerns. •Parking for trail •Parking for the trail will continue to be provided via on-street parking.Page 55 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Planning Analysis •The proposal conforms to Provincial, Regional and Local policies •Staff have no concerns with the requested site specifics for the proposed R3 zone Page 56 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Recommendation •That Council approve the proposed 5 townhouse development as detailed in report PBD-2022-030 Page 57 of 842 From:Louise Judge < Sent:Sunday,March 6,2022 6:08 PM To:Andrew Bryce <abr ce nia arafa|ls.ca> Subject:Re:Re B~2021 —O20 —5360 Royal Manor Drive Dear Andrew, I had asked to be included on any notifications regarding this development: Assessment roll no 272S—O90—001—1340O Official plan and zoning by—lawamendment application City file AlVl~2021-028 &-029 Applicant Tony Vacca AGENT PLW Consulting (Leigh Whyte) A letter was sent to residents close to the property above but not to me. Two pages of the plan were posted on our neighbourhood Facebook page but only the plan was posted.(2 pages).These pages were not a good quality. i need information on participating in this meeting on March 10 remotely and clear copies of the first 2 pages. I was told that signs would go up on the property giving us ample notice. This is just a reminder that a large number of residents living on Windsor Crescent do not want vehicles from this complex coming out on our street.If these people want to go west out Lundy's Lane,they will go down Windsor.5 townhouses and 25 unit in the apartment building could result in a possible 60 vehicles if 2 per new residence.We already have a problem with traffic on Royal Manor from non-residents. I see an arch on the drawing on the left page 2 looking |i|<e a driveway onto Windsor. Please forward copies of the recent mailing to me by email as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Louise JudgePage 58 of 842 From:Louise Judge‘ Sent:Saturday,May 7,2022 4:24 PM To:Alexa Cooper <acoo er nia arafal|s.ca> Subject:[EXTERNAL]—Fw:Public Meeting Notice (May 10,2022)5360 Royal Manor Drive,Niagara Falls Hi Alexa. re AM —2021 —O28-&029 I will be away on May 10”‘and can't attend the meeting. For the meeting,ljust want to elaborate on my comments from the March open house meeting. 1.Traffic Impact —south driveway onto Windsor Crescent near the sewage pumping station:city staff said no impact but I live in the middle of Windsor Crescent and I spoke to several residents and we are concerned.Anyone in the new project who wants to go out Lundy's Lane "west"will come out ofthis driveway and turn left and go west on Windsor towards the 3-way stop intersection on Royal Manor and on to Lundy's Lane. This driveway should be reserved only for emergency vehicles like fire trucks, ambulances,utility vehicles and service vehicles.We already have a lot of Fed Ex, Purolator,UPS vehicles going up and down our street,as do most streets in the city. With online shopping being more and more popular,there is a potential for 60 more adults living at the end of our street (5 townhomes,25 apartments,2 possible adults per unit).Obviously,this is not every day,all day but there would be an increase if they use our portion of Windsor. 2.Tree Preservation —city staff advised that this still has to be submitted but most trees on the property are on the outside perimeter and I would think that they will probably be kept. 3.Servicing —City staff said adequate —this will eventually all come from Windsor Crescent so we hope our water pressure,watermain and sewer main can keep up.Time will tell. 4.Parking for the trail —city staff now recommends it will continue to be provided via on— street parking —On or about Dec.215‘last year in a Planninglustification Report "Ancillary Uses 1.3 Yes,this proposal for the apartment units includes parking that would benefit users of the existing walking trail“.I guess not.Early on it was verbally stated I believe at the first zoom meeting that there may be parking provided within the project for parking for trailer users.I guess not.This is an accident waiting to happen. Our trail is the only one in the city with no parking lot or safe area at either end. Parking should be restricted on the north side of Royal Manor Drive between Windsor and the canal bridge. Cars come too Dorchester Road onto Royal Manor over the bridge andaroundthecornerintooncomingtraffic.Now eventually there will be 2 driveways out of the apartment complex onto RoyalManorwithwhichallthiscurrenttrafficwillhavetocontend,not to mention the loss of moreonroadparkingspots.Page 59 of 842 We think a lot more consideration should be given before this all is approved. Maybe more people should come down here to see what possible problems there may be or call me and I can explain or meet you down at the site. Best regards, Louise Judge Page 60 of 842 PBD-2022-31 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: PBD-2022-31 AM-2021-029, Zoning By-law Amendment 5360 Royal Manor Dr (apartment building) Applicant: Anthony Vacca Agent: South Coast Consulting (Steven Rivers) 3 Storey, 25 Unit Apartment Building Recommendation(s) That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the land a site specific Residential Apartment 5A (R5A) Density zone to permit a 3 storey, 25 unit apartment building, subject to the minimum landscape open space requirement being maintained at 30% of the lot area. Executive Summary Anthony Vacca has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a portion of lands known as 5360 Royal Manor Drive. The applicant requests the subject land be rezoned to a site-specific Residential Apartment 5A (R5A) Density zone to permit the construction of a 3 storey, 25 unit apartment building. The amendment is recommended for the following reasons: • The proposed development conforms to Provincial policies and the City’s Official Plan as it intensifies the use of land and assists in meeting intensification targets within the Built- Up Area of the City, • The requested zoning by-law amendment is appropriate as the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding development, and • Residents expressed concerns for traffic, servicing and parking. Existing infrastructure is adequate for the proposed development and parking has been provided in accordance with the City's Zoning By-law. A traffic study was prepared and no traffic impacts are anticipated. Concerns for tree preservation will be addressed at the site plan stage through a tree preservation plan, which will identify which trees can be preserved. Background Proposal Anthony Vacca has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a portion of the land known as 5360 Royal Manor Drive totaling 6,479 m2 (1.6 acres). Refer to Schedule 1 to locate the land. The Zoning By-law amendment has been requested to permit the development a 3 storey, 25- unit apartment dwelling. Schedule 2 show details of the proposed development. Page 1 of 8 Page 61 of 842 The applicant has a concurrent Zoning By-law amendment application for the remainder of the lands to permit the development of a 5 unit townhouse dwelling (file AM-2021-028) that is being address at tonight’s Council meeting through report PBD-2022-30. The majority of the subject land is zoned Residential Apartment 5A (R5A) Density by Zoning By- law No. 79-200, which permits the development of a 3 storey apartment building. A small portion of the land is zoned Residential 1D (R1D) Density . The applicant is requesting the subject lands be rezoned to a site-specific Residential Apartment 5A (R5A) Density zone, with site specific regulations for landscaped open space. A consent application has been conditionally approved by the Committee of Adjustment to sever 5360 Royal Manor Drive into 2 parcels as shown in Schedule 2, with one parcel subject to this Zoning By-law amendment application. Rezoning of the second parcel is being considered under report PBD-2022-31. The requested zoning will fulfill a condition of consent. The proposed lot configuration will allow the apartment building to be serviced from Windsor Crescent. Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The subject lands contain a single detached house and two associated accessory buildings/structures. To the north is Highway 420; to the west are single detached dwellings; and, to the south and east is the Canada 150 Trail and Hydro Canal. Circulation Comments Information about the requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments were circulated to City divisions, the Region, agencies, and the public for comments. The following summarizes the comments received to date: • Regional Municipality of Niagara o No objections to the proposed application. • Ministry of Transportation o No objections, an MTO Building and Land Use Permit(s) is required prior to any on-site construction/works, further technical requirements will be addressed through the Site Plan application. • Building o All required Building Permits to be obtained prior to commencement of any construction/demolition. Review of plans to occur upon Site Plan Control and Building Permit(s) application. • Fire, GIS, Landscape Services, Municipal Works, Transportation Services o No objections to the application or requested site specific regulations, o Technical items to be addressed at Site Plan stage, and o Parkland dedication is requested to be taken as cash-in-lieu based on a professional appraisal, as secured through a condition of consent. Neighbourhood Comments Page 2 of 8 Page 62 of 842 A virtual neighbourhood Open House was held on March 10th, 2022 and was attended by the applicant, the applicant’s planner, and 1 resident. The resident had the following concerns: • Traffic impact to Windsor Crescent • Tree preservation • Servicing • Parking for trail Staff response to the received concerns are detailed below: • A Traffic Impact Assessment was submitted as part of the complete application. The assessment stated that the two proposals are expected to generate 11 AM peak hour trips and 13 PM peak hour trips. This is approximately 1 vehicle every 4-5 minutes. The Assessment concluded there would be no impacts as a result of the proposed development. • A landscape and tree preservation plan would be submitted at time of site plan that would identify trees to be planted and trees that can be preserved • Infrastructure abutting the land is located on Windsor Crescent. A Functional Servicing and a Stormwater Management Report were submitted with the application. The report concluded there was adequate servicing in this infrastructure available for the proposed development. City Municipal Works Staff had no concerns with the proposal or the submitted reports. • Parking for the trail will continue to be provided via on-street parking Analysis 1. Provincial Policies The Planning Act requires City planning decisions to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Provincial “A Place to Grow” Plan. The proposed development is consistent and conforms as follows: • The proposed development satisfies matters of provincial interest as outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act, • The proposed development is transit supportive, and minimizes land consumption and servicing costs through infill development, • The creation of 25 apartment units within the Built-up Area will contribute to the City’s annual residential intensification rate and diversify the housing type available to residents, and • The proposed regulations will facilitate the development of the land to accommodate housing needs for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes. 2. Regional Official Plan The subject land is designated as Urban Area (Built-Up Area) in the Regional Official Plan. The proposed development conforms as follows: Page 3 of 8 Page 63 of 842 • The proposed development of the property will help contribute to the Region’s residential intensification target within the Built-Up Area, • The proposed development will utilize existing municipal services, and • The proposed development will provide an alternative form of housing and offer more options in the neighbourhood to meet the needs of a variety of households, populations, and income groups. 3. Official Plan The subject land is designated as Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The proposal complies with the intent of the Official Plan as follows: • The proposed development is permitted in the Residential designation and would contribute to providing a variety of housing options in the neighbourhood, • On a local road, development is permitted at a maximum density of 40 units per hectare. The proposed development meets the maximum permitted density at 38 units per hectare, • The height is compatible with the existing community, and ample setbacks from abutting properties will mitigate the impacts of the massing of the building, • The proposed development contributes to the City’s annual residential intensification rate by adding 25 apartment units within the Built-Up Area, • There is adequate infrastructure available to service the proposed development, and • The surrounding transportation network can support the proposed development. 4. Zoning By-law The majority of the property is zoned Residential Apartment 5A (R5A) Density, which is intended the place to required is rezoning dwelling. apartment an permit to A entrance/service connection from Windsor Crescent from a Residential 1D (R1D) Density zone to an R5A zone. The proposed development will comply with the 10 metre maximum permitted height permitted under the R1D zone as well as the required setbacks from the front, interior sides, and rear yard lot lines. The proposed development provides adequate setbacks that are compatible with surrounding development. The amendment has requested a site-specific Residential Apartment 5A (R5A) Density zone. The changes to the standard R5A regulations are summarized in the following table: Page 4 of 8 Page 64 of 842 ZONE REGULATION STANDARD REGULATION REQUESTED REGULATION STAFF PROPOSED REGULATION Minimum landscaped open space 30% 27% 30% The reduction to the landscaped open space is not recommended. The development requires 34 parking spaces in accordance with Zoning By -law 79-200. The proposal has 50 parking spaces with an additional 14 spaces located in the required MTO setback along Royal Manor Drive. In order to meet the minimum required 30% landscaped open space, the development would need to replace 11 parking spaces with landscaped open space. If the 14 parking spaces in the required MTO setback were removed, the proposal would still meet the required parking regulations and meet the required minimum landscaped open space. Maintenance of current landscape requirements, which also apply to adjacent lands, will assist in maintaining the landscaped character of the neighbourhood. Staff recommend that the proposed apartment building be shifted so that it runs parallel with Royal Manor Drive and is closer to the street while maintaining the required 8 metre Ministry of Transportation (MTO) setback. This will provide an improved street presence on Royal Manor Drive. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The proposed development will provide Cash-in-lieu for Parkland Dedication, Development Charges and a new tax assessment to the City. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This proposal contributes to developing a strong and diverse housing market that includes accessible housing choices for all residents. List of Attachments Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Site Plan Written by: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Manager, Current Planning Approved - 03 May 2022 Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Page 5 of 8 Page 65 of 842 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 6 of 8 Page 66 of 842 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 7 of 8 Page 67 of 842 SCHEDULE 2 (Site Plan) Page 8 of 8 Page 68 of 842 5360 Royal Manor Dr –AM-2021-029 Applicant: Anthony Vacca Proposal: To rezone a portion of the lands to a site specific R5A zone to facilitate the construction of a 3 storey, 25 unit apartment building Zoning By-law Amendment Applications AM-2021-029 -5360 Royal Manor Dr Page 69 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Location Hydro Canal 420 Hwy AM-2021-028 (5 townhouse units) Canada 150 Trail PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Detached dwellings Page 70 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Background •Applicant has requested approval for a Zoning By-law amendment. •The land is mainly zoned Residential Apartment 5A Density (R5A) zone with the remainder being Residential 1D Density (R1D) zone. •In August of 2021, a severance was conditionally approved for the property. •The application requests the subject land to be rezoned to a Site Specific Residential Apartment 5A (R5A) zone to facilitate the development of a 3 storey, 25 unit apartment building. •A separate but related zoning by-law amendment has been applied for to permit 5 townhouses (file AM-2021-028) on the remainder of the property. This is being considered today on Council’s agenda through PBD-2022-030.Page 71 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Requested Zoning Relief Min. landscaped open space area 27% (30% req) R1D R5A Rezone to R5A Page 72 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Rendering Page 73 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Open House –March 10 Comment/Concern Staff Response •Traffic impacts to Windsor Crescent •The Traffic Study estimated 11 AM and 13 PM peak hour generated trips. This is approx. 1 car every 4-5 minutes. No impacts are anticipated. Transportation has no concerns. •Tree preservation •Tree preservation will be dealt with at site plan through a submitted landscaping and tree preservation plan. •Servicing •The submitted servicing and stormwater management reports concluded there was adequate servicing available. Municipal Works has no concerns. •Parking for trail •Parking for the trail will continue to be provided via on-street parking.Page 74 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Planning Analysis •The proposal conforms to Provincial, Regional and Local policies •The applicant has requested a reduction to the required minimum landscaped open space of 27%. Staff recommend that the minimum 30% be maintained as detailed in report PBD-2022-031. •Staff support the remainder of the application as detailed in report PBD-2022-031.Page 75 of 842 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Recommendation •That Council approve the proposed 3 storey, 25-unit apartment development as modified in report PBD-2022-031 Page 76 of 842 CLK-2022-09 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Fee Waiver Applications - Niagara Children's Centre - The Plasma Car Race Hockey Canada Foundation - Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf Recommendation(s) That Council approve the Fee Waiver Applications for: 1. Niagara Children's Centre - The Plasma Car Race - in the amount of $368.42 for the waiving of fees for the Gale Centre Arena Floor Rental. 2. Hockey Canada Foundation - Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf - in the amount of $2,644.20 for the waiving of fees for the WEGO bus charter (18 hours). 3. That Council acknowledge the out of budget expenditure (if approved, the fee waiver budget would be over-budget by $12,253.05) and to have Staff find a positive variance to help fund this budgetary overrun. 4. That Council direct Staff to review the fee waiver expenditures prior to the 2023 budget planning process. Executive Summary Niagara Falls City Council adopted the Council Discretionary Spending report on February 12, 2019. This included the Fee Waiver Policy that accompanied the report. The City of Niagara Falls is committed to supporting volunteer, community -based organizations in order to maintain a quality of life for its residents. Thi s policy aims to protect the City’s assets, interests, goals, facilities, programs and services while also ensuring that festivals and events grow and prosper, positively impacting the quality of life of Niagara Falls residents. The financial scope of this policy is limited to the Council approved budgetary amount for the corresponding year. The City of Niagara Falls will waive fees to eligible applicants to help offset the fee(s) that would have been charged by the City related t o the delivery or presentation of a festival or event. Examples of City fees that can be waived include, but are not limited to: • Park permit fees Page 1 of 14 Page 77 of 842 • Rental of City Property • Road Closure Fees • Staffing costs outside normal operations Eligible groups must be not-for-profit organizations which demonstrate a degree of community support and representation including, but not limited to: • Registered charities • Arts and culture organizations • Athletic and social clubs • Service clubs • Neighbourhood groups and organizations, • School associations Background The attached completed Fee Waiver Application for the Niagara Children's Centre - Plasma Car Race, includes the request for the following: Gale Centre Arena Floor Rental for event (Tuesday, May 31st) for a total cost of $368.42. A review of the application depicts that this event, the "Niagara Car Race" is an activity organized by the Niagara Children's Centre. The Niagara Children's Plasma Car Race is an annual fundraiser that brings together the community for a fu n and active event. Plasma Cars are a small kids motion propelled car. They move slowly and require careful timing of steering and the body in order to move them. It is perfect for anyone and any age and is a fun, team-building activity. The Niagara Children's Centre serves 5,800 children and youth from across the Niagara Region and provides physical, developmental and/or communicative delays. This event is projected to raise $25,000 for the Centre and bring together 25 teams of individuals and/or corporate partners. The attached completed Fee Waiver Application for the Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf, includes the request for the following: WEGO bus charter fees (18 hours) in the amount of $2,644.20 for the gala operations on June 23 and 24, 2022. A review of the application depicts that the Gala and Golf event, with the help of the local Steering Committee, will aim to raise significant funds, half of which are guaranteed to be utilized in the local Niagara Region. The proposed legacy includes 1) funding a women's only dressing room at the Chippawa arena and 2) funding a para - accessible rink at Heartland Forest, and allocating Assist Fund dollars to Niagara-area children, which will eliminate the financial barriers to access hockey. Beyond the hockey and sport-specific impacts as described above, the Gala and Golf event is guaranteed to have a great economic benefit to the City of Niagara Falls, with over 800 guests at the gala and 320 guests at the golf tournament. Scheduling the Page 2 of 14 Page 78 of 842 event on a Thursday/Friday will ensure many guests will remain in town to take in the city's great offerings, over several hotel nights. There are also social and cultural benefits to the community, with Hockey Canada's National Teams attending both events, and bringing their impact to the next generation of hockey players. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis There are no operational implications to report. Financial Implications/Budget Impact If this application is approved, the total of $ 63,253.05 in fee waivers would be withdrawn from the $51,000.00 allocated from the 2022 operating budget. If approved, the fee waiver budget would be over-budget by $12,253.05, prompting Council to find a positive variance source, as per report recommendation. ORGANIZATION/EVENT Fees Waived by Council (2022) 2022 Budget - Fee Waiver Requests $51,000.00 Women's Place of Niagara - 43rd Annual Book Riot $6,243.04 Start Me Up - Out of the Cold Program $18,000.00 Gateway of Niagara - Niagara Assertive Street Outreach - "Niagara Falls Homeless Outreach" $3,600.00 Fallsview BIA - Ontario BIA Conference $2,276.95 Niagara Kids Business Fair - (Olivia & Ian Hearth) $683.16 ATU Can Am Conference $1000.00 Cruising the Q - Downtown Board of Management $11,845.62 Crazy Macaws Bike Night $9,145.26 Chippawa Volunteer Slo Pitch Tournament & SPN Arena Floor Use $7,121.40 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest $325.00 Total Approved for 2022 $60,240.43 Requests for Consideration Niagara Children's Centre - Plasma Car Race $368.42 Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf $2,644.20 Total if approved in this report $63,253.05 Page 3 of 14 Page 79 of 842 List of Attachments Fee Waiver Application - Niagara Children's Centre - Plasma Car Race Permit (signed) - Niagara Children's Centre - Plasma Car Race Fee Waiver Application Hockey Canada Foundation Gala & Golf Written by: Heather Ruzylo, Clerks & Council Services Coordinator Submitted by: Status: Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 May 2022 Page 4 of 14 Page 80 of 842 Page 1 of 4 Fee Waiver Application Form Applicant Information Name of Event: Organization Name: Organization Address: City: Postal Code: Contact Name: Position: Phone Number (days): Phone Number (evenings): Email: Website: Type of Organization: □ Not-for-profit Incorporation #: □ Charitable Organization Registration #: □ Other (please specify): Waiving of Fees The City of Niagara Falls will waive fees that would have been charged by the City for eligible non-profit groups or organizations that provide programs, services or events that are of a general benefit to the community. Fee Waiver Policy (700.22) is to ensure that the City’s support of functions and events through the waiving of fees is facilitated in a fair and equitable manner and does not burden the City’s annual operating budget. Examples of City fees that can be waived include, but are not limited to: • Park permit fees • Rental of City Property • Road Closure Fees • Staffing costs outside normal operations The City of Niagara Falls Rates & Fees can be found on the City’s website at: https://niagarafalls.ca/pdf/by-laws/schedule-of-fees.pdf Note: Insurance fees will not be waived. Page 5 of 14 Page 81 of 842 Page 2 of 4 Fee Waiver Application Form Form Submission Information Applications can be submitted by email to: clerk@niagarafalls.ca In person or by mail to: City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours: 8:30am – 4:30pm Activity or Event Information Amount of Request: Fees to be Waived (i.e. facility rental, park permit, etc.): Dates and Times: Purpose of Event: Number of People Expected: Admission Fee (If applicable): Are you serving food? Are you serving alcohol? Activity or Event Description 1. How will your activity or event enhance recreation and community services in the City of Niagara Falls? 2. Please describe the projected social, cultural, economic and environmental impact that the activity or event will have on the City and its residents. Page 6 of 14 Page 82 of 842 Page 3 of 4 Fee Waiver Application Form 3. What will the impact on the event be if the fee is not waived? 4. Are you seeking funding from any other sources? (Fundraising, grants, sponsorships) 5. What features will you have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residents with disabilities)? Application Checklist Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. Mandatory Documents □ A detailed budget, showing revenues and expenditures □ Documents relating to City rental permit (if applicable):  Dates, times and location of event  All City fees associated with the event □ Confirmation letter from charity (if applicable):  For special events whereby a portion or all of the proceeds are being donated to charity, a confirmation letter from that charity must accompany the application For Internal Use Only: Please list the cost of all fee waivers requested on page 2: Amount ($) Completed by: Signature: Page 7 of 14 Page 83 of 842 Page 4 of 4 Fee Waiver Application Form Authorization for Application On behalf of, and with the authority of, the above-mentioned organization, we certify that the information given in this application for waiving of City fees is true, correct and complete in every respect. Signature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title Date Signature of Board Chair/Representative Name and Title Date Personal Information Consent Personal information, as defined in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and in accordance with MFIPPA. Personal information collected on this application form will be used to assist in granting fee waivers and will be made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. Information collected may be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of MFIPPA. The City reserves the right to verify all information contained in submissions. Questions regarding the collection, use and disclosure of this personal information may be directed to the City Clerk, Bill Matson, at bmatson@niagarafalls.ca By completing this application form, you consent to the collection and disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the City of Niagara Falls, as described above. Page 8 of 14 Page 84 of 842 Permit The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls.ON L2E 6X5 Customer Name Customer Type Mailing Address System User Niagara Children's Centre -Plasma Car Race Booking Summary START DATE/TlME May 31,2022 3:00 PM Arena Floor Rental (hourly) Waivers and information WAIVERNAME Facility Rental Agreement PHONE:(905)35647521 Maria Smith v 8583 General Public 567 Glenridge Avenue St Catharines.ON L2T 4C2 bpowell GaleCentre Rink?(spacialEva $81.87 I Hour x 4.5 DUE DATE May 31,2022 END DATE/TIME $326.03 Work Phone Number Home Phone Number Cell Phone Number EmailAddress 1 resourceis) Permit#R785 Status Approved Date Mar 21,2022 2:30 PM (905)688-1890 (905)688-1890 (905)688-1055 / Nuagaxamyi; marla.smiliiKznlagarachildrencentrecom Rental Fee HST (Passed On) Discounts Subtotal Deposits Deposit Discounts Total Permit Fee Total Payment Refunds Balance 1 bookingisl Canto GaleCentre May 31,2022 7:30 PM FOR Maria Smith ATTENDEE ‘l SIGNING STATUS $326.03 $42.39 $0.00 $368.42 $0.00 $0.00 $368.42 $0.00 $0.00 $368.42 Subtotal:$326.03 AMT W/O TAX $326.03 Waiver Signed by:Maria Smith on Mar 21,2022 1.The Permit Holder is required to have the Permit available for inspection on the datesis)and time(s)specified in the Permit.Z.The Permit Holder must be a minimum of 18 years of age at the time of the booking and present In the Faciiity during the permitted time.Any person in the Facility under the age of 18 must be supervised by an adultlor Permit holder at all times.3.The City reserves the right to limit or refuse usage of facilities at 1 the discretion of the Director of Recreation &Culture.4.The Permit Holder is responsible for the conduct and supen/lsion of all persons using the ‘ Facility pursuant to the Permit and shall ensure all Terms and Conditions contained in the Permitare observed.Vandalism,littering,abusive behavior and language,interference with other City facilities and aicohoi use without a license shall be deemed as a just cause to cancel the Permit or deny future permit applications.5.Payment for all room rentals must be received,in full,by a minimum of one week prior to the Permit date.With #R785 Status Approved Page 1 of 2 bookings within seven days of rental,payment must be made in full at time of booking.6.A $50 refundable deposit (cash or cheque)must be received before a key will be released to a Permit holder.The money will not be refunded until the key is returned and the facility deemed to be in an acceptable state by City staff.CORONATiON CENTRE ONLY 7.lfa key for the facility is required,its use may only be permitted as outlined in the Permit.A $50 fee will be charged for lost or misplaced keys.CORONATIONCENTRE ONLY 8.The City shall not be liable to any Permit Holder in the event that the Facility is not available at the start time as set out in the Permit due to the use of the Facility by a prior Permit Holder.in such an event the start time and end time will be adjusted accordingly.9.The Permit Holder is required to have a certi?cate of liability insurance in the amount of Page 9 of 14 Page 85 of 842 $2,000,000.00 per occurrence naming the City as additional insured.Such insurance shall not be cancellable except on prior notice to the City.A copy of the insurance certi?cate shall be delivered to the City prior to 21 days prior to the start date set out in the Permit.10.All cancellations must be submitted to the City ofNlagara Falls in writing.TOURNAMENTS &SPECIAL EVENTS.Tournament/event icel?oor usage to be con?rmed 30 days in advance of event.Remaining payment is due the day of the tournament/event.YOUTH TENANT ORGANIZATIONS No refund will be given upon 10 or less days cancellation notice (whole or partial permit).Playoffs exempt from the 10 day cancellation notice.SEASONAL RENTALS No refund will be given upon 10 or less days cancellation notice (whole or partial permit),11.Persons using the Facility pursuant to the Permit shall not be allowed access to areas outside the Facility unless such areas are open to the public during the rental period.12.The Permit shall not be assigned or transferred whatsoever.13.Unless otherwise set out in the Permit,the Permit Holder shall be solely responsible for providing all ?rst aid supplies and any specific emergency sen/ices required as a result of the nature of the use of the Facility by the Permit Holder.14.The Permit Holder shall remove all articles,goods,equipment,event supplies and decorations from the Facility immediately following the conclusion of the event,and shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the City as a result ota false alarm caused by any person in the Facility for the purpose of the Permit.15.i The City is not responsible for damages.loss or theft of equipment or clothing of any Permit Holder or their invitees.Please secure your valuables. V 16.The Permit Holder shall be responsible for costs associated with damages arising from the use of the Facility by all users and invitees during their permitted times.17.Sale of refreshments.food and beverages and other items on City property is prohibited unless otherwise authorized in the Permit.18.All ?re exits,?re routes and pedestrian walkways must be kept clear at all times.The Permit Holder is responsible for restricting activities to the Facility only.Allconcerns of safety or otherwise should be reported immediately to a City Staff member.19.The consumption of alcoholic ‘ beverages is strictly prohibited in the Facility except where permitted by the issuance ofa Special Occasion Permit issued under the authority of the 1 Liquor License Act (Ontario).20.Alcoholic beverages are permitted in arena only during special events in the area prescribed on the L.L.B.O.permit, and in accordance with L.L.B.O.regulations,and Municipal Alcohol Policy.Outside alcohol is not permitted in City facilities.Clients risk losing their permits ifalcohoi is consumed or found in our facilties.21.Use of an open flame is subject to the discretion,restriction and prior approval ofthe ‘ Facility manager.This includes but is not limited to candles and ceremonial pots.Sparkiers are not permitted.22.The throwing of rice and confetti 1 and other food items and the use of decorative sparkles/glitter,etc..is not permitted.23.Please respect our facilities.All garbage/recycling should be placed in bags or containers provided.Tables,chairs,counters and ?oors should be cleared ofdebris at the completion of the rental.City staff will be responsible for sweeping and mopping the floor and cleaning tables prior to and after the function.Any additional maintenance duties will result in extra charges being levied where extraordinary cleanup is required.24.Lottery licenses are only issued to charitable or religious organizations,not private individuals.See www.agco,on.ca for more information.25.Games of chance,lottery or gambling is strictly prohibited.26. in the case of ice rentals no player,coaches or other of?ciai or person associated with the Permit is allowed on the ice until the resurfacing machine has lett the ice surface and the doors have been closed.Street shoes are not permitted on the ice surface at any time.All participants must wear approved head gear with the exception of pleasure skating during scheduled recreational skating periods and ?gure skating programs.27.in the 1 case ofan ice rental ifa scrape or ?ood is required.the time required will be taken at the beginning ofthe start time set out in the Permit.it is ‘ understood that for the purpose ofan ice rental one hour includes ?fty (50)minutes ofwhich the ice may be used and ten (10)minutes of maintenance time.28.The City provides arena change rooms on the basis of one room per team or one room per 20 adults,to a maximum of2 rooms per hour oi rental time.The City will make every effort to provide access to dressing rooms 30 minutes priorto start time in the Permit.29. The Permit Holder agrees to vacate the arena change rooms within 30 minutes of the end time set out in the Permit.Change rooms must be left in a clean and usable condition.30.Sports organizations that are licensees of Municipal Facilities will be required to adopt policies that ensure that the City of Niagara Falls Rzone policies are followed by the members and guests of the organization (https://niagerafails.ca/city-hall/recreation/rzone. aspx for more details).31.individuals who engage in unacceptable behavior,as de?ned by the Rzone policy.may,depending on the severity,be barred immediately from the premises and ifnecessary.a suspension for a period oftlme.32.Organizations,Users,and Permit Holders are responsible for the behavior of everyone associated with them including participants,of?cials,spectators,patrons,parents,guests,etc. Payment Schedules Original Balance:$368.42 Current Balance:$368.42 DUE DATE AMOUNT DUE AMOUNT PAID WITHDRAWALADJUSTMENT BALANCE Mar 31,2022 $179.28 $0.00 $0.00 $179.28 ‘ May 31,2022 $189.14 $0.00 $0.00 $189.14 X:X:~ Date:Date: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls Mailing Address:4310 Queen Street.Niagara Falls,ON Rt/"tl lg 9033‘ Maria Smith Customer ID:8583 L2E 6X5 Work Phone Number:(905)6884890 Phone Number:(905)356-7521 Home Phone Number:(905)688-1890 Cell Phone Number:(905)688-1055 Email Address:marla.smith@niagarachl|drencentre.com #R785 Status Approved Page 2of2 i i l 1 l 1 Page 10 of 14 Page 86 of 842 W Fee Waiver Application Form Niagarafulls (Al’\4\l)A Applicant Information Name “Event,Hockey Canada Foundation Gala &Golf organization Name:Hockey Canada Foundation o,ga,,iza?o,,Addmss,201-151 Canada Olympic Road SW City:Calgary:Alberta Postal Code:-I-3B6B7 Contact Name:Khanh Be Position:Manager:Events Phone Number (days):6476418103 Phone Number (evenings):6476418103 Ema":kbe@hockeycanada.ca website:https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en—ca/home Type of Organization: Not~for-profit Incorporation #: I!Charitable Organization Registration #:BN 86549 4694 RROOO1 M Other (please specify): Waiving of Fees The City of Niagara Falls will waive fees that would have been charged by the City for eligible non-profit groups or organizations that provide programs,services or events that are of a general benefit to the community.Fee Waiver Policy (700.22)is to ensure that the City’s support of functions and events through the waiving of fees is facilitated in a fair and equitable manner and does not burden the City’s annual operating budget. Examples of City fees that can be waived include,but are not limited to: -Park permit fees Rental of City Property Road Closure Fees Staffing costs outside normal operations https://niagarafalls.ca/pdf/by—laws/schedule-of-feespdfNote:Insurance fees will not be waived.Page 1 of4Page 11 of 14Page 87 of 842 W Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara)?‘I (.l\.\l).»\ Form Submission Information Applications can be submitted by email to:clerk@niagarafa|ls.ca In person or by mail to:City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours:8:30am -4:30pm Activity or Event Information Amount of Request:2 Fees to be Waived (i.e.facility rental,park permit,etc.):Rented fees of WEGO buses for gala Operations Dates and Times,June 23 and 24,2022 Premier fundraising event for Hockey Canada,with proceeds contributing to both a local legacy impact and the HC Assist FundPurposeofEvent: Number of People Expected:800 at gala’320 at 90”Admission Fee (If applicable):N/A Are you serving food?Yes Are you serving alcohol?Yes Activity or Event Description 1.How will your activity or event enhance recreation and community services in the City of Niagara Falls? The Gala and Golf event,with the help of the local Steering Committee,will aim to raise significant funds,half of which are guaranteed to be utilized in the local Niagara Region.The proposed legacy projects include 1)funding a women's only dressing room at the Chippawa Arena,2)funding a para-accessible rink at Heartland Forest,and allocating Assist Fund dollars to Niagara-area children,which will eliminate the financial barriers to access hockey. 2.Please describe the projected social,cultural,economic and environmental impact that the activity or to have a great economic benefit to the City of Niagara Falls,with over 800 guests at the gala and 320guestsatthegolftournament.Scheduling it on a Thursday/Friday will ensure many guests will remain intowntotakeinthecity's great offerings,over several hotel nights.There are also social and cultural benefitstothecommunity,with Hockey Canada's National Teams attending both events,and bringing their impacttothenextgenerationofhockeyplayers.Page 2 of4Page 12 of 14Page 88 of 842 W Fee Waiver Application Form N iagara?alls (Af\'.\l).\ 3.What will the impact on the event be if the fee is not waived? Every dollar in expenses saved is a dollar that will go back towards the legacy projects outline above.Minimizing our expenses will ensure a maximum local impact of the Gala and Golf being hosted in Niagara Falls. 4.Are you seeking funding from any other sources?(Fundraising,grants,sponsorships) We do predominantly rely on sponsorship and table sales as the bulk of the fundraising,and where possible,will apply for grants. 5.What features will you have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residents with disabilities)? All venues rented to execute have guaranteed accessibility features.The event will also be bilingual. Application Checklist Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. MandatomDocuments A detailed budget,showing revenues and expenditures Documents relating to City rental permit (if applicable): -Dates,times and location of event 0 All City fees associated with the event Confirmation letter from charity (if applicable): 0 For special events whereby a portion or all of the proceeds are being donated to charity,a confirmation letter from that charity must accompany the application Please list the cost of all fee waivers requested on page 2:Amount ($)#2340-°°(.15 60 CHAQTEK("K O /-/o-—-:87 +/4.s .7‘.Completed by:/Q_/4 ,,5 ,/Signature:j/2 C,4 4 _,1 ° %Page 3 of4Page 13 of 14Page 89 of 842 W Fee Waiver Application Form N iagarafulls ('.\N,\l)r\ Authorization for Application On behalf of,and with the authority of,the above-mentioned organization,we certify that the information given in this application for waiving of Cityfees is true,correct and complete in every respect. Signature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title Date Signature of Board ChairIRepresentative Name and Title Date Personal Information Consent Personal information,as defined in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA),is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act,2001,as amended,and in accordance with MFIPPA.Personal information collected on this application form will be used to assist in granting fee waivers and will be made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. information collected may be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of MFIPPA.The City reserves the right to verify all information contained in submissions. Questions regarding the collection,use and disclosure of this personal information may be directed to the City Clerk,BillMatson,at bmatson@niagarafa||s.ca By completing this application form,you consent to the collection and disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the City of Niagara Falls,as described above. Page 4 of 4Page 14 of 14Page 90 of 842 F-2022-15 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of Taxes Under Section 357 and 358 of The Municipal Act, 2001 Recommendation(s) That Council approve the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes on the various accounts per the attached summary and granted to the property owners listed. Executive Summary Property owners can seek remedy from property assessments that are not accura te due to specific in changes to due or of Assessment the preparation in errors Roll circumstances. These remedies are available by virtue of s.357 and s.358 of The Municipal Act, 2001. This report is provided to Council periodically during the fiscal year to attain Council approval of the changes afforded under these sections. This is the first report for 2022. Adjustments totalling $182,484.65 are being recommended in this report with allocations to be made to City, Regional and School Board revenue. In the 2022 General Purposes Budget, an allowance has been established for these expenditures. At this time, the allowance provided in the General Purposes Budget is adequate to account for the City’s proportionate share of approximately $71,631.63. Background This report is the first report this year in relation to s.357 and s.358 reductions. Analysis Section 357 and 358 of The Municipal Act, 2001 provides for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes for persons who were overcharged by reason of any gross or manifest error in the preparation of the Assessment Roll. Appeals have been received and the applicants have been notified that the respective matters will be considered by City Council this evening. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation has confirmed that the subject properties were assessed incorrectly in that these properties; had structures that had been demolished or removed, were damaged or razed by fire, have ceased to be liable at the rate it was taxed, repairs/renovations preventing normal use of a period of 3 months, became exempt, or a transposition, typographical, or clerical error was made. Page 1 of 3 Page 91 of 842 Financial Implications/Budget Impact The 2022 General Purposes Budget provides an allowance for tax write -offs due to assessment appeals and tax write offs. Table 1 is a listing of all the properties that staff is recommending receive adjustments due to successful appeals. An amount of $182,484.65 in adjustments is listed. The City’s approximate portion is $71,631.63 and has been accounted for in the 2022 General Purposes Budget. The balance of approximately $110,853.02 represents adjustments for the School Boards and the Region of Niagara. These adjustments will be made as part of the year end reconciliations. List of Attachments F-2022-15 Attachment Written by: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 02 May 2022 Page 2 of 3 Page 92 of 842 (Pursuant to Section 358 and 357 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g) of the Municipal Act) Municipality CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Assessment Region NIAGARA I hereby apply for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes as set out below and certify that the Regional Assessment Commissioner has verified that the information contained in this application is in accordance with her/his records. Appl. #Roll No. Name of Applicant Mailing Address Taxation Reason for Application Reduction Year Amount 2021-64 2725 010 008 04101 0000 MOHSIN CHOWDHURY & SALMA BEGUM 2888 WINDJAMMER ROAD MISSISSAUGA, ON L5L 1S7 2021 REPAIRS/RENOVATIONS PREVENTING NORMAL USE $35.51 2021-64A 2725 010 008 04101 0000 MOHSIN CHOWDHURY & SALMA BEGUM 2888 WINDJAMMER ROAD MISSISSAUGA, ON L5L 1S7 2020 REPAIRS/RENOVATIONS PREVENTING NORMAL USE $0.00 2021-53 2725 030 005 12900 0000 NYK HOLDINGS INC 786 LAVIGNE BLVD TIMMINS, ON P4N 8S5 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-53A 2725 030 005 12900 0000 NYK HOLDINGS INC 786 LAVIGNE BLVD TIMMINS, ON P4N 8S5 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-51 2725 030 008 01600 0000 NORSTAN RESORTS INC 5200 ROBINSON STREET NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 2A2 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $10,249.05 2021-51A 2725 030 008 01600 0000 NORSTAN RESORTS INC 5200 ROBINSON STREET NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 2A2 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $12,831.03 2021-73 2725 030 008 05703 0000 5009868 ONTARIO LIMITED 5881 DUNN STREET NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 3N9 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $124,810.75 2021-04R 2725 040 004 12502 0000 TRUSTEE OF THE WELLANDPORT UNITED CHURCH 14 PARKDALE CRESCENT FONTHILL, ON L0S 1E3 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $6,079.00 2021-66 2725 040 002 13300 0000 STEVEN & KRISTEN BUTERA 3139 PORTAGE ROAD NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2J 2J8 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $91.64 2021-66A 2725 040 002 13300 0000 STEVEN & KRISTEN BUTERA 3139 PORTAGE ROAD NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2J 2J8 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $90.17 2021-66B 2725 040 002 13300 0000 STEVEN & KRISTEN BUTERA 3139 PORTAGE ROAD NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2J 2J8 2019 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $87.70 2022-18 2725 040 005 04100 0000 ANTHONY & VITO DIPAOLA 6029 KEITH ST NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2J 1K1 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $6.38 2021-79 2725 040 005 15800 0000 BRAICH SUKHJEEV 6004 VINE STREET NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2J 1L2 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $7.32 2021-71 2725 040 014 18500 0000 GREG & SUSANA RODGERS 10 BEDFORD PARK GRIMSBY, ON L3M 2S2 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-77 2725 060 001 13700 0000 LEVI & JANINE O'BRIEN 4828 PORTAGE ROAD NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 6B3 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $18.36 2022-7 2725 060 013 07800 0000 PINKY KUPNICKI 7145 MCCOLL DRIVE NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2J 1G7 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $540.05 2021-81 2725 060 014 02400 0000 LOYALIST CROSSING DEVELOPMENT INC 2125 FRUITLAND PKWY NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 6S4 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $501.85 2021-63 2725 070 001 03300 0000 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 4310 QUEEN ST NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 6X5 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-74 2725 070 005 00802 0000 STAMFORD KIWANIS NON PROFIT HOME INC.87 LAKE STREET PO BOX 877 STN MAIN ST CATHARINES, L2R 6Z42021 GROSS OR MANIFEST ERROR $0.00 2021-74B 2725 070 005 00802 0000 STAMFORD KIWANIS NON PROFIT HOME INC.87 LAKE STREET PO BOX 877 STN MAIN ST CATHARINES, L2R 6Z42019 GROSS OR MANIFEST ERROR $0.00 2021-74A 2725 070 005 00802 0000 STAMFORD KIWANIS NON PROFIT HOME INC.87 LAKE STREET PO BOX 877 STN MAIN ST CATHARINES, L2R 6Z42020 GROSS OR MANIFEST ERROR $0.00 2021-76 2725 070 011 07100 0000 MARTYN HUNT 6409 MONROE ST NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 2G9 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $6.17 2021-52 2725 080 001 07200 0000 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 4310 QUEEN ST NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 6X5 2021 BECAME EXEMPT $10,346.56 2021-78 2725 080 004 08000 0000 BUILD UP REAL DEVELOPMENT 104-1101 QUEEN ST W TORONTO, ON M5H 1J1 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $585.63 2021-19AR 2725 080 005 16400 0000 VISHWA SHARMA & PUNAM GARG 6278 SKINNER ST NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 2Y7 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2022-9 2725 080 011 12650 0000 M5V THE NIAGARA 2 INC 3 CULTIVAR RD BRAMPTON, ON L6P 3M4 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $869.84 2022-11 2725 080 011 12750 0000 M5V THE NIAGARA 2 INC 3 CULTIVAR RD BRAMPTON, ON L6P 3M4 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-83 2725 090 002 02020 0000 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 4310 QUEEN ST NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 6X5 2021 BECAME EXEMPT $29.70 2021-75 2725 090 002 04800 0000 LUIGI & ALESSANDRO MARONE 9179 TAPESTRY CT NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2H 0E1 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $384.49 2022-16 2725 090 002 08100 0000 ANTHONY LUPIA 3800 GARNER RD NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2H 0S3 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $376.17 2021-22 2725 090 003 03900 0000 JOHN & BARBARA PERONE 4583 LEE AVENUE NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2H 1M5 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $1,035.66 2021-22A 2725 090 003 03900 0000 JOHN & BARBARA PERONE 4583 LEE AVENUE NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2H 1M5 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2022-3 2725 090 003 07600 0000 1931055 ONTARIO LIMITED 3492 MATTHEWS DRIVE NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2H 2Z4 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $262.33 2022-4 2725 090 003 07700 0000 1931055 ONTARIO LIMITED 3492 MATTHEWS DRIVE NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2H 2Z4 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $444.67 2021-55 2725 090 006 46100 0000 SEAN TEMPLE & CHRISTOPER HAMBLET 7130 KINSMEN COURT NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 6S5 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $26.18 2021-55A 2725 090 006 46100 0000 SEAN TEMPLE & CHRISTOPER HAMBLET 7130 KINSMEN COURT NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 6S5 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-84 2725 100 003 55978 0000 MANSIONS OF FOREST GLEN 23-160 APPLEWOOD CRESCENT CONCORD, ON L4K 4H2 2020 GROSS OR MANIFEST ERROR $12.88 2021-20A 2725 100 004 00610 0000 WALKER INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS LIMITED PO BOX 100 STN MAIN THOROLD, ON L2V 378 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-20 2725 100 004 00610 0000 WALKER INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS LIMITED PO BOX 100 STN MAIN THOROLD, ON L2V 378 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $3,107.55 2021-61 2725 100 004 05000 0000 WALKER AGGREGATES INC PO BOX 100 STN MAIN THOROLD, ON L2V 378 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-70 2725 100 004 09500 0000 LOUIS & MARY LYNN PULLMAN 8356 THOROLD STONE ROAD NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2H OV6 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $867.87 2021-69 2725 100 005 09605 0000 WALKER INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS LIMITED PO BOX 100 STN MAIN THOROLD, ON L2V 378 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $2,174.69 2021-80 2725 100 005 10101 0000 WALKER AGGREGATES INC PO BOX 100 STN MAIN THOROLD, ON L2V 378 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-82 2725 110 001 03105 0000 RAMESH KAUSHAL 7959 OLDFIELD RD NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 0Z4 2020 GROSS OR MANIFEST ERROR $1,149.40 2021-82A 2725 110 001 03105 0000 RAMESH KAUSHAL 7959 OLDFIELD RD NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 0Z4 2019 GROSS OR MANIFEST ERROR $1,753.40 2021-54 2725 120 004 07100 0000 CYMOGI HOLDING CORPORATION 9033 NIAGARA PARKWAY NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 0N8 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-54A 2725 120 004 07100 0000 CYMOGI HOLDING CORPORATION 9033 NIAGARA PARKWAY NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 0N8 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2022-24 2725 120 008 03000 0000 JIMMY TEDESCO 4240 CHIPPAWA PKY NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 6E7 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $98.24 2021-57 2725 120 008 06600 0000 ANDREW BURT & MARIA GATTO 4031 FRONT ST NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 6G5 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $1,783.12 2022-14 2725 130 002 07001 0000 CONNIE NOTHDURFT 9148 HENDERSHOT BV NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2H 0E3 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $0.00 2021-68 2725 140 001 20200 0000 JOEL & TINA GIROUX 10014 LYONS CREEK ROAD WELLAND, ON L3B 5N4 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $98.71 2021-56 2725 140 002 11300 0000 ES FOX ENTERPRISES INC.PO Box 1010 STN MAIN NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 7J9 2021 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $1,657.49 2021-56A 2725 140 002 11300 0000 ES FOX ENTERPRISES INC.PO Box 1010 STN MAIN NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 7J9 2020 RAZED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE $65.09 TOTAL $182,484.65 Approved this Report No.:F-2022-15 JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR BILL MATSON, CITY CLERK [*Any individual items not approved must be struck out and initialed.]Page 3 of 3Page 93 of 842 F-2022-18 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Monthly Tax Receivables Report - March Recommendation(s) That Council receive the Monthly Tax Receivables report for information purposes. Executive Summary This report is prepared monthly to provide Council with an update on the City’s property tax receivables. Outstanding taxes as at March 31, 2022 were $10.5 million compared to $17.8 million in 2021. During March, tax receivables as a percentage of taxes billed decreased from 18.0% in 2021 to 10.6% in 2022. The City’s finance staff has begun the collection process for properties that are subject to registration for 2022 as well as continuing the collection process for properties that were subject to registration for 2021. There are currently twenty properties scheduled for tax sale in the next two years. Background This report is being provided as part of the monthly financial reporting to Council by staff. Analysis Tax collection for 2022 is ahead of the collection history for 2021 for the month of March. Table 1 shows that taxes outstanding at March 31, 2022 are $10.5 million. This represents a decrease from $17.8 million in arrears for the same period in 2021. This table also breaks down the taxes outstanding by year. Finance staff continues to actively pursue property owners in arrears. Table 2 provides the breakdown of outstanding taxes by assessment class. The majority of outstanding taxes are for the residential and commercial property classes. Residential property taxes outstanding have decreased by $0.09 million compared to March 2021, and commercial property taxes outstanding have decrea sed by $7.0 million compared to March 2021. Finance staff takes specific collection actions for properties that are subject to registration. At January 1, 2022, 225 properties were subject to registration for 2022. Table 3 summarizes the progress of these actions after three months of activity. This table shows 79.1% of the tax accounts or 178 properties have been paid in full or the owners have made suitable payment arrangements. During March, 17 accounts were paid in full. Page 1 of 4 Page 94 of 842 Table 4 identifies the properties and associated tax arrears scheduled for tax sales in the future. During the month of March, one property was registered. The outstanding taxes for registered properties represent 1.0% of the total taxes to be collected. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Tax arrears as a percentage of taxes billed in a year is a performance measure that stakeholders utilize to analyse an organization’s financial strengths. Niagara Falls, due to its high reliance on commercial assessment, is traditionally higher compared to municipalities of similar size. The percentage of taxes outstanding to taxes billed as at March 31, 2022 is 10.6%, which is a decrease of 2021’s value at 18.0%. The municipality has a record of full collection and earns penalty revenues to offset the higher measure. List of Attachments F-2022-18 - Attachment Written by: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 02 May 2022 Page 2 of 4 Page 95 of 842 Taxes Receivable at March 31, 2022 2022 2021 Outstanding Taxes @ February 28, 2021 70,230,739$ 76,721,834$ Penalty/Interest charged in March 156,733$ 92,356$ Taxes Collected during March 10,103,379$ 9,568,573$ Outstanding Taxes @ March 31, 2021 60,284,093$ 67,245,617$ Taxes Billed and Due April 30, 2021 49,752,478$ 49,452,731$ Total Taxes to be Collected 10,531,615$ 17,792,886$ Outstanding Taxes by Year: 3 Years and Prior 1,888,906$ 2,313,453$ 2 Year 2,509,503$ 2,896,906$ 1 Year 6,949,502$ 11,954,630$ Current 48,936,183$ 50,080,627$ Total 60,284,093$ 67,245,617$ TABLE 2 2022 2021 Variance Taxes Owing Taxes Owing ($) Residential 31,923,393$ 32,022,623$ (99,230)$ Multi-Residential 1,935,328$ 1,870,316$ 65,012$ Commercial 24,593,428$ 31,553,630$ (6,960,203)$ Industrial 1,714,602$ 1,698,265$ 16,337$ Farmlands 117,342$ 100,785$ 16,557$ Total Receivables 60,284,093$ 67,245,619$ (6,961,526)$ Taxes Receivable by Property Class at March 31, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Page 96 of 842 TABLE 3 Number of Properties Subject to % Registration as at March 31, 2022 Initial Amount (January 1, 2022)225 Paid in Full 48 21.3% Payment Arrangements 130 57.8% Ongoing Collection Action 46 20.4% Registered 1 0.4% 225 100.0% TABLE 4 July 2022 3 74,987$ November 2022 1 162,982$ May 2023 16 372,499$ Totals 20 610,468$ Scheduled Tax Sales Dates for Registered Properties Number of Properties Taxes Outstanding Amount Page 4 of 4 Page 97 of 842 F-2022-22 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: 2022 Property Tax Rates Recommendation(s) That Council approve the 2022 Property Tax Rates. Executive Summary The municipality must have the annual tax rates approved prior to providing rate payers with final tax bills. The 2022 General Purposes Budget was approved on January 25, 2022. The annual general levy of $77,904,652 was approved at this time. The City’s tax rates included in this report reflect the approved general levy. The regional, school and waste management rates have been provided by the responsible level of government and are also included in the schedule. Background The Regional Municipality of Niagara has approved the 2022 tax ratios and tax rates. In addition, the Province of Ontario has established educational rates for 2022. The City is now in the position to establish its tax rates and to proceed with the Final 2022 Billing for the non-capped property classes. This report provides Council the City’s 2022 property tax rates. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The 2022 tax levy is $77,904,652. The General taxation portion of this total levy is $66,986,118; the Urban Service Area taxation portion is $10,168,730 and the Capital Levy taxation portion amounts to $749,804. Corresponding tax rates based on these levies are provided in Table 1. The Region of Niagara provides waste management services for the residents of Niagara Falls. The Region has provided the costs of this service for 2022 to the City. The annual cost used to determine the rates for 2022 is $8,362,513. To fund this expense, the City collects the taxes from the residents using a separate tax rate. Table 2 provides a comparison of the waste management tax rates used in 2021 to the recommended rates for 2022. The Appropriations and Levying By-law is prepared for Council’s adoption, should Council approve the recommendation. This By-Law authorizes the preparation and sending of Page 1 of 4 Page 98 of 842 Final Tax Notices. Appendix A of the By-law shows the summary of tax rates for each classification and for all levies. List of Attachments F-2022-22 Attachment 2 Waste Management F-2022-22 Attachment 1 Tax Rates Written by: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 02 May 2022 Page 2 of 4 Page 99 of 842 F-2022-22 Table 2 Waste Management Tax Rates - City of Niagara Falls 2021 2022 Waste Waste Property Class Management Management Tax Rate Tax Rate Residential 0.054682%0.056763% Multi-Residential 0.107724%0.111823% New Multi-Residential 0.054682%0.056763% Commercial - Occupied 0.094868%0.098478% - Excess Land 0.073523%0.083706% - Vacant Land 0.073523%0.083706% Commercial Other - Occupied 0.094868%0.098478% - Excess Land 0.073523%0.083706% Landfill 0.160779%0.166898% Industrial 0.143814%0.149287% Industrial - Excess Land 0.111456%0.126894% Industrial - Vacant Land 0.111456%0.126894% Industrial - New Construction 0.143814%0.149287% Industrial - New Construction - Excess Land 0.111456%0.126894% Pipelines 0.093074%0.096616% Farmlands 0.013671%0.014191% Managed Forests 0.013671%0.014191% Farmland Awaiting Development I 0.041012%0.042572% Farmland Awaiting Development II 0.054682%0.056763% Page 3 of 4 Page 100 of 842 Table 1 Tax Rates - City of Niagara Falls 2021 2022 Urban Urban Tax Rates Service Service Capital City of Niagara Falls General Area Combined General Area Levy Combined Residential 0.442816%0.071071%0.513887%0.454688%0.072922%0.005090%0.532700% Multi-Residential 0.872348%0.140009%1.012357%0.895736%0.143656%0.010026%1.049418% New Multi-Residential 0.442816%0.071071%0.513887%0.454688%0.072922%0.005090%0.532700% Commercial - Occupied 0.768242%0.123300%0.891542%0.788839%0.126512%0.008830%0.924181% - Excess Land 0.595388%0.095558%0.690946%0.670513%0.107535%0.007505%0.785553% - Vacant Land 0.595388%0.095558%0.690946%0.670513%0.107535%0.007505%0.785553% Commercial Other - Occupied 0.768242%0.123300%0.891542%0.788839%0.126512%0.008830%0.924181% - Excess Land 0.595388%0.095558%0.690946%0.670513%0.107535%0.007505%0.785553% Landfill 1.301996%1.301996%1.336902%1.336902% Industrial 1.164607%0.186916%1.351523%1.195830%0.191784%0.013385%1.400999% - Excess Land 0.902570%0.144860%1.047430%1.016456%0.163017%0.011378%1.190851% - Vacant Land 0.902570%0.144860%1.047430%1.016456%0.163017%0.011378%1.190851% Industrial - New Construction 1.164607%0.186916%1.351523%1.195830%0.191784%0.013385%1.400999% Indust - New Constr - Excess Land 0.902570%0.144860%1.047430%1.016456%0.163017%0.011378%1.190851% Pipelines 0.753718%0.120969%0.874687%0.773925%0.124120%0.008663%0.906708% Farmland 0.110704%0.017768%0.128472%0.113672%0.018230%0.001272%0.133174% Managed Forest 0.110704%0.017768%0.128472%0.113672%0.018230%0.001272%0.133174% Farmland Awaiting Development I 0.332112%0.053303%0.385415%0.341016%0.054691%0.003817%0.399524% Farmland Awaiting Development II 0.442816%0.071071%0.513887%0.454688%0.072922%0.005090%0.399524% Page 4 of 4 Page 101 of 842 F-2022-23 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes Recommendation(s) 1. That June 30 and September 30 be approved as the 2022 Final Due Dates for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes. 2. That August 31 and October 31 be approved as the 2022 Final Due Dates for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-residential Assessment Classes. Executive Summary The due dates for final tax billing must be approved by Council pursuant to the Municipal Act. The City has established that due dates for the non -capped property classes be June 30 and September 30. The due dates for the capped classes are August 31 and October 31 due to the additional calculations required for these billings. Background The City of Niagara Falls is responsible for billing and collecting property taxes on all assessable properties within the municipality. These annual billings include the annual taxes for the City, for the Region of Niagara and the appropriate local school boards. Due dates for property taxes are set to coincide with the quarterly levy payments made to the Region and the school boards. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Due to the additional calculations required to prepare the 2022 Final Tax Notices for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-residential property classes, all assessment classes cannot be billed at the same time. Staff is therefore recommending that the Fina l Tax Notice Due Dates for 2022 only for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes be set as June 30 and September 30. And that the Final Tax Notice Due Dates for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi -residential Assessment Classes be set as August 31 and October 31 to accommodate the additional calculations required for these property classes. Written by: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Page 1 of 2 Page 102 of 842 Submitted by: Status: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 02 May 2022 Page 2 of 2 Page 103 of 842 F-2022-24 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Property Tax Incentives for Hotels That Help Resettle Ukrainian Refugees Recommendation(s) That Council direct Staff to forego the creation of a one-time property tax credit for Hotels as the City would be at risk of violating Municipal Act 106. Executive Summary The City would be at risk of violating the Municipal Act s. 106 if the City were to offer a property tax credit to hotels that voluntarily provide temporary accommodation to Ukrainian refugees. The Niagara Region would also be in a similar position as the City as they are governed by Provincial legislation. NiagaraGives may wish to appe al to the Province more legistlation changes and educational property tax credits. Background On March 17, 2022, Josh “Yasyszcjosh” Bieuz-Yasyszczuk, Coordinator at NiagaraGives ,Regional Municipality of Niagara, ON, Canada, emailed a letter, to the attention of Mayor Jim Diodati, requesting that the City offer a one -time tax credit on municipal property taxes for any Niagara hotels that choose to provide rooms as temporary accommodation for Ukrainian refugees entering our community. This communication was referred to Staff at the March 22, 2022 Council meeting. See attachment to this report. Analysis As presented in the communication, the purpose of the property tax credit is to reward hotels for financial (revenue) losses they may incur while voluntar ily providing temporary accommodation to refugees. Municipal Act 106 indicates the following: Assistance prohibited 106 (1) Despite any Act, a municipality shall not assist directly or indirectly any manufacturing business or other industrial or commercial enterprise through the granting of bonuses for that purpose. 2001, c. 25, s. 106 (1). Page 1 of 4 Page 104 of 842 Same (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the municipality shall not grant assistance by, (a) giving or lending any property of the municipality, including money; (b) guaranteeing borrowing; (c) leasing or selling any property of the municipality at below fair market value; or (d) giving a total or partial exemption from any levy, charge or fee. 2001, c. 25, s. 106 (2). As a hotel is a commercial enterprise and a property tax credit offsets the property tax levy, the City would be directly assisting a commercial enterprise. Approving such a property tax credit would put the City at risk of violating the Municipal Acts. 106 (2)(d). The City is obligated to bill and collect property tax levies on behalf of the Niagara Region and School Boards. The Niagara Region must also follow rules as outlined in the Municipal Act and as such would also be at risk of violating Municipal Act 106 (2)(d) if they were to offer such a credit. The rates for the education portion of the tax are established by the Minister of Finance. Education tax rates are set in Ontario Regulation 400/98 under the Education Act. NiagaraGives may wish to appeal to the Province for amendments to the Municipal Act and Education Act to meet their objectives. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis None. Financial Implications/Budget Impact None. Strategic/Departmental Alignment 1.To be financially responsible to the residents of Niagara Falls by practicing prudent fiscal management of existing resources and by making sound long-term choices that allow core City programs and services to be sustainable now and into the future. 2.To be efficient and effective in our delivery of municipal services and use of resources and accountable to our citizens and stakeholders. List of Attachments Re Property Tax Incentives for Hotels That Help Resettle Ukrainian Refugees Page 2 of 4 Page 105 of 842 Written by: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 3 of 4 Page 106 of 842 His Worship Jim Diodati, Mayor of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen St Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada L2E 6X5 Re: Property Tax Incentives for Hotels That Help Resettle Ukrainian Refugees Mayor Diodati, Since the February 24 invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, millions of Ukrainians have had to flee their homes and their country to avoid perishing in Russia’s war of choice. From the beginning, the City of Niagara Falls has been incredibly supportive to the Ukrainian-Canadian community, and the larger Ukrainian diaspora worldwide. With an already strong Ukrainian community, Niagara is sure to become home to many Ukrainians seeking a life away from war. These refugees will need our help to resettle, and rebuild their uprooted lives. NiagaraGives has called upon hotel companies Canadian Niagara Hotels, as well as Hilton Worldwide to provide a set number of rooms at their hotels in Niagara Falls to be used as temporary accommodation for Ukrainian refugees resettling to our community. If these hotels choose to do this, they would be voluntarily taking a financial loss, losing out on the revenue provided by each room. For this reason I believe that the City of Niagara Falls should reward the companies that make this financial sacrifice. Mayor Diodati, I respectfully request that the City of Niagara Falls offer a one-time tax credit on municipal property taxes for any Niagara hotels that choose to provide rooms as temporary accommodation for Ukrainian refugees entering our community. Sincerely, Josh “Yasyszcjosh” Bieuz-Yasyszczuk Founder & Volunteer Community Director, NiagaraGives Page 4 of 4 Page 107 of 842 F-2022-25 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy Recommendation(s) 1. That Council adopts a new Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy for the City of Niagara Falls 2. That Staff be directed to prepare the necessary by-law to adopt the policy attached as Attachment 1. Executive Summary Staff is recommending that the City of Niagara Falls adopt a Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy to guide staff in making sound financing decisions that adhere to statutory requirements and allow for strategic investment and renewal of capital assets. Background At its meeting on November 16, 2021 Council approved the 2022 Capital Budget which included recommendations for staff to come back to Council with several policies, one of which is a Debt Management Policy. This is the first of several finance policies to be brought forward in 2022. Staff will begin working on a comprehensive reserve policy later this year, and will also consider a budget control policy. In the 2022 capital budget, staff utilized more debt than previous years as a financing source to spread the cost of capital assets over the life of the asset, rather than concentrating the cost in a single year. This allows the City to make strategic grow th- related investments and finance asset replacement and renewal long -term with the aim to close the infrastructure gap over time. Municipal governments adopt capital financing and debt management policies as a best practice, in order to provide additional guidance for financing activities. The attached policy will provide guidance for debt and financial obligations including related agreements and long-term financing agreements for capital. Page 1 of 12 Page 108 of 842 The Municipal Act, 2001 (S.O. 2001 c.25) provides in Section 408(2.1), the legislative authority for cities to issue debentures or other financial instruments for long-term financing with certain prescribed rules. The Municipal Act mandates that municipalities cannot have annual debt repayments exceed 25% of own source revenues. This is referred to as an Annual Repayment Limit (ARL). The City of Niagara Falls shall limit its annual debt repayments to no more than 15% of own source revenues, which is consistent with best practices among its peer municipalities. This Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy will allow staff to make strategic capital financing decisions to balance capital needs and cash flow requirements. Analysis The City of Niagara Falls has been very modest in its approach to debt in recent years, and as such its annual debt repayments currently only encompass approximately 6.7% of own source revenues. This is well below the legislated limit and still significantly below the limit recommended in this policy. This provides the City with an opportunity to strategically leverage more debt, if required for capital investments. This policy provides guidelines and limits to ensure that the City uses debt in the right circumstances, and to ensure long-term financial flexibility and sustainability. It also provides key ratios which will allow staff to assess and its current state prior to making recommendations for debt financing. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis Annual debt repayments are paid by the operating budget, and therefore anytim e debt is approved as a capital financing source, it creates an annual operating budget pressure for the duration of the loan. The operating impacts of debt financing needs to be considered in tandem with other sources of funding, to determine if using other sources, like reserve funding, could be more appropriate to mitigate the annual operating budget impact. Moving forward the City will account for the impact of debt on the levy, and/or the utility rate budget, at the time of approval for debt financing as a source of funding. Staff recognizes that the debt may not be issued until several years later after project completion, but this approach ensures that there is sufficient room in the operating budget to accommodate the debt charges and mitigates future tax levy increases when the debt is issued. To facilitate the policy of accounting for debt servicing costs on debt that is yet to be issued, a transfer to reserves will be budgeted as part of the annual debt charges budget. Debt and other long-term financing will be managed to limit exposure to interest rate risk, and any other financial risks that may arise where possible. The City’s practice is to issue debt with a fixed rate over the duration of the term, so principal and interest amounts can Page 2 of 12 Page 109 of 842 be calculated and forecasted with accuracy. This is especially beneficial in a rising rate environment to ensure the City is protected from interest rate increases. Financial Implications/Budget Impact With the adoption of this policy, going forward staff will ensure that whenever debt financing is being recommended as a funding source of a capital project, the assumptions regarding the expected term and estimated interest rate are disclosed. Additionally, the anticipated annual debt repayment will be accounted for in the operating budget of the year debt financing is approved. Per the municipal act, staff will also present an updated Annual Repayment Limit to illustrate the current ARL and the impact this new debt financing will have on the current state. With the onset of Asset Management and the need to close the infrastructure gap, staff anticipates that debt financing will become a strategic tool to allow the City to begin closing the gap over time, and smooth out the impact of these additional investme nts in the state of good repair. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This procurement initiative best aligns with the City’s Strategic Priority of “Responsible and Transparent Financial Management.” List of Attachments F-2022-25 - Attachment 1 - Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy Written by: James Dowling, Manager of Capital Accounting Jennifer Yarnell, Senior Financial Analyst Submitted by: Status: Jon Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Approved - 03 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 May 2022 Page 3 of 12 Page 110 of 842 POLICY Finance Policy #: 700.XX Issue Date: May 10, 2022 Revision Date: N/A Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy 1. POLICY STATEMENT This policy provides guidelines and a framework for the issuance of debentures and other forms of debt for the City of Niagara Falls (the “City”). This policy contains written objectives, allowances and restrictions (including applicable statutory requirements) for the debt issuance process and the management of debt. 2. SCOPE This policy covers all debt or financial obligations including related agreements and lease financing agreements for capital that are entered into by the City as well as those employees who are responsible for the City’s debt issuance activities. The City may issue a debenture or other financial instrument for long-term borrowing only to provide financing for a capital work (Municipal Act, 2001, s. 408(2.1)). 3. OBJECTIVES 3.1 Comply with Statutory Requirements Debt may only be undertaken by the City if and when it is in compliance with the relevant sections of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Municipal Act, 2001”), specifically Part XIII – Debt and Investment, and the applicable regulations thereunder, as amended from time to time, including but not limited to those set out in the References section of this Debt Policy. The City may incur a debt for municipal purposes, whether by borrowing money or in any other way, and may issue debentures and prescribed financial instruments and enter prescribed financial agreements for or in relation to the debt (Municipal Act, 2001, s. 401(1)). The Municipal Act mandates that municipalities cannot have annual debt repayments exceed 25% of own source revenues. This is referred to as an Annual Repayment Limit (ARL). The City of Niagara Falls shall limit its annual debt repayments to no more than 15% of own source revenues, which is consistent with best practices among its peer municipalities. 3.2 Ensure Long-Term Financial Flexibility and Sustainability The City’s ability to respond to unanticipated and emerging financing needs is affected by its access to funding, its debt capacity and debt service charges. Financial sustainability depends on the debt levels and debt service charges being consistent with the City’s level of affordability, both current and future. Debt issuance decisions must align with ensuring long-term financial Page 4 of 12 Page 111 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come flexibility and sustainability for the City. In order to continually evaluate and improve on the City’s financial flexibility and sustainability, staff shall assess using various debt/financial ratios, particularly those used by credit rating agencies during their credit rating review process, and can refer to these ratios when making various financial recommendations to Council. 3.3 Limit Financial Risk Exposure Debt will be managed in a manner to limit, where practicable, exposure to interest rate risk, financial risk associated with entering into financial leases, and any other financial risks which may arise from the debt financing. The City’s normal practice is to issue debt that is only denominated in Canadian dollars with an interest rate that is fixed over its term. 3.4 Minimize Long-Term Cost of Financing The type, term, structure, and source of financing instrument used to issue debt and the timing for debt issuance will be determined with a view to minimize both its and the City’s overall long- term cost of financing. Factors to be considered include the following:  current versus future expected interest rates;  the shape of the interest rate curve and market trends and/or influencing factors;  the availability of related reserve monies;  the pattern of anticipated revenues or cost savings attributable to the project or purpose;  all costs related to the financing of the project. 3.5 Maintain/Improve Ratios Associated with Credit Rating The City, as a lower-tier municipality in the Regional Municipality of Niagara (the “Region”) is not rated directly by a credit rating agency, however it benefits from the Region’s credit rating. Maintaining a strong credit rating is a key factor in minimizing the cost of debt and accessing capital markets in an efficient manner. The City shall strive to maintain and/or improve debt and other financial ratios that are normally associated with a credit rating review, in order to improve its overall financial viability. 4. DEBT INSTRUMENTS AND STRUCTURING PRACTICES 4.1 Suitable and Authorized Financing Instruments 4.11 Short-Term Debt – Less Than One (1) Year Financing of operational needs for a period of less than one year pending the receipt of taxes and other revenues, or interim financing for capital assets pending long-term financing may be from any of (but not limited to) the following sources:  Bank line of credit or loan agreement  Short-term promissory notes  Banker’s Acceptances Page 5 of 12 Page 112 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come  Infrastructure Ontario (or its successor organizations) (“IO”) short-term/construction advances pending issuance of long-term debentures 4.12 Long-Term Debt – Greater Than One (1) Year Financing of assets for a period of greater than one year may be from any of (but not limited to) the following sources: 1. Debentures (including those issued to IO), which may be in any of (but not limited to) the following forms:  Instalment/Serial  Sinking Fund  Amortizing 2. Lease Financing Agreements. Leases may be used to finance equipment, buildings, land or other assets that the City does not have a long-term interest in or may not be able to acquire through other means, and when they provide material and measurable benefits compared with other forms of financing. 3. Tile Drainage Debentures. These will be used to finance the construction of tile drainage systems for agriculture and for those individual farmers who apply and are accepted for financing. 4.13 Debt Structures Debt issues are structured to achieve the lowest possible all-in net cost of funds, subject to constraints of debt maturity, the capital asset being financed, prevailing capital market conditions and the objectives of the Debt Management Policy.  The term of a debt of the City or any debenture or other financial instrument for long - term borrowing issued for it shall not extend beyond the lifetime of the capital work for which the debt was incurred and shall not exceed 40 years (Municipal Act, 2001, s. 408(3))  To the extent possible, debt will be structured to require repayment as soon as feasible so as to recapture its borrowing capacity for future use and minimize costs where possible.  The principal must be amortized (repaid) over the term of the debenture and repaid to investors or contributed to a sinking fund that would provide for repayment when the debt matures.  Every debenture issued by the City shall rank concurrently and equally in respect of payment of principal and interest with all other debentures of the City (Municipal Act, 2001, s. 408(7)). 4.2 Financing Risk Identification and Mitigation Strategies Financial risks associated with financing instruments will be identified and considered prior to the use of the financing instrument in relation to other available financing instruments, and strategies to mitigate the risk will be considered and used when deemed practicable. Page 6 of 12 Page 113 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come 4.21 Availability of Future Debt Capacity The City recognizes the importance of maintaining availability of debt capacity for future capital needs and to ensure long-term financial flexibility. Accordingly, staff consistently review the complete debt repayment schedule and forecast future debt room capacity, which is considered during the capital budget process during assigning of financing sources to capital projects. 4.211 Approving Operating Impact at Time of Capital Budget Approval In past practice the impact of debt charges on the operating or utility budgets was accounted for at the time the debt was issued. The City shall now account for the impact of the debt on the levy and/or utility rate at the time of approval of debt financing as a source of funding for a capital project, recognizing that the debt issuance for a capital project could be several years after the approval of the project in the capital budget. The impact will be accounted for in each year leading up to the year of debt issuance. This ensures that when debt is issued at/near project completion, there is sufficient room in the operating budget to accommodate the debt charges, mitigating future tax levy increases. Overall, this change is appropriate for staff and Council to undertake as it more transparently and conservatively accounts for the decisions made by Council at the time of approval. To facilitate the policy of accounting for debt servicing costs (principal and interest) on debt that is yet to be issued, a transfer to reserves (i.e. Capital Special Purpose Reserves) will be budgeted as part of the annual debt charges budget. Such transfers shall be accounted for separately from other reserves, and shall be maintained within each departmental grouping, for use solely for the department from which they originated. Until another term for these transfers is developed, Staff identify these transfers as “debt charge placeholders”, i.e. would-be debt charges on unissued debt. Staff can then recommend subsequent use of these funds as follows:  Debt Substitution: Instead of issuing the full amount of debt financing as budgeted for the underlying capital project, reduce the debt issuance by the amount of “debt charge placeholder” funds that have been accumulating in the reserve, therefore reducing the annual debt charges on the issued debt.  Use the “debt charge placeholder” funds to offset the debt charges once the debentures are issued, thereby reducing the impact on the levy/utility rate  Use the “debt charge placeholder” funds to mitigate timing differences of issuances, interest accruals, or interest rate fluctuations in the markets. 4.22 Refunding Risk/Issuing in Phases The City may issue debentures for which the amortization to retirement period is longer than the contractual term of the debenture, similar to a home mortgage, resulting in the balance of the debt remaining at the end of the contractual term to be refinanced. The risk would be that interest rates may be higher during the second financing period, resulting in higher than anticipated debt payments. For this reason the use of refunding debentures will not be a preferred method of financing by the City whenever tax levy is the primary source of funding. However there will be no restriction to the use of refunding debentures funded mainly from development charges or user rates which tend to be for longer periods and are better able to absorb increases (or decreases) to their cost of financing over time. Page 7 of 12 Page 114 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come Further risk to the City may arise if market conditions are unfavorable to financing at the end of the first contractual term of a refunding debenture. In this case, mitigation strategies that would be considered include pre-financing, short-term borrowing from reserves, lines of credit, and making borrowing applications to government and government agencies such as IO. The City may choose to issue debt in phases according to key milestone or completion dates. Again, the risk to the City could be higher interest rates in subsequent debt issuances, or the preferred type of financial instrument not being an option (in the case of capital market issuances) because of investor demand. When issuing debt in phases through IO, the City must ensure that the application for the loan is for the entire amount of the approved debenture financing for the project, and not just the amount of the first traunch. Once the loan application is approved in its entirety by IO at the commencement of the financing process, the issuance in phases is possible and is facilitated simply by clear communication with both IO and the Region. 4.23 Lease Financing Agreements Risks arising from lease financing agreements compared to other forms of financing will be considered prior to their use. Until a Lease Policy is developed/approved by Council, staff will consider elements of this policy as their guide to lease financing agreements. 5. DEBT ISSUANCE PRACTICES 5.1 Methods Used to Issue Debt  Debentures Issued in the Capital Markets  Debentures Issued Through Other Levels of Government (example IO)  Tile Drainage Loan Agreements 5.2 City’s Process for Issuing Debentures Approval by Council is required to authorize the issuance of debentures and/or a bank loan agreement, and the general process for the City is as follows:  Debt, as a source of financing for a capital project, must be approved by Council, either during the annual capital budget process, or via report, by-law, or other means.  As part of the requirement for Council approval, the Treasurer/staff must provide an update to the Annual Repayment Limit, identifying the impact on the ARL of the new debt approval, and ensuring that the ARL will not surpass the 25% threshold.  Staff must analyze optimum debt issuance scenarios to determine quantity of debentures issues, term, type of instrument, and source(s) of debt financing, which may result in a staff recommendation that a portion or all of the approved debt financing be substituted with a different source (i.e. reserves, grants etc.).  Upon request by the Niagara Region, staff shall inform the Region of the City’s intentions for debt issuance, and work with Niagara Region staff to provide all supporting documentation necessary.  If the Region, Fiscal Solicitor, Financial Institution/Syndicate, or other level of Government requires a borrowing by-law to support the debt issuance, staff will prepare a by-law to be passed by Council.  In the case of IO or other Government Agency, staff will prepare and submit an application for loan/debenture financing. Page 8 of 12 Page 115 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come  The Treasurer, Clerk, and Mayor will execute all documentation required by the Region or lending source. This may include documentation dated for the settlement date and to be held in escrow.  The Region will prepare a debenture by-law(s) to be passed by Regional Council in advance of the settlement date.  At the settlement date, funds will be wired by the Region to the City, and applied to the capital project.  Any expenses associated with the debenture issuance will be paid by the City (legal fees, commissions, etc.).  Staff will prepare appropriate accounting entries to execute the debenture issuance in the financial system, and will update all debt payment and forecast schedules accordingly.  Semi-annual interest and principal payments will be made to the Region according to the debenture payment schedule provided by the Region. 6. DEBT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 6.1 Ethics and Conflicts of Interest City staff that are involved in the debt issuance process are expected to abide by the City’s Code of Ethics/Conduct Policy, including but not limited to:  Refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of financing activities or that could impair their ability to make impartial decisions;  Disclose any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business;  Disclose any personal financial/investment positions that could related to the performance of their financing activities; and  Not undertake personal financial transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the City. 6.2 Requirements for Outside Advice The City’s staff will be expected to have sufficient knowledge to prudently evaluate standard financing transactions. However, should in their opinion the appropriate level of knowledge not exist for instances such as debt issuance transactions that are unusually complicated or non- standard, or as otherwise directed, outside financial and/or legal advice will be obtained. 6.3 Legal Support An external fiscal solicitor is retained by Niagara Region to advise and approve all debenture- related documentation concerned with the issuance of debentures. External legal counsel is a requirement by both the capital markets and by IO. It is the responsibility of the City to bear the full costs associated with transactions specific to the City of Niagara Falls. Should the debt issuance of the City be part of a larger transaction Page 9 of 12 Page 116 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come involving Niagara Region and/or other local area municipalities, the City will be invoiced based on their proportion of the debentures issued. 6.4 Responsibilities Council: Overall responsibility for authorizing debt issuance. Treasurer: Responsibility for directing and implementing the activities of debt issuance including but not limited to:  Review and recommend the type and term of financing for capital projects and operating requirements.  Update the debt and financial obligation limit for the City as prescribed by the Municipal Act, 2001;  May execute and sign documents on behalf of the City and perform all other related acts with respect to the issuance of debt securities;  Reviews and recommends to Council the financial and business aspects of any material lease financing agreements and transactions;  Ensures all reporting requirements identified within the Debt Policy are met; and  Signs required documentation under the Municipal Act, 2001. Mayor: The Mayor may execute and sign documents on behalf of the City with respect to the issuance of debt securities and shall sign debentures. Clerk: The Clerk may certify and sign documents on behalf of the City with respect to the issuance of debt securities. 6.5 Debt Policy Review The Debt Policy will be reviewed periodically by the City Treasurer. Any required changes shall then be submitted to Council for consideration and approval. Any changes or revisions to the Municipal Act, 2001, or to the regulations thereunder subsequent to the formal adoption of the Debt Policy which affect the policy will apply when they come into force. The Debt Policy will be updated to reflect such change(s) at the time of formal review. 7. DEFINITIONS Amortizing Debenture: A debenture that has a blended principal and interest payment that is equal in each repayment period. Annual Repayment Limit: A calculation, of the debt and financial obligation limit, provided annually to a municipality by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that determines whether Ontario Municipal Board approval is required for the categories of debt or financial obligation described in Ontario Regulation 403/02 as amended. Capital Financing: A generic term for the financing of capital assets. Although this can be achieved through the use of a variety of funding sources, for the purposes of the Debt Policy it is assumed to mean the use of debt. Page 10 of 12 Page 117 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come City: the City of Niagara Falls. City Own-Source Revenue – is equal to “Net Revenues” per Financial Information Return (FIR) Schedule 81, Annual Debt Repayment Limit, Line 2610. The calculation of Net Revenues is basically Total City Revenues less revenues from Federal & Provincial Grants and Gas Tax, Development Charges, Parkland Dedication, and Donated Tangible Capital Assets. Council: the Council of the City of Niagara Falls. Credit Rating: A rating assigned by a credit rating agency (such as Standard and Poor’s or Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited or Fitch Ratings) recognized by the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 as to the credit worthiness of an entity’s debt obligations. The rating defines the financial strength of a borrower and assists investors to determine the likelihood that the debt issuer will pay the interest payments in a timely fashion and more importantly the initial investment at maturity. Debenture: A formal written obligation to repay specific sums on certain dates. In the case of a municipality such as the City of Niagara Falls, debentures are typically unsecured. Debt Service Charges: the amount corresponding to annual debt and financial obligations. Debt: Any obligation for the payment of money. For Ontario municipalities, debt would normally consist of debentures as well as either notes or cash loans from financial institutions, but could also include loans from reserves. Deemed Debentures: A bank loan agreement is deemed to be a debenture for the purpose of the following provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, as set out in O. Reg. 276/02, s. 5: Section 403; Subsections 404(1) to (8) and Subsections 404(10) to (14); Subsections 405(2); Section 406; Subsections 408(2.1) and (3), clauses 408(4)(a), (c) and (d), and subsections 408(5) and (7); Subsections 412 (2) and (4). Development Charge: (DC) Fees collected from developers at the time a building permit is issued. The fees are charged for the cost of infrastructure required to provide municipal services to new development, such as roads, transit, water and sewer infrastructure, community centres and fire and police facilities. DC Eligible Costs: are growth related costs for certain services as defined by the Development Charges Act. DC Background Study: is a document required by the Development Charges Act to identify service needs arising from residential and non-residential growth and the associated eligible costs, in order to calculate the Development Charge rates charged by the City. Development-Charge Supported Debt: Debt which is supported by development charges. City Treasurer: the Treasurer of the City of Niagara Falls. Fiscal (Underwriting) Syndicate: An individual or group of investment bankers appointed as principals or on an agency basis, for the purpose of purchasing and reselling new debentures issued by the City. Page 11 of 12 Page 118 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come Hedging: A strategy used to offset or mitigate financial risk such as currency and/or interest rate risk. Infrastructure Ontario (or its successor organizations) (IO): A crown corporation wholly owned by the Province of Ontario and established by the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation Act, 2011. IO provides Ontario municipalities, universities and hospitals access to an alternative financing service for longer-term fixed rate loans for the building and renewal of public infrastructure. Instalment (Serial) Debentures: Debentures of which a portion of the principal matures each year throughout the life of the debenture issue. Long-Term Debt or Financing: Any debt for which the repayment of any portion of the principal is due beyond one year. Short-Term Debt: Any debt for which the repayment of the entire principal is due within one year. Sinking Fund: A fund in which money is accumulated on a regular basis that when combined with interest earned is used to retire or repay the debentures on maturity. Sinking Fund Debentures: A long-term debt instrument that contains a sinking fund provision that the issuer has undertaken to regularly set aside on a fixed date funds to a sinking fund for the repayment of the principal at maturity. Tax and Rate Supported Debt (Levy/Utility): Debt which is supported by the tax levy and by utility charges and fees. Tile Drainage Debentures: Debentures issued to the Province of Ontario to finance the construction of a tile drainage system for agricultural land in accordance with the Tile Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.8. 8. REFERENCES  Ontario Regulation 403/02 (Debt and Financial Obligation Limits)  Ontario Regulation 438/97 (Eligible Investments and Related Financial Agreements)  Ontario Regulation 247/01 (Variable Interest Rate Debentures and Foreign Currency Borrowing)  Ontario Regulation 276/02 (Bank Loans)  Ontario Regulation 653/05 (Debt Related Financial Instruments and Financial Agreements)  Tile Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.8 and regulations thereunder Submitted By: Jennifer Yarnell, BBA(Hon), CSC, Senior Financial Analyst Recommended By: James Dowling, Manager of Capital Accounting Approved By Council On: 2022 Report #: F-2022-25 Page 12 of 12 Page 119 of 842 L-2022-03 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: On-Demand Surety Bonds Policy Our File No. 2022-71 Recommendation(s) 1. That Council adopt a policy regarding the use of on-demand surety bonds (“Surety Bond Policy”), which will be effective for a two-year pilot period, and which will take the form at Appendix “1” attached to this report; 2. That Council direct staff to update the language used in development agreement templates to permit surety bonds that conform to the Surety Bond Policy as an acceptable form of security; 3. That Council direct staff to report back on the uptake and any challenges encountered with surety bonds within two years of accepting the first on-demand surety bond under the Surety Bond Policy; 4. That Council direct staff to take all necessary actions, including the execution of all necessary documentation, to give effect to the two-year pilot of the Surety Bond Policy. Executive Summary The developer community has approached City staff to consider accepting pay -on- demand surety bonds (interchangeably referred to as “on-demand surety bonds” in this report) as an alternative form of security to letters of credit or cash security in development agreements. Traditionally, municipalities have resisted or are cautious of using these types of security as they are viewed as carrying greater risk compared to letters of credit and cash securities. According to staff experience here at the City, in the last ten (10) years, the City has not had to draw on securities posted with development agreements due to a default of the agreements. The City of Hamilton has recently implemented a policy to accept on-demand surety bonds, subject to a number of conditions and legal terms that mitigate the risks associated with these types of securities. Page 1 of 16 Page 120 of 842 In addition, the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Report of February 8, 2022 recommended the option of pay-on-demand surety bonds as a means of facilitating housing development. Staff are proposing that Council implement a policy to accept these types of securities on terms and conditions similar to the City of Hamilton, and that such policy also be implemented as two-year pilot, during which staff will observe, document, and report back on their experiences and challenges if any of dealing with this alternative form of security. Background Staff has received a request from the Ontario Home Builders’ A ssociation to implement pay-on-demand surety bonds. Municipalities have been slow to accept such bonds as a form of security and as an alternative to letters of credit. This is largely because the security for such bonds derives from private companies, as opposed to banks as in the case of letters of credit. In addition, the process of calling on bonds may not be as straightforward. Developers request the implementation of this alternative form of security to achieve greater liquidity and accelerate their development project. A few municipalities in Ontario have started to accept this form of security. For example, on June 3, 2021, the City of Hamilton implemented a policy for the use of on -demand surety bonds as a form of security in development agree ments. This policy was implemented after consulting with surety providers, the developer community, and other municipalities. The City of Calgary has also taken a similar approach. The intention behind such initiatives is that the risk involved in this alternative form of security may be worth bearing and managing in order to accelerate development and ultimately provide greater benefits to the municipality. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council consider the acceptance of on-demand surety bonds as an alternative form of security as part of a two-year pilot. During such a pilot, the use of and experience with such bonds would be monitored, and staff would report back to Council with the results. The language recommended for the actual terms of the bond within the proposed policy, as well as the condition that only top-tier sureties be used, may assist with mitigating the risk associated with this type of alternative security. Analysis Benefits of Pay-on-Demand Surety Bonds The benefits of implementing pay-on-demand surety bonds using the conditions specified within the proposed Surety Bond Policy include the following: Page 2 of 16 Page 121 of 842 • As a method of security, on-demand surety bonds do not restrict a developer’s capital in the same way that a letter of credit or cash security does. In turn, this may help developers use their capital more efficiently to develop more and faster than is currently possible with other accepted forms of security. This ensures more growth and development within the City. • For the City, this form of security represents greater liquidity. An on-demand surety bond is payable on demand. Accordingly, in the event of default, the City can make a demand on the bond and be in possession of funds to correct the default. Through specifying the language of the bond and the conditions which must exist for payment to be triggered (which, for this type of bond, would be simply a demand), the City has the ability to ensure that the on-demand security truly serves its purpose in the event that it is needed. Through the Surety Bond Policy, the City has the ability to customize the terms of the bond to ensure that risk is managed, mitigated, and transferred appropriately. • The Surety Bond Policy would also specify that the developer has to pre-qualify financially to obtain an on-demand surety bond from a top-tier surety. In addition, if the surety has to pay the City in the event of a default, the developer would be obligated to repay all amounts to the surety. Similar terms and conditions exist in the current City of Hamilton policy on on-demand surety bonds. These conditions ensure that the developers have the financial commitment for the project and that the City is protected in the risk of default. The City of Hamilton prepared a summary of the benefits to the municipality and the development community. That summary is reproduced here as it applies to the proposal that staff is putting forward: Municipality Development Community • Liquid • Responsive • Customized • Prequalification requirement • Improves performance • Promotes growth • Off-balance sheet security • Access to unproductive cash • Greater credit availability Costs of Pay-on-Demand Surety Bonds A number of costs and concerns associated with the use of on-demand surety bonds may ultimately be mitigated by the language set for the terms of the bonds as well as other conditions within the proposed Surety Bond Policy, such as specifying the tier of Page 3 of 16 Page 122 of 842 the surety and other responsibilities that the developer must assume in exchange for the benefit of this type of security. Commonly cited concerns include: • The fact that the security is not provided by a bank, but by a private institution, and that it is essentially “unsecured”; and • Red tape and potential litigation involved in accessing the security under the bond (considering the steps involved in accessing funds under a labour and material payment bond or a performance bond on a construction project). Cost-Benefit Analysis and Resolution: How Can the City Make On-Demand Surety Bonds Work? The costs and concerns identified above can be addressed through the wording of the on-demand bonds. The wording provides the conditions that must exist for the security to be accessed. This wording can specify that the surety bonds function on -demand and, for all intents and purposes, like a letter of credit. For example, the language of the bonds can specify that: • the City, in its sole and absolute discretion, can determine that the developer is in default; • the surety shall pay the City within 10 days of receiving the City’s demand; and • the City is not required to provide proof of default in order to make a demand under the bond. These conditions are similar to what is enacted by the City of Hamilton for these types of bonds. The process to access funds, also similar to the process in place at Hamilton, would be as follows: 1. The City would be in a position to determine that there is a default by the developer, and the City would have sole and absolute discretio n to determine that default. In other words, neither the developer nor the surety would have a say in that determination. Page 4 of 16 Page 123 of 842 2. Once the City has determined that there is a default by the developer, the City would provide a demand letter to the surety. The City would not be required to provide proof of default to the surety. 3. Within ten (10) days of receiving the City’s demand letter, the surety would pay the City the amount of its claim. 4. It would be up to the surety to collect its expenses and other associated costs from the developer. The surety and the developer would have entered into an indemnity agreement as between themselves whereby the developer would be obligated to reimburse the surety if the surety had to pay the City on demand. The specific terms of the indemnity agreement, if any, would be a matter as between the surety and the developer. Since such an agreement would not involve or bind the City, this report does not address the potential terms of such an agreement in greater detail. 5. The developer would repay the surety as required by the indemnity agreement. 6. The City would not be impacted by the indemnity agreement or by any claims, proceedings or payments under it. These are matters as between the surety and the developer only. If the amount of the security is to be reduced because of the accomplishment of project milestones, the City would have the ability and sole discretion to determine that the milestone has been reached and would call on the release of the security by providing the surety with a notice in writing. Top-tier sureties Surety providers are subject to oversight by the Office of Superintendent Financial Institutions (OSFI) and staff recommends, through the Surety Bond Policy, that in order for the City to accept a bond, the company must have a minimum credit rating of “A -“ or higher as assessed by S&P or an equivalent rating from Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited (“A”), Fitch Ratings (“A-“) or Moody’s Investors Services Inc.(A3). Proposed Surety Bond Policy The terms of the proposed policy were also prepared after reviewing and considering the terms of the letter of credit process as well as the language of the Construction Act. The City of Hamilton had also prepared a comparison of surety bonds and letters of credit, which we believe is worth reproducing: Page 5 of 16 Page 124 of 842 Features Surety Bond Letter of Credit Issued by Licensed insurance company Banking institution Collateral Unsecured Secured Provider has assessed ability of developer to complete the development project Yes No Provider has an interest in having the security released (project completed) Yes No Borrowing ability of developer Unchanged Decreased Restriction of capital Non-restrictive Restrictive Payable “on-demand” Yes Yes Administrative burden Same Same Length of time to access funds 10 business days (can be set by municipality) Upon written demand Automatic renewal provisions Yes Yes Ability to make multiple demands Yes Yes Notice required to cancel instrument 60 days 1 month Should Council accept the first recommendation, the language of the development agreements should also be amended to include on-demand surety bonds that conform to the proposed Surety Bond Policy as a form of acceptable security. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Financial implications of these recommendations include the following: 1. The time value of money will be affected by the length of time to access funds through a letter of credit versus a surety bond. The amount of the financial impact would depend upon the difference in time to access the funds, the security amount and the going interest rate. 2. If for some reason (either a legal loophole or a credit rating breakdown) 100% collection of security on demand is not assured, the City would be o ut the amount that is not collectable and/or any resources used to enforce collection. Page 6 of 16 Page 125 of 842 No staffing implications are anticipated, as the administrative process for the on -demand surety bonds is understood to mirror the process for letters of credit. From a legal perspective, in order to address the risk associated with a private insurer providing the security, the language of the bonds, and the triggering conditions for demand, as well as other conditions and processes within the Surety Bond Policy are proposed to reduce and transfer potential risk to the City. For example, the proposed language makes it so that the bond issuer cannot oppose payment of the claim where the City makes a demand. In addition, the fact that this proposal is a pilot, with the direction to staff to report back on the experience of using this form of security as an alternative to traditional letters of credit, allows the City to assess and inform itself on whether risk is sufficiently mitigated through this process, and whether the anticipated benefits of using this form of security are being realized for the community. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The proposed Surety Bond Policy pilot for a period of two years is in keeping with Council’s commitment to a vibrant and diverse economy. List of Attachments Appendix 1 - Proposed Form of Surety Bond Policy Written by: Nidhi Punyarthi, City Solicitor Submitted by: Status: Nidhi Punyarthi, City Solicitor Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 02 May 2022 Page 7 of 16 Page 126 of 842 APPENDIX 1 Proposed Form of Surety Bond Policy Development Agreement Surety Bond Policy POLICY STATEMENT 1. This Policy (also referred to as the “Surety Bond Policy”) outlines the requirements of a surety bond to be an acceptable form of security for Development Agreements. SCOPE 2. This Policy is applicable in all cases in which a Surety Bond is being evoked as security for a Development Agreement. 3. Surety Bonds may be provided for any Development Agreement which is required to provide Security and may be for the full amount of security required or for a portion if supplemented with a Letter of Credit or cash, only where the language in the associated Development Agreement permits Surety Bonds. PURPOSE 4. To ensure the equitable and transparent administration of the use of Surety Bonds for Development Agreements. RELATED LEGISLATION AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS 5. Development Agreements are entered into under the Planning Act, 1990, as amended, and the required security that this Surety Bond Policy applies to is outlined in each of the respective Development Agreements. DEFINITIONS Page 8 of 16 Page 127 of 842 6. The following terms are defined in this Policy: “Development Agreement” Refers to any agreement entered into between the City of Niagara Falls (“City”) and a land owner to regulate the provision of on-site and municipal works required to service land under development applications, and includes, but is not limited to, a subdivision agreement, a site plan agreement, a construction agreement, a shared services agreement and a consent agreement. “Security” An amount required to be provided under a Development Agreement which will ultimately be returned to the developer after the terms of the Development Agreement have been executed to the City’s satisfaction. “Surety Bond” A bond which guarantees the assumption of responsibility for payment of security in the event of default of a Development Agreement. “Surety Provider” A company legally capable of acting as the surety in the surety bond agreement. POLICY APPLICATION AND LIMITATIONS 7. This Policy is applicable in all cases in which a Surety Bond is being evoked as security for a Development Agreement. 8. Where financial security is required by the City, a term of any contract or as a condition of any planning approval, Development Agreement Surety Bonds are a satisfactory financial security provided they are issued to and received by the City in accordance with the following terms and conditions: Page 9 of 16 Page 128 of 842 9. The Development Agreement Surety Bond shall be issued by a Canadian surety provider having a minimum credit rating of: (a) “A” or higher as assessed by Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited; (b) “A-” or higher as assessed by Fitch Ratings; (c) “A3” of higher as assessed by Moody’s Investors Services Inc.; or (d) “A-“ or higher as assessed by S&P. 10. The issuing company shall be incorporated in Canada for no less than ten (10) years and issue surety bonds in Canadian dollars. 11. The issuing surety provider must be an active institution monitored by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). 12. When a surety provider that has issued or has confirmed a surety bond received and held by the City, subsequently ceases, in the opinion of the City to meet all or any of the requirements of this Policy, the City may, in its discretion, and subject to Section 7 of this Policy, require a new security to its satisfaction , to be provided to the City within ten (10) days of demand for same, and the original surety bond will be returned and/or exchanged for the replacement security. In the event the new security is not received as required, the City may draw upon the original Surety Bond. 13. Where there is doubt as to the credit rating or other qualification of a surety provider, the City Treasurer or Director of Finance shall be satisfied that the institution meets the guidelines of this Policy. 14. The surety bond to be provided to the City issued by a surety provider shall be irrevocable and shall be in the form and on the terms of the “Development Agreement Surety Bond” template, attached hereto as Appendix A. 15. Notwithstanding anything in this Policy, Page 10 of 16 Page 129 of 842 (a) the City may, in its discretion, decline a surety bond for any reason; (b) when a surety bond has been received and is being held by the City, and the City is no longer satisfied that the surety bond adequately provides adequate protection, the City may require a new security to its satisfaction, to be provided to the City within ten (10) days of demand for same, and the original surety bond will be returned and/or exchanged for the replacement security. In the event the new security is not received as required, the City may draw upon the original Surety Bond. 16. Any deviations from the said approved form of Development Agreement Bond template shall be reviewed by and are subject to approval of the Treasurer or Director of Finance and the City Solicitor. Page 11 of 16 Page 130 of 842 APPENDIX A TO SURETY BOND POLICY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SURETY BOND BOND NO.: AMOUNT: $ KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that , as Principal, hereinafter called the "Principal", and , as Surety, hereinafter called the "Surety", are held and firmly bound unto , as Obligee, hereinafter called the "Obligee", in the amount of Dollars ($ ) lawful money of Canada, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, the Principal and the Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS the Principal and Obligee have entered into, or will enter into, an agreement with reference number with respect to lands known as in the City of Niagara Falls (said agreement is by reference made a part hereof and is hereinafter referred to as the “Development Agreement”). NOW THEREFORE, the condition of this obligation is such that if the Principal shall, in the opinion of the Obligee do and perform all of the stipulations, conditions, covenants and terms of the Development Agreement, then this obligation shall be void and of no effect; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, however, the foregoing obligation is subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Whenever the Principal shall be declared in writing by the Obligee to be in default under the Development Agreement, and the Obligee intends to make a claim under this bond, the Obligee shall promptly notify the Principal and the Surety in writing of such default in the form of a Demand, the form of which is attached to this Bond as Schedule “A”. 2. On determination by the Obligee, in its sole and absolute discretion, that the Principal is in default of its obligations under the Development Agreement, the Surety and Principal agree that the Surety will make Page 12 of 16 Page 131 of 842 payments to the Obligee for amounts demanded by the Obligee, up to an aggregate of the Bond Amount, within ten (10) business days after the Surety’s receipt of a Demand from the Obligee at the address noted herein by hand or courier. 3. This Bond is irrevocable and payment will be made notwithstanding any objection by the Principal. Where a Demand in the prescribed form has been delivered to the Surety, it shall be accepted by the Surety as conclusive evidence of its obligation to make payment to the Obligee, and the Surety shall not assert any defence or grounds of any nature or description for not making payment to the Obligee, in whole or in part, pursuant to such Demand, including but not limited to any of the following reasons: that a Default has not occurred, that the Principal committed any fraud or misrepresentation in its application for the Bond, or that the amount set out in the Demand is not appropriate, warranted or otherwise not in accordance with the Development Agreement. The Surety's liability under this Bond is unconditional and shall not be discharged or released or affected by any arrangements made between the Obligee and the Principal or by any dispute between the Surety and Principal, or the taking or receiving of security by the Obligee from the Principal, or by any alteration, change, addition, modification, or variation in the Principal’s obligation under the Development Agreement, or by the exercise of the Obligee or any of the rights or remedies reserved to it under the Development Agreement or by any forbearance to exercise any such rights or remedies whether as to payment, time, performance or otherwise (whether or not by any arrangement, alteration or forbearance is made without the Surety’s knowledge or consent). All payments by the Surety shall be made free and clear without deduction, set-off or withholding. 4. The Obligee may make multiple Demands under this bond. 5. The amount of the Bond may be reduced from time to time as advised by notice in writing by the Obligee to the Surety. The Obligee has the ability and sole discretion to make a determination as to whether the amount of the Bond should be reduced. 6. Each payment made by the Surety under this Bond shall reduce the amount of this Bond. Page 13 of 16 Page 132 of 842 7. In no event shall the Surety be liable for a greater sum than the amount of this Bond. 8. No right of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof to or for the use or benefit of any person other than the Obligee. 9. When the Principal has completed all works required by the Development Agreement to the Obligee’s satisfaction, all maintenance and rectification periods contained within the Development Agreement have expired, and the Obligee has finally assumed all works in writing , the Obligee shall return this Bond to the Surety for termination or advise the Surety in writing that this Bond is terminated, in accordance with the terms of the Development Agreement. 10. If the Surety at any time delivers at least ninety (90) days prior written notice to the Obligee and to the Principal of its intention to terminate this obligation, the Principal shall deliver to the Obligee, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the termination of this Bond, financial security in the amount of this Bond in a form acceptable to the Obligee. If the replacement financial security is not provided by the Principal or is not accepted by the Obligee, this Bond shall remain in effect. 11. Nothing in this bond shall limit the Principal’s liability to the Obligee under the Development Agreement. 12. This Bond shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable thereto and shall be treated, in all respects, as a contract entered into in the Province of Ontario without regard to conflict of laws principles. The Principal and Surety hereby irrevocably and unconditionally attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario. 13. All Demands and notices under this Bond shall be delivered by hand, registered mail or courier to the Surety, with a copy to the Principal at the addresses set out below, subject to any change of address in accordance with this Section. All other correspondence may be delivered by regular mail, registered mail, courier, or email. A change of address for the Surety is publicly available on the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario website. The address for the Principal may be changed by giving notice to the other parties setting out the new address in accordance with this Section. Page 14 of 16 Page 133 of 842 The Surety: The Principal: The Obligee:  Name      Name      Name      Address      Address      Address      Email      Email      Email      Phone      Phone      Phone     IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Principal has hereto set its hand and affixed its seal and the Surety has caused these presents to be sealed with its corporate seal duly attested by the signature of its authorized signing authority. SIGNED AND SEALED this day of , 20 , in the presence of: Per: Per: Name: Name: Title: Title: I/We have the authority to bind the Corporatio n. , Attorney in Fact Page 15 of 16 Page 134 of 842 Schedule A DEMAND – NOTICE OF DEFAULT Date: Surety: Address: Attention: Re: Development Agreement Bond No. (the “Bond”) Principal: (the “Principal” Obligee: (the “Obligee”) Agreement: (the “Development Agreement” Dear , Pursuant to the above referenced Bond, The City of Niagara Falls hereby declares a default under the Development Agreement. We hereby demand that the Surety honour its ten (10) day payment obligation as per the terms of the Bond and we hereby certify that we are entitled to draw on the Bond pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement and demand payment of $ under the terms of the Bond. Payment Instructions: Yours truly, THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Page 16 of 16 Page 135 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:-comment for meeting may 10th From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:15 PM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-comment for meeting may 10th comment for meeting may 10th L-2022-03 On-Demand Surety Bonds Policy Our File No. 2022-71 Please identify who specifically has approached city staff, “developer community” could be the city's’ misinterpretation that they have been approached. Was it one developer, two , ten? The public should be able to decide also if the city has indeed been “approached” and it is not just initiated by city staff. Where any of these “developer community” entities identifiable affordable housing projects or all for for–profit projects. Does this involve the current developers for the downtown core proposals? Also this statement suggests this an affordable housing policy initiative, will it be given to developers that refuse to provide affordable housing in their developments. Do you have any other comparisons where this has been proposed and outright disallowed? Or are we to accept a one sided referral statement? Will the city research Page 136 of 842 2 another city that refused to implement this policy and report back on it to council and the public? Joedy Burdett Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St Do Not redact this letter. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 137 of 842 MW-2022-23 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Rural Arterial Roads Emergency Improvements Recommendation(s) 1. That Council approve the extension of 2022 Road Resurfacing Contract for a change order to include the addition of: a. Kalar Road - From Thorold Stone Road to 190 metres south of Niven Street 2. That Council approve the extension of the 2022 Surface Treatment Contract for a change order to include the addition of: a. Garner Road - Hendershot Boulevard to 150 metres northwards b. Garner Road - McLeod Road to Black Forest Crescent c. Garner Road - Black Forest Crescent to Forestview Boulevard d. Beechwood Road - Lundy's Lane to Nichols Lane e. Beechwood Road - Nichols Lane to McLeod Road 3. That Council approve the use of available funding within the budget for the 2022 Road Resurfacing Contract to fund the change in scope in the estimated amount of $300,000. 4. That Council approve a budgetary increase of $506,000 to the existing 2022 Surface Treatment Contract amount of $582,475 approved in the 2022 Capital Budget, and that it be funded from unallocated Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF) reserves. Executive Summary As a result of numerous complaints regarding the poor condition of a number of the north - south rural arterial roads in the west end of the City, at its meeting on April 12th, 2022 Council directed that Municipal Works staff investigate these roads and report back with options on how to address the concerns expressed. The roads specifically included were the sections of Kalar Road between Lundy's Lane and Beaverdams Road and the sections of Garner Road between Brown Road and Beaverdams Road. Beechw ood Road was also added between Beaverdams Road and Brown Road. Following a staff investigation and consideration of the roads in question and analysis of the improvement options available, it is recommended that the section of Kalar Road between Thorold Stone Road and 190m south of Niven Street be added to the 2022 Road Resurfacing Contract. It is also recommended that Garner Road between McLeod Road and Forestview Boulevard and also between Hendershot Boulevard to 150 metres north, Page 1 of 8 Page 138 of 842 and that Beechwood Road from McLeod Road to Lundy's Lane added to the 2022 Surface Treatment Contract. The road segments were prioritized based on potential risk and the optimal interim improvement option available. The recommendation included those segments deemed to have urgent or high level risk associated. The estimated total additional cost between the two contracts is $806,000, some of which is recommended to be funded through available tender-surplus within the existing approved budget, with the remaining recommended to be funded from the CCBF reserve. Other road segments identified in this report are recommended to be added to subsequent prioritized lists for inclusion in future capital budget deliberations. The road segments identified, the recommended remedial action, and risk priority are illustrated in the attached Figures 1 (North Map) and 2 (South Map). Most of the improvements identified in this report are intended to be an interim solution only until full-corridor urbanization complete with cycling lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks and accompanying infrastructure can be reflected in the Development Charges and can be coordinated with adjacent development servicing. Timing of these major improvements is presently unknown due to external factors. Background The current Urban Area Boundary through the west end of the City extends along the middle of Garner Road from McLeod Road to Lundy's Lane and then transitions between Lundy's Lane to Beaverdams Road to the middle Kalar Road, where it continues north to Thorold Stone Road. As growth and development has been occurring and increasing in the southwest area of the City over the last 5 to 10 years, there has been an accompanying increase in the amount of traffic utilizing the north-south arterials along the City's western limits (Kalar, Garner and Beechwood). These roads, particularly in the areas noted above, are currently constructed to a Rural Road standard utilizing primarily surface treatment over granular for the pavement structure and roadside ditching for drainage. Given the changing nature of the area surrounding and being serviced by these roads, Engineering staff have already initiated a number of projects to upgrade the level of service provided by some of these streets, which includes the potential addition of bicycle lanes and buried infrastructure servicing such as sewers and watermains. Since many of these upgrades are being driven by additional growth, those associated costs should be included in the future update to the City's Development Charges as well. However, these projects are still in preliminary stages of development and given their potential scope and cost will likely require a number of years to be fully implemented. This winter and early spring have been particularly devastating to the condition of many roads within the City due to excessive numbers of freeze -thaw cycles accelerating deterioration of the riding surfaces. This fact coupled with the increase in user traffic on the above noted rural arterial roads has played havoc on their condition. Regular patching and maintenance cannot address the more serious concerns and hazards to users and Page 2 of 8 Page 139 of 842 the average condition of the roads has deteriorated to the point where it may not be prudent to wait until the more complete reconstruction projects are ready to be funded and implemented. Hence, staff are of the opinion that an interim intervention be considered to address the road condition concerns. Analysis In response to a number of complaints from residents and road users over the past few months, Engineering staff conducted a number of site investigations of many of the existing north-south rural arterial roadways in the west end to determine their current condition. The site investigations also served to assess the impacts of the last winter on service levels and to determine what options are available to address hazards as well as service levels on those roadways. The following road segments were investigated: • Kalar Road from Thorold Stone Road to Beaverdams Road • Garner Road from Beaverdams Road to Brown Road • Beechwood Road from Beaverdams Road to Brown Road Although not as many complaints were received with respect to Beechwood Road, it has been anticipated that many users will start utilizing adjacent routes to avoid the poor conditions on the other roads. The section of Garner Road between Brown Road and Chippawa Creek Road was also investigated. This roadway was reconstructed in 2015 utilizing three different road treatments in different sections as a pilot to test their re spective durability and service lives. The three alternative treatments were: Traditional Surface Treatment including a layer of cold emulsified recycled asphalt (RAP), Surface Treatment including fibre mat structural reinforcement, and a Bonded Wearing Course application. There are some cost premiums associated with the Fibre Mat and Bonded Wearing Course options and based on the observed performance of the three segments there seems to be (after seven years of life) only a small difference in performance and durability. All three segments were showing only small amounts of distress and cracking. As is noted above, more comprehensive longer term solutions are being developed for these roads that will more effectively address required servicing levels as the area further develops and urbanizes. Additional areas within the southwest quadrant of the City will likely be included in a future Urban Boundary expansion to facilitate growth. The current Transportation Master Plan identified portions of these roads as active transportation routes, requiring the implementation of future bicycle lanes/facilities. There will also be the need for core buried infrastructure services along these corridors to support future growth in the area. As the character of the area changes, the road corridors will also need to be updated to an Urban streetscape with curbs and sidewalks and replacing roadside ditching with Storm Sewers. The forthcoming update to the City's Development Charges will need to incorporate these new services. As such, it is the intent of this report to provide an interim short term solution, with the goal to achieve an effective service life of 5 years, after which the City will be better positioned to implement the long term solutions in the area. Page 3 of 8 Page 140 of 842 Given the equal and effective performance noted of past applications and the fact that relatively it is the most cost effective of the different methods available to intervene with the necessary repair, it is recommended to proceed with a program of surface treatment with RAP applications on the subject road segments. The exception is Kalar Road as it currently has a Hot Mix asphalt pavement structure and no immediate plans for reconstruction or underground infrastructure upgrades. It is recommended that this intervention is implemented using a traditional mill and resurfacing approach. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis While the need is recognized to intervene to some degree with these road segments due to the higher than anticipated level of deterioration in the condition of their riding surfaces, it is also recognized that this work is not currently within an approved budget. The budget and financial implications will be detailed in the appropriate section of this report, but in order to aid in the decision making process, a series of tiered options have been developed and prioritized on a risk based approach. The road segments have been ranked based on the risks associated with maintaining a desired level of service allowing Council to provide direction on addressing those segments with the highest associated risk. 1. Urgent Action Segments a. Kalar Road - Thorold Stone Road to 190 metres south of Niven Street (Kalar Road Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station entrance) b. Garner Road - Hendershot Boulevard to 150 metres north (through the wooded area) c. Garner Road - McLeod Road to Black Forest Crescent 2. High Risk Segments a. Garner Road - Black Forest Crescent to Forestview Boulevard b. Beechwood Road - Lundy's Lane to Nichols Lane c. Beechwood Road - Nichols Lane to McLeod Road 3. Moderate Risk Segments a. Garner Road - Beaverdams Road to 150 metres north of Hendershot Boulevard b. Kalar Road - Woodbine Street to 190 metres south of Niven Street The road segments on Kalar Road between Woodbine Street and Beaverdams Road as well as on Garner Road between McLeod Road and Warren Woods Avenue have both had recent improvements implemented and the roads are in fair to good condition. The segment of Garner Road between Brown Road and Warren Woods Avenue was recently repaired, but is beginning to show signs of accelerating deterioration. However, as there is still a fair amount of construction traffic associated with nearby development, it is recommended that staff monitor its condition and make spot repairs as required to mitigate any hazards until such time as the construction traffic volumes diminish and a more long term solution can be implemented. Similarly, the segment of Garner Road between Lundy's Lane and Forestview Boulevard has areas in poor condition but with development occurring in the area, it is recommended that staff monitor and repair as necessary. Page 4 of 8 Page 141 of 842 Along with the Surface Treatment applications, there will be some minor cleanup and replenishment of existing granular shoulders undertaken. However, as part of more long term and comprehensive upgrades to roads in the Rural area, more substantial programs related to roadside shouldering and ditching should be implemented to assist in extending the life of any Surface Treatment improvements. It should also be noted that a component of any Surface Treatment application is the introduction of some loose granular material. As traffic compacts the surface and incorporates the stone into the pavement structure some of the loose material can be pushed over into the shoulder, ditch and boulevard areas. This loose material accumulation along the roadside typically subsides after about a month and then can be cleared away. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Based on the detailed risk based prioritization, the estimated costs to implement the various road segment improvements is detailed in the following table: Risk Street From To Action Length Cost Urgent Kalar Rd Thorold Stone Rd 190m south of Niven Resurface 400m $300,000 Urgent Garner Rd Hendershot Blvd 150 m north of Hendershot Surface Treatment 150m $22,000 Urgent Garner Rd McLeod Rd Black Forest Cres Surface Treatment 600m $87,000 Urgent Subtotal $409,000 High Garner Rd Black Forest Cres Forestview Blvd Surface Treatment 935m $136,000 High Beechwood Rd Lundys Ln Nichols Ln Surface Treatment 610m $88,000 High Beechwood Rd Nichols Ln McLeod Rd Surface Treatment 1,290m $173,000 High Subtotal $397,000 Moderate Garner Rd Beaverdams Rd 150 m north of Hendershot Surface Treatment 855m $124,000 Moderate Kalar Rd 190m south of Niven Woodbine St Resurface 750m $318,000 Moderate Subtotal $442,000 TOTAL $1,248,000 For all of the recommended improvements to the various segments, the City currently has a contractor engaged (the 2022 Surface Treatment Program and the 2022 Road Resurfacing Program). Both of these contracts were competitively bid and awarded earlier this year. It is recommended to add the desired scope of work to these contracts Page 5 of 8 Page 142 of 842 and seek agreement from the Contractor in each case to pay under the unit prices bid from these contracts. As a result of competitive pricing received in the 2022 Road Resurfacing contract, the Urgent risk road segment along Kalar Road, estimated at $300,000, can be added to the scope of work and accommodated within the current approved budget. However, any remaining additional costs approved would need to be funded from another source. The outstanding Urgent risk road segments would be added to the scope of the 2022 Surface Treatment contract, amounting to an addition of $109,000. In order to address the High risk segments, the added scope to the 2022 Surface Treatment con tract would be a further $397,000. The total added scope of $506,000 to the 2022 Surface Treatment contract is recommended to be funded through the use of unallocated CCBF reserve funding. It is recommended that work on any of the identified Moderate Risk Road segments not be undertaken at this time. Dependent on Council direction, any road segments not included and funded through this report will be added to a prioritized list for consideration in future Capital budget discussions. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Implementation of this Road improvements program meets the intent of Council’s Strategic Priority to establish infrastructure sustainability within the City. List of Attachments MW-2022-23 Rural Arterial Roads Emergency Improvements Figure 1 North Map MW-2022-23 Rural Arterial Roads Emergency Improvements Figure 2 South Map Written by: Kent Schachowskoj, Manager of Engineering Submitted by: Status: Erik Nickel, Director of Municipal Works Approved - 02 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 02 May 2022 Page 6 of 8 Page 143 of 842 KALAR RDKALAR RDSECRETAR IA T CTSE ABISCU I T DR S H O V E L L E R D R I RONWOOD STJAKE CRT A P ESTRY C TY V ETTE CRW OO D SVIE W C RW O ODBINE S T WINDSONG DR W INDFIELD ST W A T S O N S T TRA CKVIEW STTHORTON S T THOROLD STONE RD T H O R O L D S T O N E R D T HO R O L D S T O NE R D TARA AVS W A N S T S PR I N G BLO S S O M D RSOUTH W O O D DR SABINE DR R Y S D A L E S T R A C EY A V PRESTON AVP O ST RDPINELLAS P A R K DR PARKVIEW CR PAMEL A DROR I O L E D R ORCHA R D GROVE P Y O A K RIDGE DR N O R THW OOD DRMULLEN CT MU LHE RN S T M I CH A E L S TMARCO N S T L U N DY'S L N LUNDY'S L N KEVIN DRKATHLEEN CRKALAR RDKALAR RDH A R V EST C RGARNER RDGARNER RDGARNER RDFEREN DR EPSOM CTDON L EE DRDAWN C R CI T A T I ON RD CA T ALINA S T C A M ERON C T BE A V E R T O N B V BEAVERDAMS RD BEAVERDAMS RDBARRETT CR AINT REE DR N S W E Page 7 of 8 Page 144 of 842 M ARVEL DRMAJESTIC TLMATTEO DRSHERRILEE CR ODELL CRDOCKWEED DR TUPELO CRCHI C K O R Y T L SASSAFR A S TL S H O V E L L E R D R EVA BV SHAPTO N CRELDERBERRY DRERNEST C R DOGWOOD CRDOGWOOD CR BUTTERNUT BVGOLDE N R O D TLA N G I E DR JE NN IFE R C RCONNOR CRDILA LLA CRI RONWOOD STJAKE CRRICHA R D CRT A PES T RY C TKUD L A C S TSEBASTIA N CRWOODSVIE W CR W ESTW OOD S T W ESTPORT D R U P P E R 'S L N U PP ER CA NAD A D R THOROLD TOWNLINE RDTHOROLD TOWNLINE RDST MICHAEL AVS HA NNON DRRIDEAU ST R A CEY AV PARKSIDE RDPARKSIDE RDNICHOLS LN MULLEN CT M I L O M I R S T MCLEOD RD MARY DRLYNHURST DRLUNDY'S LNLUNDY'S LN L U ND Y'S L N LUN DY'S LN KELSEY CR KELLY DRKALAR RDJULIE DRJOSEP H C THARVEST CR GREE NFIELD CR GARNER RDGARNER RDGARNER RDFEREN DR ELDORADO AVDESANKA AVCATALINA ST BUCKINGHAM DRBRITTANY CTBELAIRE AVBEECHWOOD RDBEECHWOOD RDBEECHWOOD RDN S W E Page 8 of 8 Page 145 of 842 PBD-2022-32 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Information Report Future Hospice Care Centre for Niagara Falls Recommendation(s) That Council receive this staff report for information purposes. Executive Summary Niagara Falls is a municipality that is growing yet aging. The provision of hospice care is a key service that is currently unavailable to residents within the municipality. To establish a new hospice care centre in Niagara Falls will require the City to partner with a hospice provider and proceed through a 4 stage process as outlined by the Hospice Capital Program. Background At the Council meeting held on March 2, 2022, Council passed a motion requesting that staff prepare a report on how the City can obtain a future hospice care centre in Niagara Falls, as well as identifying potential locations to accommodate this facility. Analysis Hospice Care: Niagara Context Hospice palliative care delivers services that aim to relieve suffering, provide comfort and improve the quality of life for people living with a terminal illness, supported by their family and friends. To provide comfort, hospice care facilities are purposely designed to reflect a residential home like setting as opposed to an acute care environment, which includes associated spaces that enable a resident’s family to be on -site to support them. While hospice care is not only more dignified and humane it is also cost effective, as the average cost for care in a hospice residence costs approximately $470/day as opposed to the cost of $1,100/day in an acute care hospital bed. In Niagara, hospice care is provided via Hospice Niagara whose primary facility is the 10 bed Stabler Centre located in St. Catharines. Hospice Niagara is currently expanding its services with the addition of a new 10 bed facility in Fort Erie, to be co-located on Niagara Region’s new redeveloped Gilmore Lodge long term care site. As well, 10 new beds are to be built in conjunction with another long term care facility redevelopment project led by Club Richelieu in Welland. Page 1 of 36 Page 146 of 842 Even with the addition of these 20 new beds, Niagara can still considered to be underserved as the region should have between 31-45 hospice beds based on provincial standards. The introduction of hospice care to Niagara Falls would help alleviate the region’s overall shortfall of hospice space. Also, from a perspective of service to residents, not having a hospice in the second largest community in Niagara causes hardship to many families. Capital Funding for Hospice Care: Hospice Capital Program & Proce ss Path Obtaining a future hospice care centre in Niagara Falls will entail that the City partner with an agency that currently provides hospice services, who is seeking to establish new hospice beds and who meets Ministry of Health’s risk assessment req uirements. In Niagara, a logical partner would be Hospice Niagara who would make the hospice care ask with support from the Hamilton, Niagara, Haldimand, and Brant Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) through the Province’s Hospice Capital Program (HCP). (Appendix 1) Introduced in 2017, the HCP provides financial assistance for the development of new physical hospice spaces, associated with new beds funded by the Province’s Palliative and End of Life Strategy. The HCP does not fund the total cost of a hospice capital project but provides a funding contribution based on the number of beds approved for each project, up to a maximum dollar contribution per bed. Capital costs above the Province’s capital contribution is the responsibility of the requesting organization (i.e. Hospice Niagara) through their own funds, typically raised by fundraising or through community donations. There are 4 steps in the HCP process as outlined below. Stage Process Components Step 1: Application • Eligible organization (i.e. Hospice Niagara) submits application to LHIN for review and endorsement • Applications endorsed by LHIN are sent with a formal letter of Endorsement to the Home and Community Care Branch of Ministry of Health • Ministry reviews and assesses the application • If application is approved, a planning grant is provided to continue to Stage 2 Step 2: Business Case • A business case is developed, where the full scope and cost of the project is understood and a site is identified • If the project is Ministry approved, the project may advance to Stage 3 Page 2 of 36 Page 147 of 842 Step 3: Design, Tender and Award of Contract • Organization will submit plans (working drawings) for Ministry review • Tender and award of contract Step 4: Construction • Implementation and construction completion • Proposing organization will notify the Ministry when occupancy has occurred • Financial settlement • Post-project evaluation Potential Locations for new Hospice Centre The March 2, 2022 motion also requested staff to identify any potential locations to accommodate a new hospice care centre facility. To help inform hospice centre requirements, staff first consulted with the Hospice Capital Program Design Standards manual space centre’s care hospice a to better 2) Appendix (see understand requirements. The manual provides a detailed breakdown of room sizes and space requirements for a 10 bed, community based hospice centre. It is estimated that a minimum of 1 hectare (2.5 acres) of land would be need to host a new 15,000 square foot (similar size to Gilmour Lodge) hospice care centre with related parking. A review of City owned lands shows that there are 9 vacant sites that are at least 1 hectare in size A closer examination of these 9 properties indicates that none of them would be suitable to host a hospice care centre due to a variety of factors such as being located in an industrial area, encumbered by environmental features, or the lands are being used to host a large stormwater management pond etc. Accordingly, with no suitable municipal owned vacant land available, the City could offer the land of an existing City owned facility such as the Coronation Centre. Alternatively, the City could explore partnership opportunities with other government agencies such as the Niagara Region via the Meadows of Dorchester long term care site or Niagara Health's future hospital campus. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. At a high level, a hospice care centre could cost approximately $400 per square foot to construct for a total cost of $10 Million with furnishings but without factoring in the cost of land. It should be noted that the hospice facility would be exempt from paying development charges. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The securing of hospice care for Niagara Falls residents supports the Healthy, Safe and Livable Community objective. Page 3 of 36 Page 148 of 842 List of Attachments Appendix 1 Hospice Capital Program June 2017 Appendix 2 Hospice Capital Program Design Standards June 2017 Written by: Brian Dick, Manager of Policy Planning Submitted by: Status: Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 03 May 2022 Page 4 of 36 Page 149 of 842 Hospice Capital Program Policy Version 1.0 June 2017 Page 5 of 36 Page 150 of 842 Change Control Version # Description of Change Date of Change Approved by 1.0 Original Document 2017-06-26 Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care Copies of this report can be obtained from INFOline: 1-866-532-3161 TTY 1-800-387-5559 Page 6 of 36 Page 151 of 842 3 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction & Background ........................................................................................ 4 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................ 4 2.0 HCP Policy ................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Program Description .............................................................................................. 5 2.2 Eligibility ................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Process Overview .................................................................................................. 7 Stage 1: Application .................................................................................................. 8 Stage 2: Business Case ........................................................................................... 9 Stage 3: Design, Tender and Award of Contract .................................................... 10 Stage 4: Construction and Settlement .................................................................... 10 2.4 Funding Formula .................................................................................................. 11 2.5 Lease Requirements ............................................................................................ 11 2.6 Post Occupancy Evaluation ................................................................................. 12 Appendix 1: Terms and Definitions................................................................................ 13 Page 7 of 36 Page 152 of 842 4 1.0 Introduction & Background 1.1 Introduction The Hospice Capital Program (HCP) policy contains the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s (“the ministry”) description of policy(s) specific to the provision of capital funding to support infrastructure (i.e. bricks and mortar) for eligible hospice care provider organizations in Ontario, which deliver end-of-life programs and services. The HCP policy is designed to be used with additional resources as outlined below including, but not limited to the: • HCP Cost Share Guide • HCP Design Standards • HCP Toolkit • HCP Final Estimation of Cost These documents are available through the Home and Community Care Branch of the ministry. The HCP policy and related processes and procedures are described in the following policy document. 1.2 Background In Ontario, end-of life care is provided in several types of care settings including Community Hospices, Long-Term Care Homes and Hospitals. Hospices deliver services that are aimed at the relief of suffering and improving the quality of life for persons who are living with life-limiting health conditions. The physical design of hospice facilities are intended to provide a more home -like environment than a typical acute care environment and to provide associated spaces that enable a resident/patients’ family to be on-site to support them during the end of life experience. In 2005, the Government of Ontario announced its Palliative and End of Life Strategy. Program investments associated with this strategy included the provision of public funding to Hospice Care provider organizations. Approved provider organizations were provided with ministry funding for up to 60% of their annual operating costs. The remainder of operational costs to provide programs and services as well as capital costs to fund the establishment of space were to be managed through fund-raising/community contributions. Building on this commitment in 2015, Patients First: A Roadmap to Strengthen Home and Community Care was released with a commitment to implement a comprehensive program to improve access to and equity in hospice and end-of-life care at home and in the community. In 2017, the Government of Ontario announced the Hospice Capital Program (HCP) to provide Page 8 of 36 Page 153 of 842 5 financial assistance in the development of new physical hospice space in Ontario, associated with new beds funded by the Government of Ontario’s Palliative and End of Life Strategy. 2.0 HCP Policy 2.1 Program Description The HCP policy is aligned with the principles of the Government of Ontario’s Palliative and End of Life Strategy, Patients First: A Roadmap to Strengthen Home and Community Care, and represents a partnership between the government and community in the provision of capital funding for hospice care. The HCP does not fund the full cost of the total hospice capital project, but provides a funding contribution based on the number of beds approved for each project, up to a maximum dollar contribution per bed cost. At the time of this publication, the maximum amount of funding contribution that the ministry will provide through the HCP for approved hospice capital projects is $200,000 per hospice care bed. The capital costs above the ministry contribution is the responsibility of the Proposing Organization (see Appendix 1) through own funds but please note organizations must follow applicable law. The Local Heath Integration Networks (LHINs) play a significant role in the Application Stage of the HCP through the endorsement of new hospice beds and potential capital projects for ministry funding consideration. This will be described more fully in Section 2.3. The LHINs role is essential to ensure that proposed hospice capital projects and related programs and services align with each LHINs Health Integration Health Service Plan (IHSP). Ontario Government Contribution Proposing Organization Contribution Total Hospice Capital Project Cost Page 9 of 36 Page 154 of 842 6 2.2 Eligibility The following criteria establish eligibility for capital funding consideration: Please note: On a case by case basis organizations who feel that the design standards cannot be met can work with the ministry to modify the design standards to support their capital build. Risk Assessment Requirements The following pre-conditions must be met for the ministry to be able to provide a HCP capital funding grant: 1. •The organization provides Hospice services as defined by the HCP policy (See Appendix 1- Terms and Definitions) 2. •The organization is seeking to establish new hospice beds 3. •The organization receives a portion of its operational funding under the ministry's Palliative and End of Life Strategy and/or provides or is approved to provide hospice services 4. •The organization meets the ministry's risk assessment requirements, as outlined in the HCP policy 5. •The organization agrees to comply with the design standards defined in the Hospice Design Standards 6. •The organization has received LHIN endorsement for their application to the ministry Page 10 of 36 Page 155 of 842 7 Exceptional Circumstances Grant: Should an organization run into exceptional circumstances during the construction phase of their hospice, the organization can apply for additional ministry funding beyond the per bed maximum contribution. 2.3 Process Overview There are 4 Stages in the HCP process: Stage Summary of Process Components Stage 1: Application  Eligible Proposing Organization submits Application to LHIN for review and endorsement  Applications endorsed by the LHIN are sent with a formal letter of Endorsement (approved by the LHIN Board of Directors or a delegated LHIN officer) via email to the Home and Community Care Branch of the ministry  Ministry reviews and assesses Application  If Application is approved a Planning Grant is provided to continue to Stage 2 Stage 2: Business Case  A Business Case is developed, where the full scope and cost of project is understood and a site is identified Build a new purpose built structure the organization must provide evidence of: •Title to land already purchased/leased for this purpose by the organization •Financial capacity (funding held by the organization) sufficient to purchase the property Demolish to build a new purpose structure the organization must provide evidence of: •Title to structure and land already purchased/leased for this purpose by the organization •Financial capacity (funding held by the organization) sufficient to purchase the property and fund the demolition and site development Renovate structure with or without addition to the structure the organization must provide evidence of: •Title to structure and land already purchased/leased for this purpose by the organization All organizations must provide evidence that they hold an equal amount to that of the anticipated ministry contribution to the capital project. •This amount may be in the form of: •Bank loan •Line of Credit •Cash in a separate bank account specific to the purpose of the capital project Page 11 of 36 Page 156 of 842 8 Stage Summary of Process Components  If the project is Ministry approved, the project is eligible to advance to Stage 3 Stage 3: Design, Tender and Award of Contract  Proposing Organization will submit plans (working drawings) for ministry review  Tender and award of contract Stage 4: Construction and Settlement  Implementation and Construction Completion  Proposing Organization will notify the ministry when Occupancy has occurred and provide a Certificate of Occupancy signed by the Prime Consultant for the project  Financial settlement  Post-project evaluation Stage 1: Application The first step project is to complete the HCP Application Form (available through the Home and Community Care Branch of the ministry). The HCP Application Form is part of the HCP Toolkit. The Application Form is a worksheet that captures basic information about the organization and the rationale for the capital project. The form also captures information necessary to assess the eligibility criteria of the organization and the project for HCP funding eligibility. The LHIN decision to endorse the organization or not will be based on whether the proposed programs and services align with the LHIN’s IHSP and whether the Proposing Organization would have the financial capacity to manage any known or reasonably anticipated increased operational costs associated with the capital project. LHIN-endorsed applications with a formal letter of Endorsement (approved by the LHIN Board of Directors or a delegated LHIN officer) are then emailed to the ministry for review. The ministry will review the application against the eligibility criteria. Those applications that are found to be eligible for funding under the HCP policy become eligible for funding consideration. The ministry may receive more applications for funding than there is funding available in any specific fiscal year. Therefore, there is no assurance that all proposed project applications that are found eligible will receive funding in any specific timeframe. NOTE: There is nothing in the HCP policy that precludes organizations that can fully fund the Page 12 of 36 Page 157 of 842 9 capital costs of developing infrastructure from community contributions from proceeding without ministry approval or capital funding subject to applicable law. However, the ministry cannot retroactively provide capital funding to organizations that award construction contracts prior to receiving ministry project approval and a ministry capital funding grant for a capital project. Stage 2: Business Case If Stage 1: Application results in approval for funding, the ministry will advance a portion of the total ministry grant to the organization to fund a portion of the early planning of the capital project. The amount initially advanced and the proportion and timing of any subsequent funding is defined in Section 2.4 and is based on the project type (the ministry may change this at its discretion). The ministry funding will be supplemented by contributions from the Proposing Organization. Organizations receiving capital funding through the HCP will use the HCP Toolkit Business Case worksheets in the HCP Toolkit Workbook. The following Table describes all the potential worksheets for completion in the HCP Toolkit Workbook. HCP Toolkit Worksheets Name of Worksheet Description Requirements LHIN Ministry Review Endorsement Review Approval Application Form Captures basic information to understand proposed project rationale and organization eligibility for funding consideration     Business Case: BC_1: List of Programs and Services Provides understanding of range of programs and services (including number of beds) in the end stage physical space/structure   Business Case: BC_2: Lists all space types and numbers of spaces to define the total amount of   Page 13 of 36 Page 158 of 842 10 Space Table space required to deliver programs and services. Space types and numbers must conform to Hospice Design Manual. Business Case: BC_3: Site Search/ Selection Provides guidelines for searching for sites as applicable, areas searched, and final selection of site  Business Case: BC_4: Final Estimate of Costs Provides a structured worksheet to calculate total project cost based on the completed Business Case that allows the ministry to determine its funding contribution level   Stage 3: Design, Tender and Award of Contract 3.1 Design During Stage 3: Design, Tender and Award of Contract, all ministry funded capital projects will be required to submit plans (working drawings) for ministry review as specified below.  All projects will require review at 100% design development. The ministry will review and define plan submission requirements at the Project Planning meeting at the beginning of Stage 3: Design, Tender and Award of Contract. 3.2 Tender and Award of Contract It is required that Proposing Organizations ensure a fair, open and transparent tender, bid and selection process and follow all laws that pertain to their organization such as the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010. S.o. 2010. 3.3 Awarding the Contract All projects receiving ministry capital funding grants will require a formal letter of ministry approval to award the contract. Stage 4: Construction and Settlement 4.1 Construction The funded organization is responsible for management of the construction stage of the project. Once substantial completion has been achieved the organization will provide the ministry with a Certificate of Substantial Completion signed by the Prime Consultant for the project. The organization will notify the ministry when Occupancy has occurred and provide a Certificate Page 14 of 36 Page 159 of 842 11 of Occupancy signed by the Prime Consultant for the project. 4.2 Settlement The ministry will provide the organization with settlement documents to complete in accordance with ministry settlement process requirements. This may include, but are not limited to:  Statement of disbursements prepared by a 3rd party Audit resource. 2.4 Funding Formula The ministry will advance the following proportion(s) of the approved up to capital funding grant based on project type and the amount of the total up to grant at the following project milestones. Type A For projects with ministry grant under $400K 100% Approval of application for planning, design and construction Type B For projects with ministry grant of over $400K - renovation of leased space 15% Approval of application for planning 85% Award of contract Type C For projects with ministry grant of over $400K - building of new space 15% Approval of application for planning 40% Award of contract 45% After 50% of construction completion (justified by progress certificate) 2.5 Lease Requirements For projects that are leasehold renovations, the ministry requires the following minimal lease periods based on the ministry funding contribution to the project: Ministry Funding Contribution Minimal Lease Period 0-$1M 5 years >$1M 10 years Page 15 of 36 Page 160 of 842 12 2.6 Post Occupancy Evaluation The ministry will engage in an on-site post occupancy evaluation to determine: 1. Whether the physical space has been developed in accordance with HCP Design requirements and the plans reviewed and approved by the ministry for that project 2. Whether the design has achieved the goals of the project in meeting: a. Resident needs b. Staffing needs Note: Where an organization does not produce an end state physical project that conforms with the plans approved by the ministry, that organization will be in breach of contract and the ministry will proceed to take actions to recover from that organization all funding provided for the project. Page 16 of 36 Page 161 of 842 13 Appendix 1: Terms and Definitions Addition: Construction of a new purpose built structure attached to an existing structure on owned or leased property for the purpose of delivering hospice services Best Practices: Suggestions for optional design features that further promote quality of design and quality care outcomes Community Hospice Space: A community based not-for-profit organization providing hospice services from a distinct location in the community. May be from an owned or leased space Design Standards: The requirements set out in the MOHLTC Hospice Design Manual that must be incorporated into the design of each hospice care capital project that receives ministry capital funding Endorsing Organization: That branch of the government or agency of the government responsible for oversight of operational funding and endorsement of proposed projects at key milestones in the HCP capital planning and implementation process Hospice Care space in patient care unit of a Hospital: A hospital providing hospice services from one or more rooms within a unit providing other care services Leasehold Renovation: Modification (fit-out) of a leased property for the purpose of delivering hospice care programs/services Local Health Integration Network (LHIN): Agency of the government that administrates operational funding provided by the Government of Ontario’s Palliative and End of Life Strategy for hospice beds associated with that program. Acts as Endorsing Organization for any HCP capital projects associated with new Palliative and End of Life Strategy funded hospice beds Long-Term Care Homes: Long-term care homes under the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007 Ministry: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care New Build: Construction of a new purpose built structure on owned or leased property for the purpose of delivering hospice services Owned Structure Renovation: Modification (fit-out) of a structure owned by the organization on owned or leased land for the purpose of delivering hospice care programs/services Prime Consultant: The consultant leading the capital project who is most often an Architect or Engineer Page 17 of 36 Page 162 of 842 14 Proposing Organization: For the purposes of this document, the “proposing organization” is any organization that is applying for and/or has been awarded with funding from the HCP. This includes but is not limited to hospice organizations, hospitals, and long-term care homes. Hospitals: Public Hospitals in Ontario under the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40 Hospice: A home-like environment where adults and children with life-threatening illnesses receive end-of-life care services Hospice Space associated with Long-Term Care Home: Hospice services provided by a LTCH organization (i.e. Owner/Operator) distinct from a LTCH licensed resident home. Hospice space could be located within, attached to, or adjacent to the building housing the licensed Long- Term Care Home structure, but when it is within the same structure, it must be separate from the licensed LTCH resident home as required under the LTCHA, including s. 5 and Reg. 79/10, Part II). This would not include the provision of hospice services within the licensed LTCH itself . HCP- The Hospice Capital Program Page 18 of 36 Page 163 of 842 Page 19 of 36 Page 164 of 842 Hospice Capital Program Design Standards Version 1.0 June 2017 Page 20 of 36 Page 165 of 842 2 Change Control Version # Description of Change Date of Change Approved by 1.0 Original Document 2017-06-26 Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care Copies of this report can be obtained from INFOline: 1-866-532-3161 TTY 1-800-387-5559 Disclaimer Space types and size standards may be revised from time to time. This document endeavors to be current and complete, but the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (herein “ministry”) retains the right to make changes without notification to remain current with emerging best practices. Page 21 of 36 Page 166 of 842 3 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Intended Users........................................................................................................ 5 2.0 Hospice Space Standards ................................................................................. 6 2.1 The Ministry’s Planning and Design Objectives: “OASIS” ....................................... 6 2.2 Overview of the Space Planning Process ............................................................... 6 2.3 Space Tables ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3a. Community Hospice Space ............................................................................ 7 2.3b. Hospice Space Associated with a Long-Term Care Home .......................... 10 2.3c. Hospice Care Space in Patient Care Unit of a Hospital ............................... 12 2.4 Design Considerations .......................................................................................... 14 2.4a. Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) ...................................................... 15 2.4b. Building Systems for Hospices .................................................................... 15 3.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 15 4.0 Additional Resources ........................................................................................ 16 Page 22 of 36 Page 167 of 842 4 1.0 Introduction The Design Standards for the Hospice Capital Program (“Design Standards”) is designed to assist Proposing Organizations (as defined in the Hospice Capital Program Policy) to develop a proposed capital project for submission to the ministry for approval. The Design Standards supports current government priorities and recognize s fiscal challenges by assisting Proposing Organizations with the effective use of limited capital resources to plan high quality health care environments. The planning principles of the Design Standards are to promote right-sizing facilities to support efficient delivery of hospice care services and to limit excessive operating costs over the lifetime of facilities. The focus of this document is to provide guidance in defining space allocation and is not intended to provide complete technical facility design guidance. For technical building requirements such as building codes, electrical/emergency power, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, infection control, sterilization procedures, and construction-related issues, the Proposing Organization and its design team must refer to the applicable legislation, codes, standards, and other best practice industry sources. It also consolidates elements of health care facility standards from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and other health care planning guides to present a comprehensive set of recommendations for the community health care setting. The Design Standards contains the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s (ministry) required minimal design standards for those Hospices in Ontario provided with MOHLTC Capital Funding1 . The ministry recommends (but does not require) the use of these design standards in developing space for hospice capital projects funded through sources of funding other than ministry capital funding. Please note: On a case by case basis organizations who feel that the design standards cannot be met can work with the ministry to modify the design standards to support their capital build. 1 MOHLTC Capital Funding is defined as funding approved by the ministry and provided for use specifically to develop space to support Hospice program and service delivery (i.e. “bricks and mortar” funding for renovation, addition or new built space). This is separate from Operating Funding. Page 23 of 36 Page 168 of 842 5 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Design Standards is to:  Identify the types of space for an approved hospice capital project for which the ministry will provide funding;  Identify the maximum amount of space for an approved hospice capital project for which the ministry will provide funding; and  Outline the basic steps to develop the space needs of a hospice facility. The Design Standards was developed in conjunction with the following ministry HCP documents: 1. Hospice Capital Program Policy 2. Hospice Capita Program Cost Share Guide 3. Hospice Capital Program Toolkit 4. Hospice Capital Program Final Estimation of Cost It is intended that these documents/tools are used together when planning proposed HCP projects. These resources provide the information necessary for Proposing Organizations to understand the types and amount of space the ministry will cost share for approved HCP projects to meet program and service delivery needs. 1.2 Intended Users The Design Standards are intended for the following individuals and groups working with the Proposing Organization as per the HCP Policy:  Functional programmers, architects and engineers to ensure that planned space meets best practice design and ministry planning, design and funding requirements; and  Other technical and health care professionals such as infection control and occupational health and safety personnel. Ministry staff will confirm compliance with space and functional requirements that meet the ministry’s planning and design objectives (“OASIS” – see Section 2.1). The use of the ministry’s Design Standards defined in this manual is required in order to access funding through the HCP. For more information on how to access funding for this program, please refer to the HCP Policy. The physical design of hospice facilities are intended to provide a more home-like environment than a typical acute care environment and to provide associated spaces that enable a resident/patients’ family to be on-site to support them during the end of life experience. Page 24 of 36 Page 169 of 842 6 The design standards documented in this manual support this approach to the design and build of hospice care spaces in a range of care settings. The standards were developed through literature search, environmental scan of several community and hospital-based hospice and palliative care environments in addition to consideration of the Ontario Building Code, Fire Code, Ontario Long-Term Care Home Design Manual 2015, and Canadian Safety Association (CSA) industry standards. 2.0 Hospice Space Standards The Community Space Standards is organized into the following four sections: • 2.1: The Ministry’s Planning and Design Objectives: “OASIS” • 2.2: Overview of the Space Planning Process • 2.3: Space Tables • 2.4: Design Considerations 2.1 The Ministry’s Planning and Design Objectives: “OASIS” A fundamental goal in the planning and design of capital health care projects is to create an environment that enables health services to be delivered in the most effective and efficient, accessible and safe manner while respecting the needs of patients or clients, and staff. Capital resources should be used effectively so that all capital projects are built as a long-term investment for the community they serve. The ministry’s planning and design goals and objectives are captured under the ministry’s “OASIS” principles. These principles also form the fundamental principles of CSA Z8000:  Operational Efficiency  Accessibility  Safety and Security  Infection Prevention and Control  Sustainability When undertaking a capital project, the ministry expects these objectives to be met. 2.2 Overview of the Space Planning Process The Business Case in the HCP Toolkit is designed to guide administrators and their consultants engaged in the planning process through each of these steps. The Business Case defines programs and service composition, space requirements, overall Page 25 of 36 Page 170 of 842 7 size, cost, and all elements required to fully understand scope, size, cost, and timelines of the project. The design standards are organized under the following sections in 2.3 Space Tables: 1. Community Hospice Space 2. Hospice Space associated with Long-Term Care Home (LTCH) 3. Hospice Space in a Hospital Each of these sections contains a design objective and design standards component and may have additional commentary on industry best practices. 2.3 Space Tables Design Standards The design standards represent minimal standards. Organizations may choose to expand individual space amounts or add additional room types or additional features to these requirements (e.g. add showers to resident bedrooms or add administrative spaces). The space tables below provide a complement of rooms that may occur in a hospice. Each room has an assigned Net Square Foot (NSF) area that defines the net amount of space, not including space for circulation or building structure and thickness of walls. The NSF for each room represents ministry or CSA standard room size limits. The sizes established define the space necessary to provide effective functionality and infection prevention and control, as well as the amount of space that the ministry will fund for that room type. Room sizes and requirements are listed in the tables below:  Table 1: Room Sizes and Requirements for Community Hospices  Table 2: Room Sizes and Requirements for Hospice Associated with a LTCH  Table 3: Room Sizes and Requirements for Hospice Associated with a Hospital 2.3a. Community Hospice Space Design Objective(s) The design objective for hospice facilities is to design a space that provides:  A home like environment for the resident/patient  Support spaces to enable family to support and be with the resident/patient through the end of life experience  Additional functional support spaces for operational requirements of the facility (e.g. administrative, building operations and medical support spaces)  Spaces that support a homelike feel but enable the functionality of any required Page 26 of 36 Page 171 of 842 8 medical support during the end of life experience The following space standards have been developed to represent a ten (10) bed community based hospice care model operating from either a purpose built structure or a leasehold location. Capital projects that are considering less than 10 beds should provide a proportional decreased amount of family support spaces. The formula(s) for calculating the proportional decrease is identified in the space table below for relevant space types. Capital projects that are considering more than 10 beds should provide a proportional amount of increased family support spaces. The formula(s) for calculating the proportional increase is identified in the space table below for relevant space types. Organizations may choose to exceed space standards or add additional space types. Table 1: Room Sizes and Requirements for Community Hospices Description of Space Type Quantity Area (sf) < 10 beds >10 beds Vestibule 1 75 Multi-Use Room (Spiritual/Quiet Room) 1 160 Reception 1 125 Multi-Use Room (Family Activity Room) 1 160 Kitchen ( Kitchen)1 1 300 Decrease by 20 sf per less resident to a min. of 200 sf Additional 30 sf per bed over 12 Dining Room 1 200 Additional 20 sf per bed over 12 Living Room 1 300 Additional 30 sf per bed over 12 Barrier-Free Washroom 2 75 Additional 1 per 10 beds Multi-Use Room (Meeting Room) 1 200 Staff Washroom 1 50 Increase Page 27 of 36 Page 172 of 842 9 Description of Space Type Quantity Area (sf) < 10 beds >10 beds based on staffing model Staff Room 1 100 1 Patient Bedroom with Sleeper Chair, Barrier-Free W ashroom with Shower 1 Per resident 335 OR 1 Patient Bedroom with Sleeper Chair, Barrier-Free Washroom (no Shower) For this option, the hospice is to provide additional bathing space as follows: 1 Tub room (3-sided access) or 1 Stretcher Shower 1 Family Shower/Change Room 1 Per Resident 285 170 75 Medication Room 1 50 Clean Utility 1 120 Soiled Utility 1 130 Elevator Machinery Room2 1 75 Communications Room 1 50 General Storage 1 200 Mechanical Room3 1 200 Electrical Room3 1 100 Sprinkler Room3 1 100 Laundry 1 100 Additional 50 sf per 5 beds Janitor 1 50 1 Kitchen is required where care model is that families and/or volunteers prepare meals for residents. Where organization prepares meals for residents, there must be space for food storage/preparation (sf TBD by organization) as well as a Pantry of 75 sf with refrigerator, microwave and sink for families to bring in and heat meals for residents. Kitchens must contain sink unit, refrigerator, stove, exhaust hood, microwave, kettle, toaster/toaster oven, dishwasher and dishes, cutlery and cups. 2Elevator machinery room is only required in multi-floor new build designs. Not required in leasehold where these spaces are in common/landlord managed areas 3Mechanical, Electrical and Sprinkler rooms not required in leasehold where these spaces are in common/landlord managed areas Page 28 of 36 Page 173 of 842 10 2.3b. Hospice Space Associated with a Long- Term Care Home Design Objective(s) The design objective for hospice space associated with a LTCH is to design a distinct space either within the physical LTCH structure, but separate from the licensed LTCH or in a structure physically separate from the LTCH. The space standards for this hospice type mirror those of the Community Hospice with the exception where the hospice can share specified service space types with the existing LTCH, while meeting the requirements under the LTCHA, including s. 5 and Reg. 79/10, Part II, and under the LTCH Design Manual 2015 to ensure LTCH resident safety, privacy and infection/prevention/control. These space types will not be required to be duplicated in the hospice space. Table 2: Room Sizes and Requirements for Hospice Associated with a LTCH Description of Space Type Quantity Area (sf) >5 beds Area (sq) <5 beds Requirement Conditions Vestibule 1 75 75 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH or where outdoor entrance is required Multi-Use Room (Spiritual/Quiet Room) 1 160 100 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH Reception 1 125 100 Multi-Use Room (Family Consultation Room) 1 160 100 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH Kitchen / Pantry / Dining Room( Kitchen) 1 300 200 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH where care model is that families and/or volunteers prepare meals for residents. Where organization prepares meals for residents, there must be space for food storage/preparation (sf TBD by organization) as well as a Pantry of 75 sf with refrigerator, microwave and sink for families to bring in and heat meals for residents Living Room 1 300 150 Barrier-Free 2 75 75 Page 29 of 36 Page 174 of 842 11 Washroom Multi-Use Room (Meeting Room) 1 200 100 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH Staff Washroom 1 50 50 Organizations should consider increasing number of WR based on staffing model Staff Room 1 100 100 Organizations should consider increasing size based on staffing model 1 Patient Bedroom with Family Area, 1 Sleeper Chair, Barrier-Free Washroom with Shower TBD 335 335 OR 1 Patient Bedroom with Family Area, 1 sleeper chair, Barrier-Free Washroom (no Shower) For this option LTC to provide additional bathing space as follows: 1 Tub Room (3- sided access) or 1 Stretcher Shower and 1 Family Shower/Change Room TBD 285 170 75 285 Med Room 1 50 50 Clean Utility 1 120 100 Soiled Utility 1 130 100 Elevator Machinery Room1 1 75 75 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH that is multi-floor Communication s Room 1 50 50 Page 30 of 36 Page 175 of 842 12 General Storage 1 200 100 Mechanical Room2 1 200 100 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH Electrical Room2 1 100 100 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH Sprinkler Room2 1 100 100 Required in a structure separate from the LTCH Laundry 1 100 50 Janitor 1 50 50 1Elevator machinery room is only required in multi-floor new build designs. Not required in leasehold where these spaces are in common/landlord managed areas 2Mechanical, Electrical and Sprinkler rooms not required in leasehold where these spaces are in common/landlord managed areas Where hospice space associated with a LTCH is being developed that will have more than or less than 10 beds, please apply the same calculations for proportional increase/decrease of space type volumes or space type square foot allocation per the Community Hospice Space Table. 2.3c. Hospice Care Space in Patient Care Unit of a Hospital Design Objective(s) This design and space standards for hospice care space in a Hospital is to support the conversion of a limited number of existing acute care patient rooms within an existing patient care unit of a hospital to support hospice resident/patients. Table 3: Room Sizes and Requirements for Hospice Associated with a Hospital Description of Space Type Quantity Area (sf) >5 beds Area (sf) <5 beds Requirement Conditions Multi-Use Room (Spiritual/Quiet Room) 1 160 100 Multi-Use Room (Family Activity/ Consultation Room) 1 160 100 Required where there is no room available for this function on the unit Kitchen (Pantry)/Dining 1 300 200 Required where there is no comparable pantry on the unit assuming that meals Page 31 of 36 Page 176 of 842 13 Description of Space Type Quantity Area (sf) >5 beds Area (sf) <5 beds Requirement Conditions Room will be managed through hospital centralized resources. Kitchen/Pantry/Dining Room will have refrigerator, sink and microwave so that families can bring in pre-prepared food, store and reheat. Living Room 1 300 150 Required where there is no patient/family lounge on the unit Barrier-Free Washroom 2 75 1@75 Required where there is no similar type facility available for visitors Multi-Use Room (Meeting Room) 1 200 100 Required where there is no room available for this function on the unit Staff Washroom 1 50 50 Required where there is no Staff Washroom available on the unit Staff Room 1 100 100 Required where there is no existing staff room on the unit I Patient Bedroom with Family Area, 1 sleeper chair, Barrier-Free Washroom with Shower TBD 335 335 OR 1 Patient Bedroom with Family Area, 1 sleeper chair, Barrier-Free Washroom (no Shower) Hospital to utilize existing or provide new bathing space: 1 Tub Room (3-sided TBD 285 285 Page 32 of 36 Page 177 of 842 14 Description of Space Type Quantity Area (sf) >5 beds Area (sf) <5 beds Requirement Conditions access) or 1 Stretcher Shower and 1 Family Shower/ Change Room 170 75 Medication Room 1 50 50 Required where there is no room available for this function on the unit Clean Utility 1 120 100 Required where there is no room available for this function on the unit Soiled Utility 1 130 100 Required where there is no room available for this function on the unit Elevator Machinery Room1 1 75 75 Required in a structure separate from the hospital that is multi-floor Communicatio ns Room 1 50 50 Required where there is no room available for this function on the unit General Storage 1 200 100 Required where there is no room available for this function on the unit Laundry 1 100 50 Janitor 1 50 50 Required where there is no room available for this function on the unit 1Elevator machinery room is only required in multi-floor new build designs. Not required in leasehold where these spaces are in common/landlord managed areas 2.4 Design Considerations For all capital projects, the ministry expects that all facilities will be compliant with all codes and standards, such as, but not limited to the most current and future versions of the following regulations:  Ontario Building Code;  Ontario Fire Code;  Electrical Safety Code under the Electricity Act;  CSA standards for health care facilities;  Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act; and  Occupational Health and Safety Act. Page 33 of 36 Page 178 of 842 15 It is the responsibility of the Proposing Organization to ensure that project submissions are designed and built to meet all applicable requirements. Establishing criteria for items such as fire safety for building occupants, cabling, emergency power needs, and plumbing requirements will impact budget planning and, possibly, site selection. Incorporation of the impacts of these requirements should be addressed as ear ly as possible in the planning process. 2.4a. Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) Understanding the scope of IPAC planning is critical to planning a facility, from the early identification of the client risk profile with the preparation of an Infection Control Risk Assessment (ICRA), to location of hand hygiene sinks and alcohol-based hand rub stations. Sections on IPAC in CSA Z8000 provide an excellent overview of the principles and issues to be considered. The ministry requires that th e IPAC measures of CSA Z8000 are incorporated into hospice care facilities. The Proposing Organization is required to retain an independent, accredited ICP as part of the facility planning and design team to lead the implementation of the standards and best practice. 2.4b. Building Systems for Hospices Hospices are classified as “Class B” facilities, as defined in CAN/CSA Z317.2 Special Requirements for Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Systems in Health Care Facilities. The standard requires enhanced ventilation and filtration systems. Hospice facilities require a certain level of building services, such as ventilation, electrical and plumbing services, than commercial buildings. It is the responsibility of the hospice and its consultants to ensure that the facility design meets required health and life safety regulations, and is designed to standards that create the appropriate physical environment for the type of health care that is being provided. For hospices located on leased premises, the selection of a suitable location and lease terms must adhere to health care facility requirements and CSA standards. The ministry expects that facilities will be designed to meet the CSA standards and the costs to meet standards be included in early capital cost budgets and in more detailed cost estimates. 3.0 Conclusion The use of the Design Standards in conjunction with the HCP Toolkit should enable hospice facility administrators and planners to arrive at a total space requirement that aligns with program and service needs. The ministry encourages the Proposing Organization and their design teams to strive for the effective use of space to create a safe and quality environment for the delivery of health care. Page 34 of 36 Page 179 of 842 16 4.0 Additional Resources The current versions of: Canadian Standards Association CSAZ317.1 - Special Requirements for Plumbing Installations in Health Care Facilities Canadian Standards Association CAN/CSA Z317.2 - Special Requirements for Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Systems in Health Care Facilities Canadian Standards Association CSA Z317.13 - Infection Control during Construction, Renovation and Maintenance of Health Care Facilities Canadian Standards Association CSA Z8000 - Canadian Health Care Facilities Canadian Standards Association CSA Z32 - Electrical Safety Systems in Health Care Facilities Canadian Standards Association CSA Z317.5 - Illumination Design in Health Care Facilities Page 35 of 36 Page 180 of 842 Page 36 of 36 Page 181 of 842 PBD-2022-39 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Initiation Report: Official Plan Amendment and Housing Policies Housekeeping Amendment Recommendation(s) 1. That Council receive this staff report for information purposes. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the initiation of an amendment to the City’s Official Plan. This amendment will begin to implement the action items of the City’s Housing Strategy by updating the Official Plan to include affordable housing targets and a framework for achieving the housing target. Background On March 22, 2022 via PBD-2022-18, Council endorsed the second phase of the City of Niagara Falls Housing Directions Study, the City`s Housing Strategy which recommends 21 actions that can be grouped under the following 6 themes: • Establish affordable housing targets. • Promote a greater diversity of housing types. • Ensure a healthy supply of rental units. • Increase public education and provide advocacy for partnerships. • Provide a variety of financial incentives to promote and facilitate the development of affordable and rental housing. • Monitor and report. The 21 actions set out in the Housing Strategy are a collection of policy directions, programs and tools that will work together in the short, medium and long term to help achieve the 40% affordability target endorsed by Council in June 2021. The Strategy encourages, supports and permits the development of a more diverse mix and range of housing options to meet the City’s current and future demand. Analysis With Council’s endorsement of the Housing Strategy, staff can begin to implement a number of the Strategy’s action items through a housekeeping amendment to the Official Plan. Page 1 of 3 Page 182 of 842 The amendment will update the existing policies in Part 2 Land Use Policies to include a 40% affordability target for all new housing and a framework for achieving that new target. A 40% affordability target would mean that 40% of all new built housing would be affordable to low (i.e. households with total annual earnings of less than $45,300) and moderate income households (i.e. households with total annual earnings of $45,300 to $95,900). The proposed amendment will also include requirements for development applications to demonstrate how proposals would contribute to achieving the affordability target. It is intended that the amendment will also: • Update policies to align with Provincial direction thereby providing additional opportunities for the creation and subsequent monitoring of second units. • Clearly define the City’s role and responsibility, possibly through policy, in supporting housing affordability. • Introduce a policy to review and evaluate all surplus municipal lands for the possible consideration of affordable housing before being released to the private market. Consultation The development of the amendment will necessitate broad consultation with the public and other key stakeholders. A copy of the draft amendment is being prepared and will be circulated for wider public and agency review in the late spring. A copy of the draft amendment and any other relevant materials will be made available for comment prior to the Statutory Public Meeting on the City's Let's Talk Page. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The amendment is being funded through the 2022 Council approved Planning operating budget. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The development of a Housing Strategy and an amendment to the City’s Official Plan to begin to implement the Strategy are consistent with the City’s strategic priorit y of Diverse and Affordable Housing. Written by: Brian Dick, Manager of Policy Planning Submitted by: Status: Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Page 2 of 3 Page 183 of 842 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 May 2022 Page 3 of 3 Page 184 of 842 HR-2022-01 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Filling Vacancy for Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Committee Recommendation(s) 1. That Council approve the following two (2) candidates to fill the vacancies for the Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee: - Mr. Brian Kon - Ms. Donna Pierre Executive Summary In the fall of 2021, two (2) members from the City's Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee resigned due to time and scheduling constraints. At the November 2021 Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting, a recommendation was made to fill these two (2) vacancies. Further, the committee expressed the importance of trying to fill at least one of the vacancies with a representative from within the Indigenous community. At the December 7, 2021 City Council meeting, the committee recommendation to fill the two (2) vacancies was supported by Council. Staff were directed to begin plans to fill the two (2) vacancies in the new year. The two (2) vacancies were advertised on the City website for candidates to apply to the Clerks Department. The Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee established a sub-committee to review the applications and recommend two (2) candidates to fill the vacancies. Analysis In total, eighteen (18) candidates from within the community applied for the two (2) vacancies. Member selection was based on applicants having the skills, knowledge, and experience to contribute effectively to the committee’s objectives. The following two (2) candidates were recommended to fill the open vacancies: 1. Mr. Brian Kon 2. Ms. Donna Pierre Financial Implications/Budget Impact The committee will have an approved operating budget of $5,000 per year. Page 1 of 2 Page 185 of 842 Strategic/Departmental Alignment Under the Guiding Principles of Council’s Strategic Priorities (2019 – 2022), the City is committed to applying various principles to shape decision-making, policy development and resource allocation. One of those specific guiding principles, includes using public engagement to collect diverse perspectives and to act fairly, responsibly and equitably on behalf of our residents. Written by: Jason MacLean, Manager of Client Services Submitted by: Status: Trent Dark, Director of HR Approved - 05 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 2 of 2 Page 186 of 842 PBD-2022-40 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Public Outreach on the Affordability Task Force Recommendations, Proposed Bill 109 and Missing Middle Housing Recommendation(s) That Council receive this report for information purposes . Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to outline for Council comments received from the public on the "The Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force", to provide an update on the new Bill 109 legislation and to inform Council of the missing middle housing consultation initiated by the Province. In March, Council reserved the right to further comment on "The Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force". Staff have solicited feedback from the public on the task force recommendations to assist Council prior to making any further submissions to Minister Steve Clark. To date there has been 37 comments from the public. Bill 109 received Royal Assent on April 14, 2022 and made changes to the Planning Act. This Bill proports to increase the supply of housing by: 1. Enforcing through refunds, Expedited timeframes for development application review; 2. Increased powers for the Minister; 3. Amendments to Site Plan Control 4. Amendments to Subdivision Control; 5. Addition of Surety Bonds 6. New rules for Community Benefit Charge By-laws and Parkland Contribution. The Province is seeking input on how to diversify housing choices in existing neighbourhoods. The 30 days commenting period for consultation ended on April 29, 2022 which is past the date this report will be in front of Council. As part of the Province's consultation they are asking 4 questions relating to how to make it easier and remove barriers for gentle intensification in existing neighbourhoods. Page 1 of 110 Page 187 of 842 These questions do not assist in clarifying staff's original concerns on placing density in areas with limited support services. Background On February 8, 2022 the provincial task force released the"Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force”. This report outlined fifty-five recommendations to support the construction of 1.5 million new homes in 10 years to assist the housing affordability problem. On March 22, 2022, Council considered the recommendations from Planning staff on the Task force recommendations through Report PBD-10-2022 entitled “Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Proposal Review”. Council unanimously supported the following recommendations: 1. That Council support the recommendations from Planning staff on the "Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force" as detailed in PBD-2022-10 (Appendix "1"). 2. That Council forward a copy of this report to Minister Steve Clark. 3. That Staff monitor how these recommendations are implemented by the Provincial government and bring forward any necessary staffing implications to Council through the 2023 budget. In addition, that evening Council added a subsequent recommendation: 4. That Council reserve the right to further comment at the April 12, 2022 Council meeting when the report is brought back for discussion. In mid April 2022, Planning and Communication staff launched the Let’s Talk Affordable Housing page to solicit feedback from the public prior to bringing back the report for further discussion and consideration by Council. To date staff have received 37 public comment submissions. On March 30, 2022, the Province released for comment Bill 109 the “More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022.” The Bill set out to amend several pieces of legislation, including the City of Toronto Act 2006, Development Charges Act 1997, New Home Construction Licensing Act 2017, Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and the Planning Act. The Bill received Royal Assent on April 14, 2022. Some provisions in this Act are in force now while others come into force as of July 1, 2022 or January 1, 2023. Also on March 30, 2022, the Province released "Opportunities to increase missing middle housing and gentle density, including supports for multigenerational housing". This posting seeks input on how to diversify housing choices in existing neighbourhoods through gentle intensification. The commenting period for this posting ended on April 29, 2022 which is past the date that this report will be considered by Council. Page 2 of 110 Page 188 of 842 The purpose of this report is to outline for Council comments received from the public on the "The Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force", to provide an update on the new Bill 109 legislation and to inform Council of the missing middle housing consultation. Analysis Let's Talk Affordable Housing The Let’s Talk Affordable Housing forum was setup to solicit feedback from area residents on the "Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force" recommendations. This feedback may assist Council in providing further response to Minister Steve Clark on the task force recommendations. There were 37 comments from members from the public received and the key ideas are summarized below. The full set of well thought out comments are included in Appendix "2". 1. Bring back the Co-op housing program; 2. By-laws should not restrict second units and impose owners live in houses with two units; 3. Protection of the natural environment from development; 4. Protection of historic neighbourhoods from incompatible development; 5. Limit the amount of properties being used for short-term vacation rental units. Control outside investment in short-term vacation rental units; 6. Housing is needed to address the long 10+ year regional waitlist; 7. Park Street market will only offer 20% affordable housing that is not enough; 8. Pace of development is too high and existing infrastructure cannot keep up, a multi-phased approach is essential including preservation of green space, parks, hiking trails etc to minimize impacts of growth; 9. Federal government who has responsibility for immigration of all types needs to consider a carefully planned approach rather than an uncontrolled, rushed, panicked response; 10. Need action to get housing in place not more talk; 11. Governments need to commit to a very "clear" target for housing for those who make $60,000 or less per household per year; 12. More geared-to-income housing is needed; 13. Building more homes with in-law suites/second dwelling units; 14. Affordable housing for first home buyers is needed; 15. Land that has been left vacant for a period of 5 years or more should be used by the City to build housing units on; 16. Government needs to stop allowing landlords to require credit checks before considering renting to them serves no other purpose; 17. People need homes and are forced to pay what they cannot afford; 18. Government needs to enforce tenant rights. Property owners refuse to rent to people who cannot obtain an employment letter; 19. Provide rent subsidy for those in need; Page 3 of 110 Page 189 of 842 20. Stop zoning houses for business offices; 21. More housing does not mean affordable housing; 22. There needs to be indigenous specific housing built; 23. Indwell has been looking to build affordable supportive housing in the Niagara region; 24. Ensure affordable units are constructed properly; 25. Waitlist are located at each individual place now and people are picking and choosing who gets the spots; 26. These recommendations do nothing to soften the demand; 27. City needs to build a lot of affordable housing for people on the list. Line jumping should not be permitted; 28. Concerned about the third party appeals and those that have to bear full costs should they lose. This is designed to discourage community input; 29. No developer will build fast enough to reduce their asking prices and therefore profits; 30. All new neighbourhoods should have a mix of single family dwellings, townhouses, low rise apartment buildings, and condo towers; 31. Need to address the problem of investors and speculators buying properties that sit vacant; 32. Need affordable houses with larger lots. No more cramped and over populated conglomerates, but well spaced, beautiful places, including more actually single dwelling houses and less multiple unit building; 33. There needs to be a cap on the sale and renting of houses; 34. Full time working single person with no kids. I should be able to afford more then just a room in someone else's house; 35. A city by-law requiring landlords to ensure their rental properties are not a threat to the health and safety of tenants; 36. Incentives to non-profit and charitable groups to organize and facilitate a build. 37. Apartments are too expensive for single people. Renovictions for short term rentals are an issue. These comments are provided to assist Council prior to submitting an additional response to the Province. Staff will also take into consideration all of the public comments on the implementation of our housing strategy. Bill 109 On April 14, 2022, Bill 109 received royal assent and this Bill proports to increase the supply of housing by: 1. Enforcing through refunds, Expedited timeframes for development application review; 2. Increased powers for the Minister; 3. Amendments to Site Plan Control; 4. Amendments to Subdivision Control; 5. Addition of Surety Bonds; Page 4 of 110 Page 190 of 842 6. New rules for Community Benefit Charge By-laws and Parkland Contribution. Refunds and Planning Act Timeframes The Planning Act sets out the processes and timeframes for each type of development application. Bill 109 amends the Planning Act in a manner that financially penalizes municipalities who do not make a decision or refuse to approve an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and/or site plan application within a set period of time. The table below summarizes the proposed rules. No Refund 50% Refund 75% Refund 100% Refund ZBA Decision made within 90 days Decision made within 91-149 days Decision made within 150-209 days Decision made within 210 days or later OPA/ZBA Decision made within 120 days Decision made within 121-179 days Decision made within 180-239 days Decision made within 240 days or later Site Plan Decision made within 60 days Decision made within 61-89 days Decision made within 90-119 days Decision made within 120 days or later The proposed changes will force the City to make quicker decisions, make decisions subject to a variety of conditions or it may lead City to refusing applications and leading to a significant increase of matters before the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). More often than not the issue of timing of an application is not with the City but rather external factors outside the City's control. At a minimum, applications will require more information to be deemed complete so that Council and Planning staff have suffi cient information to make an informed decision. These changes are intended to apply to development applications made on or after January 1, 2023. Planning staff will begin to accurately monitor application timeframes and assess what additional staff will be needed to do the required work within the given timeframes. Staff will advise Council through the 2023 budget process. Increased powers to the Minister Official Plans/Municipal Comprehensive Reviews Bill 109 proposes to provide the Minister discretion on whether to refer Official Plan Amendments, or new Official Plans, to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) for either a recommendation on whether the Minister should approve or modify the OP/OPA, or for a final decision from the Tribunal on whether the OPA/OP should be approved or modified. Given the backlog at the OLT, Staff is unsure how this change supports in a more expeditious development process. Page 5 of 110 Page 191 of 842 In addition, the Minister is now authorized to suspend the time period in which their decision must be rendered as approval authority. This gives the Minister additional time to make a decision and may link to the timeline issues currently experienced at the OLT. Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator Tool Bill 109 proposes to amend the Planning Act to introduce a new tool for municipalities called the "Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator" Tool. This tool expedites zoning for properties for any type of housing, community infrastructure, buildings for employment and economic development and mixed use developments . It sets out a process where Council must pass a resolution requesting that the Minister issue or amend the zoning of a property. It sets out that the requesting municipality is responsible for notice to the public, undertaking consultation and ensuring the order is made available to the public. This tool does not apply to lands within the Greenbelt Area. The most concerning aspect of the accelerator tool is that it grants the Minister the ability provide exemption to the Provincial Policy Statements, any Provincial Plans, or a Regional or City Official Plan at the request of the municipality. This type of exemption could lead to poor growth related planning. This new tool although similar, is in addition to current Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) permissions. Amendments to Site Plan Control Bill 109 requires that municipalities must permit pre-consultation for site plan applications. Pre-consultation is a service currently offered at the City for site plan applications to assist developers upfront in understanding what will be needed by the various departments and agencies. There is no impact to the City. This Bill also allows the City the ability to specify for site plans submissions what constitutes a complete application through the City's official plan policies. These policies will be important as they will assist the City in trying to ensure applications can have a decision rendered within the 60 day timeframe. In addition, Bill 109 requires that site plan applications are to be delegated to staff for approval by July 1, 2022. Council previously delegated site plan approval to staff so there is no impact to the City. Amendments to Subdivision Control Draft Plan Conditions Bill 109 establishes regulatory authority to prescribe what cannot be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Draft plans of subdivision and their conditions of Page 6 of 110 Page 192 of 842 approval are based on feedback and discussion with numerous stakeholders and are at times site-specific in nature depending on the site's context. Without more detail from the Province, staff are concerned about what implications this could have on the municipality. Lapsed Draft Plans Bill 109 establishes a “one-time discretionary authority” to reinstate draft plans of subdivision that have lapsed within the past five years. The proposed legislation provides that if an approval of subdivision lapses before an extension is given, the approval authority may deem the approval to not have lapsed if less than five years has passed. Staff are supportive of this change. Surety Bonds When the City enters into certain types of development agreements, such as subdivision and site plan agreements, the City requires the landowner to post securities to guarantee that the works to be undertaken will be done in accordance with the approved plans and as per the conditions of the agreement. In the instance where the developer does not complete the works or installs insufficient works, the municipality can utilize the securities to undertake the works to City standards. Historically, the City has requested that development securities are submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit issued by financial institutions. A Letter of Credit acts as a line of credit to a developer. The debt is applied in full as an assurance should the bank need to provide the funds to a municipality. As such, the amount of the Letter of Credit can reduce the ability of developers to finance numerous projects. Municipalities prefer Letters of Credit because the issuing financial institution has committed to advancing the funds to the City, should the other party default on their responsibilities. A surety bond is a guarantee by a third party (often an insurance company) to assume a defaulting party’s obligations. Surety bonds do not have the same carrying costs or financial burden as a Letter of Credit and as such, are more attractive to developers. Bill 109 provides that the Minister may make regulations prescribing and defining surety bonds and other instruments and allowing landowners and applicants the ability to choose the type of security they provide. In Council's agenda for May 10, 2022, Council will be considering a surety bond pilot program whereby the City will accept on demand surety bonds for development agreements. These on demand surety bonds will be established through a City wide policy and will limit the risk for the municipality by requiring the surety provider release funds upon notice within 10 days if needed. Page 7 of 110 Page 193 of 842 Should this policy be approved it may need to be modified in the future depending on how surety bonds and other instruments are defined by the Minister. New rules for Community Benefit Charge By-laws and Parkland Contribution. Bill 109 seeks to require municipalities with a Community Benefit Charge (CBC) by -law to undertake a complete review, including public consultation, on the CBC by-law every five years. The City is currently undertaking a Community Benefit Charge exercise in an effort to create a CBC By-law. A five year review or sooner is advantageous to the City as the City hope to align the CBC By-law with the future timing of our development charge by-law. Changes also include implementing a tiered alternative parkland dedication rate that would only apply to Transit-Oriented Community (TOC) developments. For smaller sites that are 5 hectares or less, parkland dedication would be up to 10% of the land or its value. For sites larger than 5 hectares, parkland dedication would be up to 15% of the land or its value. A Minister’s order could identify encumbered parkland and would be deemed to count towards any parkland dedication requirements imposed by the local municipality. Under the Act TOCs refer to specific Toronto transit lines or areas identified by the Minister. It does not currently apply to locations within Niagara. Missing Middle Housing Consultation The Province is seeking input on how to diversify housing choices in existing neighbourhoods. The 30 days commenting period for consultation ended on April 29, 2022 which is past the date this report will be in front of Council. Missing middle is a term used to describe a wide range of multi-units housing types compatible in scale with single detached neighbourhoods. These would include laneway houses, garden suites (second dwelling units), duplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, mid rise apartments etc. The province refers to the missing middle housing as gentle intensification and the affordability task force made some recommendations on allowing "as of right" secondary suites and four units and up to four storeys on a single residential lots which staff and Council previously commented on. These comments were forwarded to Minister Steve Clark. As part of the Province's consultation they are asking 4 questions: 1. What are the biggest barriers and delays to diversifying the types of housing built in existing neighbourhoods? 2. What further changes to the planning and development process would you suggest to make it easier to support gentle density and building missing middle housing and multigenerational housing, in Ontario? Page 8 of 110 Page 194 of 842 3. Are you aware of innovative approaches to land use planning and community building from other jurisdictions that would help to increase the supply of missing middle and multi-generational housing? 4. Are there any other changes that would help support opportunities for missing middle and multi-generational housing? These questions do not assist in clarifying staff's original concerns on placing density in areas with limited supporting services. Staff suggested that the Province tailor 4-6 storey intensification to those areas along collector and arterial roadways where future supports can be more readily planned and where existing infrastructure may be utilized more efficiently. Staff also suggest that additional forms of housing that address the missing middle could be introduced that do not go above current by-law heights. Missing Middle housing consists of a variety of housing types and designs, if done correctly, they can assist in providing age in place opportunities for those who wish to stay in their neighbourhood. If done incorrectly, they can lead to concerns from area residents. A further report will be forth coming on missing middle housing once further information is provided by the Province. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There are no financial implications associated with this report. However, should Bill 109 be enacted as currently proposed, there could be substantial financial impacts to the Planning, Building and Development Operating Budget if staff were required to issue refunds to developers for application processing delays. Alternatively, the Planning, Building and Development Operating Budget will need to be substantially increased to respond to development applications in tighter timeframes and/or adjudicate these matters at the Ontario Land Tribunal. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The Province has proposed Bill 109 and its amendments to the Planning Act as an effort to expedite development approvals. This effort is in line with the strategic goals of Council but staff are still concerned with financially penalizing municipalities for not meeting legislated timelines and the anticipated significant increase in a ppeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal. List of Attachments APPENDIX 1 - PBD-2022-10 Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Proposal Review Appendix 2 - Public Comments Written by: Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Page 9 of 110 Page 195 of 842 Submitted by: Status: Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 09 May 2022 Page 10 of 110 Page 196 of 842 PBD-2022-10 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 22, 2022 Title: Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Proposal Review Recommendation(s) 1. That Council support the recommendations from Planning staff on "The Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force" as detailed in Appendix "2" of PBD-2022- 10. 2. That Council forward a copy of this report to Minister Steve Clark. 3. That Staff monitor how these recommendation are implemented by the Provincial government and bring forward any necessary staffing implications to Council through the 2023 budget. 4. That Staff prepare a future report to Council on permitting additional uses in the low density areas and zones for gentle intensification, recommendations for intensification corridors as part of the City's new Official Plan, consideration of a reduction of parking requirements based on the City's parking study review and on dele gated authority. Executive Summary On February 8, 2022 the provincial task force released “The report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force” (Appendix "1"). This report outlined fifty-five recommendations to support the construction of 1.5 million new homes in 10 years to assist the housing affordability problem. The task force breaks up the fifty-five recommendations into five main categories: 1. Focus on getting more homes built 2. Making land available to build 3. Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs 4. Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent 5. Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply The recommendations in the provincial report are geared towards intensification through modernization of zoning to permit a wider more inclusive variety of housing in existing Page 1 of 60Page 11 of 110 Page 197 of 842 neighbourhoods, intensification of transit corridors and roadways and to monopolize on underutilized commercial properties. These recommendations open the door for more housing within the urban area to make better use of existing roads, water, wastewater, transit and other public services. The report focuses on ensuring growth happens at a faster rate with less costs. The recommendations focus on timelines, clear expectations for developers, new innovative options for development and preventing the abuse of the appeal process. The province suggests that funding may be available for additional human resources, e -permitting, to support intensification and faster development approval. They also propose recommendations to balance government fees such as development charges, parkland dedication, HST, property taxes to ensure they do not discourage development. After review there are four main areas of concern for staff and they are: 1.Density without amenities or good design 2.No relationship or shared common goal with government and developers 3.The plan is Toronto/GTA centric 4.The financial impacts to the City of Niagara Falls The Provincial task force recommendations are a starting point but we need to consider a made in Niagara approach to ensure development and intensification focus on good design, appropriate integration into existing communities and the support of amenities to create great places for people to live. Accelerated growth does come at a cost. The City will need to invest in human resources and e-permitting systems to efficiently process applications to make sure developers get in the ground sooner. The province is committing to providing funding to assist municipalities at the outset but the Province needs to make sure that the burden of faster more affordable housing does not come at a cost to just the taxpayer. The Province needs to engage the development community to commit to assisting in this effort. This collaborative approach to housing affordability is missing from the current task force recommendations and needs to be further considered by the Province. Background On December 6, 2021, the Ontario government appointed nine members to a new Housing Affordability Task Force to determine measures to address housing affordability. The mandate of this task force was to: • Increasing the supply of market rate rental and ownership housing; • Building housing supply in complete communities; • Reducing red tape and accelerating timelines; Page 2 of 60Page 12 of 110 Page 198 of 842 • Encouraging innovation and digital modernization, such as in planning processes; • Supporting economic recovery and job creation; and • Balancing housing needs with protecting the environment. On February 8, 2022 this task force released “The report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force” (Appendix "1"). This report outlines fifty-five recommendations to build 1.5 million new homes in 10 years to assist the housing affordability problem. The task force has broken up the fifty-five recommendations into five main categories: 1. Focus on getting more homes built The goal is to build 1.5 million homes in 10 years by permitting the full spectrum of housing to support intensification through redevelopment in the existing urban areas. We are in a housing crisis and the goal of the Province while ambitious will help to assist in providing housing for all. 2. Making land available to build These recommendations are geared towards modernizing zoning to permit a wider more inclusive variety of housing in existing neighbourhoods, to intensify transit corridors and to monopolize on underutilized commercial properties. These recommendations open the door for more housing options through increase density making better use of existing roads, water, wastewater, transit and other public services. The government plans is to do this by proposing the followin g "as of right": • Four storeys and up to 4 units on a single residential lot; • conversions of underutilized commercial lands; • secondary suites, garden suites and laneway houses; • multi-tenant housing; • unlimited height and density within major transit stations if a municipality has not planned for intensification within 2 years; and • 6-11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on streets that have public transit. The government is also proposing to make changes by: • removing policies/zones that prioritize preservation of the character of a neighbourhood; • exempting from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units or less; • proposing province wide zone standards and remove floor plate restrictions; Page 3 of 60Page 13 of 110 Page 199 of 842 • limiting municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings beyond; the planning act and permitting digital participation options; • removing any barriers to affordable construction in the Ontario Building Code; • incentivizing municipalities to increase densities in school zones with capacity; • requiring mandatory delegation of site plan approval and minor variance to staff or 3rd party consultants; • limiting the abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process and requiring compensation by municipalities to homeowners for loss of property value as a result of heritage designation; and • restoring developers rights to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive reviews. Lastly, the government suggests responsible housing growth on undeveloped land including land outside urban area boundaries to support higher density complete communities. 3. Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs The recommendations in this section focus on timelines, clear expectations for developers, new innovative options for development and preventing the abuse of the appeal process. These recommendations consider how to improve the standardization, speed and alternatives for development applications through: • Legislative timelines that must be adhered to or the application is deemed approved; • fund approvals facilitators; • pre-consultation with a binding list of requirements; • allow 12 storey wood frame construction; • standardization of draft plan conditions; • standardization of legal agreements; • an option to pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit. The changes to the appeal process include such things as: • the removal of the right to appeal housing projects with at least 30% affordable housing guaranteed for 40 years; • a $10,000 filing fee for third party appeals; • costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or municipality where council has overridden staffs recommendation. • encourage oral decisions; • awarding punitive damages to a municipality that has refused an application to avoid the deemed approval timelines; Page 4 of 60Page 14 of 110 Page 200 of 842 • fund additional staffing at OLT (Ontario Land Tribunal) and set shorter time targets. 4. Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent This section proposes recommendations to balance government fees such as development charges, parkland cash in lieu, HST, property taxes to ensure they do not discourage development. This section also covers further legislative changes to the Planning Act, the and Perpetuities Act and focuses on provincial funding and other strategies to address affordable housing and the need for more housing. The government is proposing to: • Waive DC's, parkland cash in lieu for all infill projects up to 10 units or where no new material infrastructure is required; • Waive DC"s on affordable housing guaranteed for 40 years; • prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipalities borrowing rate; • Review by province of cash in lieu, DC's and benefit reserves to ensure they are used in a timely fashion and are used in the neighbourhoods where they are collected. • recommend that HST rebates reflect current home prices. • Align property taxes for purpose built rental; • Extend maximum period for land leases and restrictive covenants to 40 years or more; • Funding for pilot projects for pathways to homeownership for those in need and loan guarantees for purpose built rentals; • call on the federal government to implement an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy; and • eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth; 5. Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply The recommendations in this section focus on ensuring infrastructure construction and allocation can be provided without the use of development charges, assist in solutions to address labour force shortages, impose funding penalties on municipalities that do not address the need for growth and to monitor progress. The Province plans to do this by: • enabling municipalities to withdraw infrastructure allocation where construction has not started within 3 years; • implementing a municipal service corporation utility model for water and wastewater to amortize costs among customers instead of using DC's. • improving education and funding programs for skilled trades and fund on the job training; Page 5 of 60Page 15 of 110 Page 201 of 842 • expediting immigration status for needed trades; • establishing an "Ontario Housing Delivery Fund" to reward annual growth that meets provincial targets, reductions in approval times and speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices; • reducing funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and timeline targets; • Funding e-permitting systems and common data architecture standards and set a goal of 2025; • requiring municipalities and the provincial government to use the Ministry of Finance population projections as the basis for housing need analysis and report publicly on housing data and any gap between demand and supp ly; • empowering the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing lead a government committee to meet weekly to ensure recommendations and other ideas are implemented; and • evaluating these recommendations for the next three years. Overall the above five categories focus on changes to public participation, delegation, heritage matters, Ontario Local Planning Tribunal changes and as of right zoning and other legislative changes. These categories also focus on providing Provincial funding for changes and at the same time imposing new financial burdens on the municipality. Analysis The Affordability Task Force has put forth 55 recommendations to get home built faster by cutting red tape and reducing costs. The proposal while bold lacks a few fundamental key components and creates additional impacts on municipalities and its residents. The key issues are: 1.Density without amenities or good design 2.No relationship or shared common goal between government and developers 3.The plan is Toronto/GTA centric 4.The financial impacts to the City of Niagara Falls Density without amenities or good design 1) Increasing density without design or amenities to create a sense of place where people want to live creates poor environments that lead to crime, depression and other social impacts. In order to increase density in key areas proper planning should be undertaken to ensure there is sufficient service capacity, transit systems, parks and open space, commercial amenities, schools and other amenities within walking distance. The recommendations by the Task Force encourage density in areas without adequate transit, servicing and other amenities. Density in key locations should be planned. The Task Force did identify density near low enrollment schools as one recommendation. These schools are normally in areas of transition close to downtowns. These areas are ideal for intensification provided they have adequate amenities and Page 6 of 60Page 16 of 110 Page 202 of 842 services. This recommendation should be taken further to permit affordable housing on top of existing schools to increase enrollment and utilize shared open space and parking. Of particular interest is the recommendation to permit four storeys and up to 4 units on any single residential lot. The focus of the Province should be on a more gentle intensification and the elimination of red tape for second dwelling units, single to multiple conversions within existing structures and new permissions to permit a variety housing forms with a height of 2.5 storeys in lower density neighborhoods. This lower type of intensification will blend in with the existing neighbourhoods. This would then support the Province's goal to intensify along transit corridors by allowing more gradual intensification (4-6 storeys) as you get to the collector and arterial road system to support more intense transit ridership Niagara. In addition, recommendation 12 sets prohibitions for urban design type standards such as shadow impacts, angular planes all which assist in creating good building design. If these are not put in place what can result is large massive block buildings within limited windows creating places where people do not want to live. This is further compounded by limitations on Development Charges and parkland cash in lieu to fund new parks and other amenities for the new residents. The proposed changes need to consider further how to intensify with good design and appropriate amenities to create great places for people to live. The goal of the Province cannot be massive housing tracks without appropriate planning as this will come at a heavy social price. Common goal with Government and Developers 2) The approach by the Province is one sided and affordable housing needs to be a partnership between government and the developers. There is no guarantee that the reduction in these costs/timelines will translate to affordable housing or more housing. In the City of Niagara Falls the Planning Department had approved 4407 units within the Built up area which remained unbuilt as of the end of 2020. In addition, there were 560 units that remained unbuilt in the Greenfield area. Last year there were 860 residential units approved for construction in the City of Niagara Falls and the City has yet to calculate the amount of new units approved which will add to the supply inventory. City staff have noticed a significant amount of land banking occurring which also contributes to lack of supply. As can be seen, the Province needs to analyze further why the housing is not getting built faster with the supply ready and available for development. In addition, they need to consider how affordable housing will get built collectively through the municipalities/region/provincial work and the construction industry. Two possible solutions are to put in place "as of right" inclusionary zoning for any development above 4 units or set a percentage of affordable units that must be met by developers. Page 7 of 60Page 17 of 110 Page 203 of 842 As the approach cannot be one sided and the City of Niagara Falls has already planned for increased density in line with Provincial targets in the Downtown GO station area and have already begun work on, identifying new and revamping old, intensification nodes and corridors and will finalize this work through the City's new Official Plan. Staff have are also beginning an exercise to streamline the planning process and identify any bottlenecks in the process to ensure applications are not needlessly held up. Toronto/GTA centric Plan 3) These recommendations seem to stem from the Toronto/GTA area where transit is sufficient to accommodate this type of increased density. There should be a made in Niagara approach where Niagara has the ability to plan for intensification in each community and for those communities to determine the locations where growth is best suited. The provincial government should allocate a specific density and time frame for each municipality to identify there growth corridors or nodes to accommodate the projected growth. Given that the Region of Niagara's new Official Plan is almost complete this timeframe can be linked to the completion of the municipal conformity exercise. Financial Impacts 4) The municipality will need to increase staff to process applications to meet or exceed Provincial time target. These timeline targets and growth related projections will be linked to current and future funding allocations. The City has received funding to implement an e-permitting, planning and by-law system and any remaining funding could be used for additional staffing. There also may be future opportunities for funding for staffing. The province is recommending to waive DC's and parkland cash in lieu for projects up to 10 units and for other projects that do not require material infrastructure. Although this number seems small the City relies on DC's to fund capital infrastructure replacement and new infrastructure projects, fund park development, transit etc. The City also relies on parkland cash in lieu to purchase parkland and this will be extremely important in the future with the planned intensification. The reduction in these allocations will mean more costs on the general tax payer and residents of the City of Niagara Falls to fund projects. The province is suggesting that current taxpayers should pay for growth rather than the current model that growth should pay for growth. In addition, the Province is proposing compensation by municipalities to homeowners for loss of property value as a result of heritage designation. How this will be determined is a question and this is not currently budgeted by the municipality and will need to be considered further if approved relative to the possible heritage designation sites. Staff are of the opinion that there is no evidence that suggest heritage designations trigger lower property values and I would argue this is definitely not the case in Niagara on the Lake which has a very large heritage district which increases the property value of the area. Page 8 of 60Page 18 of 110 Page 204 of 842 Some of these financial burdens may be appropriate if they result in more affordable housing, but staff do not see how the compensation on heritage designation achieves the goal of providing more attainable and affordable housing. This recommendation is an outlier that is not in keeping with the theme of the Task Force mandate. The Provincial Task Force recommendations are a step in the right direction and they definitely open the door for further dialogue with area municipalities. The commentary above is a brief overview of concerns and suggestions but Planning staff have reviewed all the recommendations of the Task Force in detail in Appendix "2". Operational Implications and Risk Analysis The recommendations put forward by the Province will have operational impacts which will be tied to funding allocations. Additional staff will be needed to adhere to or exceed Provincial time targets. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The recommendations put forward by the Province will have an financial impact on the City. The financial impacts were identified above in the financial section above. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The City of Niagara Falls Strategic Vision for the City 2019-2022 is in line with the majority of the Provinces recommendations from the Provincial task force. The City's strategic plan focuses on streamlining the approvals process to support economic growth and development by updating plans and policies to be in line with future trends. This also includes a review of parking requirements to accommodate growth and economic development. The strategic plan also focuses on improvements to the transit system, the improvement and utilization of existing services, the long term planning for future services and linkages to other communities and amenities. Lastly, the City's strategic plan envisions a comprehensive housing strategy that will establish a housing mix to build complete communities, encourage infill opportunities, incentivize the development of affordable rental housing units and facilitate the delivery of new affordable housing units on both City-owned and third party land. List of Attachments Appendix 1 Ministry Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force v2 Appendix 2 Affordability Task force Written by: Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Submitted by: Status: Page 9 of 60Page 19 of 110 Page 205 of 842 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 16 Mar 2022 Page 10 of 60Page 20 of 110 Page 206 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force February 8, 2022 APPENDIX 1 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING REPORT Page 11 of 60Page 21 of 110 Page 207 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 2 Contents Letter to Minister Clark .......................................................................3 Executive summary and recommendations ...............................4 Introduction ............................................................................................6 Focus on getting more homes built ..............................................9 Making land available to build .......................................................10 Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs ........................................................15 Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent ....................................18 Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply .............................................................22 Conclusion ..........................................................................................26 Appendix A: Biographies of Task Force Members ................27 Appendix B: Affordable Housing .................................................29 Appendix C: Government Surplus Land ....................................31 Appendix D: Surety Bonds ............................................................32 References ..........................................................................................33 Page 12 of 60Page 22 of 110 Page 208 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 3 Letter to Minister Clark Dear Minister Clark, Hard-working Ontarians are facing a housing crisis. For many years, the province has not built enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population. While the affordability crisis began in our large cities, it has now spread to smaller towns and rural communities. Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to home buyers. The long-term trend is clear: house prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now. When striking the Housing Affordability Task Force, you and Premier Ford were clear: you wanted actionable, concrete solutions to help Ontarians and there was no time to waste. You asked us to be bold and gave us the freedom and independence to develop our recommendations. In the past two months, we have met municipal leaders, planners, unions, developers and builders, the financial sector, academics, think tanks and housing advocates. Time was short, but solutions emerged consistently around these themes: • More housing density across the province • End exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing • Depoliticize the housing approvals process • Prevent abuse of the housing appeals system • Financial support to municipalities that build more housing We present this report to you not as an “all or nothing” proposal, but rather as a list of options that the government has at its disposal to help address housing affordability for Ontarians and get more homes built. We propose an ambitious but achievable target: 1.5 million new homes built in the next ten years. Parents and grandparents are worried that their children will not be able to afford a home when they start working or decide to start a family. Too many Ontarians are unable to live in their preferred city or town because they cannot afford to buy or rent. The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians. The balance has swung too far in favour of lengthy consultations, bureaucratic red tape, and costly appeals. It is too easy to oppose new housing and too costly to build. We are in a housing crisis and that demands immediate and sweeping reforms. It has been an honour to serve as Chair, and I am proud to submit this report on behalf of the entire Task Force. Jake Lawrence Chair, Housing Affordability Task Force Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets, Scotiabank Page 13 of 60Page 23 of 110 Page 209 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 4 Executive summary and recommendations House prices in Ontario have almost tripled in the past 10 years, growing much faster than incomes. This has home ownership beyond the reach of most first-time buyers across the province, even those with well-paying jobs. Housing has become too expensive for rental units and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. The system is not working as it should. For too long, we have focused on solutions to “cool” the housing market. It is now clear that we do not have enough homes to meet the needs of Ontarians today, and we are not building enough to meet the needs of our growing population. If this problem is not fixed – by creating more housing to meet the growing demand – housing prices will continue to rise. We need to build more housing in Ontario. This report sets out recommendations that would set a bold goal and clear direction for the province, increase density, remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth, prevent abuse of the appeals process, and make sure municipalities are treated as partners in this process by incentivizing success. Setting bold targets and making new housing the planning priority Recommendations 1 and 2 urge Ontario to set a bold goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years and update planning guidance to make this a priority. The task force then recommends actions in five main areas to increase supply: Require greater density Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways, and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing on undeveloped land should also be higher density than traditional suburbs, especially close to highways. Adding density in all these locations makes better use of infrastructure and helps to save land outside urban boundaries. Implementing these recommendations will provide Ontarians with many more options for housing. Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario can quickly create more housing supply by allowing more housing in more locations “as of right” (without the need for municipal approval) and make better use of transportation investments. Reduce and streamline urban design rules Municipalities require numerous studies and set all kinds of rules for adding housing, many of which go well beyond the requirements of the provincial Planning Act. While some of this guidance has value for urban design, some rules appear to be arbitrary and not supported by evidence – for example, requiring condo buildings to include costly parking stalls even though many go unsold. These rules and requirements result in delays and extra costs that make housing either impossible to build or very expensive for the eventual home buyer or renter. Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial standards for urban design, including building shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical character over new housing, no longer require municipal approval of design matters like a building’s colour, texture, type of material or window details, and remove or reduce parking requirements. Page 14 of 60Page 24 of 110 Page 210 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 5 Depoliticize the process and cut red tape NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a major obstacle to building housing. It drags out the approval process, pushes up costs, and keeps out new residents. Because local councillors depend on the votes of residents who want to keep the status quo, the planning process has become politicized. Municipalities allow far more public consultation than is required, often using formats that make it hard for working people and families with young children to take part. Too few technical decisions are delegated to municipal staff. Pressure to designate buildings with little or no heritage value as “heritage” if development is proposed and bulk listings of properties with “heritage potential” are also standing in the way of getting homes built. Dysfunction throughout the system, risk aversion and needless bureaucracy have resulted in a situation where Ontario lags the rest of Canada and the developed world in approval times. Ontarians have waited long enough. Recommendations 13 through 25 would require municipalities to limit consultations to the legislated maximum, ensure people can take part digitally, mandate the delegation of technical decisions, prevent abuse of the heritage process and see property owners compensated for financial loss resulting from designation, restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews, legislate timelines for approvals and enact several other common sense changes that would allow housing to be built more quickly and affordably. Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal Largely because of the politicization of the planning process, many proponents look to the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, to give the go-ahead to projects that should have been approved by the municipality. Even when there is municipal approval, however, opponents appeal to the Tribunal – paying only a $400 fee – knowing that this may well succeed in delaying a project to the point where it might no longer make economic sense. As a result, the Tribunal faces a backlog of more than 1,000 cases and is seriously under-resourced. Recommendations 26 through 31 seek to weed out or prevent appeals aimed purely at delaying projects, allow adjudicators to award costs to proponents in more cases, including instances where a municipality has refused an approval to avoid missing a legislated deadline, reduce the time to issue decisions, increase funding, and encourage the Tribunal to prioritize cases that would increase housing supply quickly as it tackles the backlog. Support municipalities that commit to transforming the system Fixing the housing crisis needs everyone working together. Delivering 1.5 million homes will require the provincial and federal governments to invest in change. Municipalities that make the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing supply should be rewarded, and those that resist new housing should see funding reductions. Recommendations 49 and 50 call for Ontario government to create a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding, and suggest how the province should reward municipalities that support change and reduce funding for municipalities that do not. This executive summary focuses on the actions that will get the most housing units approved and built in the shortest time. Other recommendations in the report deal with issues that are important but may take more time to resolve or may not directly increase supply (recommendation numbers are indicated in brackets): improving tax and municipal financing (32-37, 39, 42-44); encouraging new pathways to home ownership (38, 40, 41); and addressing labour shortages in the construction industry (45-47 ). This is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”. There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing housing prices and find solutions. This time must be different. Recommendations 50-55 set out ways of helping to ensure real and concrete progress on providing the homes Ontarians need. Page 15 of 60Page 25 of 110 Page 211 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 6 Introduction Ontario is in a housing crisis. Prices are skyrocketing: the average price for a house across Ontario was $923,000 at the end of 2021.[1] Ten years ago, the average price was $329,000.[2] Over that period, average house prices have climbed 180% while average incomes have grown roughly 38%.[3] [4] Not long ago, hard-working Ontarians – teachers, construction workers, small business owners – could afford the home they wanted. In small towns, it was reasonable to expect that you could afford a home in the neighbourhood you grew up in. Today, home ownership or finding a quality rental is now out of reach for too many Ontarians. The system is not working as it should be. Housing has become too expensive for rental units and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. While people who were able to buy a home a decade or more ago have built considerable personal equity, the benefits of having a home aren’t just financial. Having a place to call home connects people to their community, creates a gathering place for friends and family, and becomes a source of pride. Today, the reality for an ever-increasing number of Ontarians is quite different. Everyone in Ontario knows people who are living with the personal and financial stress of not being able to find housing they can afford. The young family who can’t buy a house within two hours of where they work. The tenant with a good job who worries about where she’ll find a new apartment she can afford if the owner decides to sell. The recent graduate who will have to stay at home for a few more years before he can afford to rent or buy. While the crisis is widespread, it weighs more heavily on some groups than on others. Young people starting a family who need a larger home find themselves priced out of the market. Black, Indigenous and marginalized people face even greater challenges. As Ontarians, we have only recently begun to understand and address the reality of decades of systemic racism that has resulted in lower household incomes, making the housing affordability gap wider than average. The high cost of housing has pushed minorities and lower income Ontarians further and further away from job markets. Black and Indigenous homeownership rates are less than half of the provincial average.[5] And homelessness rates among Indigenous Peoples are 11 times the national average. When housing prevents an individual from reaching their full potential, this represents a loss to every Ontarian: lost creativity, productivity, and revenue. Lost prosperity for individuals and for the entire Ontario economy. Average price for a house across Ontario 2021 $923,000 $329,000 2011 +180%+38 % Over 1 0 Years average house prices have climbed while average incomes have grown Page 16 of 60Page 26 of 110 Page 212 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 7 As much as we read about housing affordability being a challenge in major cities around the world, the depth of the challenge has become greater in Ontario and Canada than almost anywhere in the developed world. How did we get here? Why do we have this problem? A major factor is that there just isn’t enough housing. A 2021 Scotiabank study showed that Canada has the fewest housing units per population of any G7 country – and, our per capita housing supply has dropped in the past five years.[6] An update to that study released in January 2022 found that two thirds of Canada’s housing shortage is in Ontario.[7] Today, Ontario is 1.2 million homes – rental or owned – short of the G7 average. With projected population growth, that huge gap is widening, and bridging it will take immediate, bold and purposeful effort. And to support population growth in the next decade, we will need one million more homes. While governments across Canada have taken steps to “cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases. Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we need to build more housing in Ontario. Ontario must build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years to address the supply shortage The housing crisis impacts all Ontarians. The ripple effect of the crisis also holds back Ontario reaching its full potential. Economy Businesses of all sizes are facing problems finding and retaining workers. Even high-paying jobs in technology and manufacturing are hard to fill because there’s not enough housing nearby. This doesn’t just dampen the economic growth of cities, it makes them less vibrant, diverse, and creative, and strains their ability to provide essential services. Public services Hospitals, school boards and other public service providers across Ontario report challenges attracting and retaining staff because of housing costs. One town told us that it could no longer maintain a volunteer fire department, because volunteers couldn’t afford to live within 10 minutes drive of the firehall. Environment Long commutes contribute to air pollution and carbon emissions. An international survey of 74 cities in 16 countries found that Toronto, at 96 minutes both ways, had the longest commute times in North America and was essentially tied with Bogota, Colombia, for the longest commute time worldwide.[8] Increasing density in our cities and around major transit hubs helps reduce emissions to the benefit of everyone. Our mandate and approach Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing tasked us with recommending ways to accelerate our progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve housing affordability. Time is of the essence. Building housing now is exactly what our post-pandemic economy needs. Housing construction creates good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced to other countries. Moreover, the pandemic gave rise to unprecedented levels of available capital that can be invested in housing – if we can just put it to work. We represent a wide range of experience and perspectives that includes developing, financing and building homes, delivering affordable housing, and researching housing market trends, challenges and solutions. Our detailed biographies appear as Appendix A. Canada has the lowest amount of housing per population of any G7 country. We acknowledge that every house in Ontario is built on the traditional territory of Indigenous Peoples. 1.5MOntario must build homes over the next 10 years to address the supply shortage. Page 17 of 60Page 27 of 110 Page 213 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 8 Our mandate was to focus on how to increase market housing supply and affordability. By market housing, we are referring to homes that can be purchased or rented without government support. Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates with government support) was not part of our mandate. The Minister and his cabinet colleagues are working on that issue. Nonetheless, almost every stakeholder we spoke with had ideas that will help deliver market housing and also make it easier to deliver affordable housing. However, affordable housing is a societal responsibility and will require intentional investments and strategies to bridge the significant affordable housing gap in this province. We have included a number of recommendations aimed at affordable housing in the body of this report, but have also included further thoughts in Appendix B. We note that government-owned land was also outside our mandate. Many stakeholders, however, stressed the value of surplus or underused public land and land associated with major transit investments in finding housing solutions. We agree and have set out some thoughts on that issue in Appendix C. How we did our work Our Task Force was struck in December 2021 and mandated to deliver a final report to the Minister by the end of January 2022. We were able to work to that tight timeline because, in almost all cases, viewpoints and feasible solutions are well known. In addition, we benefited from insights gleaned from recent work to solve the problem in other jurisdictions. During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over 140 organizations and individuals, including industry associations representing builders and developers, planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions; social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal level; academics and research groups; and municipal planners. We also received written submissions from many of these participants. In addition, we drew on the myriad public reports and papers listed in the References. We thank everyone who took part in sessions that were uniformly helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the housing crisis and the way out of it. We also thank the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who provided logistical and other support, including technical briefings and background. The way forward The single unifying theme across all participants over the course of the Task Force’s work has been the urgency to take decisive action. Today’s housing challenges are incredibly complex. Moreover, developing land, obtaining approvals, and building homes takes years. Some recommendations will produce immediate benefits, others will take years for the full impact. This is why there is no time to waste. We urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his cabinet colleagues to continue measures they have already taken to accelerate housing supply and to move quickly in turning the recommendations in this report into decisive new actions. The province must set an ambitious and bold goal to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If we build 1.5 million new homes over the next ten years, Ontario can fill the housing gap with more affordable choices, catch up to the rest of Canada and keep up with population growth. By working together, we can resolve Ontario’s housing crisis. In so doing, we can build a more prosperous future for everyone. The balance of this report lays out our recommendations. People in households that spend 30% or more of total household income on shelter expenses are defined as having a “housing affordability” problem. Shelter expenses include electricity, oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, water and other municipal services, monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, condominium fees, and rent. Page 18 of 60Page 28 of 110 Page 214 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 9 Focus on getting more homes built Resolving a crisis requires intense focus and a clear goal. The province is responsible for the legislation and policy that establishes the planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide municipalities, land tribunals, and courts. Municipalities are then responsible for implementing provincial policy in a way that works for their communities. The province is uniquely positioned to lead by shining a spotlight on this issue, setting the tone, and creating a single, galvanizing goal around which federal support, provincial legislation, municipal policy, and the housing market can be aligned. In 2020, Ontario built about 75,000 housing units.[9] For this report, we define a housing unit (home) as a single dwelling (detached, semi-detached, or attached), apartment, suite, condominium or mobile home. Since 2018, housing completions have grown every year as a result of positive measures that the province and some municipalities have implemented to encourage more home building. But we are still 1.2 million homes short when compared to other G7 countries and our population is growing. The goal of 1.5 million homes feels daunting – but reflects both the need and what is possible. In fact, throughout the 1970s Ontario built more housing units each year than we do today.[10] The second recommendation is designed to address the growing complexity and volume of rules in the legislation, policy, plans and by-laws, and their competing priorities, by providing clear direction to provincial agencies, municipalities, tribunals, and courts on the overriding priorities for housing. 1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in ten years. 2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as the most important residential housing priorities in the mandate and purpose. The “missing middle” is often cited as an important part of the housing solution. We define the missing middle as mid-rise condo or rental housing, smaller houses on subdivided lots or in laneways and other additional units in existing houses. Page 19 of 60Page 29 of 110 Page 215 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 10 Making land available to build The Greater Toronto Area is bordered on one side by Lake Ontario and on the other by the protected Greenbelt. Similarly, the Ottawa River and another Greenbelt constrain land supply in Ottawa, the province’s second-largest city. But a shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem. Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts. We need to make better use of land. Zoning defines what we can build and where we can build. If we want to make better use of land to create more housing, then we need to modernize our zoning rules. We heard from planners, municipal councillors, and developers that “as of right” zoning – the ability to by-pass long, drawn out consultations and zoning by-law amendments – is the most effective tool in the provincial toolkit. We agree. Stop using exclusionary zoning that restricts more housing Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules. For example, it’s estimated that 70% of land zoned for housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes.[11] This type of zoning prevents homeowners from adding additional suites to create housing for Ontarians and income for themselves. As one person said, “my neighbour can tear down what was there to build a monster home, but I’m not allowed to add a basement suite to my home.” While less analysis has been done in other Ontario communities, it’s estimated that about half of all residential land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing, meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law. In some suburbs around Toronto, single unit zoning dominates residential land use, even close to GO Transit stations and major highways. One result is that more growth is pushing past urban boundaries and turning farmland into housing. Undeveloped land inside and outside existing municipal boundaries must be part of the solution, particularly in northern and rural communities, but isn’t nearly enough on its own. Most of the solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the already small share of land devoted to agriculture. Modernizing zoning would also open the door to more rental housing, which in turn would make communities more inclusive. Allowing more gentle density also makes better use of roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other public services that are already in place and have capacity, instead of having to be built in new areas. The Ontario government took a positive step by allowing secondary suites (e.g., basement apartments) across the province in 2019. However, too many municipalities still place too many restrictions on implementation. For the last three years, the total number of secondary suites in Toronto has actually declined each year, as few units get permitted and owners convert two units into one.[12] These are the types of renovations and home construction performed by small businesses and local trades, providing them with a boost. 70 %It’s estimated that of land zoned for housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes. Page 20 of 60Page 30 of 110 Page 216 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 11 Underused and vacant commercial and industrial properties are another potential source of land for housing. It was suggested to us that one area ripe for redevelopment into a mix of commercial and residential uses is the strip mall, a leftover from the 1950s that runs along major suburban streets in most large Ontario cities. “As of right” zoning allows more kinds of housing that are accessible to more kinds of people. It makes neighbourhoods stronger, richer, and fairer. And it will get more housing built in existing neighbourhoods more quickly than any other measure. 3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action: a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys on a single residential lot. b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies to remove any barriers to affordable construction and to ensure meaningful implementation (e.g., allow single-staircase construction for up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.). 4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or redundant commercial properties to residential or mixed residential and commercial use. 5. Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway houses province-wide. 6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting rooms within a dwelling) province-wide. 7. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with excess school capacity to benefit families with children. Align investments in roads and transit with growth Governments have invested billions of dollars in highways, light rail, buses, subways and trains in Ontario. But without ensuring more people can live close to those transit routes, we’re not getting the best return on those infrastructure investments. Access to transit is linked to making housing more affordable: when reliable transit options are nearby, people can get to work more easily. They can live further from the centre of the city in less expensive areas without the added cost of car ownership. The impacts of expanding public transit go far beyond serving riders. These investments also spur economic growth and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. We all pay for the cost of transit spending, and we should all share in the benefits. If municipalities achieve the right development near transit – a mix of housing at high- and medium-density, office space and retail – this would open the door to better ways of funding the costs. Other cities, like London, UK and Hong Kong, have captured the impacts of increased land value and business activity along new transit routes to help with their financing. Ontario recently created requirements (residents/hectare) for municipalities to zone for higher density in transit corridors and “major transit station areas”.[13a] [13b] These are areas surrounding subway and other rapid transit stations and hubs. However, we heard troubling reports that local opposition is blocking access to these neighbourhoods and to critical public transit stations. City staff, councillors, and the province need to stand up to these tactics and speak up for the Ontarians who need housing. The Province is also building new highways in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and it’s important to plan thoughtfully for the communities that will follow from these investments, to make sure they are compact and liveable. Page 21 of 60Page 31 of 110 Page 217 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 12 8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations within two years if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet provincial density targets. 9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on any streets utilized by public transit (including streets on bus and streetcar routes). 10. Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and residential use all land along transit corridors and redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed commercial and residential zoning in Toronto. 11. Support responsible housing growth on undeveloped land, including outside existing municipal boundaries, by building necessary infrastructure to support higher density housing and complete communities and applying the recommendations of this report to all undeveloped land. Start saying “yes in my backyard” Even where higher density is allowed in theory, the official plans of most cities in Ontario contain conflicting goals like maintaining “prevailing neighbourhood character”. This bias is reinforced by detailed guidance that often follows from the official plan. Although requirements are presented as “guidelines”, they are often treated as rules. Examples include: • Angular plane rules that require successively higher floors to be stepped further back, cutting the number of units that can be built by up to half and making many projects uneconomic • Detailed rules around the shadows a building casts • Guidelines around finishes, colours and other design details One resident’s desire to prevent a shadow being cast in their backyard or a local park frequently prevails over concrete proposals to build more housing for multiple families. By-laws and guidelines that preserve “neighbourhood character” often prevent simple renovations to add new suites to existing homes. The people who suffer are mostly young, visible minorities, and marginalized people. It is the perfect example of a policy that appears neutral on its surface but is discriminatory in its application.[14] Far too much time and money are spent reviewing and holding consultations for large projects which conform with the official plan or zoning by-law and small projects which would cause minimal disruption. The cost of needless delays is passed on to new home buyers and tenants. Minimum parking requirements for each new unit are another example of outdated municipal requirements that increase the cost of housing and are increasingly less relevant with public transit and ride share services. Minimum parking requirements add as much as $165,000 to the cost of a new housing unit, even as demand for parking spaces is falling: data from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario shows that in new condo projects, one in three parking stalls goes unsold. We applaud the recent vote by Toronto City Council to scrap most minimum parking requirements. We believe other cities should follow suit. While true heritage sites are important, heritage preservation has also become a tool to block more housing. For example, some municipalities add thousands of properties at a time to a heritage register because they have “potential” heritage value. Even where a building isn’t heritage designated or registered, neighbours increasingly demand it be as soon as a development is proposed. This brings us to the role of the “not in my backyard” or NIMBY sentiment in delaying or stopping more homes from being built. New housing is often the last priority A proposed building with market and affordable housing units would have increased the midday shadow by 6.5% on a nearby park at the fall and spring equinox, with no impact during the summer months. To conform to a policy that does not permit “new net shadow on specific parks”, seven floors of housing, including 26 affordable housing units, were sacrificed. Multiple dry cleaners along a transit route were designated as heritage sites to prevent new housing being built. It is hard not to feel outrage when our laws are being used to prevent families from moving into neighbourhoods and into homes they can afford along transit routes. Page 22 of 60Page 32 of 110 Page 218 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 13 NIMBY versus YIMBY NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a large and constant obstacle to providing housing everywhere. Neighbourhood pushback drags out the approval process, pushes up costs and discourages investment in housing. It also keeps out new residents. While building housing is very costly, opposing new housing costs almost nothing. Unfortunately, there is a strong incentive for individual municipal councillors to fall in behind community opposition – it’s existing residents who elect them, not future ones. The outcry of even a handful of constituents (helped by the rise of social media) has been enough, in far too many cases, to persuade their local councillor to vote against development even while admitting its merits in private. There is a sense among some that it’s better to let the Ontario Land Tribunal approve the development on appeal, even if it causes long delays and large cost increases, then to take the political heat. Mayors and councillors across the province are fed up and many have called for limits on public consultations and more “as of right” zoning. In fact, some have created a new term for NIMBYism: BANANAs – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, causing one mayor to comment “NIMBYism has gone BANANAs”. We agree. In a growing, thriving society, that approach is not just bad policy, it is exclusionary and wrong. As a result, technical planning decisions have become politicized. One major city has delegated many decisions to senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote at Council. We heard that this situation is common across the province, creating an electoral incentive for a councillor to delay or stop a housing proposal, or forcing a councillor to pay the electoral cost of supporting it. Approvals of individual housing applications should be the role of professional staff, free from political interference. The pressure to stop any development is now so intense that it has given rise to a counter-movement – YIMBYism, or “yes in my backyard,” led by millennials who recognize entrenched opposition to change as a huge obstacle to finding a home. They provide a voice at public consultations for young people, new immigrants and refugees, minority groups, and Ontarians struggling to access housing by connecting our ideals to the reality of housing. People who welcome immigrants to Canada should welcome them to the neighbourhood, fighting climate change means supporting higher-density housing, and “keeping the neighbourhood the way it is” means keeping it off-limits. While anti-housing voices can be loud, a member of More Neighbours Toronto, a YIMBY group that regularly attends public consultations, has said that the most vocal opponents usually don’t represent the majority in a neighbourhood. Survey data from the Ontario Real Estate Association backs that up, with almost 80% of Ontarians saying they are in favour of zoning in urban areas that would encourage more homes. Ontarians want a solution to the housing crisis. We cannot allow opposition and politicization of individual housing projects to prevent us from meeting the needs of all Ontarians. 12. Create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals system: a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, or plans that prioritize the preservation of physical character of neighbourhood b) Exempt from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units or less that conform to the Official Plan and require only minor variances c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights, angular planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index, and heritage view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements; and d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow larger, more efficient high-density towers. 13. Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings beyond those that are required under the Planning Act. 14. Require that public consultations provide digital participation options. 15. Require mandatory delegation of site plan approvals and minor variances to staff or pre-approved qualified third-party technical consultants through a simplified review and approval process, without the ability to withdraw Council’s delegation. Page 23 of 60Page 33 of 110 Page 219 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 14 16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process by: a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal heritage registers b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after a Planning Act development application has been filed 17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property owners for loss of property value as a result of heritage designations, based on the principle of best economic use of land. 18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews. We have heard mixed feedback on Committees of Adjustment. While they are seen to be working well in some cities, in others they are seen to simply add another lengthy step in the process. We would urge the government to first implement our recommendation to delegate minor variances and site plan approvals to municipal staff and then assess whether Committees of Adjustment are necessary and an improvement over staff-level decision making. Page 24 of 60Page 34 of 110 Page 220 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 15 Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: of 35 OECD countries, only the Slovak Republic takes longer than Canada to approve a building project. The UK and the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety. And they save home buyers and tenants money as a result, making housing more affordable.[15] A 2020 survey of development approval times in 23 Canadian cities shows Ontario seriously lagging: Hamilton (15th), Toronto (17th), Ottawa (21st) with approval times averaging between 20-24 months. These timelines do not include building permits, which take about two years for an apartment building in Toronto. Nor did they count the time it takes for undeveloped land to be designated for housing, which the study notes can take five to ten years.[16] Despite the good intentions of many people involved in the approvals and home-building process, decades of dysfunction in the system and needless bureaucracy have made it too difficult for housing approvals to keep up with the needs of Ontarians. There appear to be numerous reasons why Ontario performs so poorly against other Canadian cities and the rest of the developed world. We believe that the major problems can be summed up as: • Too much complexity in the planning process, with the page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and by-laws growing every year • Too many studies, guidelines, meetings and other requirements of the type we outlined in the previous section, including many that go well beyond the scope of Ontario’s Planning Act • Reviews within municipalities and with outside agencies that are piecemeal, duplicative (although often with conflicting outcomes) and poorly coordinated • Process flaws that include reliance on paper • Some provincial policies that are more relevant to urban development but result in burdensome, irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural and northern communities. All of this has contributed to widespread failure on the part of municipalities to meet required timelines. The provincial Planning Act sets out deadlines of 90 days for decisions on zoning by-law amendments, 120 days for plans of subdivision, and 30 days for site plan approval, but municipalities routinely miss these without penalty. For other processes, like site plan approval or provincial approvals, there are no timelines and delays drag on. The cost of delay falls on the ultimate homeowner or tenant. The consequences for homeowners and renters are enormous. Ultimately, whatever cost a builder pays gets passed on to the buyer or renter. As one person said: “Process is the biggest project killer in Toronto because developers have to carry timeline risk.” Site plan control was often brought up as a frustration. Under the Planning Act, this is meant to be a technical review of the external features of a building. In practice, municipalities often expand on what is required and take too long to respond. 8,200 Then & Now Total words in: 1996 Provincial Policy Statement 17,000 2020 17,000 1970 Planning Act 96,000 2020 Page 25 of 60Page 35 of 110 Page 221 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 16 An Ontario Association of Architects study calculating the cost of delays between site plan application and approval concluded that for a 100-unit condominium apartment building, each additional month of delay costs the applicant an estimated $193,000, or $1,930 a month for each unit.[17] A 2020 study done for the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) looked at impacts of delay on low-rise construction, including single-detached homes. It estimated that every month an approval is delayed adds, on average, $1.46 per square foot to the cost of a single home. A two-year delay, which is not unusual for this housing type, adds more than $70,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot house in the GTA.[16] Getting rid of so much unnecessary and unproductive additional work would significantly reduce the burden on staff.[16b] It would help address the widespread shortages of planners and building officials. It would also bring a stronger sense among municipal staff that they are part of the housing solution and can take pride in helping cut approval times and lower the costs of delivering homes. Adopt common sense approaches that save construction costs Wood using “mass timber” – an engineer compressed wood, made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use. Building taller with wood offers advantages beyond cost: • Wood is a renewable resource that naturally sequesters carbon, helping us reach our climate change goals • Using wood supports Ontario’s forestry sector and creates jobs, including for Indigenous people British Columbia’s and Quebec’s building codes allow woodframe construction up to 12 storeys, but Ontario limits it to six. By amending the Building Code to allow 12-storey woodframe construction, Ontario would encourage increased use of forestry products and reduce building costs. Finally, we were told that a shift in how builders are required to guarantee their performance would free up billions of dollars to build more housing. Pay on demand surety bonds are a much less onerous option than letters or credit, and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil, Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities. We outline the technical details in Appendix D. 19. Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial and municipal review process, including site plan, minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem an application approved if the legislated response time is exceeded. 20. Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure timelines are met. 21. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets out a binding list that defines what constitutes a complete application; confirms the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that if a member of a regulated profession such as a professional engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability and no additional stamp is needed. 22. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents. 23. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan of subdivision and standard set of conditions which clarify which may be included; require the use of standard province-wide legal agreements and, where feasible, plans of subdivision. 24. Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys. 25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit. Then: In 1966, a draft plan of subdivision in a town in southwestern Ontario to provide 529 low-rise and mid-rise housing units, a school site, a shopping centre and parks was approved by way of a two-page letter setting out 10 conditions. It took seven months to clear conditions for final approval. And now: In 2013, a builder started the approval process to build on a piece of serviced residential land in a seasonal resort town. Over the next seven years, 18 professional consultant reports were required, culminating in draft plan approval containing 50 clearance conditions. The second approval, issued by the Local Planning Appeals Board in 2020, ran to 23 pages. The developer estimates it will be almost 10 years before final approval is received. Page 26 of 60Page 36 of 110 Page 222 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 17 Prevent abuse of the appeal process Part of the challenge with housing approvals is that, by the time a project has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (the Tribunal), it has usually already faced delay and compromises have been made to reduce the size and scope of the proposal. When an approved project is appealed, the appellant – which could just be a single individual – may pay $400 and tie up new housing for years. The most recent published report showed 1,300 unresolved cases.[18] While under-resourcing does contribute to delays, this caseload also reflects the low barrier to launching an appeal and the minimal risks if an appeal is unsuccessful: • After a builder has spent time and money to ensure a proposal conforms with a municipality’s requirements, the municipal council can still reject it – even if its own planning staff has given its support. Very often this is to appease local opponents. • Unlike a court, costs are not automatically awarded to the successful party at the Tribunal. The winning side must bring a motion and prove that the party bringing the appeal was unreasonable, clearly trying to delay the project, and/or being vexatious or frivolous. Because the bar is set so high, the winning side seldom asks for costs in residential cases. This has resulted in abuse of the Tribunal to delay new housing. Throughout our consultations, we heard from municipalities, not-for-profits, and developers that affordable housing was a particular target for appeals which, even if unsuccessful, can make projects too costly to build. Clearly the Tribunal needs more resources to clear its backlog. But the bigger issue is the need for so many appeals: we believe it would better to have well-defined goals and rules for municipalities and builders to avoid this costly and time-consuming quasi-judicial process. Those who bring appeals aimed at stopping development that meets established criteria should pay the legal costs of the successful party and face the risk of a larger project being approved. The solution is not more appeals, it’s fixing the system. We have proposed a series of reforms that would ensure only meritorious appeals proceeded, that every participant faces some risk and cost of losing, and that abuse of the Tribunal will be penalized. We believe that if Ontario accepts our recommendations, the Tribunal will not face the same volume of appeals. But getting to that point will take time, and the Tribunal needs more resources and better tools now. Recommendation 1 will provide legislative direction to adjudicators that they must prioritize housing growth and intensification over competing priorities contained in provincial and municipal policies. We further recommend the following: 26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission (“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence and expert reports, before it is accepted. 27. Prevent abuse of process: a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at least 30% affordable housing in which units are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years. b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party appeals. c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award full costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or by a municipality where its council has overridden a recommended staff approval. 28. Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow, and allow those decisions to become binding the day that they are issued. 29. Where it is found that a municipality has refused an application simply to avoid a deemed approval for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award punitive damages. 30. Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators and case managers), provide market-competitive salaries, outsource more matters to mediators, and set shorter time targets. 31. In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the finish line that will support housing growth and intensification, as well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant housing capacity. Page 27 of 60Page 37 of 110 Page 223 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 18 Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent The price you pay to buy or rent a home is driven directly by how much it costs to build a home. In Ontario, costs to build homes have dramatically increased at an unprecedented pace over the past decade. In most of our cities and towns, materials and labour only account for about half of the costs. The rest comes from land, which we have addressed in the previous section, and government fees. A careful balance is required on government fees because, as much as we would like to see them lowered, governments need revenues from fees and taxes to build critically needed infrastructure and pay for all the other services that make Ontario work. So, it is a question of balance and of ensuring that our approach to government fees encourages rather than discourages developers to build the full range of housing we need in our Ontario communities. Align government fees and charges with the goal of building more housing Improve the municipal funding model Housing requires more than just the land it is built on. It requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities and other infrastructure. The provincial government provides municipalities with a way to secure funding for this infrastructure through development charges, community benefit charges and parkland dedication (providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent). These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not current taxpayers – should pay for growth. As a concept, it is compelling. In practice, it means that new home buyers pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or colleges that will be around for generations and may not be located in their neighbourhood. And, although building affordable housing is a societal responsibility, because affordable units pay all the same charges as a market unit, the cost is passed to new home buyers in the same building or the not-for-profit organization supporting the project. We do not believe that government fees should create a disincentive to affordable housing. If you ask any developer of homes – whether they are for-profit or non-profit – they will tell you that development charges are a special pain point. In Ontario, they can be as much as $135,000 per home. In some municipalities, development charges have increased as much as 900% in less than 20 years.[20] As development charges go up, the prices of homes go up. And development charges on a modest semi-detached home are the same as on a luxury 6,000 square foot home, resulting in a disincentive to build housing that is more affordable. Timing is also a challenge as development charges have to be paid up front, before a shovel even goes into the ground. To help relieve the pressure, the Ontario government passed recent legislation allowing builders to determine development charges earlier in the building process. But they must pay interest on the assessed development charge to the municipality until a building permit is issued, and there is no cap on the rate, which in one major city is 13% annually. Cash payments to satisfy parkland dedication also significantly boost the costs of higher-density projects, adding on average $17,000 to the cost of a high-rise condo across the GTA.[21] We heard concerns not just about the amount of cash collected, but also about the money not being spent in the neighbourhood or possibly not being spent on parks at all. As an example, in 2019 the City of Toronto held $644 million in parkland cash-in-lieu payments.[22] Everyone can agree that we need to invest in parks as our communities grow, but if the funds are not being spent, perhaps it means that more money is being collected for parklands than is needed and we could lower the cost of housing if we adjusted these parkland fees. A 2019 study carried out for BILD showed that in the Greater Toronto Area, development charges for low-rise housing are on average more than three times higher per unit than in six comparable US metropolitan areas, and roughly 1.75-times higher than in the other Canadian cities. For high-rise developments the average per unit charges in the GTA are roughly 50% higher than in the US areas, and roughly 30% higher than in the other Canadian urban areas.[19] Page 28 of 60Page 38 of 110 Page 224 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 19 Modernizing HST Thresholds Harmonized sales tax (HST) applies to all new housing – including purpose-built rental. Today, the federal component is 5% and provincial component is 8%. The federal and provincial government provide a partial HST rebate. Two decades ago, the maximum home price eligible for a rebate was set at $450,000 federally and $400,000 provincially, resulting in a maximum rebate of $6,300 federally and $24,000 provincially, less than half of today’s average home price. Buyers of new homes above this ceiling face a significant clawback. Indexing the rebate would immediately reduce the cost of building new homes, savings that can be passed on to Ontarians. When both levels of government agree that we are facing a housing crisis, they should not be adding over 10% to the cost of almost all new homes. 32. Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units or for any development where no new material infrastructure will be required. 33. Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable for 40 years. 34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate. 35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and development charges: a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended purpose, and, where review points to a significant concern, do not allow further collection until the situation has been corrected. b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects, require municipalities to spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they were collected. However, where there’s a significant community need in a priority area of the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation of unspent and unallocated reserves. 36. Recommend that the federal government and provincial governments update HST rebate to reflect current home prices and begin indexing the thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal government match the provincial 75% rebate and remove any clawback. Make it easier to build rental In cities and towns across Ontario, it is increasingly hard to find a vacant rental unit, let alone a vacant rental unit at an affordable price. Today, 66% of all purpose-built rental units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 1979. Less than 15% of Toronto’s purpose-built rentals were constructed over the ensuing 40 years in spite of the significant population growth during that time. In fact, between 2006 and 2016, growth in condo apartments increased by 186% while purpose-built rental only grew by 0.6%.[12] In 2018, the Ontario government introduced positive changes that have created growth in purpose-built rental units – with last year seeing 18,000 units under construction and 93,000 proposed against a 5-year average prior to 2020 of 3,400 annually.[23] Long-term renters often now feel trapped in apartments that don’t make sense for them as their needs change. And because they can’t or don’t want to move up the housing ladder, many of the people coming up behind them who would gladly take those apartments are instead living in crowded spaces with family members or roommates. Others feel forced to commit to rental units at prices way beyond what they can afford. Others are trying their luck in getting on the wait list for an affordable unit or housing co-op – wait lists that are years long. Others are leaving Ontario altogether. Government charges on a new single-detached home averaged roughly $186,300, or almost 22% of the price, across six municipalities in southcentral Ontario. For a new condominium apartment, the average was almost $123,000, or roughly 24% of a unit’s price. of all purpose-built rental units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 1979. 66% Page 29 of 60Page 39 of 110 Page 225 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 20 A pattern in every community, and particularly large cities, is that the apartments and rented rooms that we do have are disappearing. Apartment buildings are being converted to condos or upgraded to much more expensive rental units. Duplexes get purchased and turned into larger single-family homes. A major challenge in bridging the gap of rental supply is that, more often than not, purpose-built rental projects don’t make economic sense for builders and investors. Ironically, there is no shortage of Canadian investor capital seeking housing investments, particularly large pension funds – but the economics of investing in purpose-built rental in Ontario just don’t make sense. So, investments get made in apartment projects in other provinces or countries, or in condo projects that have a better and safer return-on-investment. What can governments do to get that investor capital pointed in the right direction so we can create jobs and get more of the housing we need built? Some of our earlier recommendations will help, particularly indexing the HST rebate. So will actions by government to require purpose-built rental on surplus government land that is made available for sale. (Appendix C) Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rental can be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes for condominium or other ownership housing.[24] The Task Force recommends: 37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and low-rise homes. Make homeownership possible for hardworking Ontarians who want it Home ownership has always been part of the Canadian dream. You don’t have to look far back to find a time when the housing landscape was very different. The norm was for young people to rent an apartment in their twenties, work hard and save for a down payment, then buy their first home in their late twenties or early thirties. It was the same for many new Canadians: arrive, rent, work hard and buy. The house might be modest, but it brought a sense of ownership, stability and security. And after that first step onto the ownership ladder, there was always the possibility of selling and moving up. Home ownership felt like a real possibility for anyone who wanted it. That’s not how it works now. Too many young people who would like their own place are living with one or both parents well into adulthood. The escalation of housing prices over the last decade has put the dream of homeownership out of reach of a growing number of aspiring first-time home buyers. While 73% of Canadians are homeowners, that drops to 48% for Black people, 47% for LGBTQ people[5] (StatsCan is studying rates for other populations, including Indigenous People who are severely underhoused). This is also an issue for younger adults: a 2021 study showed only 24% of Torontonians aged 30 to 39 are homeowners.[25] In Canada, responsibility for Indigenous housing programs has historically been a shared between the federal and provincial governments. The federal government works closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to improve access to housing for Indigenous peoples both on and off reserve. More than 85% of Indigenous people live in urban and rural areas, are 11 times more likely to experience homelessness and have incidence of housing need that is 52% greater than all Canadians. The Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls report mentions housing 299 times – the lack of which being a significant, contributing cause to violence and the provision of which as a significant, contributing solution. The Province of Ontario has made significant investments in Urban Indigenous Housing, but we need the Federal Government to re-engage as an active partner. While measures to address supply will have an impact on housing prices, many aspiring homeowners will continue to face a gap that is simply too great to bridge through traditional methods. The Task Force recognizes the need for caution about measures that would spur demand for housing before the supply bottleneck is fixed. At the same time, a growing number of organizations – both non-profit and for-profit are proposing a range of unique home equity models. Some of these organizations are aiming at households who have sufficient income to pay the mortgage but lack a sufficient down payment. Others are aiming at households who fall short in both income and down payment requirements for current market housing. Page 30 of 60Page 40 of 110 Page 226 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 21 The Task Force heard about a range of models to help aspiring first-time home buyers, including: • Shared equity models with a government, non-profit or for-profit lender holding a second “shared equity mortgage” payable at time of sale of the home • Land lease models that allow residents to own their home but lease the land, reducing costs • Rent-to-own approaches in which a portion of an occupant’s rent is used to build equity, which can be used as a down payment on their current unit or another market unit in the future • Models where the equity gain is shared between the homeowner and the non-profit provider, such that the non-profit will always be able to buy the home back and sell it to another qualified buyer, thus retaining the home’s affordability from one homeowner to the next. Proponents of these models identified barriers that thwart progress in implementing new solutions. • The Planning Act limits land leases to a maximum of 21 years. This provision prevents home buyers from accessing the same type of mortgages from a bank or credit union that are available to them when they buy through traditional homeownership. • The Perpetuities Act has a similar 21-year limit on any options placed on land. This limits innovative non-profit models from using equity formulas for re-sale and repurchase of homes. • Land Transfer Tax (LTT) is charged each time a home is sold and is collected by the province; and in Toronto, this tax is also collected by the City. This creates a double-tax in rent-to-own/equity building models where LTT ends up being paid first by the home equity organization and then by the occupant when they are able to buy the unit. • HST is charged based on the market value of the home. In shared equity models where the homeowner neither owns nor gains from the shared equity portion of their home, HST on the shared equity portion of the home simply reduces affordability. • Residential mortgages are highly regulated by the federal government and reflective of traditional homeownership. Modifications in regulations may be required to adapt to new co-ownership and other models. The Task Force encourages the Ontario government to devote further attention to avenues to support new homeownership options. As a starting point, the Task Force offers the following recommendations: 38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to extend the maximum period for land leases and restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years. 39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth. 40. Call on the Federal Government to implement an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous Housing Strategy. 41. Funding for pilot projects that create innovative pathways to homeownership, for Black, Indigenous, and marginalized people and first-generation homeowners. 42. Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and affordable ownership projects. Page 31 of 60Page 41 of 110 Page 227 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 22 Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply Our goal of building 1.5 million homes in ten years means doubling how many homes Ontario creates each year. As much as the Task Force’s recommendations will remove barriers to realizing this ambitious goal, we also need to ensure we have the capacity across Ontario’s communities to deliver this new housing supply. This includes capacity of our housing infrastructure, capacity within our municipal planning teams, and boots on the ground with the skills to build new homes. There is much to be done and the price of failure for the people of Ontario is high. This is why the provincial government must make an unwavering commitment to keeping the spotlight on housing supply. This is also why the province must be dogged in its determination to galvanize and align efforts and incentives across all levels of government so that working together, we all can get the job done. Our final set of recommendations turns to these issues of capacity to deliver, and the role the provincial government can play in putting the incentives and alignment in place to achieve the 1.5 million home goal. Invest in municipal infrastructure Housing can’t get built without water, sewage, and other infrastructure When the Task Force met with municipal leaders, they emphasized how much future housing supply relies on having the water, storm water and wastewater systems, roads, sidewalks, fire stations, and all the other parts of community infrastructure to support new homes and new residents. Infrastructure is essential where housing is being built for the first time. And, it can be a factor in intensification when added density exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure, one of the reasons we urge new infrastructure in new developments to be designed for future capacity. In Ontario, there are multiple municipalities where the number one barrier to approving new housing projects is a lack of infrastructure to support them. Municipalities face a myriad of challenges in getting this infrastructure in place. Often, infrastructure investments are required long before new projects are approved and funding must be secured. Notwithstanding the burden development charges place on the price of new housing, most municipalities report that development charges are still not enough to fully cover the costs of building new infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure in neighbourhoods that are intensifying. Often infrastructure crosses municipal boundaries creating complicated and time-consuming “who pays?” questions. Municipal leaders also shared their frustrations with situations where new housing projects are approved and water, sewage and other infrastructure capacity is allocated to the project – only to have the developer land bank the project and put off building. Environmental considerations with new infrastructure add further cost and complexity. The Task Force recommends: 43. Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external economic events, to withdraw infrastructure allocations from any permitted projects where construction has not been initiated within three years of build permits being issued. 44. Work with municipalities to develop and implement a municipal services corporation utility model for water and wastewater under which the municipal corporation would borrow and amortize costs among customers instead of using development charges. Page 32 of 60Page 42 of 110 Page 228 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 23 Create the Labour Force to meet the housing supply need The labour force is shrinking in many segments of the market You can’t start to build housing without infrastructure. You can’t build it without people – skilled trades people in every community who can build the homes we need. The concern that we are already facing a shortage in skilled trades came through loud and clear in our consultations. We heard from many sources that our education system funnels young people to university rather than colleges or apprenticeships and creates the perception that careers in the skilled trades are of less value. Unions and builders are working to fill the pipeline domestically and recruit internationally, but mass retirements are making it challenging to maintain the workforce at its current level, let alone increase it. Increased economic immigration could ease this bottleneck, but it appears difficult for a skilled labourer with no Canadian work experience to qualify under Ontario’s rules. Moreover, Canada’s immigration policies also favour university education over skills our economy and society desperately need. We ought to be welcoming immigrants with the skills needed to build roads and houses that will accommodate our growing population. The shortage may be less acute, however, among smaller developers and contractors that could renovate and build new “missing middle” homes arising from the changes in neighbourhood zoning described earlier. These smaller companies tap into a different workforce from the one needed to build high rises and new subdivisions. Nonetheless, 1.5 million more homes will require a major investment in attracting and developing the skilled trades workforce to deliver this critically needed housing supply. We recommend: 45. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize municipalities, unions and employers to provide more on-the-job training. 46. Undertake multi-stakeholder education program to promote skilled trades. 47. Recommend that the federal and provincial government prioritize skilled trades and adjust the immigration points system to strongly favour needed trades and expedite immigration status for these workers, and encourage the federal government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000 the number of immigrants admitted through Ontario’s program. Create a large Ontario Housing Delivery Fund to align efforts and incent new housing supply Build alignment between governments to enable builders to deliver more homes than ever before All levels of government play a role in housing. The federal government sets immigration policy, which has a major impact on population growth and many tax policies. The province sets the framework for planning, approvals, and growth that municipalities rely upon, and is responsible for many other areas that touch on housing supply, like investing in highways and transit, training workers, the building code and protecting the environment. Municipalities are on the front lines, expected to translate the impacts of federal immigration policy, provincial guidance and other factors, some very localized, into official plans and the overall process through which homes are approved to be built. The efficiency with which home builders can build, whether for-profit or non-profit, is influenced by policies and decisions at every level of government. In turn, how many home developers can deliver, and at what cost, translates directly into the availability of homes that Ontarians can afford. Page 33 of 60Page 43 of 110 Page 229 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 24 Collectively, governments have not been sufficiently aligned in their efforts to provide the frameworks and incentives that meet the broad spectrum of housing needs in Ontario. Much action, though, has been taken in recent years. • The Ontario government has taken several steps to make it easier to build additional suites in your own home: reduced disincentives to building rental housing, improved the appeal process, focused on density around transit stations, made upfront development charges more predictable, and provided options for municipalities to create community benefits through development. • The federal government has launched the National Housing Strategy and committed over $70 billion in funding.[26] Most recently, it has announced a $4 billion Housing Accelerator Fund aimed at helping municipalities remove barriers to building housing more quickly.[27] • Municipalities have been looking at ways to change outdated processes, rules, and ways of thinking that create delays and increases costs of delivering homes. Several municipalities have taken initial steps towards eliminating exclusionary zoning and addressing other barriers described in this report. All governments agree that we are facing a housing crisis. Now we must turn the sense of urgency into action and alignment across governments. Mirror policy changes with financial incentives aligned across governments The policy recommendations in this report will go a long way to align efforts and position builders to deliver more homes. Having the capacity in our communities to build these homes will take more than policy. It will take money. Rewarding municipalities that meet housing growth and approval timelines will help them to invest in system upgrades, hire additional staff, and invest in their communities. Similarly, municipalities that resist new housing, succumb to NIMBY pressure, and close off their neighbourhoods should see funding reductions. Fixing the housing crisis is a societal responsibility, and our limited tax dollars should be directed to those municipalities making the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing supply. In late January 2022, the provincial government announced $45 million for a new Streamline Development Approval Fund to “unlock housing supply by cutting red tape and improving processes for residential and industrial developments”.[28] This is encouraging. More is needed. Ontario should also receive its fair share of federal funding but today faces a shortfall of almost $500 million,[29] despite two thirds of the Canadian housing shortage being in Ontario. We call on the federal government to address this funding gap. 48. The Ontario government should establish a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding. This fund should reward: a) Annual housing growth that meets or exceeds provincial targets b) Reductions in total approval times for new housing c) The speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices 49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and approval timeline targets. We believe that the province should consider partial grants to subsidize municipalities that waive development charges for affordable housing and for purpose-built rental. Sustain focus, measure, monitor, improve Digitize and modernize the approvals and planning process Some large municipalities have moved to electronic tracking of development applications and/or electronic building permits (“e-permits”) and report promising results, but there is no consistency and many smaller places don’t have the capacity to make the change. Municipalities, the provincial government and agencies use different systems to collect data and information relevant to housing approvals, which slows down processes and leaves much of the “big picture” blank. This could be addressed by ensuring uniform data architecture standards. Improve the quality of our housing data to inform decision making Having accurate data is key to understanding any challenge and making the best decisions in response. The Task Force heard from multiple housing experts that we are not always using the best data, and we do not always have the data we need. Page 34 of 60Page 44 of 110 Page 230 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 25 Having good population forecasts is essential in each municipality as they develop plans to meet future land and housing needs. Yet, we heard many concerns about inconsistent approaches to population forecasts. In the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the forecast provided to municipalities by the province is updated only when the Growth Plan is updated, generally every seven years; but federal immigration policy, which is a key driver of growth, changes much more frequently. The provincial Ministry of Finance produces a population forecast on a more regular basis than the Growth Plan, but these are not used consistently across municipalities or even by other provincial ministries. Population forecasts get translated into housing need in different ways across the province, and there is a lack of data about how (or whether) the need will be met. Others pointed to the inconsistent availability of land inventories. Another challenge is the lack of information on how much land is permitted and how much housing is actually getting built once permitted, and how fast. The Task Force also heard that, although the Provincial Policy Statement requires municipalities to maintain a three-year supply of short-term (build-ready) land and report it each year to the province, many municipalities are not meeting that requirement.[30] At a provincial and municipal level, we need better data on the housing we have today, housing needed to close the gap, consistent projections of what we need in the future, and data on how we are doing at keeping up. Improved data will help anticipate local and provincial supply bottlenecks and constraints, making it easier to determine the appropriate level and degree of response. It will also be important to have better data to assess how much new housing stock is becoming available to groups that have been disproportionately excluded from home ownership and rental housing. Put eyes on the crisis and change the conversation around housing Ours is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”. There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing housing prices and find solutions so everyone in Ontario can find and afford the housing they need. This time must be different. The recommendations in this report must receive sustained attention, results must be monitored, significant financial investment by all levels of government must be made. And, the people of Ontario must embrace a housing landscape in which the housing needs of tomorrow’s citizens and those who have been left behind are given equal weight to the housing advantages of those who are already well established in homes that they own. 50. Fund the adoption of consistent municipal e-permitting systems and encourage the federal government to match funding. Fund the development of common data architecture standards across municipalities and provincial agencies and require municipalities to provide their zoning bylaws with open data standards. Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make funding conditional on established targets. 51. Require municipalities and the provincial government to use the Ministry of Finance population projections as the basis for housing need analysis and related land use requirements. 52. Resume reporting on housing data and require consistent municipal reporting, enforcing compliance as a requirement for accessing programs under the Ontario Housing Delivery Fund. 53. Report each year at the municipal and provincial level on any gap between demand and supply by housing type and location, and make underlying data freely available to the public. 54. Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government committee, including key provincial ministries and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our remaining recommendations and any other productive ideas are implemented. 55. Commit to evaluate these recommendations for the next three years with public reporting on progress. Page 35 of 60Page 45 of 110 Page 231 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 26 Conclusion We have set a bold goal for Ontario: building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years. We believe this can be done. What struck us was that everyone we talked to – builders, housing advocates, elected officials, planners – understands the need to act now. As one long-time industry participant said, “for the first time in memory, everyone is aligned, and we need to take advantage of that.” Such unity of purpose is rare, but powerful. To leverage that power, we offer solutions that are bold but workable, backed by evidence, and that position Ontario for the future. Our recommendations focus on ramping up the supply of housing. Measures are already in place to try to cool demand, but they will not fill Ontario’s housing need. More supply is key. Building more homes will reduce the competition for our scarce supply of homes and will give Ontarians more housing choices. It will improve housing affordability across the board. Everyone wants more Ontarians to have housing. So let’s get to work to build more housing in Ontario. Page 36 of 60Page 46 of 110 Page 232 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 27 APPENDIX A:Biographies of Task Force Members Lalit Aggarwal is President of Manor Park Holdings, a real estate development and operating company active in Eastern Ontario. Previously, Lalit was an investor for institutional fund management firms, such as H.I.G. European Capital Partners, Soros Fund Management, and Goldman Sachs. He is a past fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and a former Director of both Bridgepoint Health and the Centre for the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Lalit holds degrees from the University of Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania. He is also a current Director of the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation, the Sterling Hall School and the Chair of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario. David Amborski is a professional Urban Planner, Professor at Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional Planning and the founding Director of the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development (CUR). His research and consulting work explore topics where urban planning interfaces with economics, including land and housing markets. He is an academic advisor to the National Executive Forum on Public Property, and he is a member of Lambda Alpha (Honorary Land Economics Society). He has undertaken consulting for the Federal, Provincial and a range of municipal governments. Internationally, he has undertaken work for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and several other organizations in Eastern Europe, Latin America, South Africa, and Asia. He also serves on the editorial boards of several international academic journals. Andrew Garrett is a real estate executive responsible for growing IMCO’s $11+ Billion Global Real Estate portfolio to secure public pensions and insurance for Ontario families. IMCO is the only Ontario fund manager purpose built to onboard public clients such as pensions, insurance, municipal reserve funds, and endowments. Andrew has significant non-profit sector experience founding a B Corp certified social enterprise called WeBuild to help incubate social purpose real estate projects. He currently volunteers on non-profit boards supporting social purpose real estate projects, youth programs and the visual arts at Art Gallery of Ontario. Andrew sits on board advisory committees for private equity firms and holds a Global Executive MBA from Kellogg School Management and a Real Estate Development Certification from MIT Centre for Real Estate. Tim Hudak is the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA). With a passion and voice for championing the dream of home ownership, Tim came to OREA following a distinguished 21-year career in politics, including five years as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. In his role, Tim has focused on transforming OREA into Ontario’s most cutting-edge professional association at the forefront of advocacy on behalf of REALTORS® and consumers, and providing world-class conferences, standard forms, leadership training and professional guidance to its Members. As part of his work at OREA, Tim was named one of the most powerful people in North American residential real estate by Swanepoel Power 200 for the last five years. Tim is married to Deb Hutton, and together they have two daughters, Miller and Maitland. In his spare time, Tim enjoys trails less taken on his mountain bike or hiking shoes as well as grilling outdoors. Jake Lawrence was appointed Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets in January 2021. In this role, Jake is responsible for the Bank’s Global Banking and Markets business line and strategy across its global footprint. Jake joined Scotiabank in 2002 and has held progressively senior roles in Finance, Group Treasury and Global Banking and Markets. From December 2018 to January 2021, Jake was Co-Group Head of Global Banking and Markets with specific responsibility for its Capital Markets businesses, focused on building alignment across product groups and priority markets to best serve our clients throughout our global footprint. Previously, Jake was Executive Vice President and Head of Global Banking and Markets in the U.S., providing overall strategic direction and execution of Scotiabank’s U.S. businesses. Prior to moving into GBM, Jake served as Senior Vice President and Deputy Treasurer, responsible for Scotiabank’s wholesale funding activities and liquidity management as well as Senior Vice President, Investor Relations. Page 37 of 60Page 47 of 110 Page 233 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 28 Julie Di Lorenzo (GPLLM, University of Toronto 2020), is self-employed since 1982, operates one of the largest female-run Real Estate Development Companies in North America. She was instrumental in the Daniel Burnham award-winning Ontario Growth Management Plan (2004) as President of BILD. Julie served as the first female-owner President of GTHBA (BILD) and on the boards of the Ontario Science Centre, Harbourfront Toronto, Tarion (ONHWP), St. Michael’s Hospital, NEXT36, Waterfront Toronto, Chair of IREC Committee WT, Havergal College (Co-Chair of Facilities), York School (interim Vice-Chair), and Canadian Civil Liberties Association Board. Julie has served various governments in advisory capacity on Women’s issues, Economic Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Awards include Lifetime Achievement BILD 2017, ICCO Business Excellence 2005 & ICCO Businesswoman of the Year 2021. Justin Marchand (CIHCM, CPA, CMA, BComm) is Métis and was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services (OAHS) in 2018. Justin has over 20 years of progressive experience in a broad range of sectors, including two publicly listed corporations, a large accounting and consulting firm, and a major crown corporation, and holds numerous designations across financial, operations, and housing disciplines. He was most recently selected as Chair of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA’s) Indigenous Caucus Working Group and is also board member for CHRA. Justin is also an active board member for both the Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership (CHIL) as well as Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, located in Bawaating. Justin believes that Housing is a fundamental human right and that when Indigenous people have access to safe, affordable, and culture-based Housing this provides the opportunity to improve other areas of their lives. Ene Underwood is CEO of Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Area), a non-profit housing developer that helps working, lower income families build strength, stability and self-reliance through affordable homeownership. Homes are delivered through a combination of volunteer builds, contractor builds, and partnerships with non-profit and for-profit developers. Ene’s career began in the private sector as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company before transitioning to not-for-profit sector leadership. Ene holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of Waterloo and a Master of Business Administration from Ivey Business School. Dave Wilkes is the President and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA (BILD). The Association has 1,300 members and proudly represents builders, developers, professional renovators and those who support the industry. Dave is committed to supporting volunteer boards and organizations. He has previously served on the George Brown College Board of Directors, Ontario Curling Association, and is currently engaged with Black North Initiative (Housing Committee) and R-Labs I+T Council. Dave received his Bachelor of Arts (Applied Geography) from Ryerson. Page 38 of 60Page 48 of 110 Page 234 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 29 APPENDIX B:Affordable Housing Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation. With rapidly rising prices, more lower-priced market rental units are being converted into housing far out of reach of lower-income households. In parallel, higher costs to deliver housing and limited government funding have resulted in a net decrease in the number of affordable housing units run by non-profits. The result is untenable: more people need affordable housing after being displaced from the market at the very time that affordable supply is shrinking. Throughout our consultations, we were reminded of the housing inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous and marginalized people. We also received submissions describing the unique challenges faced by off-reserve Indigenous Peoples both in the province’s urban centres and in the north. While many of the changes that will help deliver market housing will also help make it easier to deliver affordable housing, affordable housing is a societal responsibility. We cannot rely exclusively on for-profit developers nor on increases in the supply of market housing to fully solve the problem. The non-profit housing sector faces all the same barriers, fees, risks and complexities outlined in this report as for-profit builders. Several participants from the non-profit sector referred to current or future partnerships with for-profit developers that tap into the development and construction expertise and efficiencies of the private sector. Successful examples of leveraging such partnerships were cited with Indigenous housing, supportive housing, and affordable homeownership. We were also reminded by program participants that, while partnerships with for-profit developers can be very impactful, non-profit providers have unique competencies in the actual delivery of affordable housing. This includes confirming eligibility of affordable housing applicants, supporting independence of occupants of affordable housing, and ensuring affordable housing units remain affordable from one occupant to the next. One avenue for delivering more affordable housing that has received much recent attention is inclusionary zoning. In simple terms, inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires developers to deliver a share of affordable units in new housing developments in prescribed areas. The previous Ontario government passed legislation in April 2018 providing a framework within which municipalities could enact Inclusionary Zoning bylaws. Ontario’s first inclusionary zoning policy was introduced in fall 2021 by the City of Toronto and applies to major transit station areas. Internationally, inclusionary zoning has been used successfully to incentivize developers to create new affordable housing by providing density bonuses (more units than they would normally be allowed, if some are affordable) or reductions in government fees. Unfortunately, the City’s approach did not include any incentives or bonuses. Instead, Toronto requires market-rate fees and charges for below-market affordable units. This absence of incentives together with lack of clarity on the overall density that will be approved for projects has led developers and some housing advocates to claim that these projects may be uneconomic and thus will not get financed or built. Municipalities shared with us their concerns regarding the restriction in the provincial IZ legislation that prohibits “cash in lieu” payments. Municipalities advised that having the option of accepting the equivalent value of IZ units in cash from the developer would enable even greater impact in some circumstances (for example, a luxury building in an expensive neighbourhood, where the cost of living is too high for a low-income resident). Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of all levels of government. The federal government has committed to large funding transfers to the provinces to support affordable housing. The Task Force heard, however, that Ontario’s share of this funding does not reflect our proportionate affordable housing needs. This, in turn, creates further financial pressure on both the province and municipalities, which further exacerbates the affordable housing shortages in Ontario’s communities. Page 39 of 60Page 49 of 110 Page 235 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 30 Finally, many participants in Task Force consultations pointed to surplus government lands as an avenue for building more affordable housing and this is discussed in Appendix C. We have made recommendations throughout the report intended to have a positive impact on new affordable housing supply. We offer these additional recommendations specific to affordable housing: • Call upon the federal government to provide equitable affordable housing funding to Ontario. • Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of “affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability. • Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from property price appreciation) to be used in partnership with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the creation of more affordable housing units. This Trust should create incentives for projects serving and brought forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and marginalized groups. • Amend legislation to: • Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusive Zoning units at the discretion of the municipality. • Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing policies that apply to market housing. • Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for affordable housing units. • Encourage government to closely monitor the effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating new affordable housing and to explore alternative funding methods that are predictable, consistent and transparent as a more viable alternative option to Inclusionary Zoning policies in the provision of affordable housing. • Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment on below-market affordable homes. Page 40 of 60Page 50 of 110 Page 236 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 31 APPENDIX C:Government Surplus Land Surplus government lands fell outside the mandate of the Task Force. However, this question came up repeatedly as a solution to housing supply. While we take no view on the disposition of specific parcels of land, several stakeholders raised issues that we believe merit consideration: • Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and development through RFP of surplus government land and surrounding land by provincially pre-zoning for density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use. • All future government land sales, whether commercial or residential, should have an affordable housing component of at least 20%. • Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized Crown property (e.g., LCBO). • Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher density building or relocate services outside of major population centres where land is considerably less expensive. • The policy priority of adding to the housing supply, including affordable units, should be reflected in the way surplus land is offered for sale, allowing bidders to structure their proposals accordingly. Page 41 of 60Page 51 of 110 Page 237 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 32 APPENDIX D:Surety Bonds Moving to surety bonds would free up billions of dollars for building When a development proposal goes ahead, the developer typically needs to make site improvements, such as installing common services. The development agreement details how the developer must perform to the municipality’s satisfaction. Up until the 1980s, it was common practice for Ontario municipalities to accept bonds as financial security for subdivision agreements and site plans. Today, however, they almost exclusively require letters of credit from a chartered bank. The problem with letters of credit is that developers are often required to collateralize the letter of credit dollar-for-dollar against the value of the municipal works they are performing. Often this means developers can only afford to finance one or two housing projects at a time, constraining housing supply. The Ontario Home Builders’ Association estimates that across Ontario, billions of dollars are tied up in collateral or borrowing capacity that could be used to advance more projects. Modern “pay on demand surety bonds” are proven to provide the same benefits and security as a letter of credit, while not tying up private capital the way letters of credit do. Moving to this option would give municipalities across Ontario access to all the features of a letter of credit with the added benefit of professional underwriting, carried out by licensed bonding companies, ensuring that the developer is qualified to fulfill its obligations under the municipal agreement. Most important from a municipal perspective, the financial obligation is secured. If a problem arises, the secure bond is fully payable by the bond company on demand. Surety companies, similar to banks, are regulated by Ontario’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure they have sufficient funds in place to pay out bond claims. More widespread use of this instrument could unlock billions of dollars of private sector financial liquidity that could be used to build new infrastructure and housing projects, provide for more units in each development and accelerate the delivery of housing of all types. Page 42 of 60Page 52 of 110 Page 238 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 33 References 1. Ontario Housing Market Report https://wowa.ca/ontario-housing-market 2. Global Property Guide https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/Canada/ Price-History-Archive/canadian-housing-market-strong-127030 3. National Household Survey Factsheet https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/ nhshi11-6.html#:~:text=Median%20After%2Dtax%20Income%20 of,and%20British%20Columbia%20at%20%2467%2C900 4. CMHC https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/ 5. The Globe And Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-black-canadians- have-some-of-the-lowest-home-ownership-rates-in-canada/ 6. Scotiabank https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/ economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing. housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html 7. Scotiabank https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/ economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing. housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html 8. Expert Market https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/vehicle-tracking/ best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting 9. Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/198063/total-number-of- housing-starts-in-ontario-since-1995/ 10. Poltext https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/discoursV2/DB/ Ontario/ON_DB_1975_29_5.pdf 11. Toronto City Planning https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/ backgroundfile-173165.pdf 12. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) https://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ Urbanation-FRPO-Ontario-Rental-Market-Report-Summer-2020.pdf 13a. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University (CUR) https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land- development/pdfs/CUR_Pre-Zoning_Corridor_Lands_to_a_ Higher_Density.pdf 13b. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden- horseshoe/where-and-how-grow 14. More Neighbours Toronto https://www.moreneighbours.ca/ 15. The World Bank https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/ dealing-with-construction-permits 16. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/BILD%20Municipal%20Benchmarking%20 Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Sept%202020%20BILD.pdf 16b. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University (CUR) https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land- development/CUR_Accelerating_Housing_Supply_and_ Affordability_by_Improving_the_Land-use_Planning_System_ Nov_2021.pdf 17. Ontario Association of Architects https://oaa.on.ca/OAA/Assets/Documents/Gov.%20Initiatives/ p5727_-_site_plan_delay_study_-_oaa_site_plan_delay_study_ update_-_july_....pdf 18. Tribunals Ontario 2019-20 Annual Report https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Tribunals_ Ontario_2019-2020_Annual_Report_EN_v2.html 19. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/FINAL%20-%20BILD%20-%20 Comparison%20of%20Government%20Charges%20in%20 Canada%20and%20US%20-%20Sept%2013%202019.pdf 20. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/FINAL%20GTA%20-%20 Development%20Charges%20-%2009%202020.pdf 21. Toronto Star https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2018/09/01/ where-did-the-money-go-parkland-dedication-fees-should-be- used-to-build-parks-in-gta.html 22. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/misc/BILD%20-%20New%20 Homeowner%20Money%20Report%20-%20Oct%205%20 2021%20(002)_Redacted.pdf 23. Urbanation Inc. https://www.urbanation.ca/news/336-gta-rental-construction- surged-2021-vacancy-fell 24. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) https://www.frpo.org/lobby-view/cities-still-ripping-off-renters 25. Edison Financial https://edisonfinancial.ca/millennial-home-ownership-canada/ 26. Government of Canada National Housing Strategy https://www.placetocallhome.ca/what-is-the-strategy 27. CMHC https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/ news-releases/2021/housing-accelerator-fund-rent-to-own-program 28. Toronto Star https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/ ford-government-announces-45-million-to-cut-red-tape-and- speed-up-applications-for-new-home-construction.html 29. Canadian Real Estate Wealth https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/ federal-funds-must-flow-for-housing-programs-334810.aspx 30. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University (CUR) https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land- development/pdfs/CUR_Submission_Proposed_Land_Needs_ Assessment_Methodology_A_Place_to_Grow_July_2020.pdf Page 43 of 60Page 53 of 110 Page 239 of 842 APPENDIX 2 1. Focus On Getting More Homes Built- Recommendations 1-2 Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made In Niagara Suggestions 1.Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in ten years. Increased development and increase in population. Benefits- Increased tax dollars, utilization of existing infrastructure more to share the infrastructure cost burdens, more commercial developments, more housing. Impacts- Increase demand for more services, additional traffic, increased concerns from residents about compatibility, Growth should be based on Region of Niagara’s growth allocations by municipality and each municipality should be required to plan where their growth should go. 2.Amend Planning documents to set full spectrum housing growth and intensification within existing built-up areas as the most important residential housing priorities in the mandate and purpose. Impact on existing residents who generally like to see like development with like development. Benefits better communities and efficient utilization of existing services. And will benefit currently underutilized, underdeveloped areas. Supported by staff 2. Making Land Available to Build- Recommendations 3-18 Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made In Niagara Suggestions Page 44 of 60Page 54 of 110Page 240 of 842 3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action: a. Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys on a single residential lot. b. Modernize the Building Code and other policies to remove any barriers to affordable construction and to ensure meaningful implementation This will change existing neighbourhoods significantly. Impacts to existing services and the impacts to the local road network. The City’s infrastructure may not be able to handle the increased density, creating a need for unplanned upgrades to systems. b) No impacts Allow intensification of up to 4 units without increasing height to 4 storeys in low density areas – provide for increased units within existing height regime (with some flexibility) to reflect neighbourhood character suitable for the municipality. This will allow more gradual intensification such as permitting 4-6 storeys as you get to the collector and minor arterial road system and then to the 6-11 storeys or more on major arterials which can then be planned to support more intense transit ridership Niagara. 4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or redundant commercial properties to residential or mixed residential and commercial use. This would permit underutilized commercial properties to redevelop to a more sustainable use. For example, some commercial areas along Lundy’s lane where an abundance of commercial lands would benefit from an influx of residential units. The City of Niagara Falls currently has policies within its Tourist Commercial designation to permit residential use to assist in the creation of complete communities. Benefits –intensify area that are used to larger volumes of traffic. Suggest that the government permit as of right conversions to residential provided that a certain percentage of commercial lands is available for future economic growth in each community/node or alternatively they only permit the conversion to mixed use to ensure that commercial services are still available for these new residents. This will ensure the developments that are created help to build a complete community. The province would also need to define how it will be determined that commercial land is redundant or underutilized. Page 45 of 60Page 55 of 110Page 241 of 842 Impacts-Compatibility would need to be determined based on the past use of the site. This recommendation is supported by staff with the above noted suggestions or considerations. 5.Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway houses province-wide This would allow gentle intensification in low density neighbourhoods. This is the type of intensification that should occur in areas outside collector or arterial roadways. Currently the City does allow accessory dwelling units but one of the dwellings on the property must be owner occupied. This is supported by staff and provides appropriate low intensification options in low density neighbourhoods. 6.Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting rooms within a dwelling) province-wide. This would intensify existing neighbourhoods but would not significantly change the outward appearance. Some impacts that could result would be increased on street parking. This is not in line with the City’s historical position on boarding houses that these are not permitted as of right in residential areas. In Niagara, this does occur in university and college Towns and number of negative impacts such as garbage, noise, parking etc. has occurred. This should be permitted as of right only in owner occupied dwellings to assist in mitigating impacts. In Niagara Falls ‘motels’ provide temporary housing for those without housing, and creates absentee landlord issues with lack of heat, infestation and other issues that don’t meet Fire or Building Codes. 7.Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with excess school capacity to benefit families with children In Niagara Falls school’s generally operate over capacity. There are five schools that are underutilized- less than 65%, 3 in the public school board and 2 in the catholic school board. These schools are: Victoria, Simcoe Street and John Marshall and St.Patrick and St.Mary. Schools could be considered as opportunities for mixed use or affordable housing above to facilitate additional enrollment. The majority of these school sites would be on collector and arterial roadways and an Page 46 of 60Page 56 of 110Page 242 of 842 increase in density in these areas could be supported. The Province should consider giving municipalities surplus school sites to accommodate affordable/attainable housing projects rather than requiring municipalities to pay for them. 8.Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations within two years if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet provincial density targets. The City has identified provincial density targets (150 residents and job per ha.) in the Go Transit downtown area. Staff is supportive of this recommendation as it support transit ridership for major transit station areas and is good planning. 9.Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on any streets utilized by public transit. This will significantly impact low density areas as our bus routes go through a number of low-level low-density neighbourhoods This should not be permitted as of right along public transit routes in Niagara. This level of intensification is best suited for collector, arterial roads and lots closer to public amenities and transit. These roads have the ability to adequately service the additional density as they can handle additional traffic loads and larger services pipes to accommodate the demand. Intensification corridors should be planned over the next two years to achieve the needed density. These should be identified by each of the 12 municipalities over the Page 47 of 60Page 57 of 110Page 243 of 842 next two years as part of Official Plan updates. A made in Niagara solution needs to be considered for this approach to work as the transit services and other necessary commercial services are not yet adequate to provide no parking with these densities. 10.Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and residential use all land along transit corridors. The City does permit in TC, GC mixed use development or residential developments. All transit corridors will permit these types of development in low density areas. This will impact areas with limited transit and with limited amenities. Mixed use/residential is best suited along identified municipal corridors. 11.Support responsible housing growth on undeveloped land, including outside existing municipal boundaries, by building necessary infrastructure to support higher density housing and complete communities . This contributes to urban sprawl and leads to unplanned growth. The City would have difficultly planning for servicing for the long term if development is permitted everywhere. The current approach to identify additional lands to accommodate the allocated growth is adequate and does not lead to unbridled growth anywhere outside the urban area. Any urban boundary expansions should be tied to requirements for complete communities and specific increased densities. What is considered reasonable and how is reconciled with intensification and utilization of existing infrastructure and the protection of agricultural land. Page 48 of 60Page 58 of 110Page 244 of 842 12.Create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals system: a. Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, or plans that prioritize the preservation of physical character of neighbourhood b. Exempt from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units or less that conform to the Official Plan and require only minor variances c. Establish province-wide zoning standards, or prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights, angular planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index, and heritage view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements; and d. Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow larger, more efficient high-density towers Density can be accomplished without impact to existing character. Site Plan controls things such as garbage locations, lighting, turning radi etc. This is fundamental to planning efficient spaces. This will impact the City and could result in places that create light overspill, lack of landscaping or garbage. Poor urban design creates spaces where people do not want to live. Site Plan also can be used to require landscaping that can be advantageous in addressing climate change issues. The City’s future OP policies should promote multiple residential forms in all residential areas with consideration given to massing, shadowing, etc. This is supported as it provides additional density but mitigates impact. b. A minor site plan approval process should be established to check plans for basic things such as garbage pick up, turning radi, etc. This will expedite the process but not create poor developments. c and d. Province should not remove policies relating to good urban design as this will create block buildings and will diminish a sense of place and pride. Province should put in consistent and standardized design standards if this is a major issue to obtaining affordable housing or faster housing. 13.Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings beyond those that are required under the Planning Act. This approach will limit the ability to solve and find solutions to development issues raised. The province should consider one open house for each type of planning application to allow the residents face time with developers to raise concerns. Page 49 of 60Page 59 of 110Page 245 of 842 14.Require that public consultations provide digital participation options. Due to the pandemic this is currently standard practice at the City. Consultants prefer the digital open houses & the ability to attend open houses/public meetings remotely. There are more people from the public that attend these meeting as they are more accessible. There is no impact to the City. Support recommendations. 15.Require mandatory delegation of site plan approvals and minor variances to staff or pre-approved qualified third-party technical consultants through a simplified review and approval process, without the ability to withdraw Council’s delegation. The City of Niagara Falls already has staff delegated the authority for site plans so there is no impact. Delegation of Minor Variances will speed up the process and allow staff to make decisions on these minor applications. Support recommendations 16.Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process by: a. Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal heritage registers b. Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after a Planning Act development application has been filed Point a is agreed to by staff and the City will not bring forward bulk designations. b. could lead into more early forced designations to protect what is valuable. In Niagara Falls, if the owner disagrees with designation it isn’t done. This recommendation could cause us to lose more of our heritage. Heritage designation should be based on merit on whether the structure has significant heritage value. The province should provide key criteria to determine what would qualify as having significant heritage value. 17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property owners for loss of property value as a result of heritage This will impact the financials of the City and the City should not have to pay for what is in the public good. Recommend that if this is put in place it is only in place for forced designations not voluntary. Alternatively, the province could consider new criteria and parameters on what needs to be protected just the shell or Page 50 of 60Page 60 of 110Page 246 of 842 designations, based on the principle of best economic use of land. certain components of the interior or only significant buildings vetted through the province. The Province should also identify what parameters and proof is needed to support the claim of ‘loss of property value’ as in the past this has been shown not to be the case, 18.Restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews. This approach limits appeals to just developers and this right should be given to any person or municipality. Recommendation permit appeals by all with merit only, must show how it does not meet provincial policy. Appeals without merit should be dismissed or penalized. This is contrary to the achievement of intensification, housing, and employment targets in a timely fashion. 3. Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs- Recommendations 19-31 Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made In Niagara Suggestions 19.Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial and municipal review process, including site plan, minor variance, and deem an application approved if the legislated response time is exceeded. Impacts to ensure adequate staffing are in place to meet timeframes. If timelines are not met this could impact the quality of development and lead to future municipal issues ie poor drainage, poor design, lack of garbage facilities etc. This could result in an intentional flood of applications that would overwhelm Recommend timelines that are realistic and ensure the talent pool is available to accommodate the demand prior to putting this recommendation in place. A better, more streamlined process for minor applications may free up Staff time to consider more complicated proposals under the current Planning Act timelines. Page 51 of 60Page 61 of 110Page 247 of 842 Municipal resources and lead to the concerns above. 20.Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure timelines are met. Impacts-Not clear on where the position would reside. A good initiative. Staff support this initiative to resolve conflicts quickly. 21.Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets out a binding list that defines what constitutes a complete application; confirms the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that if a member of a regulated profession such as a professional engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability, and no additional stamp is needed. This is currently being done with the exception that at times additional studies are recommended based on new information. Staffing resources will assist in ensuring pre-consultation applications are vetted in more detail and new studies are not asked for beyond preconsultation. Liability clauses should be placed into agreements to ensure professionals are accountable and liable not municipalities. Subdivision drainage for example is an agreement between the developer and the City if we blindly accept the engineers drainage plan then any drainage issue or claim should be dealt with by the professional. Province would need to ensure that these clauses are upheld in the court system as right now the decisions reflect that the municipalities have a role to play in the review of these studies. 22.Simplify planning legislation and policy documents. No detail on what is changing so difficult to determine if there will be any impacts. No recommendations 23.Create a common, province-wide definition of plan of subdivision and standard set of conditions which clarify which may be included; require the use of standard province-wide legal agreements and, where feasible, plans of subdivision. No impact standardization sets upfront expectations for the development community. The standardization should be done collaboratively with municipalities. The Niagara Region and area municipalities have been working to standardize planning application forms and everyone has been successfully working together on this. 24.Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys. No impacts Support recommendations Page 52 of 60Page 62 of 110Page 248 of 842 25.Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit. The City is currently working on a pilot program to accept on demand surety bonds. This pilot is based on the Hamilton model and there is limited risk to the municipality in this model. Support recommendations. Buy in should be by choice by each municipality. Province should work on showcasing those areas where the surety bonds have been successful. 26.Require appellants to promptly seek permission (“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence and expert reports, before it is accepted. Leave to appeals would be known earlier and would need to have merit. Support recommendations 27.Prevent abuse of process: a. Remove right of appeal for projects with at least 30% affordable housing in which units are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years. b. Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party appeals. c. Provide discretion to adjudicators to award full costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or by a municipality where its council has overridden a recommended staff approval. This would impact third party appeals with legitimate concerns from the public and municipal council. These appeals would be heavily penalized. Not sure this is fair and equitable. Penalties or awarding of costs for frivolous without justification appeals should be awarded more often to discourage matters coming before the board without a planning basis instead. 28.Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow, and allow those decisions to become binding the day that they are issued. Good initiative will provide decision earlier. Support recommendations 29.Where it is found that a municipality has refused an application simply to avoid a deemed approval for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award punitive damages. The City will need to have sufficient staff to process applications. Support recommendation but the Province needs to assist municipalities to hire qualified staff before implementing this change. Page 53 of 60Page 63 of 110Page 249 of 842 30.Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators and case managers), provide market-competitive salaries, outsource more matters to mediators, and set shorter time targets. Good initiative to speed up development. Support recommendations 31.In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the finish line that will support housing growth and intensification as well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant housing capacity. Good initiative to speed up larger projects that will assist in making a difference to bring more housing units on stream sooner. Support recommendations 4. Reduce the cost to build, buy and rent- Recommendations 32-42 Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made In Niagara Suggestions 32.Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units or for any development where no new material infrastructure will be required. The City relies on DC's to fund replacement and new infrastructure projects, park development, transit etc. The City also relies on parkland cash in lieu to purchase parkland and this will be extremely important in the future with the planned intensification and due to rising land costs. The reduction in these allocations will mean more costs on the general tax payer to fund projects. The City currently provides a reduction/waiver of development Growth should pay for growth and the payment of development charges and parkland assist in providing upgrades to existing systems and rejuvenation of parklands. This recommendation is not supported by staff. Page 54 of 60Page 64 of 110Page 250 of 842 charges and cash-in-lieu of parkland for areas within approved Community Improvement Plans. 33.Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable for 40 years. The City currently exempts development charges for affordable housing projects that receive funding through an agreement with Niagara Regional housing. Support recommendations 34.Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate. No impact we have not yet established interest rates. Support recommendations 35.Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and development charges: a. Provincial review of reserve levels, collections and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended purpose, and, where review points to a significant concern, do not allow further collection until the situation has been corrected. b. Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects, require municipalities to spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they were collected. However, where there’s a significant community need in a priority area of the City, allow for specific ward- to-ward allocation of unspent and unallocated reserves. Will impact the way projects are planned and additional staffing will be needed to track and allocate the dollars to specific neighbourhood projects. This should be based on the 10 year capital forecast as city staff are limited in the amount jobs that can be accomplished in any given year. The City should have to demonstrate how the reserves are to be used and in what areas over the 10 year horizon. Page 55 of 60Page 65 of 110Page 251 of 842 36.Recommend that the federal government and provincial governments update HST rebate to reflect current home prices and begin indexing the thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal government match the provincial 75% rebate and remove any clawback. No impact to the City but unless the cost savings are passed onto the home owner it will not create more affordable or attainable housing. This will not impact affordability unless the developers are capped on profit. The additional HST money needs to be of benefit to affordable housing or units. Recommendation this rebate should only apply to affordable housing. 37.Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and low-rise homes. Good Initiative, supports rental housing Support recommendation 38.Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to extend the maximum period for land leases and restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years. Good initiative supports longer term mortgages. Support recommendations 39.Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth. Limited information on what tax disincentives they are referring to. Cannot support recommendation at this time until more information is provided. 40.Call on the Federal Government to implement an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous Housing Strategy. Good initiative support provincial goal. Support recommendations 41.Funding for pilot projects that create innovative pathways to homeownership, for Black, Indigenous,and marginalized people and first-generation homeowners. Good initiative supports where the need is the greatest. Support recommendations 42.Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and affordable ownership projects. Supports affordable housing projects. Good initiative but there seems to limited uptake by developers in the current CMHC incentives and it should be analysed by the Province as to why. 5. Support and Incentivize scaling up housing supply Recommendations 43-55 Page 56 of 60Page 66 of 110Page 252 of 842 Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made in Niagara Suggestions 43.Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external economic events, to withdraw infrastructure allocations from any permitted projects where construction has not been initiated within three years of build permits being issued This is currently done on a regional level. Allocation of capacity is only granted when you are ready to proceed and not part of draft plan approval. Support recommendations 44.Work with municipalities to develop and implement a municipal services corporation utility model for water and wastewater under which the municipal corporation would borrow and amortize costs among customers instead of using development charges. Impact to general taxpayers and would create a significant amount of work on the municipal side to implement. Additional staff would be needed to set up the corporation and to set up the necessary financial requirements. This corporation would need to be staffed. The province should ensure this model will provide a cost savings and makes homes more affordable. This solution seems to just add additional costs to the operation of the household which does not solve the affordability issue. 45.Improve funding for colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize municipalities, unions and employers to provide more on-the- job training. No impacts but financial benefits to the municipality to secure resources to complete the work needed. Support recommendations 46.Undertake multi-stakeholder education program to promote skilled trades. Benefit to future positions at the City and the construction industry. This will assist with labour shortages. Support recommendations 47.Recommend that the federal and provincial government prioritize skilled trades and adjust the immigration points system to strongly favour needed trades and expedite immigration status for these workers and encourage the federal government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000 the number of immigrants admitted through Ontario’s program. Additional pressure on providing needed housing. Support recommendations. Page 57 of 60Page 67 of 110Page 253 of 842 48.The Ontario government should establish a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding. This fund should reward a. Annual housing growth that meets or exceeds provincial targets b. Reductions in total approval times for new housing c. The speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices Financial impacts to the City could be reduced depending on the level of funding from the Province and the Federal Government. Additional resources will be needed to process applications and put in place measures and policies to expedite approvals. Sufficient funding is need to offset initial costs for proper planning. Funding should cover Secondary Plan study work, servicing reviews, environmental study work etc. to remove delays and risk from developments. 49.Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and approval timeline targets. This will create significant impact to the City. Firstly, the city will need to ensure they have adequate staff to process applications within the allocated time targets. Secondly, in the shorter period the City may need to plan for funding shortfalls until they can sufficiently staff the planning department to meet the requirements. The impacts will be in various departments Planning, Building and Development and Municipal Works, Need to ensure sufficient time is provided to get additional resources in place given the talent market is limited. The provincial government should release new funding models for last or second to last year students in planning, building and engineering to ensure they can do on the job training. Lack of funding may further inhibit the municipality from meeting growth and approval timeline targets over the long run. 50.Fund the adoption of consistent municipal e-permitting systems and encourage the federal government to match funding. Fund the development of common data architecture standards The City did receive funding for a municipal e-permitting system in March of 2022. Support recommendations. Page 58 of 60Page 68 of 110Page 254 of 842 across municipalities and provincial agencies and require municipalities to provide their zoning bylaws with open data standards. Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make funding conditional on established targets As both of these initiatives are funded the only impact is staffing resources to accomplish the requirements by 2025. 51.Require municipalities and the provincial government to use the Ministry of Finance population projections as the basis for housing need analysis and related land use requirements. No impact to the City. Support recommendations. 52.Resume reporting on housing data and require consistent municipal reporting, enforcing compliance as a requirement for accessing programs under the Ontario Housing Delivery Fund. No impact Support recommendations 53.Report each year at the municipal and provincial level on any gap between demand and supply by housing type and location and make underlying data freely available to the public. Impact on resources to prepare this work. Additional staffing or software may be needed. Support recommendations 54.Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government committee, including key provincial ministries and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our remaining recommendations and any other productive ideas are implemented. Benefits- Committee can review and make small changes to improve the system during the transition. Municipalities should be part of the future process to ensure that recommendations can be easily implemented. 55.Commit to evaluate these recommendations for the next three years with public reporting on progress No impacts Support recommendations Page 59 of 60Page 69 of 110Page 255 of 842 Page 60 of 60Page 70 of 110Page 256 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:47 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Lorna Anstruther Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. - The natural environment including provincial sensitive wetlands must be protected from development. NO DEVELOPMENT! - Historic neighbourhoods need to be identified and protected from development that does not blend with the homes already there. Building regulations put in place to ensure developments blend into the neighbourhood. - The wishes of the residents need to supersede the wishes of the province and developers!!!! - New housing should blend with existing residences and a gentle step to higher construction on the periphery that does not create shadowing on current residences. No one should loose sunlight because of new developments!!!!! -Older neighbourhoods are home to mature trees that need to be protected from development. - Easy access to a grocery store, pharmacy, public transportation need to be factored into proposed developments. - Intelligent development...not development to fulfil provincial guidelines/fill developers' pockets...which will lead to shoddy construction, expensive Ontatrio Land Tribunals hearings, and angry residents!!!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 71 of 110 Page 257 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:36 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Brent Roberts Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Ontario use to have a Co-op program for housing that assisted in affordable housing, which was a good program. Unfortunately a Con man came along named Harris and shut this program down. Since then less and less affordable housing has been built, leaving it wide open for landlords and slumlords. So Ontario did have something helpful only to be destroyed by Cons and ignored by Libs. Now it is so Ironic that they want to address this issue that they created at the expense of the unfortunate. Bring back good programs that worked. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 72 of 110 Page 258 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Saturday, April 16, 2022 9:52 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Sylvia Lauzon Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Rental costs in Niagara Falls are extremely expensive. How can anyone survive having to pay such outrageous costs and still have to pay their bills and food. So many people are being left homeless because it’s just too much. It’s not fair. I feel very sorry for the younger generation who are trying to start their lives but cannot afford to do so, even with working full time jobs. Something needs to be done. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 73 of 110 Page 259 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:29 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Meghan Edgar Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Something needs to be done to start limiting the amount of properties being used for Air Bnb's in the Region. People don't have housing options, meanwhile there are so many buildings sitting empty waiting for travellers to rent them. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 74 of 110 Page 260 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:59 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Ali Taleb Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. We need more housing options like rentals. Bylaws need not restrict second units and impose owners live in houses with two units. This would being more units to the market and could improve affordability. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 75 of 110 Page 261 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2022 7:18 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Sara Lobo Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. I am a resident of Queen Street, I have lived here since 2003. Over the years I've watched our housing and rental prices soar to incredible amounts. I am in the stage of my life where I finally have a good paying job and I have savings starting to build. I've always dreamed of owning my own home. I've watched as the houses and apartments around me get bought up and turned into airbnbs and rooming houses. I've seen that it's mostly investors from Toronto, the USA and overseas. I've had airbnb guests constantly confuse my apartment building for their own. My landlord has tried to evict me many times because my rent is so cheap ($500+ utilities for a one bedroom apartment). He has been very blunt with me about wanting more money for my unit. This is very stressful indeed. I was on the regional housing list years ago but gave up because the waitlist was 10+ years. We have a large population of homeless people, some that we have to deal with on an almost weekly basis trying to enter our building. I've searched over the years for anything comparable to my own apartment in size and cost, to no avail. I'm lucky yo have my factory job and to be out of debt nowadays but the constant threat of housing costs and homelessness looms. I don't see how anyone person on minimum wage or even above minimum wage can afford rent let alone a down payment for a small house/mortgage. I'm university and college educated, good paying jobs are not easy to come by in this city. I've worked for many companies that have shut down or restructured over the years. There needs to be more done for our citizens. The new housing that is being built on the old Park Street market will only offer 20% affordable housing from a previous city hall email. That to me is not enough by a long shot and is falling short of our community. The housing market bubble will pop and we will see many foreclosures in the future. Until then we're struggling. Please help us. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 76 of 110 Page 262 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:33 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Neil Mooney Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. The speed of new housing construction is significantly outpacing upgrades to existing infrastructure consequently area roadways, bridges, sidewalks are being neglected thereby leading to rapid deterioration and neglect. Additionally, existing roadways cannot support such a large and rapid increase in population and vehicle traffic. In this regard, congestion is a significant issue and will continue to challenge the free flow and efficient movement of high volumes of traffic. These are mutually competing issues that require a planned approach that we have not seen and/or the plan is being poorly executed. Additionally, if we (Canada, Ontario, Niagara) cannot support high levels of population growth (i.e. 400,000+) as seen over the past few years then it would be responsible to slow this growth and allow all of the necessary supports to catch up. Naturally, this action would need to start with the Federal government who has responsibility for immigration of all types. A carefully planned approach is better than an uncontrolled, rushed, panicked response where all parties are scrambling to address issues. Actions have consequences and even the best of intentions can end up having long lasting and negative effects when there are no controls put in place. Truly, affordable housing is important to current and future generations so a multi-phased approach is essential. This also includes the absolute necessity to preserve green space and to incorporate parks, hiking trails and other mental health and wellness outdoor areas. Rapid population growth can bring about a host of other issues therefore a responsible approach that balances the needs of existing residents and new residents must be adopted by all levels of government. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 77 of 110 Page 263 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 8:25 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Brenda Hicks Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Everyone deserves to have a home making it affordable to all is the right way to go!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 78 of 110 Page 264 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 7:21 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Judy Doerr Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. The report is "very vague" addressing the serious gap for persons earning salaries in the average income range of $60, 00.00per year in Canada per household ......and lower. GOVERNMENTS need to commit to a very "clear"target of housing for this income bracket as the houses and the rental properties CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AND BEING PROPOSED are totally out of reach. Livable wages of 18.00 per hour are very very unrealistic and prove our governments are "grossly" out of touch with the cost of living. Geared to income housing and co-operative housing should be built to deal with this income group,otherwise this glaring gap will keep widening. It has resulted as a direct result of very overlooked and ignored affordable housing crisis that has been on the rise for decades. IT is well overdue to even the playing field for this forgotten and victimized group of our citizens who are a hugh percentage of the working class /working poor in all communities. IT IS SOCIAL INJUSTICE. THIS REPORT IS VERY VAGUE and very much still on the side of developers building houses for the wealthy and municipalities need to take a "very" close look at the vulnerable citizens/WORKING POOR before continuing to build for the people in suburbia. THEY CAN FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANYWHERE and have financial advantage that must be considered in properly addressing the housing shortages that have existed for the lower income brackets. IT IS TIME TO BE FAIR AND JUST OR OUR COMMUNITIES WILL CONTINUE TO DETERIORATE AND PRESENT MANY MENTAL HEALTH AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIORS, ETC IF WE CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF OUR WORKING POOR WHO ARE "STRUGGLING" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 79 of 110 Page 265 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 12:07 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Hello, how long is this process going to take. All you ever do is "talk about it" and take recommendations. Meanwhile, you have known there has been a housing shortage for years. People are dying waiting for a place, so by all means, keep talking Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Again, how many times do you need to do this. For years people have been on wait lists. I know seniors that have no where to go and will be dead by the time you finish talking and recommending. Shame, shame on all of you. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 80 of 110 Page 266 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:16 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Manuela Kesseler Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Thank you for making this huge problem a priority! Can I suggest building more homes with in-law suites, pls? We have been looking fruitlessly for a home to house my aging in-laws with separate living quarters for their autonomy (mom has been falling a lot and they live on the 3rd floor of a place where the elevator wasn’t working twice in a short span of time—they both use walkers and can’t do stairs, in an emergency, this would be life-threatening). Also, our 3 adult kids are still home (not a problem for me, but there’s not much hope for them to find affordable housing anytime soon!). They represent our future and need to be considered. Canada needs to look after its own! Thank you for all you’re doing. Manuela CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 81 of 110 Page 267 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:53 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Melody Taylor Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. City should be able to appropriate any land/ buildings within the city that have been left vacant for a period of 5 years or more to build housing units on. This would help stop the need to expand its boundaries for housing. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 82 of 110 Page 268 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:42 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Tammy Williston Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. My son is 27 with Cerebral Palsy. He would love to live in his own but simply cannot afford it. The waiting list is atrocious. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 83 of 110 Page 269 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 27, 2022 12:13 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Carol Stadnyk Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. The recommendations proposed are fine, but take time. What needs to happen NOW is to 1.) Stop allowing investors to buy up property for SHORT Term rentals....there are enough hotels in Niagara Falls for that purpose. 2.) Severely Regulate the short term rentals that already exist by having them register their properties with the city with a large fee attached to discourage them from owning a short term rental property. period CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 84 of 110 Page 270 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 27, 2022 2:49 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Liz Arsenault Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. I've been displace through domestic violence and now have to live in a home that I can not afford.Even with a police report no one took the proper steps to help my children and myself.I was left homeless for 10 months CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 85 of 110 Page 271 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 27, 2022 2:44 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Ruth Forneri Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Geared to 'income' housing is what's needed. Buying a home today is out of reach for the majority of Canadians. Any politician that says they'll help you purchase a home, is from the planet Mars. The biggest issue is 400,000 immigrants coming into the country every year. Gives you the impression, politicians are brainless. What the heck are they thinking??? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 86 of 110 Page 272 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 27, 2022 11:51 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Tanya Panas Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. I think low income housing including rentals is extremely important. However for once it would be greatly appreciated to consider a full time working single person with no kids. I should be able to afford more then just a room in someone else's house. These insensitive are always geared for people with kids, or getting social assistance, we need to take everyone's situation into consideration. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 87 of 110 Page 273 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Thursday, April 28, 2022 3:42 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Amanda MacLean Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. None of that will help. It will only take away farming land and open areas therefore turning us into a Toronto like area. What NEEDS to be done, is regulations of rent. Suggestion, limit the amount landlords are allowed to charge. Example. 3 floor house. (Made up numbers for simplicity) They have a 300,000 mortgage and a 1500/mo payment. The person renting their basement should not be paying 1200/mo. It should be 1/3 of 1500 (500) as only 1/3 of the house is occupied by the renter. And also pay 1/3 of the monthly bills. Also with the mortgage amount. That needs to be only the ORIGINAL amount for the house. People consolidate debts and/or borrow against the equity to buy things (cars, boats whatever) Unless I can drive that car, I’m not paying for it. So if a landlord does this and adds on another 100,000 the tenant should NOT be responsible to pay off their debts. It’s not that complicated. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 88 of 110 Page 274 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Friday, April 29, 2022 6:19 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Charlene Drolet Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Young couples that make good wages can afford around a 350,000/450,000 mortgage. They can NOT afford to compete in a bidding war with these investors that are just flipping to make a buck or rent for an outrageous price. These are homes that should be within reach and are NOT! What is happening to our city? It’s becoming full of over priced rentals that most can’t afford. Or, people having to rent because they can’t afford a house of their own. How unfair! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 89 of 110 Page 275 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Friday, April 29, 2022 7:09 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Sterling McRae Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. We have wanted to downsize for some time but can find nothing that is affordable. Apartments are too expensive and small houses have been priced out of reach. Houses purchased by those looking to make large profit are making our search impossible. Help CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 90 of 110 Page 276 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Saturday, April 30, 2022 11:24 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Don McIntee Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Recommendations don't necessarily address affordability. I would like to see a much higher percentage of the Park Street development as affordable units. It also looks to me like safety could be overlooked in their proposal. Also existing residents need to be kept informed of potential area developments. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 91 of 110 Page 277 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Saturday, April 30, 2022 4:36 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Kathleen Edwards Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. I live in rural Niagara Falls and know that it’s time to open up for housing. Not the type being built south of Niagara Square but build affordable houses with larger lots. It’s healthier and economical. This land is not prime agricultural land. It’s basically hard scrabble clay soil land good only for 3 crops. World class neighborhoods could be built here leaving plenty of land for those still willing to farm it. Open it up!!! Let people enjoy rural/residential life!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 92 of 110 Page 278 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Saturday, April 30, 2022 1:14 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Paula Vanderweyden Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Housing Affordability should not be a factor of payment for a overly small and compact dwelling place but the standards must be heightened to assure that the roomy, housing desired and lived in by most canadians since the beginning, offering ample room, outdoors spaces, tree cover and low rise buildings if must be multiunit, which they should not be. There should not be only multiunit dwelling places in Ontario and Canada that are crammed into indeciferable sprawlings. There should, and has to be, affordable single family dwelling places with ample rooms and outdoor spaces as all humans are worthy of living in. No more cramped and over populated conglomerates, but well spaced, beautiful places, including more actually single dwelling houses and less multiple unit buildings. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 93 of 110 Page 279 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Saturday, April 30, 2022 9:34 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Tara Payne Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. There needs to be a cap on the sale and renting of houses. Renters are expected to pay double the cost of what the mortgage is on the home. This is outrageous. It’s imperative that affordable housing is available and landlords are restricted to how much they can gauge a tenant. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 94 of 110 Page 280 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Sunday, May 1, 2022 11:04 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-djackson13 completed Have Your Say djackson13 just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Debra Jackson-Jones Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. The recommendations will be greatly appreciated by developers! I am especially concerned about the third party appeals bearing the full costs should they lose their appeal, which they most often do. This is absolutely designed to discourage community input. I agree in part with building higher density, however that also needs to the strategy when developers are gobbling up undeveloped land. All new neighbourhoods should have a mix of single family dwellings, townhouses, low rise apartment buildings, and condo towers. All NEW neighbourhoods. Demolishing established walkable neighbourhoods isn't the way to go. There is nothing in these recommendations that speaks to the problem of investors and speculators buying properties that sit vacant or are used as short term vacation rentals. What is in this document that ensures investors won't buy up all these new builds? There is not real commitment to make all these new homes available to the people that need them the most. It's open season for people with the money to buy them up. Kudos to NF for the Park St. plan. It makes sense. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 95 of 110 Page 281 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Sunday, May 1, 2022 3:07 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Kathleen McIntyre Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. The situation is dire. More & more people are out in the streets. Each month I see many more wandering aimlessly & dragging their belongings with them. Its hesrt wrenching. Many, many families cannot afford a place to live anymore. Aldo the money people are making goes mostly to rent. They hardly have anything left for food, gas, clothing etc. The food banks cannot keep up with the need. Not many have jobs that pay enough. Forget about families being able to save for a home. That dream is gone! Most are barely keeping their heads above water. The average 1 bedroom apt. is about $1,700 per month & a 2 bedroom is about $2,000 per month. Renting a house would be about $2,800 + utilities. It's unbelievable really. Our federal & provincial governments allowed this to happen. They saw what was going on, but failed to address the situation until it's become a tragedy. I know of some people who are actually considering suicide rather than being forced out of their homes & left to live on the streets. In order to address the housing situation, the city would to need to build a LOT of affordable housing. I would hope affordable housing would be given to the people on the list. The affordable housing list that's getting longer by the minute. Some people have been waiting years & years. Affordable housing should not be given to line the jumpers-people coming into this country should wait their turn. Our own people should be taken care of first. The amount of money the Ontario government is proposing won't make enough of a difference in my opinion. They've missed the mark entirely, but no one expects anything from them now anyway. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 96 of 110 Page 282 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 10:11 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Justen Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. These recommendations do nothing to soften demand or mandate vanilla housing builds to bring costs down. The recommendations will accomplish nothing. No developer will build fast enough to reduce their asking prices and therefore profits. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 97 of 110 Page 283 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 8:31 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Sandra McPhee Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. I have a friend that is on the list for housing for 8 years now and every time he calls to see how things are he's told that all the places have there own list and they have no idea when he will get in all these places are picking and choosing who they want they are not going by the list this should be transparent to the people CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 98 of 110 Page 284 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 10:38 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Shirleen Makonese Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Hi there, I work for Indwell, a leading affordable housing developer in Hamilton, but I’m a Niagara resident. Indwell has been looking to build affordable supportive housing in the Niagara region. Can you point us in the right direction? Thanks! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 99 of 110 Page 285 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 3, 2022 12:19 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Sid Cohen Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Affordable housing may work for everybody EXCEPT THE ACTUAL HOME BUYER, if after closing, the new Homeowner, having spent their life savings just to purchase said "affordable" house, is left with Tens of Thousand of dollars in repairs because of Building Code Violations that the City never inspected OR shortcuts the Builders took to reduce costs OR ludicrous excuses made by Tarion in order to not backstop the Builder Warranty OR the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, HCRA, for publishing a Builder Directory meant to help Future House Buyers choose a reputable Builder based on past performance claims, yet does the opposite and protects the Builders by pretending to show perfect records of performance for many of them including my own. My house is still riddled with Building Code violations. When I purchased my house, I did not have any construction knowledge, nor should I have needed it if everybody had completed their jobs properly including the City. I was told to request the construction drawings through an FOI request to the City and discovered the Builder never submitted the structural changes from the original construction drawings, so the City could never have inspected them in the first place. When I asked the Building Department, they confirmed any changes, especially structural, should have been submitted by the Builder yet there was nothing on record and the clerk did not and would not pursue it further. After a second FOI request a few years later, I was informed that everything I was looking for had been lost/destroyed in the old courthouse by mold. Fortunately, I recently discovered my Building Code Inspections were still available and acquired them only to then discover that the Final Inspection Report that claimed a Passing Inspection for my house was dated Fifteen Months (15) AFTER I had closed and moved in! How can that be possible since not one person from the City entered my house to inspect? The Building Code Violations are very obvious, so I can only be left to assume that not only was the house not inspected, but the document may have been falsified. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Affordable housing depends on Proper Accountability from all Parties. -- Without Proper Accountability, everybody BUT the Intended New House Buyers may win in the end, even the lawyers. - - Examples of what can go wrong when the fail-safes are broken: http://canadiansforproperlybuilthomes.com/in-memoriam/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROYZfBkx1-w https://consumersreformtarion.com/2021/01/05/this-house-is-going-to-kill-me/ https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/tarion-ceo- steps-down-following-scathing-auditor-general-report-1.4717360 Page 100 of 110 Page 286 of 842 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 101 of 110 Page 287 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 4, 2022 3:46 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Elizabeth Cormack Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. I really don't understand building 1.5 million new homes that cost upwards of $500,000 (I'm being optimistic) can be affordable. I live in Chippawa & the homes going up are way out of the range for low-income families. This is NOT affordable. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 102 of 110 Page 288 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 4, 2022 5:16 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Miranda Chapman Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Building more homes will help in the future, but those of us who are suffering through this housing crisis need homes now. One good step for the government to take would be to stop encouraging the socio-economic discrimination of renters. Allowing landlords to require credit checks before considering renting to them serves no other purpose. It is a well known fact that very few people can afford housing costs asked for by property owners, but we don't live in a climate where living outside is an option. People need homes and are forced to pay what they cannot afford, often making them have to choose between paying rent or paying bills. Paying rent has no positive effect on a credit score, while not paying bills has a negative effect thus reducing a person's ability to find adequate housing. Prospective renters don't have the right to see a landowner's credit score, no way to know if they have the means or if they choose to pay their mortgage/property taxes. Another important step is to enforce tenant rights. Property owners refuse to rent to people who cannot obtain an employment letter, people who have children, they require payments that aren't legal, they leave their suites in unsafe states... Provide rent subsidy for those in need without making them wait at least a year on a housing list before they're even considered for eligibility. Stop zoning houses for business offices. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 103 of 110 Page 289 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 4, 2022 6:59 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Willow Shawanoo Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. There needs to be indigenous specific housing built. As per the Niagara Regions Point in Time Count as much as Indigenous people in Niagara represent under 5% of our population yet represent 25% of our homeless population. In addition it would help build a community of support. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 104 of 110 Page 290 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Thursday, May 5, 2022 2:44 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Andrew Wunderink Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Please consider incentives to non-profit and charitable groups to organize and facilitate a build. Facilitate a meeting to get these groups together so an organized cohesive plan can form. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 105 of 110 Page 291 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:26 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Auroral Testa Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. We need affordable rental units now. I was evicted from my small 1 bedroom affordable apartment due to reno- eviction. I found a 2 bedroom apartment that is more than double the rent. I took it because I was afraid I wouldn't find anything else. I am going to be 65 in June, but can't afford to retire. I believe my old apartment is vacant and is possibly going to be used for short term rental. Apartment are too expensive especially for single people. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 106 of 110 Page 292 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:54 PM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-joy completed Have Your Say joy just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Joyce Sankey Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. Let’s Talk Niagara – Housing Affordability Action 1: Update the City’s Official Plan to include Affordable Housing Target(s) The goal of 270 units being built as affordable each year is nowhere near enough. 135 rental units will not house all those residents who are now in inadequate residences. Action 3 Support and permit higher density types of housing 4: Support and permit alternate forms of housing The city should plan to support and permit higher-density types of housing and alternative forms of housing in the short term – within 6 months. Action 6 – Preserve existing purpose built rental housing stock through the introduction of demolition and conversion control policies as well as a rental replacement by law. I agree with this action. We need to preserve rental housing. I would like to see a shorter time- frame towards accomplishing this goal. Also, there should be a city by-law requiring landlords to ensure their rental properties are not a threat to the health and safety of tenants and this by-law should be enforced. Action 7 – Undertake a formal assessment of the potential to introduce Inclusionary Zoning This is a necessity if we do not want housing to use up all our natural areas and agricultural lands. Cities cannot sprawl forever. Action 8 –Explore the Formalization of the use of Motels as Long term Stay Accommodation The use of motels as long stay residences seems necessary for now. There should be a push for a better solution. The Victoria Street Old Carnegie Library Transitional Housing is a good start as is the Park Street Market Housing Project. Action 11: Develop a policy to review all surplus municipal land for housing suitability Tax breaks could help these lands be redeveloped into housing for lower income citizens. Please do not take lands with woodlands or wetlands. Natural assets are necessary too. Action 13 – Explore private workforce housing for hospitality and tourism employees Private workforce housing could be helpful as many tourism jobs are seasonal and low-paying. Action 18 –Allocate Appropriate Staff Resources to Implement and Administer the Housing Strategy and Associated Actions Few of these strategies can be carried out without additional staff. In additions to these laudable action items I would like to see real action on complete communities. In Niagara we have an aging population. I meet retirees who are buying homes in communities where they will be car dependant. I see retirees buying stacked townhouses. This does not seem sustainable. Many seniors are living in homes that are large and difficult for them to take care of. They will not sell if there is not an attractive and affordable alternative. We need apartments that are large enough to be real homes where family can visit and that are connected to transit and near stores and activity centres. I do understand that city planning staff would like to take the time to see that housing plans and initiatives are done correctly. However, we are in a housing crisis with many people suffering from not being able to obtain adequate and safe housing. Most important to me is that no more natural areas are lost to the development of sprawling residential Page 107 of 110 Page 293 of 842 2 subdivisions. The loss of natural assets will make all of us poorer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposals. Sincerely, Joyce Sankey CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 108 of 110 Page 294 of 842 1 From:Engagement Team <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent:Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:07 AM To:Let's Talk; Planning Emails Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Anonymous User completed Have Your Say Anonymous User just submitted comments to Have Your Say with the responses below. Please provide your name. Steven Megannety Please provide your email address. Provide your comments on Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force's recommendations. The process to get approvals for projects that include mixed use and affordable options is too onerous, convoluted and costly for most land owners. The City should create a facilitation position who actually works with landowners to help formulate innovative and cooperative mixed use developments. By partnering with all the players and streamlining the application processes, we could achieve creative and unique developments. The Task Force Report has garnered wide support from across the province along with the normal objections from the municipal sector. The main take-aways are simple: More density and end to exclusionary municipal restrictions protecting single family neighbourhoods. Limiting spurious appeals and municipal delay tactics from political interference. There are some fundamental and game- changing administrative process change recommendations, but the focus is clearly on eliminating bottleneck municipal impediments to development. Overall, the changes are aimed at creating a streamlined, consistent and standardized approval system in the province. To achieve these objectives, the Task Force recommends more “as of right” policies that would compel municipalities to adhere to strict timelines for review and decision making. These provisions are couched in the idea that the recommendations would ‘streamline’ and better structure municipal decision processes. It can be argued that this is an extension of the MZO authorities as it compels compliance with provincial standards. A sop to the municipalities is the call for additional funding to expand infrastructure into contingent lands, the hiring of new staff and the development of standardized process infrastructures. We'll soon see if the legislature changes from 109 are wholeheartedly applied. The provisions for clear standards for public challenges of development proposals are the ones that will create the most controversy if implemented. Removal of the right to appeal projects with 30%+ affordable units and the requirement of a $10,000 filing fee for third party appeals will, if adopted, will create massive blowback from homeowners everywhere. Adding the ability of the LPAT to access costs and punitive damages to losing appeals will also be controversial. Some significant change to municipal financing for infrastructure are recommended and these could be implemented by regulation without significant controversy. By citing the $186,300 AVERAGE government charges for a new single-detached home, one sees the emergence of a workable communications strategy for the provincial government for these recommendations. The recommendations for changes in development charge and cash in lieu fees, again, are another change that should be relatively easy to achieve via regulatory changes. A very interesting, reported fact was that Toronto’s commute was 96 minutes. This falls into the political narrative on the need for more highways which while seemingly counter-intuitive, is going to be part of the 905-campaign strategy for the government. The spin on the report will follow on their recommendation that the province will encourage more “gentle” Page 109 of 110 Page 295 of 842 2 density. What that means is unclear. While the Toronto-centric focus on transit corridor increases in density, one can see how this idea can be used in nearly all medium and larger communities. Even though the Report purports to be part of the solution to the housing imbalance in the province, the focus is clearly Toronto-centric. The elimination of parking minimums movement is growing, but one is hard pressed to understand how this would work or be justified in many Ontario municipalities without robust transit systems. The fact remains that the market determines what sells and eliminating parking minimums outside major urban areas will not be a game-changer for a long time. The enhanced emphasis by the province on skilled trades, including significant additional funding for placements, is a strong public relations win for the province. The fight from the municipalities will centre around the limiting of exclusionary zoning as they will bear the brunt of NIMBY objections. The Report offers the standard bromide that “City staff, councillors, and the province need to stand up to these tactics and speak up for the Ontarians who need housing.” There are additional recommendations for the use of surplus government lands and the implementation of surety bonds instead of LCs for site plans and subdivision agreements. These changes would free up capital and could be implemented by regulation without significant or justified blowback from municipalities. The standard call for consistent province-wide administrative processes is also presented. This is also bracketed by a call for “reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and approval timeline targets.” Legislative timelines, when coupled with as of right regulations and standardized public consultation processes adds additional and significant pressures on local governments. If handled correctly and staged to be implemented after the next provincial election but legislated now, the Task Force recommendations could go a long way to remove bottlenecks in the approval pipeline. But as always, there is what is right and what is political palatable. Let’s hope the province find that balance. Generally, this is a strong move towards consistency and balance in the approvals process. The More Homes for Everyone Act and mandated approval process changes were a half-hearted attempt to implement the Task Force's recommendation. Expect more after the June provincial election and a perhaps a political anvil for the municipal one in the fall. The devil is always in the details. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 110 of 110 Page 296 of 842 BDD-2022-001 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC/BDD) Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade SBEC Program Transfer Payment Agreement Recommendation(s) Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the SBEC-MEDJCT SBEC Program Transfer Payment Agreement. Executive Summary The agreement between the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade (MEDJCT) and the City of Niagara Falls will provide funding to assist in the operation of the Small Business Enterprise Centre, and the Summer Company and Starter Company Plus programs. The agreement will last until March 31st, 2024 and provide a total of $357,688 for the duration of the agreement. Background The Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade has provided the City of Niagara Falls funding to assist with the operation of the Small Business Enterprise Centre since 2004. Additionally, MEDJCT provides program specific funding. The Summer Company Program provides students (high school and post-secondary) entrepreneurship training, mentorship, and grant funding to operate a full-time summer business. Starter Company Plus provides new and early stage businesses with access to training, mentoring and an opportunity to obtain grant funding to start or expand their businesses Analysis The funding will assist in the operation of the Small Business Enterprise Ce ntre; and will allow for the delivery of the Summer Company and Starter Company Plus programs. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Economic growth and prosperity; youth retention. List of Attachments Niagara Falls SBEC Program TPA 2022-24 Page 1 of 71 Page 297 of 842 Written by: Dean Spironello, Small Business Consultant Submitted by: Status: Serge Felicetti, Director of Business Development Approved - 02 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 02 May 2022 Page 2 of 71 Page 298 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 0 ONTARIO TRANSFER PAYMENT AGREEMENT FOR SBEC PROGRAM: SBEC Core, Starter Company Plus and Summer Company THE AGREEMENT is effective as of the 1st day of April, 2022 B E T W E E N : HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade (the “Province”) - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS (the “Recipient”) BACKGROUND The Recipient intends to undertake the SBEC Program which is comprised of the SBEC Core, Starter Company Plus and Summer Company programs. CONSIDERATION In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are expressly acknowledged, the Province and the Recipient agree as follows: 1.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT 1.1 The agreement, together with: Schedule “A” General Terms and Conditions Schedule “B” SBEC Program Specific Information Schedule “C” SBEC Program Schedule “D” Budget Schedule “E” Payment Schedule Schedule “F” Reports Schedule “G” Request for Payment and Certificate Page 3 of 71 Page 299 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 1 Schedule “H” Eligible Expenditures Schedule “I” Communications and Confidentiality Protocol Schedule “J” Auditor’s Certificate and any amending agreement entered into as provided for in Section 3.1, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained in the Agreement and supersedes all prior oral or written representations and agreements. 2.0 COUNTERPARTS 2.1 The Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 3.0 AMENDING THE AGREEMENT 3.1 The Agreement may only be amended by a written agreement duly executed by the Parties. 4.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4.1 The Recipient acknowledges that: (a) by receiving Funds it may become subject to legislation applicable to organizations that receive funding from the Government of Ontario, including the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 (Ontario), the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996 (Ontario), and the Auditor General Act (Ontario); (b) Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario has issued expenses, perquisites, and procurement directives and guidelines pursuant to the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 (Ontario); (c) the Funds are: (i) to assist the Recipient to carry out the SBEC Program and not to provide goods or services to the Province; (ii) funding for the purposes of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996 (Ontario); (d) the Province is not responsible for carrying out the SBEC Program; and Page 4 of 71 Page 300 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 2 (e) the Province is bound by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) (“FIPPA”) and that any information provided to the Province in connection with the SBEC Program or otherwise in connection with the Agreement may be subject to disclosure in accordance with that Act. 5.0 CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENCY 5.1 Conflict or Inconsistency. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the Additional Provisions and the provisions in Schedule “A”, the following rules will apply: (a) the Parties will interpret any Additional Provisions in so far as possible, in a way that preserves the intention of the Parties as expressed in Schedule “A”; and (b) where it is not possible to interpret the Additional Provisions in a way that is consistent with the provisions in Schedule “A”, the Additional Provisions will prevail over the provisions in Schedule “A” to the extent of the inconsistency. - SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS - Page 5 of 71 Page 301 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 3 The Parties have executed the Agreement on the dates set out below. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade _________________ ____________________________________ Date Name: David Meyer Title: Assistant Deputy Minister (A), Office of Red Tape Reduction and Small Business THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS _________________ ____________________________________ Date Name: William G. Matson Title: City Clerk I have authority to bind the Recipient. _________________ ____________________________________ Date Name: James M. Diodati Title: Mayor I have authority to bind the Recipient. Page 6 of 71 Page 302 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 4 SCHEDULE “A” GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A1.0 INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS A1.1 Interpretation. For the purposes of interpretation: (a) words in the singular include the plural and vice-versa; (b) words in one gender include all genders; (c) the headings do not form part of the Agreement; they are for reference only and will not affect the interpretation of the Agreement; (d) any reference to dollars or currency will be in Canadian dollars and currency; and (e) “include”, “includes” and “including” denote that the subsequent list is not exhaustive. A1.2 Definitions. In the Agreement, the following terms will have the following meanings: “Agreement” means this agreement entered into between the Province and the Recipient, all of the Schedules listed in Section 1.1, and any amending agreement entered into pursuant to Section 3.1. “Approved Participant” means an individual who has been approved by the Recipient as a participant in either the Starter Company Plus program or in the Summer Company program. “Budget” means the budget attached to the Agreement as Schedule “D”. “Business Day” means any working day, Monday to Friday inclusive, excluding statutory and other holidays, namely: New Year’s Day; Family Day; Good Friday; Easter Monday; Victoria Day; Canada Day; Civic Holiday; Labour Day; Thanksgiving Day; Remembrance Day; Christmas Day; Boxing Day and any other day on which the Province has elected to be closed for business. “Business Plan” means the business plan attached to the Agreement in Schedule “C” section C8. “Client” means an entrepreneur who, or small business that, seeks the services of the Recipient under the SBEC Core program. Page 7 of 71 Page 303 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 5 “Effective Date” means the date set out at the top of the Agreement. “Eligible Expenditures” means those expenditures, exclusive of HST, which are directly attributable to the SBEC Program as more particularly described in Schedule “H” that are incurred and paid by the Recipient during the term of the Agreement. “Event of Default” has the meaning ascribed to it in Section A13.1. “Expiry Date” means the expiry date set out in Schedule “B”. “Funding Year” means: (a) in the case of the first Funding Year, the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the following March 31; and (b) in the case of Funding Years subsequent to the first Funding Year, the period commencing on April 1 following the end of the previous Funding Year and ending on the following March 31. “Funds” means the money the Province provides to the Recipient pursuant to the Agreement. “Indemnified Parties” means Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, Her ministers, agents, appointees, and employees. “Maximum Funds” means the maximum amount of Funds set out in Schedule “B” that the Province will provide to the Recipient under the Agreement. “Micro-Grant” means a grant of up to $5000 of the Funds provided under the Starter Company Plus program or of up to $3000 of the Funds provided under Summer Company program, as more particularly set out in Schedule “C”. “Micro-Grant Agreement” means the Micro-Grant agreement entered into between the Recipient and any Approved Participant that the Recipient has further approved for a Micro-Grant, the foregoing subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Schedule “C”. “Notice” means any communication given or required to be given pursuant to the Agreement. “Notice Period” means the period of time within which the Recipient is required to remedy an Event of Default pursuant to Section A13.3(b), and includes any such period or periods of time by which the Province extends that time in accordance with Section A13.4. Page 8 of 71 Page 304 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 6 “Parties” means the Province and the Recipient. “Party” means either the Province or the Recipient. “Reports” means the reports set out in Schedule “F”. “Program Guidelines” has the meaning ascribed to it in section A2.1(e). “Program Plan” means the program plan attached to the Agreement in Schedule “C” section C8. “SBEC Core” means the program described in Schedule “C”, the Program Guidelines and the Program Plan. “SBEC Program” means the program described in Schedule “C”, the Program Guidelines and the Program Plan that consists of SBEC Core, Starter Company Plus and Summer Company programs. “Starter Company Plus” means the program described in Schedule “C”, the Program Guidelines and the Program Plan. “Summer Company” means the program described in Schedule “C”, the Program Guidelines and the Program Plan. A2.0 REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, AND COVENANTS A2.1 General. The Recipient represents, warrants, and covenants that: (a) it is, and will continue to be, a validly existing legal entity with full power to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement; (b) it has, and will continue to have, the experience and expertise necessary to carry out the SBEC Program; (c) it is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and provincial laws and regulations, all municipal by-laws, and any other orders, rules, and by-laws related to any aspect of the SBEC Program, the Funds, or both; (d) unless otherwise provided for in the Agreement, any information the Recipient provided to the Province in support of its request for Funds (including information relating to any eligibility requirements) was true and complete at the time the Recipient provided it and will continue to be true and complete; Page 9 of 71 Page 305 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 7 (e) it shall carry out the SBEC Program in compliance with Schedule “C”; the Province’s program guidelines (the “Program Guidelines”), copies of which the Recipient acknowledges and agrees it has received from the Province; the Program Plan; and the Business Plan; (f) the Recipient shall provide all services to the public under the SBEC Program in accordance with the French Language Services Act (Ontario), including, but not limited to, providing signs, notices and other information on such services in French and making it known to members of the public that such services are available in French. The Recipient shall, among other things that the Province may require from time to time, ensure to the Province’s satisfaction that: (i) any person may communicate with the Recipient in both French and English; (ii) any person may receive the services under the SBEC Program in both French and English; (iii) the portions of the Recipient’s website relating to the SBEC Program are available in French; (iv) all public documents relating to the SBEC Program are available in French; (v) bilingual (English/French) signs relating to the SBEC Program are posted as needed; (vi) it has developed a protocol for providing Francophone clients with services in French; and (vii) it shall submit the French Language Services Checklist described in Schedule “F”; and (g) It shall comply with the terms and requirements of Schedule “I” - Communications and Confidentiality Protocol. A2.2 Execution of Agreement. The Recipient represents and warrants that it has: (a) the full power and authority to enter into the Agreement; and (b) taken all necessary actions to authorize the execution of the Agreement, including if the Recipient is a municipality, passing a municipal by-law authorizing the Recipient to enter into the Agreement. A2.3 Governance. The Recipient represents, warrants, and covenants that it has, Page 10 of 71 Page 306 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 8 will maintain in writing, and will follow: (a) a code of conduct and ethical responsibilities for all persons at all levels of the Recipient’s organization; (b) procedures to enable the Recipient’s ongoing effective functioning; (c) decision-making mechanisms for the Recipient; (d) procedures to enable the Recipient to manage Funds prudently and effectively; (e) procedures to enable the Recipient to complete the SBEC Program successfully; (f) procedures to enable the Recipient to identify risks to the completion of the SBEC Program and strategies to address the identified risks, all in a timely manner; (g) procedures to enable the preparation and submission of all Reports required pursuant to Article A7.0; and (h) procedures to enable the Recipient to address such other matters as the Recipient considers necessary to enable the Recipient to carry out its obligations under the Agreement. A2.4 Supporting Proof. Upon the request of the Province, the Recipient will provide the Province with proof of the matters referred to in Article A2.0. A3.0 TERM OF THE AGREEMENT A3.1 Term. The term of the Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will expire on the Expiry Date unless terminated earlier pursuant to Article A11.0, Article A12.0, or Article A13.0. A4.0 FUNDS AND CARRYING OUT THE SBEC PROGRAM A4.1 Funds Provided. The Province will, subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement: (a) provide the Recipient up to the Maximum Funds for the purpose of carrying out the SBEC Program; (b) provide the Funds to the Recipient in accordance with the payment schedule set out in Schedule “E”; and Page 11 of 71 Page 307 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 9 (c) deposit the Funds into an account designated by the Recipient provided that the account: (i) resides at a Canadian financial institution; and (ii) is in the name of the Recipient. A4.2 Limitation on Payment of Funds. Despite Section A4.1: (a) the Province is not obligated to provide any Funds to the Recipient until the Recipient provides the certificates of insurance or other proof as the Province may request pursuant to Section A10.2; (b) the Province is not obligated to provide instalments of Funds until it is satisfied with the progress of the SBEC Program; (c) the Province may adjust the amount of Funds it provides to the Recipient in any Funding Year based upon the Province’s assessment of the information the Recipient provides to the Province pursuant to Section A7.1; (d) if, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act (Ontario), the Province does not receive the necessary appropriation from the Ontario Legislature for payment under the Agreement, the Province is not obligated to make any such payment, and, as a consequence, the Province may: (i) reduce the amount of Funds and, in consultation with the Recipient, change the SBEC Program; or (ii) terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section A12.1; (e) If the Recipient is a municipality, the Province is not obligated to provide any Funds to the Recipient until the Recipient provides evidence satisfactory to the Province that the Recipient’s council has authorized the execution of this Agreement by the Recipient by municipal by-law. A4.3 Use of Funds and Carry Out the SBEC Program. The Recipient will do all of the following: (a) carry out the SBEC Program in accordance with the Agreement; (b) use the Funds only for the purpose of carrying out the SBEC Program; (c) spend the Funds only on account of Eligible Expenditures and in accordance with the Budget; and Page 12 of 71 Page 308 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 10 (d) not use the Funds to cover any cost that has or will be funded or reimbursed by one or more of any third party, ministry, agency, or organization of the Government of Ontario. A4.4 Despite Section A4.3(c). Despite Section A4.3(c), the Recipient may, on occasion in the Budget, reallocate only within the same Funding Year: (a) Any amount equalling up to 10% or $500, whichever is greater, of any expense line item to another expenses line item, provided that at all times the following conditions are met: (i) Administration: the line item for “Administrative Expenses” under the category heading “SBEC Core” in the MEDJCT Program Funding Budget in section B of Schedule “D” shall not exceed 10% of the overall Budget; (ii) Micro-Grants: the amount allocated for Micro-Grants under the category headings “Starter Company Plus” and “Summer Company” in the MEDJCT Program Funding Budget in section B of Schedule “D” shall not be reduced to zero; and (iii) The total amount of the Funds for the applicable Funding Year shall remain the same. A4.5 Interest Bearing Account. If the Province provides Funds before the Recipient’s immediate need for the Funds, the Recipient will place the Funds in an interest bearing account in the name of the Recipient at a Canadian financial institution. A4.6 Interest. If the Recipient earns any interest on the Funds, the Province may: (a) deduct an amount equal to the interest from any further instalments of Funds; or (b) demand from the Recipient the payment of an amount equal to the interest. A4.7 Rebates, Credits, and Refunds. The Province will calculate Funds based on Eligible Expenditures, less any costs (including taxes) for which the Recipient has received, will receive, or is eligible to receive, a rebate, credit, or refund. A4.8 Updates to Program Guidelines. The Recipient is responsible for obtaining updated versions, if any, of the Program Guidelines from the Province. Page 13 of 71 Page 309 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 11 A5.0 RECIPIENT’S ACQUISITION OF GOODS OR SERVICES, AND DISPOSAL OF ASSETS A5.1 Acquisition. If the Recipient acquires goods, services, or both with the Funds, it will: (a) do so through a process that promotes the best value for money; and (b) comply with the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 (Ontario), including any procurement directive issued thereunder, to the extent applicable. A5.2 Disposal. The Recipient will not, without the Province’s prior written consent, sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of any asset purchased or created with the Funds or for which Funds were provided, the cost of which exceeded the amount set out in Schedule “B” at the time of purchase. A6.0 CONFLICT OF INTEREST A6.1 No Conflict of Interest. The Recipient will carry out the SBEC Program and use the Funds without an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. A6.2 Conflict of Interest Includes. For the purposes of Article A6.0, a conflict of interest includes any circumstances where: (a) the Recipient; or (b) any person who has the capacity to influence the Recipient’s decisions, has outside commitments, relationships, or financial interests that could, or could be seen to, interfere with the Recipient’s objective, unbiased, and impartial judgment relating to the SBEC Program, the use of the Funds, or both. A6.3 Disclosure to Province. The Recipient will: (a) disclose to the Province, without delay, any situation that a reasonable person would interpret as an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest; and (b) comply with any terms and conditions that the Province may prescribe as a result of the disclosure. A7.0 REPORTS, ACCOUNTING, AND REVIEW A7.1 Preparation and Submission. The Recipient will: Page 14 of 71 Page 310 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 12 (a) submit to the Province at the address referred to in Section A17.1, all Reports in accordance with the timelines and content requirements set out in Schedule “F”, or in a form as specified by the Province from time to time; (b) submit to the Province at the address referred to in Section A17.1, any other reports as may be requested by the Province in accordance with the timelines and content requirements specified by the Province; (c) ensure that all Reports and other reports are completed to the satisfaction of the Province; and (d) ensure that all Reports and other reports are signed on behalf of the Recipient by an authorized signing officer. A7.2 Record Maintenance. The Recipient will keep and maintain: (a) all financial records (including invoices) relating to the Funds or otherwise to the SBEC Program in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles; and (b) all non-financial documents and records relating to the Funds or otherwise to the SBEC Program. A7.3 Inspection. The Province, any authorized representative, or any independent auditor identified by the Province may, at the Province’s expense, upon twenty- four hours’ Notice to the Recipient and during normal business hours, enter upon the Recipient’s premises to review the progress of the SBEC Program and the Recipient’s allocation and expenditure of the Funds and, for these purposes, the Province, any authorized representative, or any independent auditor identified by the Province may take one or more of the following actions: (a) inspect and copy the records and documents referred to in Section A7.2; (b) remove any copies made pursuant to Section A7.3(a) from the Recipient’s premises; and (c) conduct an audit or investigation of the Recipient in respect of the expenditure of the Funds, the SBEC Program, or both. A7.4 Disclosure. To assist in respect of the rights provided for in Section A7.3, the Recipient will disclose any information requested by the Province, any authorized representatives, or any independent auditor identified by the Province, and will do so in the form requested by the Province, any authorized representative, or any independent auditor identified by the Province, as the Page 15 of 71 Page 311 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 13 case may be. A7.5 No Control of Records. No provision of the Agreement will be construed so as to give the Province any control whatsoever over the Recipient’s records. A7.6 Auditor General. The Province’s rights under Article A7.0 are in addition to any rights provided to the Auditor General pursuant to Section 9.1 or 9.2 of the Auditor General Act (Ontario), as applicable. A8.0 COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS A8.1 Acknowledge Support. Unless otherwise directed by the Province, the Recipient will: (a) acknowledge the support of the Province for the SBEC Program; and (b) ensure that the acknowledgement referred to in Section A8.1(a) is in a form and manner as directed by the Province. A8.2 Publication. The Recipient will indicate, in any of its SBEC Program-related publications, whether written, oral, or visual, that the views expressed in the publication are the views of the Recipient and do not necessarily reflect those of the Province. A9.0 INDEMNITY A9.1 Indemnification. The Recipient will indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, and expenses (including legal, expert and consultant fees), causes of action, actions, claims, demands, lawsuits, or other proceedings, by whomever made, sustained, incurred, brought, or prosecuted, in any way arising out of or in connection with the SBEC Program or otherwise in connection with the Agreement, unless solely caused by the negligence or wilful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. A10.0 INSURANCE A10.1 Recipient’s Insurance. The Recipient represents, warrants, and covenants that it has, and will maintain, at its own cost and expense, with insurers having a secure A.M. Best rating of B+ or greater, or the equivalent, all the necessary and appropriate insurance that a prudent person carrying out a project similar to the SBEC Program would maintain, including commercial general liability insurance on an occurrence basis for third party bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, to an inclusive limit of not less than the amount set out in Schedule “B” per occurrence. The insurance policy will include the following: Page 16 of 71 Page 312 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 14 (a) the Indemnified Parties as additional insureds with respect to liability arising in the course of performance of the Recipient’s obligations under, or otherwise in connection with, the Agreement; (b) a cross-liability clause; (c) contractual liability coverage; and (d) a 30-day written notice of cancellation. A10.2 Proof of Insurance. The Recipient will: (a) provide to the Province, either: (i) certificates of insurance that confirm the insurance coverage as provided for in Section A10.1; or (ii) other proof that confirms the insurance coverage as provided for in Section A10.1; and (b) upon the request of the Province, provide to the Province a copy of any insurance policy. A11.0 TERMINATION ON NOTICE A11.1 Termination on Notice. The Province may terminate the Agreement at any time without liability, penalty, or costs upon giving at least 30 days’ Notice to the Recipient. A11.2 Consequences of Termination on Notice by the Province. If the Province terminates the Agreement pursuant to Section A11.1, the Province may take one or more of the following actions: (a) cancel further instalments of Funds; (b) demand from the Recipient the payment of any Funds remaining in the possession or under the control of the Recipient; and (c) determine the reasonable costs for the Recipient to wind down the SBEC Program, and do either or both of the following: (i) permit the Recipient to offset such costs against the amount the Recipient owes pursuant to Section A11.2(b); and (ii) subject to Section A4.1(a), provide Funds to the Recipient to cover such costs. Page 17 of 71 Page 313 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 15 A12.0 TERMINATION WHERE NO APPROPRIATION A12.1 Termination Where No Appropriation. If, as provided for in Section A4.2(e), the Province does not receive the necessary appropriation from the Ontario Legislature for any payment the Province is to make pursuant to the Agreement, the Province may terminate the Agreement immediately without liability, penalty, or costs by giving Notice to the Recipient. A12.2 Consequences of Termination Where No Appropriation. If the Province terminates the Agreement pursuant to Section A12.1, the Province may take one or more of the following actions: (a) cancel further instalments of Funds; (b) demand from the Recipient the payment of any Funds remaining in the possession or under the control of the Recipient; and (c) determine the reasonable costs for the Recipient to wind down the SBEC Program and permit the Recipient to offset such costs against the amount owing pursuant to Section A12.2(b). A12.3 No Additional Funds. If, pursuant to Section A12.2(c), the Province determines that the costs to wind down the SBEC Program exceed the Funds remaining in the possession or under the control of the Recipient, the Province will not provide additional Funds to the Recipient. A13.0 EVENT OF DEFAULT, CORRECTIVE ACTION, AND TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT A13.1 Events of Default. Each of the following events will constitute an Event of Default: (a) in the opinion of the Province, the Recipient breaches any representation, warranty, covenant, or other material term of the Agreement, including failing to do any of the following in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement: (i) carry out the SBEC Program; (ii) use or spend Funds; or (iii) provide, in accordance with Section A7.1, Reports or such other reports as may have been requested pursuant to Section A7.1(b); (b) the Recipient’s operations, its financial condition, or its organizational Page 18 of 71 Page 314 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 16 structure, changes such that it no longer meets one or more of the eligibility requirements of the program under which the Province provides the Funds; (c) the Recipient makes an assignment, proposal, compromise, or arrangement for the benefit of creditors, or a creditor makes an application for an order adjudging the Recipient bankrupt, or applies for the appointment of a receiver; or (d) the Recipient ceases to operate. A13.2 Consequences of Events of Default and Corrective Action. If an Event of Default occurs, the Province may, at any time, take one or more of the following actions: (a) initiate any action the Province considers necessary in order to facilitate the successful continuation or completion of the SBEC Program; (b) provide the Recipient with an opportunity to remedy the Event of Default; (c) suspend the payment of Funds for such period as the Province determines appropriate; (d) reduce the amount of the Funds; (e) cancel further instalments of Funds; (f) demand from the Recipient the payment of any Funds remaining in the possession or under the control of the Recipient; (g) demand from the Recipient the payment of an amount equal to any Funds the Recipient used, but did not use in accordance with the Agreement; (h) demand from the Recipient the payment of an amount equal to any Funds the Province provided to the Recipient; and (i) terminate the Agreement at any time, including immediately, without liability, penalty or costs to the Province upon giving Notice to the Recipient. A13.3 Opportunity to Remedy. If, in accordance with Section A13.2(b), the Province provides the Recipient with an opportunity to remedy the Event of Default, the Province will give Notice to the Recipient of: (a) the particulars of the Event of Default; and Page 19 of 71 Page 315 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 17 (b) the Notice Period. A13.4 Recipient not Remedying. If the Province provided the Recipient with an opportunity to remedy the Event of Default pursuant to Section A13.2(b), and: (a) the Recipient does not remedy the Event of Default within the Notice Period; (b) it becomes apparent to the Province that the Recipient cannot completely remedy the Event of Default within the Notice Period; or (c) the Recipient is not proceeding to remedy the Event of Default in a way that is satisfactory to the Province, the Province may extend the Notice Period, or initiate any one or more of the actions provided for in Sections A13.2(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i). A13.5 When Termination Effective. Termination under Article will take effect as provided for in the Notice. A14.0 FUNDS AT THE END OF A FUNDING YEAR A14.1 Funds at the End of a Funding Year. Without limiting any rights of the Province under Section A13.0, if the Recipient has not spent all of the Funds allocated for the Funding Year as provided for in the Budget, the Province may take one or both of the following actions: (a) demand from the Recipient payment of the unspent Funds; and (b) adjust the amount of any further instalments of Funds accordingly. A15.0 FUNDS UPON EXPIRY A15.1 Funds Upon Expiry. The Recipient will, upon expiry of the Agreement, pay to the Province any Funds remaining in its possession or under its control. A16.0 DEBT DUE AND PAYMENT A16.1 Payment of Overpayment. If at any time the Province provides Funds in excess of the amount to which the Recipient is entitled under the Agreement, the Province may: (a) deduct an amount equal to the excess Funds from any further instalments of Funds; or Page 20 of 71 Page 316 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 18 (b) demand that the Recipient pay an amount equal to the excess Funds to the Province. A16.2 Debt Due. If, pursuant to the Agreement: (a) the Province demands from the Recipient the payment of any Funds or an amount equal to any Funds; or (b) the Recipient owes any Funds or an amount equal to any Funds to the Province, whether or not the Province has demanded their payment, such Funds or other amount will be deemed to be a debt due and owing to the Province by the Recipient, and the Recipient will pay the amount to the Province immediately, unless the Province directs otherwise. A16.3 Interest Rate. The Province may charge the Recipient interest on any money owing by the Recipient at the then current interest rate charged by the Province of Ontario on accounts receivable. A16.4 Payment of Money to Province. The Recipient will pay any money owing to the Province by cheque payable to the “Ontario Minister of Finance” and delivered to the Province set out in Schedule “B". A16.5 Fails to Pay. Without limiting the application of Section 43 of the Financial Administration Act (Ontario), if the Recipient fails to pay any amount owing under the Agreement, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario may deduct any unpaid amount from any money payable to the Recipient by Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario. A17.0 NOTICE A17.1 Notice in Writing and Addressed. Notice will be in writing and will be delivered by email, postage-prepaid mail, or personal delivery and will be addressed to the Province and the Recipient respectively set out in Schedule “B”, or as either Party later designates to the other by Notice. A17.2 Notice Given. Notice will be deemed to have been received: (a) in the case of postage-prepaid mail, five Business Days after the Notice is mailed; or (b) in the case of email or personal delivery, one (1) Business Day after the Notice is delivered. A17.3 Postal Disruption. Despite Section A17.2(a), in the event of a postal disruption: Page 21 of 71 Page 317 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 19 (a) Notice by postage-prepaid mail will not be deemed to be received; and (b) the Party giving Notice will give Notice by email or personal delivery. A18.0 CONSENT BY PROVINCE AND COMPLIANCE BY RECIPIENT A18.1 Consent. When the Province provides its consent pursuant to the Agreement, it may impose any terms and conditions on such consent and the Recipient will comply with such terms and conditions. A19.0 SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS A19.1 Invalidity or Unenforceability of Any Provision. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of the Agreement will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of the Agreement. Any invalid or unenforceable provision will be deemed to be severed. A20.0 WAIVER A20.1 Waiver Request. Either Party may, in accordance with the Notice provision set out in Article A17.0, ask the other Party to waive an obligation under the Agreement. A20.2 Waiver Applies. Any waiver a Party grants in response to a request made pursuant to Section A20.1 will: (a) be valid only if the Party granting the waiver provides it in writing; and (b) apply only to the specific obligation referred to in the waiver. A21.0 INDEPENDENT PARTIES A21.1 Parties Independent. The Recipient is not an agent, joint venturer, partner, or employee of the Province, and the Recipient will not represent itself in any way that might be taken by a reasonable person to suggest that it is, or take any actions that could establish or imply such a relationship. A22.0 ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT OR FUNDS A22.1 No Assignment. The Recipient will not, without the prior written consent of the Province, assign any of its rights or obligations under the Agreement. A22.2 Agreement Binding. All rights and obligations contained in the Agreement will extend to and be binding on the Parties’ respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and permitted assigns. Page 22 of 71 Page 318 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 20 A23.0 GOVERNING LAW A23.1 Governing Law. The Agreement and the rights, obligations, and relations of the Parties will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the applicable federal laws of Canada. Any actions or proceedings arising in connection with the Agreement will be conducted in the courts of Ontario, which will have exclusive jurisdiction over such proceedings. A24.0 FURTHER ASSURANCES A24.1 Agreement into Effect. The Recipient will provide such further assurances as the Province may request from time to time with respect to any matter to which the Agreement pertains, and will otherwise do or cause to be done all acts or things necessary to implement and carry into effect the terms and conditions of the Agreement to their full extent. A25.0 JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY A25.1 Joint and Several Liability. Where the Recipient is comprised of more than one entity, all such entities will be jointly and severally liable to the Province for the fulfillment of the obligations of the Recipient under the Agreement. A26.0 RIGHTS AND REMEDIES CUMULATIVE A26.1 Rights and Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Province under the Agreement are cumulative and are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any of its rights and remedies provided by law or in equity. A27.0 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OTHER AGREEMENTS A27.1 Other Agreements. If the Recipient: (a) has failed to comply with any term, condition, or obligation under any other agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario or one of Her agencies (a “Failure”); (b) has been provided with notice of such Failure in accordance with the requirements of such other agreement; (c) has, if applicable, failed to rectify such Failure in accordance with the requirements of such other agreement; and (d) such Failure is continuing, the Province may suspend the payment of Funds for such period as the Page 23 of 71 Page 319 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 21 Province determines appropriate. A28.0 SURVIVAL A28.1 Survival. The following Articles and Sections, and all applicable cross- referenced Sections and Schedules, will continue in full force and effect for a period of seven years from the date of expiry or termination of the Agreement: Article 1.0, Article 5.0, Article A1.0 and any other applicable definitions, Section A2.1(a), Section A2.2, Sections A4.2(e), A4.5, A4.6, A.4.7 Section A5.2, Section A7.1 (to the extent that the Recipient has not provided the Reports or other reports as may have been requested to the satisfaction of the Province), Sections A7.2, A7.3, A7.4, A7.5, A7.6, Article A8.0, Article A9.0, Section A11.2, Sections A12.2, A12.3, Sections A13.1, A13.2(d), (e), (f), (g) and (h), Article A15.0, Article A16.0, Article A17.0, Article A19.0, Section A22.2, Article A23.0, Article A25.0, Article A26.0, Article A27.0 and Article A28.0. - END OF GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS - Page 24 of 71 Page 320 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 22 SCHEDULE “B” SBEC PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION Maximum Funds $ 357,688 Expiry Date July 31, 2024 Amount for the purposes of Section A5.2 (Disposal) of Schedule “A” $ 2,000 Insurance $ 2,000,000 Contact information for the purposes of Notice to the Province Position: Amie Sergas, (A) Manager, Program and Contract Management Address: Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade Small Business Branch Program and Contract Management Unit 56 Wellesley St West, 7th floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E7 Email: amie.sergas@ontario.ca Contact information for the purposes of Notice to the Recipient Position: William G. Matson, City Clerk, Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Address: Corporation of the CIty of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Email: bmatson@niagarafalls.ca Contact information for the senior financial person in the Recipient organization (e.g., CFO, CAO) – to respond as required to requests from the Province related to the Agreement Position: Jonathan Leavens, Acting Director of Finance Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls Address: Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Email: jleavens@niagarafalls.ca Page 25 of 71 Page 321 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 23 SCHEDULE “C” SBEC PROGRAM The Recipient shall deliver SBEC programs including SBEC Core, Starter Company Plus and Summer Company, set out in further detail below. The Recipient shall ensure that all third party mentors and consultants engaging with Clients or Approved Participants in the SBEC Program are bound by appropriate confidentiality, non-compete, and conflict of interest provisions in agreements with the Recipient and Client or Approved Participants, as applicable. C1. SBEC PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The objectives of the SBEC Core, Starter Company Plus and Summer Company programs are set out below: SBEC PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1. SBEC Core • This program shall provide business advisory supports and skills development to Ontario’s entrepreneurs and small businesses to improve the success rate and longevity of small businesses and build growth and prosperity in local communities. 2. Starter Company Plus • The program shall provide training, mentoring and Micro-Grants of up to $5,000 of the Funds to Approved Participants to start, expand or buy a small business. • Address local and/or regional economic development needs, and where appropriate focus on special industries and sectors. 3. Summer Company • The program shall provide training, mentoring and Micro-Grants of up to $3,000 to youth entrepreneurs who wish to start a full-time business over the summer. • Inspire more youth to choose entrepreneurship as a career option and equip them with tools to succeed. Page 26 of 71 Page 322 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 24 C2. SBEC PROGRAM COMPONENTS The Recipient shall deliver all SBEC Program components below. SBEC PROGRAM COMPONENTS 1. SBEC Core Triaging/Inquiries The Recipient shall: • Respond to inquiries related to entrepreneurship and small business, and Recipient service offerings (initiatives, programs and services available). • Direct members of the public to appropriate Recipient services or refer to other entrepreneurship stakeholder services. Business Advisory/Coaching The Recipient shall work with Clients to provide personalized options, information and advisory support to address their business needs. The Recipient shall offer: • Initial one-on-one consultation, on a no fee basis to each Client. • Any additional consultation (advanced/in-depth) may be offered to the Client. Fees, if any, and the amount (cost- recovery or otherwise) are to be determined by the Recipient. The consultation can take place at the Recipient location, offsite, or through virtual delivery. • Mentorship and/or coaching services to Clients. Services may be delivered on a non-fee or fee basis. • Referrals for third party “professional” consultations (i.e. accountants, real estate). Business Skill Development The Recipient shall assist Clients in starting, maintaining or expanding their small business through short term workshops, events or activities. The Recipient shall: Page 27 of 71 Page 323 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 25 • Conduct and/or facilitate seminars and workshops that focus on entrepreneurship, small business and business development. Other than the initial consultation which shall be complementary, fees, if any, are to be determined by the Recipient. • Host and/or organize networking activities or events. These activities or events can be targeted to serve specific demographics (e.g., Francophone, women, Indigenous and youth entrepreneurs), to be determined by the Recipient. Resources To raise the profile and promote small businesses in Ontario, the Recipient shall offer the following resources to assist businesses to proposer and expand: • Conduct outreach services to the community to promote the services of the Recipient and develop partnerships within the community. • Provide computer stations (with internet) and business resources for Clients. The Recipient shall undertake post-SBEC Core program reporting with all Clients to obtain outcomes performance reporting information from Clients at exit or until an outcome can be reported. 2. Starter Company Plus The Recipient shall deliver all four components at their sites: 1. Approved participant intake 2. Training and skills development 3. Mentorship 4. Micro-Grants (Funds contributed by the Province up to $5,000) The Recipient shall ensure that all Approved Participants who are eligible and approved by the Recipient undertake the second and third components set out above. The fourth component is not required. The availability of the Micro-Grant component for an Page 28 of 71 Page 324 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 26 Approved Participant shall be determined by the Recipient in accordance with the Program Guidelines. The Recipient shall determine an individual’s eligibility for Starter Company Plus program as well as their general business needs. The Recipient shall: • Assess individuals based on eligibility requirements set out in Schedule “C” and additional local criteria developed by the Recipient needed to select Approved Participants from a pool of applicants. o If the individual is eligible, and the individual wishes to proceed with the initiative, the Recipient may accept the individual as an Approved Participant. o If the individual is not eligible for Starter Company Plus, the Recipient shall direct the individual to other entrepreneurship initiatives, programs and services. • Have a decision-making process in place that provides rationale for approval to participate in the Starter Company Plus. • Work with the Approved Participant to develop a customized learning plan outlining required training and mentorship based on the Approved Participant’s business needs and goals. Training and Skills Development The objective of the training and skills development component is to help Approved Participants start, expand or purchase a business by providing short term workshops or activities. This can include seminars, workshops, networking events and experiential learning. Activities can be completed in a classroom, virtual one-on-one, or in a group setting. The Recipient shall: • Develop content and a suitable delivery method of training and skills development for each Approved Participant. The Recipient will organize, schedule and sequence the workshops to meet Approved Participants’ needs in a way that is suitable for their organization. • Provide short-term training and skills development opportunities to enhance business knowledge and skills to support Approved Participants in starting, expanding or purchasing a business. Page 29 of 71 Page 325 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 27 • Monitor when an Approved Participant has finished the identified training on their learning plan. Mentoring The Recipient must match each Approved Participant with a designated mentor and/or a group of mentors to provide business expertise and support. Activities can include, but are not limited to, identifying challenges, working on problem solving strategies, developing networking skills, expanding contact networks and providing overall guidance. The Recipient shall: • Match each Approved Participant with a mentor who will provide support, entrepreneur advice and expertise for a minimum of three months. • Recruit, train and coordinate a mentorship network to meet the needs of the program. • Monitor the Approved Participant-mentor match and record when the component has been completed. Approved Participants can participate in the training and skills development and mentorship component concurrently. Micro-Grants Each Approved Participant that the Recipient approves for Micro- Grants shall receive up to $5000 of the Funds. The Recipient may find funding locally to match or increase the Micro-Grant amount. The Micro-Grant is administered and distributed by the Recipient. All Approved Participants must also contribute 25% of the Micro- Grant amount (which may include in kind contributions) to its project to start, expand or buy a small business. The matching contribution may be waived by the Recipient under exceptional circumstances only. The Recipient shall: • Establish a committee to review and approve Micro-Grant applications. Page 30 of 71 Page 326 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 28 • Develop all required procedures and criteria governing Micro- Grant selection and administration including assessment of Approved Participants, approval for funding, all financial administration, banking, monitoring and issuing of T4As • Prepare, negotiate, monitor and enter into Micro-Grant Agreements with Approved Participants prior to disbursement of Funds. • The Micro-Grant Agreement shall provide up to $5,000 of Funds to the Approved Participant and outline the terms and the conditions of the Micro-Grant including eligible expenditures, milestones and grounds for repayment and the following provisions: (i) Audit Rights for the Crown. The parties agree that audit rights under the Micro-Grant Agreement (or such other term used in the Micro-Grant Agreement to refer to the agreement) shall inure to the benefit of the Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade (the “Province"), any authorized representative or any independent auditor identified by the Province, which audit rights (including the right of inspection and review of the Approved Participant’s (or such other term used in the Micro-Grant Agreement to refer to the Approved Participant) progress of its project under the Starter Company Plus program and any allocation and expenditure of Funds (or such other term used in the Micro-Grant Agreement to refer to the funds provided under the agreement) and to perform a full or partial audit of the Approved Participant) shall be carried out at the Province’s expense and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of seven years from the date of expiry or termination of the Micro-Grant Agreement; and (ii) Post-Starter Company Plus Program Reporting. The Approved Participant shall, if requested by the Recipient or the Province, provide progress reporting information such as the Approved Participant’s business expansion and job creation for three consecutive funding years after exit from Starter Company Plus following the expiry date or termination of the Micro-Grant Agreement. • Distribute Micro-Grants to all Approved Participants who have been approved for a Micro-Grant subject to the terms and conditions of the Micro-Grant Agreement. Page 31 of 71 Page 327 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 29 • Where Approved Participants fail to comply with Starter Company Plus requirements or any requirements under the Micro-Grant Agreement, the Recipient shall recoup all or part of the Funds. • The Recipient shall ensure that the review and approval for Micro-Grant process is fair, transparent and accountable. • The Recipient shall monitor Micro-Grant payments made to participants based on spending and progress against established program milestones. It will ensure that funds are being used for their intended purposes and request evidence of costs incurred and paid if necessary. • Funds allocated to Micro-Grants in the MEDJCT Program Funding Budget in section B of Schedule “D” must be spent on Micro-Grants for Starter Company Plus Approved Participants. 3. Summer Company Intake- Application Process Youth interested in participating in the Summer Company program will be required to submit an application, which includes a business plan and a description of the eligible business and cash flow. Those applicants will then be interviewed by the Recipient, assessed for their eligibility to be accepted as Approved Participants, approved in accordance with the eligibility requirements set out in section C.3 of Schedule “C” or declined, and informed if they have been accepted as Approved Participants. The Recipient shall: • Promote and market the program to targeted groups. • Determine if potential applicants meet eligibility requirements as listed under Schedule “C” Section C3. • Distribute Summer Company applications to youth applicants. • Assist youth applicants in completing Summer Company applications. • Assess submitted applications to determine if they meet eligibility and program requirements. • Interview youth applicants and select Approved Participants. • Ensure the Approved Participant has met all the eligibility requirements to participate as listed under Schedule “C” Section C3. • Enter into Summer Company Micro-Grant Agreement with the Approved Participant. Page 32 of 71 Page 328 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 30 Business Training and Coaching The Recipient shall provide short term workshops or activities designed to help Approved Participants with the skills and tools to succeed in entrepreneurship. The training can focus on, but not be limited to marketing and sales, HST, record/bookkeeping, time management, customer service, insurance and risk management. The Recipient shall: • Recruit and coordinate business mentors. Mentors must have a valid criminal background check issued by the police within the last six months and have an understanding of the objectives, business planning and operations of Summer Company, and must maintain confidentiality of all information in addition to mentor and third party contractor obligations set out in this Schedule C. • Assign the Approved Participant to a mentor or mentor group. • Provide a minimum of 12 hours of business training and guidance per Approved Participant. • Conduct one on-site visit at the project location for the Approved Participant for ongoing support and guidance. • Monitor Approved Participant progress to ensure compliance with the business plan and cash flow forecasts submitted in the application. • Conduct exit interviews with the Approved Participants to ensure all Summer Company requirements have been met. Micro-Grants Approved Participants are eligible to receive up to $3000 of the Funds for Micro-Grants to support start-up costs and completion of their project under Summer Company. Micro-Grants are issued by the Recipient in two installments. • an initial disbursement of up to $1,500 for start-up expenses; and • a final disbursement of up to $1,500 for successful completion of the Approved Participant’s project under the program and Micro-Grant Agreement The Recipient shall: Page 33 of 71 Page 329 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 31 • Establish a committee to review and approve Micro-Grant applications. • Develop all required procedures and criteria governing Micro- Grant selection and administration including assessment of Approved Participants, approval for funding, all financial administration, banking, monitoring and issuing of T4As. • Prepare, negotiate, monitor and enter into Micro-Grants with Approved Participants prior to disbursement of Funds which will be paid out in two instalments. • The Micro-Grant Agreement shall provide up to $3,000 of the Funds to the Approved Participant and outline the terms and the conditions of Micro-Grant including eligible expenditures, milestones and grounds for repayment and the following provisions: (a) Audit Rights for the Crown. The parties agree that audit rights under the Micro-Grant Agreement (or such other term used in the Micro-Grant Agreement to refer to the agreement) shall inure to the benefit of the Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade (the “Province"), any authorized representative or any independent auditor identified by the Province, which audit rights (including the right of inspection and review of the Approved Participant’s (or such other term used in the Micro-Grant Agreement to refer to the Approved Participant) progress of its project under the Summer Company program and any allocation and expenditure of Funds (or such other term used in the Micro-Grant Agreement to refer to the funds provided under the agreement) and to perform a full or partial audit of the Approved Participant) shall be carried out at the Province’s expense and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of seven years from the date of expiry or termination of the Micro-Grant Agreement; and (ii) Summer Company Program Reporting. The Approved Participant shall, if requested by the Recipient or the Province, provide progress reporting information such as the Approved Participant’s business expansion and job creation for three consecutive funding years after exit from Summer Company following the expiry date or termination of the Micro-Grant Agreement. Page 34 of 71 Page 330 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 32 • Distribute the first instalment after execution of the Micro-Grant Agreement. • Distribute the second instalment once the Approved Participant has completed all requirements of his or her project under the program and Micro-Grant Agreement. • Where an Approved Participant fails to comply with Summer Company requirements or any requirements under the Micro- Grant Agreement, the Recipient shall recoup all or part of the Funds. • The Recipient shall ensure that the review and approval for Micro-Grant process is fair, transparent and accountable. • The Recipient shall monitor Micro-Grant payments made to participants based on spending and progress against established program milestones. It will ensure that funds are being used for their intended purposes and request evidence of costs incurred and paid if necessary. • Funds allocated to Micro-Grants in the MEDJCT Program Funding Budget in section B of Schedule “D” Budget must be spent on Micro-Grants for Summer Company Approved Participants. Reporting The Recipient has the option to use the SCREEN platform to support the delivery of Summer Company. It is not a mandatory requirement. Recipients are required to: • Administer and approve applications through a delivery method of their choice. Recipients have the option to use the Summer Company Registration, Eligibility and Evaluation Network web- based system (“SCREEN”). • Report identified Summer Company performance measures to the Province through the Enterprise Centre Reporting (“ECR”) system. • Collect and submit success stories with written consent of the applicable Approved Participant. • Distribute a survey to Approved Participants in a format and in accordance with the timelines to be provided by the Province. Page 35 of 71 Page 331 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 33 Information Management and Privacy Provisions The Recipient shall follow information management and privacy provisions in the Program Guidelines including: • An acceptable use policy to provide a set of principles and practices governing all users of the Province’s “SCREEN” web-based back office platform. • Privacy policy to protect personal information of applicants and Approved Participants. The Recipient will collect completed release and consent forms from Approved Participants in the form provided by the Ministry prior to publication or release of program success stories. C3. MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS The Recipient shall approve applicants in accordance with the SBEC Program eligibility requirements or guidance described below at minimum. SBEC Core provides general inquiry and advisory services support to entrepreneurs and small businesses with a client profile that is typically: • Less than five (5) years in operation, and • Have under ten (10) employees SBEC PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY 1. Starter Company Plus Eligibility Individuals applying for the program must satisfy the following eligibility requirements: • 18 years of age or older at the time of registration; • proposing starting a new company, expanding an existing company or buying a business in Ontario; • not attending school full time nor returning to school; • resident of Ontario; • Canadian citizen or permanent resident; Page 36 of 71 Page 332 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 34 • not enrolled in other comparable provincial employment or self- employment related initiatives and programs that include or do not include financial assistance; and • not currently enrolled concurrently in any comparable self- employment or entrepreneurship training/financing initiatives and programs offered by government funded organizations. While Starter Company Plus is open to all eligible individuals, it is a training and mentoring initiative geared towards assisting those in need of business knowledge and support. Approval into Starter Company Plus is competitive and eligible applicants may not all be accepted. As the program aims to address local and/or regional economic development needs, the Recipient may prioritize participation based on specific industries and sectors. For record keeping, the SBEC must provide a written rationale to justify the Approved Participant selection into the Starter Company Plus program. 2. Summer Company Eligibility Individuals applying for the program must satisfy the following eligibility requirements: • a student between 15 and 29 years old as of April 30 of each Funding Year (a parent or guardian must sign the application for applicants under 18); • starting a new eligible business (see below); • attending school and returning to school in the fall (this includes full-time, part-time, homeschooling, e-learning, distance learning, apprenticeships, trade schools, etc.); • a resident of Ontario; • a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident; • not working at another job or attending school for more than 12 hours per week during the term of the project under the program; • self-employed as defined by the Canada Revenue Agency; • able to work over the summer period: o a minimum of 280 hours if a high school student o a minimum of 420 hours if a post-secondary student • has not received funding from Summer Company program in the past. Page 37 of 71 Page 333 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 35 Under exceptional circumstances, exceptions may be granted by the Recipient. Business Eligibility Criteria Approved Participants must create a new business that meets the following criteria: • A sole proprietorship or a corporation where the applicant will be the majority shareholder; • An independent business venture; • A new business, not previously registered or operated on an on-going basis; • Operates at arm’s length from family business ventures; • Operates in Ontario; • Spends an average of 35 hours per week on the business operation for a minimum of 8 weeks for high school students, or 12 consecutive weeks for post-secondary school students, from the business start date as stated in the business plan; and • Is in compliance with all applicable laws. Businesses that are not eligible: • partnerships/co-operatives; • franchises; • distributorships; • incorporated businesses that are controlled directly or indirectly by a person who would not be an eligible Youth under the Summer Company program; • business ventures that are subsidiaries or divisions of an existing business; • business ventures that are continuations of existing commercial endeavours; • business ventures that allow for commissioned sales; • multi-level marketing ventures; • single events such as a theatrical production, a DJ gig, a music concert, a dance/party event, a fundraiser, a sporting tournament, etc.; • businesses that have a strictly pay per click service model; or • “1-900” number businesses. Page 38 of 71 Page 334 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 36 C4. PERFORMANCE METRICS The Recipient is responsible for reporting on activities and outcomes of the SBEC Program through the collection and reporting of key performance measures identified by the Province. Explanations for the performance metrics listed below can be found on the Enterprise Centre Report (ECR) web portal (https://www.ontariocanada.com/ecr) or otherwise distributed by the Province. Program Metric General # of unique businesses supported: unique businesses served in the year by the Recipient including both new and existing or legacy clients. # of businesses supported through workshops: the number of business who participated in a workshop series as part of the SBEC’s triaging process before receiving a consultation. SBEC Core Activities # of inquires # of consultations • Exploring entrepreneurship • Starting a business • Existing business # of French language consultations Outcomes # of businesses started # of businesses sustained # of businesses expanded # of businesses purchased # of jobs created Starter Company Plus Activities # of completed approved participants # of grants issued Dollar value of investment leveraged Outcomes # of businesses started # of businesses expanded Page 39 of 71 Page 335 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 37 # of businesses purchased # of jobs created Summer Company Activities # of applications submissions # of completed participants Outcomes # of businesses started # of jobs created # of interested in pursuing entrepreneurship as a career option Reporting requirements and timelines are provided in Schedule “F” Reports. C5. ENTERPRISE CENTRE REPORTING (ECR) The Recipient will report back to the Province at the end of each quarter in the ECR system during the term of the Agreement on key performance activities and metrics set out in Schedule “C”, Section C4 and as defined in Schedule “F” Reports. C6. PROGRAM MONITORING, COMPLIANCE AND FOLLOW-UP Program Monitoring and Compliance Program monitoring and compliance will be carried out between the Province and Recipient. Some of the activities that can be expected during the life cycle of an Agreement include: 1. Activity and financial reporting on program activities, budget and performance metrics 2. On-site compliance and evaluation visits from the Province to evaluate onsite program activities and performance reporting processes 3. Monthly discussions via telephone with the Province on program progress 4. Correspondence by mail or e-mail. Follow-Up The Recipient will conduct follow-up with all Clients and Approved Participants who received a consultation through SBEC Core services and completed Summer Company and Starter Company Plus at exit to report on the impact performance metrics outlined in Page 40 of 71 Page 336 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 38 Schedule C, Section C4. or until an outcome performance metric is reported. The Recipient is required to maintain Clients and Approved Participant contact information. C7. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS The Recipient will develop and maintain relevant and up-to-date systems for planning, monitoring, and reporting program activity and expenditures. Without limiting the generality of the provisions in sections A7.2, A7.3 and A7.4, at a minimum, the Recipient’s information management records, systems, and procedures will: a. Ensure that full documentation is available, verifying that the statistical and financial information entered into any Province systems and other Recipient management systems meets the reporting and audit requirements of the Province; b. Protect Clients’ and Approved Participants’ privacy in accordance with the Agreement with the Province, including records through storage in a secured system, for both electronic and manual records; c. Make records accessible for audit purposes by identifying them in a distinct manner, rather than only by name; d. Ensure records and information are used for ongoing evaluation of services. C8. SBEC BUSINESS PLAN AND PROGRAM PLAN The Business Plan and Program Plan attached in this section C8 form part of the Agreement. Page 41 of 71 Page 337 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 39 Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC) Business Plan SBEC Name: Niagara Falls Small Business Enterprise Centre Location: 4343 Morrison Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario Completed By (Name and Title): Dean Spironello, Small Business Consultant Date: January 17, 2022 Overview The intent of this Business Plan is to provide a description of the work of the Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC) in the next two years, and will be included as part of the program agreement. This business planning process also provides a basis for dialogue between the ministry and your SBEC which covers: • A plan to achieve objectives for the upcoming fiscal years; • How local and regional economic development priorities and strategic direction align with programming; and • How services meet the needs of entrepreneurs in their community. Note: Please provide short, concise and direct responses wherever possible or as bulleted responses. Where descriptions are being requested, please limit your response to no more than 1-2 paragraphs (~ 2-300 words max.). Page 42 of 71 Page 338 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 40 1. Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC) Overview 1.1 Describe the Small Business Enterprise Centre’s main objectives for the next 2-5 years: The Niagara Falls SBEC’s main objectives are as follows: • Continue building a reputation as the foremost trusted source of information and advice for small business start up and expansion in the service area. • Develop the entrepreneurial capacity of the communities being served by providing access to essential knowledge, skills and tools for current and aspiring entrepreneurs. • Play a leading role as a network navigator by being a first point of contact for the small business community and providing referrals to other public resources and professional services. • Develop and leverage strategic partnerships with complimentary service providers and organizations in order to offer more referral options, more client leads and more collaborative event and seminar opportunities. • Help integrate new Niagara residents from GTA and international migration and help them mobilize their capital and resources into new businesses. • Strengthen the data tracking and client relationship management capacity of the SBEC In order to achieve these objectives, the Niagara Falls SBEC will continue to invest in brand development and better data and client management technology. Achieving these objectives will result in more success stories, more positive reviews and modernized service delivery. 1.2 How is the SBEC currently governed? (please check one) Reporting to a municipality Independent non-profit Other: _____________ 1.3 Describe the current service area of the SBEC (i.e. using municipal boundaries): The primary service area of the Niagara Falls SBEC is the City of Niagara Falls. The secondary service areas are neighbouring municipalities in the Niagara Region, specifically Niagara-on- the-Lake, Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Wainfleet. Where Economic Development Departments exist in these municipalities, the Niagara Falls SBEC has strong working relationships in place to promote services and serve clients. 1.4 If you have a service area that extends to other municipalities beyond the municipality in which your SBEC is based, do those municipalities contribute to the SBEC (i.e. through in-kind and/or cash contributions) Yes No Page 43 of 71 Page 339 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 41 2. Economic Development Strategy and COVID Recovery 2.1 Does your municipality (or region) have a current economic development strategy? Yes No If yes, briefly describe the key objectives or main themes in the plan: The City of Niagara Falls is currently working on a new Economic Development Strategy that will incorporate a section on small business development. The current set of strategic priorities set by council includes the use of education, technology and entrepreneurship to leverage community assets and drive job creation. It also includes an emphasis on creating incentives and supports for small businesses and entrepreneurs in downtown. 2.2 Does the municipality or region’s economic development strategy include any specific initiatives delivered by the SBEC? Yes No If yes, please identify the initiative: The current strategic priorities include a focus on incentivizing small business and entrepreneurship in the downtown area. The Niagara Falls SBEC plays a key role as a liaison between the Downtown BIA and the City of Niagara Falls and has collaborated on initiatives such as Win This Space, Small Business Grand Openings and Digital Main Street. 2.3 How does your SBEC ensure that its services align with the goals and priorities of the municipality or region’s economic development strategy? The Niagara Falls SBEC is a division of the City of Niagara Falls’ Business Development Department and operates very closely alongside other municipal departments/stakeholders. The SBEC participates in scheduled monthly meetings with senior staff to provide updates on SBEC programs and initiatives, ensuring that the municipality’s interests in SBEC are being met. If there are particular initiatives that are of priority to the municipality, they are discussed at these meetings. Additionally, there is a section of the Business Development Annual Report that is dedicated to the SBEC. This highlights the SBEC success and alignment with municipal goals and priorities. 2.4 Is the SBEC active in supporting a COVID recovery strategy or plan? Page 44 of 71 Page 340 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 42 Yes No If yes, provide an overview of how. If not, please provide a rationale: The Niagara Falls SBEC was an active participant in the Small Business Centres Ontario project funded by the Government of Ontario’s Ontario Together Fund. The main goal of this project was to create a centralized website to help small businesses access support for recovery from the economic devastation of COVID-19. Locally, the Niagara Falls SBEC has and continues to play an important role in helping small businesses navigate lockdown orders, restrictions on business operations and relief programs. In particular, the City of Niagara Falls Mayor’s Office is a key source of referral for clients in need if such support. The Niagara Falls SBEC successfully applied for the Digital Main Street Digital Service Squad program and delivered these services for 2020-21. The Digital Service Squad targeted brick and mortar businesses adversely impacted by the pandemic and played a critical role in providing consultation on how to adopt digital tools to improve business operations online. Page 45 of 71 Page 341 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 43 3. Local Entrepreneurship Partners 3.1 Provide an overview of local and regional partners that support the work of the SBEC and the entrepreneurship ecosystem (e.g. municipalities, Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvement Areas, Regional Innovation Centres, Community Futures Development Corporations, etc.) Partner / Organization Name Type of Support Provided to SBEC or Partnership (e.g. funding, in-kind contributions, service exchange, referrals, etc) Venture Niagara CFDC Referrals, Participation on SCP Grant Committee, Seminar and Event Collaboration South Niagara Chambers of Commerce Referrals, Seminar and Event Sponsorship and Collaboration Spark Innovation Educational Centre Referrals, Seminar and Event Sponsorship and Collaboration Downtown BIA, Main & Ferry BIA, Lundy’s Lane BIA, Victoria Centre BIA, Fallsview BIA Partner on Economic Development Initiatives for Small Business (i.e. Win This Space), Referrals, Coordination of Grand Opening events for New Businesses YMCA Employment & Immigrant Services Referrals Niagara College & Brock University Referrals, Seminar Collaboration Futurpreneuer Referrals 3.2 Identify any new partnerships that the SBEC has been pursuing or plans to pursue during the contract period, if any: The Niagara Falls SBEC is pursuing the following partnerships: • Submitted a letter of support to Niagara College to collaborate on an entrepreneurship program specifically for immigrants to Canada. • Planning stages of developing workshop and event programming with The Exchange Cultural Hub in Niagara Falls. • Planning further collaboration with the newly formed Small Business Centres of Ontario Non Profit Organization. Page 46 of 71 Page 342 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 44 3.3 Does the SBEC have dedicated initiatives for any special interest populations (e.g. BIPOC entrepreneurs, francophone, LGBTQIA2+, youth, etc.)? Yes No If yes, please identify which groups: 4. SBEC Operations 4.1 How is the SBEC staffed: Full-Time Part-Time Permanent Employees 2 0 Contract Staff 0 0 Please provide an organizational structure/chart that shows reporting relationships and roles/titles: Manager of Business Development (Municipal Staff) ↑ Small Business Consultant/Office Manager (SBEC staff) ↑ Business Information Officer (SBEC staff) 4.2 How often does your SBEC report to your municipal Council (if applicable) or Not-For- Profit Board? Once a Year Twice a Year Page 47 of 71 Page 343 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 45 Quarterly (4 times per year) Other: No formal council reporting. SBEC staff attend monthly departmental meetings with the Municipal Business Development Department and provide ongoing reports to the Manager and Director. 4.3 If you do report to Council or a Non-For Profit Board, what information does your SBEC provide? (Select all that apply) Highlights from the SBEC (e.g. consultations, # jobs created, businesses supported, success stories) Administrative and service delivery (e.g. Transfer Payment Agreement updates, staffing resources) Partnerships (e.g. existing or recommendation to pursue new partnership opportunities) Financial reporting (e.g. budget, municipal/county or other partner contributions of cash and/or in-kind) Other: ____________________________________ 4.3 Describe any changes to operations and client service delivery in response to COVID-19 (e.g. shifts between in-person and digital service; changes to methods of engaging with businesses): The Niagara Falls SBEC has shifted all seminars, workshops and events into the digital space. Starter Company Plus mentor meetings and grant committee pitches have shifted to online. Summer Company mentor meetings have shifted online. Consultations have been a hybrid model of in person and virtual depending on local lockdown orders and direction from the municipality. Page 48 of 71 Page 344 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 46 4.4 Identify any barriers or possible risks to successfully delivering the programs and services of the SBEC. What steps are being undertaken to address these risk The ongoing Covid 19 pandemic continues to represent a risk to the SBEC being able to offer services at full capacity. Furthermore, the continuation of lockdowns contributes to an overall climate of hesitancy and apprehension for those considering starting a business. The Niagara Falls SBEC has adopted digital tools to continue operating at a high level of service, however the periodic lack of in person consultation, seminars and events is a deterrent for some prospective clients. 4.5 What tools, platforms or systems does your SBEC use to manage client outreach, engagement and tracking program and client data? The Niagara Falls SBEC utilizes social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter), email campaigns (Mailchimp) and coordination with strategic partnership to conduct client outreach and engagement. Each platform incorporates a diverse mix of video, written and photo based content. Microsoft Outlook is the primary means of scheduling clients meetings and communicating with clients over email. The City of Niagara Falls corporate channels are also leveraged for marketing and client engagement purposes. Client tracking is currently conducted using Microsoft Excel. Client data is obtained by way of a client information form that is uploaded on Survey Monkey. 4.6 Describe any future initiatives to improve programs, services or operations: The Niagara Falls SBEC intends to invest in a stronger CRM system in 2022-23 in order to enhance the tracking of client data and client interactions with the office. This investment will provide greater productivity and efficiency and will enhance client record keeping. Both staff are trained in Growth Wheel and will begin to implement tools to provide more structured and individualized consultation to clients. This includes tangible business planning tools such as worksheets, process mapping and professionally designed information publications. 5. Client Service, Engagement and Follow-up 5.1 Briefly describe the steps of the SBEC’s client intake, service and engagement process: Clients are triaged at the first point of contact, generally occurring via phone call, email or walk in. Simple inquiries are handled by SBEC staff during first point of contact and may not require any follow up. More in depth inquiries result in either the scheduling of a one-on-one consultation or directing the client to a seminar/workshop. Clients who attend one-on-one Page 49 of 71 Page 345 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 47 consultations fill out a client information form via survey monkey that compiles their data. Clients who attend seminars/webinars register using EventBrite or the City of Niagara Falls internal event registration process. Majority of the consultations and seminars are led by the Business Information Officer. Some clients may require multiple seminar or consultation engagements, particularly those that are developing business plans or those that are in the early stages on starting a new business. 5.2 How does your SBEC conduct client follow-ups? At what stage of your engagement does this occur? Follow ups are conducted on an on-going basis throughout the year for clients who have attended consultations and/or are high touch clients. Email or telephone are the preferred means of follow up and typically occur within 2-3 months of the last consultation. A second follow up attempt may be required if the client was unable to provide a clear response to whether they will be starting/expanding their business or not. 6. Program Plan and Outcomes Attached 7. Budget Attached Page 50 of 71 Page 346 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 48 SBEC PROGRAM PLAN AND OUTCOMES April 1, 2022 - March 31, 2024 SBEC Name: Niagara Falls Small Business Enterprise Centre Location: 4343 Morrison Street, Niagara Falls ON Completed By: (Name and Title) Dean Spironello, Small Business Consultant Date: January 17, 2022 Note: To assist with completing activity and outcomes targets for 2022-23 and 2023-24, please review targets set in the 2019-22 consolidated TPA and actuals reported to date as a starting point and adjust accordingly based on any trends or changes in demand observed. Program Components Key Activities Performance Indicators – Activities and Outcomes Target 2022/23 Target 2023/24 Program plan for delivery of SBEC Core Outline 3-5 key activities associated with the delivery of this initiative. Examples: Administration, Strategic Planning and Recruitment, Initial Assessment/Inquiries, Business Advisory/Coaching, Business Skill Development, Events, Partnership Communications. • Client inquiries are tracked using Excel spreadsheets and consultation information is captured using a digital Client Intake Form. • SBEC has high degree of collaboration with local CFDC, BIAs and Innovation Organizations to established client leads and enhance public relations. • Ongoing follow up is conducted approximately 2-3 months after consultation to determine progress and assess any additional support required. Activity # of Inquiries 1900 1900 Total # of consultations 375 375 # of consultations – exploring entrepreneurship 80 80 # of consultations – starting a business 205 205 # of consultations – existing business 90 90 # of French language consultations 0 0 Page 51 of 71Page 347 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 49 • Business plan and financial projections template tools are frequently used to consult clients on the creation of these documents that are often required for business financing. Outcomes # of businesses started 86 86 # of businesses sustained 15 15 # of businesses expanded 10 10 # of businesses purchased 3 3 # of jobs created 115 115 Program plan for delivery of Starter Company Plus Outline 3-5 key activities associated with the delivery of this initiative. Examples: Administration, Intake, Training and Skills Development, Mentorship, Micro- Financing • SCP applicants are recruited on an ongoing basis via SBEC consults and seminars, however a coordinated marketing campaign occurs over a 6- 8 week period. • Applicants are interviewed to determine eligibility for program; all who are eligible are able to participate in training • Training sessions occur over a 5 week period, with one 2.5 hour session per week. Training sessions are mandatory. • SBEC staff assist applicants with preparation of business plan/financials which are required in order to pitch for grant. Applicants who submit satisfactory documents pitch to a grant committee consisting of business professionals from the community. • The grant committee scores each applicant and deliberate on highest scoring applicants and awarding of grants. Grant recipients must attend mandatory mentor meetings, unsuccessful applications are free to attend as well. Activity # of completed approved participants 18 18 # of grants issued 9 9 $ value of investment leveraged $62,500 $62,500 Outcomes # of businesses started 8 8 # of businesses expanded 4 5 # of businesses purchased 0 0 # of jobs created 15 15 Program plan for delivery of Summer Company • Summer Company marketing campaign includes paid social media marketing, presentations in high Activity # of application submissions 9 9 # of completed participants 6 6 Page 52 of 71Page 348 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 50 Outline 3- 5 key activities associated with the delivery of this initiative. Examples: Administration, Intake, Training and Skills Development, Mentorship, Micro- Financing. schools and post-secondary institutions, connecting with co-op departments, print advertisements, etc. • Each applicant who submits a business plan will attend an interview with SBEC staff to confirm eligibility and assess the applicant’s business proposal. SBEC staff then make offers to be in the program to the top performers. • Accepted students attend a training day which includes applied sessions on marketing, bookkeeping, steps to starting, etc. • Accepted students attend biweekly mentor meetings with entrepreneurs and business professional from the community. • Site visits are arranged to see the successful applicants in action, and exit interviews are conducted upon completion of the program to get feedback and determine if they will consider entrepreneurship as a career path. Outcomes # of businesses started 6 6 # of jobs created 6 6 # interested in pursuing entrepreneurship as a career option 5 5 Page 53 of 71Page 349 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 51 SCHEDULE “D” BUDGET SBEC Name: Niagara Falls Small Business Enterprise Centre Completed by: Dean Spironello A. Summary of Funding Contributions 2022/23 MEDJCT Funding Municipal Funding County Funding Other Funding In-kind (non- cash) contributions TOTAL Source(s): City of Niagara Falls SBEC Core $105,844 $140,481 $0 $0 $0 $246,325 Starter Company Plus $51,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 Summer Company $22,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,000 TOTAL $178,844 $140,481 $0 $0 $319,325 2023/24 MEDJCT Funding Municipal Funding County Funding Other Funding In-kind (non- cash) contributions TOTAL Source(s): SBEC Core $105,844 $144,218 $0 $0 $0 $250,062 Starter Company Plus $51,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 Summer Company $22,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,000 TOTAL $178,844 $144,218 $0 $0 $323,062 Page 54 of 71 Page 350 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 52 B. MEDJCT Program Funding Budget 2022/23 2023/24 TOTAL SBEC Core Staffing (salaries, MERCS, Consultants) $92,825 $92,825 $185,650 Program Operating Expenses (events, marketing/advertising, travel, workshops) $8,519 $8,519 $17,038 Technology Platform Upgrades (TBC) $0 $0 $0 Administrative Expenses (10%) (courier, phone, office supplies, rent, audit at end of term) $4,500 $4,500 $9,000 SBEC Core Total $105,844 $105,844 $211,688 Starter Company Plus Program Project Delivery (monitoring, grant committee, workshops, outreach, events, marketing/advertising, travel) $6,000 $6,000 $12,000 Grants $45,000 $45,000 $90,000 Starter Company Plus Total $51,000 $51,000 $102,000 Summer Company Program Project Delivery (training, workshops, outreach, events, marketing/advertising, travel) $4,000 $4,000 $8,000 Grants $18,000 $18,000 $36,000 Summer Company Total $22,000 $22,000 $44,000 TOTAL $178,844 $178,844 $357,688 Page 55 of 71 Page 351 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 53 SCHEDULE “E” PAYMENT SCHEDULE All payments are subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement including, but not limited to, those in section A4.2(a) FUNDS PER FUNDING YEAR: $178,844 per Year Maximum Funds: $357,688 TERM: 2 Years PAYMENT DATE OR MILESTONE AMOUNT OF FUNDS TOTAL DISBURSEMENT Payment 1: After both parties sign the Agreement and receipt and approval by the Province of the insurance certificate required under Schedule “A”, Article 10 Up to $107,306.40 (up to 60% Maximum of Funds per Funding Year $107,306.40 Payment 2: After receipt and approval by the Province of interim reports: - Q1-Q2 Performance Metrics Reporting - Interim Financial Report on Budget - Interim Report on Program Plan and Operations - Request for Payment and Certificate - pursuant to Schedule “F” on or before November 15, 2022. Up to $71,537.60 (up to 40% Maximum of Funds per Funding Year) $71,537.60 Page 56 of 71 Page 352 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 54 Payment 3: After receipt and approval by the Province of year-end reports for the first Funding Year: - Q1-Q4 Performance Metrics Reporting - Year-End Financial Report on Budget - Year-End Report on Program Plan and Operations - Request for Payment and Certificate pursuant to Schedule “F” on or before May 31st, 2023. Up to $107,306.40 (up to 60% Maximum of Funds per Funding Year) $107,306.40 Payment 4: Payment of $71,537.60 After receipt by the Province of interim reports: - Q1-Q2 Performance Metrics Reporting - Interim Financial Report on Budget - Interim Report on Program Plan and Operations - Request for Payment and Certificate pursuant to Schedule “F” on or before November 15, 2023. Up to $71,537.60 (up to 40% Maximum of Funds per Funding Year) Less a holdback of $17,884.40 (10% of Funds for holdback) $53,653.20 Payment 5: After review and approval by the Province of year-end reports for the second Funding Year: - Q1-Q4 Performance Metrics Reporting - Year-End Financial Report on Budget - Year-End Report on Program Plan and Operations - Request for Payment and Certificate Release of holdback: $17,884.40 (10% of Funds from holdback) $17,884.40 Page 57 of 71 Page 353 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 55 and Audit Report pursuant to Schedule “F” on or before June 30, 2024. Page 58 of 71 Page 354 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 56 SCHEDULE “F” REPORTS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The Recipient will submit reporting as outlined below: Type of Report Name of Report Due By 1. Performance Metrics and Outcomes A. Performance Metrics Reporting Quarterly reporting of SBEC Program performance metrics as set out in Schedule “C” SBEC Program and the Program Plan. Performance activities and outcomes to be submitted through the Enterprise Centre Reporting (ECR) system with reference to any data definitions provided by the Province. Within 15 days of the end of each quarter for each Funding Year: • Q1 (Apr – Jun): by July 15 • Q2 (Jul – Sep): by October 15 • Q3 (Oct – Dec): by January 15 • Q4 (Jan – Mar): by April 15 B. Number of Unique Businesses Supported and Businesses Supported by Workshops Number of unique businesses supported: Reported annually. The number of unique businesses supported through the Recipients services. These are unique businesses served in the year by the Recipient including both new and existing or legacy clients. Number of businesses supported through workshops: Reported annually. The number of business who participated in a workshop series (as part of the SBECs triaging process before receiving a consultation). Q1-Q4 (Apr – Mar): April 15 C. Client Level Data List December 31 Page 59 of 71 Page 355 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 57 Reporting and collection of client-level business contact information to support the Province’s business support surveying. 2. Financial A. Interim Report on Budget Report on actuals relative to the Budget set in Schedule “D” for the period of April 1 to September 30. Identification and explanation of variances in the Budget that comply with Schedule “A” section A4.4. Projected spending for the remainder of the fiscal year to identify over- or underspending. November 15 B. Year-End Report on Budget Report on actuals relative to the Budget set in Schedule “D” for the period of April 1 to March 31. Any reallocations or revisions of the Budget as approved by the Province. Identification and explanation of variances in the Budget that comply with Schedule “A” section A4.4. Report on other partner funding contributions as projected in Schedule “D” Budget. May 31 3. Program Plan and Operations A. Interim Report on Program and Operations Interim progress report on the SBEC Program including but not limited to a report on Program Plan activities, explanation of tracking to targets and plan to achieve any missed targets, any additional context or updates on operations. November 15 B. Year-End Report on Program and Operations May 31 Page 60 of 71 Page 356 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 58 Year-end progress report on the SBEC Program including but not limited to a report on Program Plan activities, explanation of tracking to targets and plan to achieve any missed targets, any additional context or updates on operations. C. SBEC Program Success Stories Submission of 2-3 Client or Approved Participant success stories for each of SBEC Core, Starter Company Plus and Summer Company: SBEC Core and Starter Company Summer Company May 31 August 31 4. Certificates and Documentation A. Proof of Insurance Report Proof of Insurance Certificate for each Funding Year to be supplied by the Recipient in accordance with Schedule “A”, Article A10.0. On signing or by February 15 of each subsequent Funding Year B. Request for Payment and Certificate To be submitted as request for funds per Schedule “E” Payment Schedule with accompanying reports required. Completed per Schedule “G” to be signed by a senior officer November 15 May 31 C. French Language Services Act (Ontario) Checklist Checklist for the provision of services in French by the Recipient, in a form to be provided by the Province and to be signed by a senior officer. November 15 D. Proof of Acquisition of Goods or Services Within 30 days of selection Page 61 of 71 Page 357 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 59 For any acquisition valued at $25,000 or more in accordance with Schedule “A”, Section A5.1 submit full documentation of the competitive process used for any sub- contract for goods or services (excluding industry experts and employers that the Recipient partners with to deliver the SBEC Program). E. Auditor’s Certificate Auditor’s report certifying financial reporting provided in item 2. Financial of this Schedule “F” for the period of April 1, 2022 to March 31st, 2024. To be prepared and signed by a chartered accountant in the form of Schedule “J”. June 30, 2024 5. Other Reports Other reports or information requests as specified and to the satisfaction of the Province On a date or dates as specified by the Province REPORT DETAILS Reporting will be provided in the format as specified by the Province: • Performance Metrics and Outcomes data will be submitted to the Enterprise Centre Reporting (ECR) system; • Forms to be completed as provided in Agreement Schedules; and • Otherwise the Province will provide the Recipient with templates for completion of other items including Financial, Program Plan and Operations, Client Level Data List, SBEC Program Success Stories, and French Language Services Act (Ontario) Checklist. COMPLIANCE AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING The Province will conduct compliance and performance monitoring activities throughout the term of the Agreement in consultation with the Recipient as follows: Page 62 of 71 Page 358 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 60 • Monthly check-ins will be conducted by the Ministry staff advisor assigned to oversee the SBEC to discuss program successes, challenges as they arise and any actions to mitigate program risks. • Compliance with the modernized French Language Services Act (Ontario) and completion of the checklist. Development of a plan to achieve compliance with timelines in the case of non-compliance. • An on-site (or virtual if necessary) SBEC review and assessment will be conducted by the Province once a year. A thorough review of the SBEC’s performance and program documentation will be reviewed for all aspects of program delivery as outlined in the Agreement. The Province will provide a summary report to the SBEC and establish actions for follow-up. • Following the annual review and assessment the Ministry staff advisor will work with the SBEC to provide course correction and/or identify opportunities for continuous improvement. • Provide a reflection and update on the Business Plan CLIENT LEVEL DATA LIST AND NOTICE OF COLLECTION The Recipient agrees that the Province may contact Clients, on behalf of the Recipient, to solicit their participation in an annual business supports survey for performance and program and service delivery feedback. The Recipient shall provide the Province with up-to-date contact details for its Clients in the form of a Client Level Data List and will add consent language to its application and inquiry forms to notify the Client that their business contact information may be shared with the Province. Page 63 of 71 Page 359 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 61 SCHEDULE “G” REQUEST FOR PAYMENT AND CERTIFICATE TO: The Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation, and Trade FROM: [ Recipient to fill out]. RE: Request for Funds for Payment # [ ] for the Period of: _________________________________ I, <Enter (name), (title) of senior officer> of the Recipient, on behalf of the Recipient, hereby certify that: 1. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and after making all appropriate examinations and enquiries, the Recipient is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement and that no material changes have been made to the SBEC Program or Budget, as such terms are defined in the Agreement; 2. On and as of the date hereof, the unspent balance of Funds for the period ending <enter day/month/year > is $●. 3. On and as of the date hereof, the revenues and expenditures for the period ending <Enter day/month/year > are accurately reported and that all Funds were spent in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; 4. On and as of the date hereof, the amount requested herein as an advance in Funds will be incurred on behalf of the Recipient solely for Eligible Expenditures per Schedule “H”; and 5. On and as of the date hereof, the attached or submitted Reports, namely: • Reporting on performance metrics and outcomes have been reported on the Enterprise Centre Reporting (ECR) platform and are current; • Financial Report on Budget; [and] Page 64 of 71 Page 360 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 62 • Program Plan and Operations Report; [and] • [Any additional reports required] are true and accurate. The Recipient requests that the Province disburses Funds to the Recipient as follows: A. Amount requested: SBEC Core: $ Starter Company Plus: $ Summer Company: $ Total Requested: $ B. Actual interest* earned on all Funds this Funding Year to date: $ *interest will be deducted at the end of each Funding Year IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned has hereunto signed these presents this ● day of ●, 20●●. Per: ____________________________ Name: TITLE OF SENIOR OFFICER: Page 65 of 71 Page 361 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 63 SCHEDULE “H” ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES Eligible and Ineligible Expenditures Eligible Expenditures must be directly related to the delivery of the SBEC Program and Budget and not of a nature which would have been incurred by the Recipient in the normal course of business. Documentation for all expenditures must be kept on file for audit purposes. The Province reserves the right to make a determination on the eligibility of expenditures submitted for reimbursement. In the event of any interpretation issues regarding the eligibility, valuation or other matter regarding expenditures, the decision of the Province shall be final and determinative. Expenses not described in the categories set out in this document require prior written approval of the Province in order to be considered Eligible Expenditures. Eligible Expenditures Eligible Expenditures include, but are not limited to: • SBEC Program administration and overhead (not to exceed 10% of amount budgeted for the SBEC Program expenses as described in the Budget) pursuant to Schedule “A”, Section A4.4(c)(i). • Travel costs to attend business meetings within Ontario related to the administration of the Agreement or to attend meetings that the Province convenes or supports, all of which shall be subject to the Recipient’s guidelines on travel, meal and hospitality expenses. • Professional fees, including legal and audit fees: a) directly related to and required for the management of the SBEC Program or b) to conduct the activities and services relating to the SBEC Program as described in the Budget. Costs are not to exceed demonstrated fair market value. • Costs related to work performed by companies or individuals that contribute to the delivery of the SBEC Program. Consulting or other services directly related to the delivery of the SBEC Program must be costed at demonstrated fair market value or less. • Telecommunication fees including connectivity charges directly related to and required for the management of the SBEC Program. • Staff training costs directly related to delivery of the SBEC Program. • Development, marketing and delivery expenditures directly related to the delivery of the SBEC Program. • Training delivery directly related to the development and delivery of the SBEC Program, all of which shall be subject to the Recipient’s guidelines on travel, Page 66 of 71 Page 362 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 64 meal and hospitality expenses provided that such guidelines are no less stringent that the Province’s Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive. • Salaries and MERCs which are pro–rated to the time spent directly on the delivery of the activities and services relating SBEC Program as described in the Budget. Salaries and MERCs is defined as the actual salaries or wages paid to employees, excluding bonuses, together with mandatory employment-related costs (MERCs), incurred by the Recipient during the term of this Agreement. For greater certainty, mandatory employment-related costs may only include mandatory minimum vacation pay, employer’s contributions to employment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan, employer health tax, and Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Premiums. • Travel costs to meet with potential partners or stakeholders within Ontario required in the development of the SBEC Program and in connection with activities and services relating to the SBEC Program as described in the Budget. • Marketing materials and related communication costs if directly related to the activities and services relating to the SBEC Program as described in the Budget. • Information and marketing session costs required to deliver the SBEC Program. Facility and equipment rental fees and utilities used to support the delivery of the SBEC Program, and not of a nature which the proponent would incur in the normal course of business, and which are demonstrably incremental to the delivery of the SBEC Program. Ineligible Costs The Funds cannot be used towards the following costs: • Costs related to referral fees for consultants. • Costs of those receiving referrals from the Recipient related to professional consultations by law firms or lawyers and accounting firms or accountants. • Costs related to the development of the application for funding under this Agreement. • Costs not directly associated with the delivery of the SBEC Program or directly required to meet the deliverables of the SBEC Program. • Administrative salaries, except for SBEC Program management costs covered under SBEC Program administration and SBEC Program delivery. • Out–of–province travel costs. • Capital expenses, including but not limited to, purchasing or leasing land or buildings, leasehold improvements. • Costs for activities not related to the SBEC Program. • Annual membership fees to associations. • Stipends for Approved Participants. • Costs incurred prior to the Effective Date or after the Expiry Date. • Expenses or fees payable to organizations located outside of Ontario. • Debt reduction charges. • Bonuses. Page 67 of 71 Page 363 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 65 SCHEDULE “I” COMMUNICATIONS AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROTOCOL FOR ALL PROGRAMS UNDER SBEC PROGRAM 1. The Recipient shall provide to the Province, prior to public release, an electronic copy of all reports, announcements, brochures, audiovisual materials, internet materials, advertising and publicity, including design or other public communication or publication relating to the SBEC Program. 2. The Recipient shall advise the Province’s staff (to be designated by the Province) of any upcoming (positive or negative) announcements or advertising campaigns related to the Recipient’s activities as described in the SBEC Program and Budget (e.g. news release, news conference, awards, bankruptcies, etc.) and, at the Province’s option, provide the Province with the opportunity to participate or be present at these announcements. The Recipient will provide the Province with a minimum of ten (10) Business Days prior written notice of such announcements or advertising campaigns. (a) The Recipient shall not make any public announcement related to the Recipient’s SBEC Program related activities or services without the prior written approval of the Province. (b) The Recipient shall respond to requests by the Province for information about any public announcement as soon as possible and in any event will provide an initial response within twenty–four (24) hours. (c) The Recipient shall comply with any direction of the Province in respect of the Recipient’s use of any official logos of the Province on any of the Recipient’s websites, as well as promotional material and instructions for accessing the SBEC Program. (d) The Recipient will prominently display information about the SBEC Program on all of its websites, as well as promotional material and instructions for accessing the SBEC Program. (e) The Recipient will include information about the SBEC Program prominently displayed on its website, including promotional material and instructions for accessing the SBEC Program, with links to websites identified by the Province. Confidentiality Page 68 of 71 Page 364 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 66 A. Any information submitted to the Province in confidence should be clearly marked. B. The Recipient is advised that the business contact information of Clients and Approved Participants, and if applicable, any amount of Micro-Grant and the purpose for which the Micro-Grant is being granted is information to be made available to the Province upon request. Page 69 of 71 Page 365 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 67 SCHEDULE “J” AUDITOR’S CERTIFICATE TO: [Instructions: insert legal name and address of Recipient and contact person] CC: Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade Office of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction Small Business Branch 56 Wellesley St West, 7th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E7 Attention: Manager RE: Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade (“Ontario”) and [Instructions: insert legal name of Recipient] (the “Recipient”) dated effective MONTH DAY, 20XX (the “Agreement”) Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. We have audited the accompanying Schedules (the “Schedules”) which comprise a summary of the financial reporting provisions of the Agreement and other explanatory information, relating to the Auditor’s Certificate dated [insert date]. [Recipient to fill out] for the period [*] to [*] [Recipient to fill out]. The Schedules have been prepared by management of the Recipient based on the financial reporting provisions of the Agreement described in Schedule F. Management’s Responsibility for the Schedules Management of the Recipient is responsible for the preparation of the Schedules in accordance with the financial reporting requirements of the Agreement, and for such internal control as management of the Recipient determines is necessary to enable the preparation of the Schedules that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Schedules based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan Page 70 of 71 Page 366 of 842 EXECUTION COPY 68 and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Schedules are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the Schedules. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misinformation of the Schedules, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the management’s preparation of the Schedules in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Recipient’s internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the Schedules. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the Schedules for the period  to  [Recipient to fill out] are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the financial reporting provisions of the Agreement. Basis of Accounting Restriction on Distribution and Use Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to the note to the Schedules, which describe the basis of accounting. The Schedules are prepared to assist the Recipient to comply with the financial reporting provisions of the Agreement. As a result, the Schedules may not be suitable for another purpose. Our report is intended solely for the Recipient and Ontario and should not be distributed to or used by parties other than the Recipient and Ontario. DATED: ________________________ Signed Chartered Accountant [Recipient to insert name of chartered accountant. To be dated and signed by Chartered Accountant] Page 71 of 71 Page 367 of 842 MW-2022-24 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: Queen Street – 15 Minute Free Parking Zones Recommendation(s) That Council approve the installation of five (5) short duration (15 minutes or less) parking spaces along Queen Street to support businesses and allow customers up to 15 minutes of free parking to attend the establishment to pick-up or drop-off goods and services. That Council direct Staff to coordinate the final locations with the Downtown BIA and provide the resulting amendments to By-law #89-2000 at the May 31, 2022 Council meeting. Executive Summary At its meeting on April 12, 2022, Council directed Staff to explore opportunities to implement short duration (15 minutes or less) parking spaces along Queen Street. These proposed parking spaces are intended to provide free short duration parking opportunities along Queen Street to help support businesses; by allowing customers up to 15 minutes of free parking to attend the establishment to pick-up or drop-off goods and services. Staff have reviewed the feasibility/ease of implementation for the proposed on-street parking spaces, and their proximity to businesses that would most benefit from quick turnover parking opportunities. Based on these investigations, Staff have recommended five (5) locations, or one space per block. These locations will be confirm in consultation with the Downtown BIA. Background At its meeting on April 12, 2022, Council directed Staff to explore opportunities to implement short duration (15 minutes or less) parking spaces along Queen Street. These proposed parking spaces are intended to provide free short duration parking opp ortunities along Queen Street to help support businesses; by allowing customers up to 15 minutes of free parking to attend the establishment to pick-up or drop-off goods and services. Currently, within the Downtown, there are a considerable number of existing 90 minute free parking opportunities available along: all adjacent side streets, Park Street, and Huron Street. Furthermore, on-street parking is free during weekday evenings (after 5:00 p.m.) and all-day on weekends. Page 1 of 4 Page 368 of 842 By request of the Downtown BIA, paid on-street parking was reinstated on Queen Street in late-2019. This was undertaken to promote customer parking turnover while minimizing prime parking spaces being occupied by business owners and staff which was a perceived deterrent for customers looking for close parking to attend and support local establishments. Revenues from the paid parking spaces are utilized by the City to maintain the parking stalls and offset winter maintenance cost in the downtown. Analysis Staff have reviewed the feasibility/ease of implementation for the proposed on-street parking spaces, and there proximity to businesses that would most benefit from quick turnover parking opportunities. Based on these investigations, Staff have recommended five (5) locations, or one space per block. These locations are illustrated in Attachment #1 and will be confirmed in consultation with the Downtown BIA. The recommended short duration spaces support the needed turnover of parking spaces as requested by the BIA without affecting the longer 2 hour paid parking spaces that would be used for businesses with clientele spending greater durations in the establishments such as restaurants, hair salons, and retail stores. Lastly, the addition of short duration parking opportunities along Queen Street will bridge the gap between the premium paid parking spaces along Queen Street and the available 90 minute free parking spaces on all side streets, Park Street, and Huron Street. Customers can park in close proximity to their destination and quickly purchase items without having to walk a distance or risking getting a ticket for only a few minutes of parking. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis None. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The installation of the signs is to be carried out by Municipal Works - Transportation Services staff. The labour and material costs are accounted for in the approved 2022 General Purposes Budget. Installing the parking control signs is estimated to cost approximately $800. Impacts to the Parking Services operating budget and on-street parking revenues are unknown at this time; however, the approximate 74 paid parking spaces on Queen Street typically generate $40,000 annually or $540/space/year. The resulting loss of five spaces may result in a $2,700 annual parking revenue loss. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Provide a convenient, cost effective and customer friendly parking system based on the User Pay Philosophy. Contributor(s) This report was prepared in consultation with Mr. Paul Brown, Manager of Parking Services Page 2 of 4 Page 369 of 842 List of Attachments MW-2022-24 Queen Street – 15 Minute Free Parking Zones_Final Written by: Mathew Bilodeau, Manager of Transportation Engineering Submitted by: Status: Erik Nickel, Director of Municipal Works Approved - 03 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 May 2022 Page 3 of 4 Page 370 of 842 MW-2022-24 Queen Street –15 Minute Free Parking Zones Attachment 1 –MapVictoria Ave.-Proposed 15-min Free Parking Space Legend -Quick Turnover Business Locations Queen St.Buckley Ave.St. Lawrence Ave.CryslerAve.St. Clair Ave.Ontario Ave.Erie Ave.-Existing 90-min Free Parking ZonesBuckley AvenuePark St. Huron St. -Existing 2-hour Free Parking Zones City Hall Page 4 of 4Page 371 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:-comment for may 10th council meeting From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 5:07 PM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-comment for may 10th council meeting comments for may 10th council meeting MW-2022-24 Queen Street – 15 Minute Free Parking Zones If your supporting parking initiatives for queen St., would council also look into temporally restoring the park St. parking lot for the busy summer season as well. Doesn’t look like any development is going to happen for quite some time, it would be good planning merit to use it to benefit the community in the mean time. Joedy Burdett Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St. Do not redact this letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 372 of 842 PBD-2022-33 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: PLC-2022-006, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Block 106, Registered Plan 59M-484, Forestview Estates 7340-7372 Matteo Drive Applicant: Kenmore Drive Recommendation(s) That Council approve the request and pass the by-law to exempt Block 106, Registered Plan 59M-484 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. Executive Summary Kenmore Homes has requested Council pass a by-law to exempt Part Lot Control from Block 106, on Registered Plan 59M-484 to allow the transfer of ownership of the on-street townhouse dwelling units that are under construction. The request can be supported based on the following: • The zoning permits on-street townhouse dwellings on the proposed parcel sizes; and, • The by-law will permit a deed to be created for each parcel containing a dwelling unit and permit each property to be sold separately. Background Kenmore Homes has submitted a request to have Part Lot Control lifted fr om Block 106 on Registered Plan 59M-484, located at 7340-7372 Matteo Drive. The lifting of Part Lot Control is a planning tool that permits the creation of parcels in blocks within registered plans of subdivision. In this case, the lifting of Part Lot Control is requested to allow the creation of 6 parts for 5 townhouse dwelling units and an easement for stormwater management purposes. Analysis The subject lands are located on Matteo Drive within the Forestview Estates Subdivision (59M-484) which was registered on December 8, 2020. The subdivision contains blocks of land for on-street townhouse dwellings and apartment buildings. Block 106 is zone d Residential Mixed (R3-1081) by Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2019-003. The proposed parcels comply with the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements of the site specific R3-1081. Page 1 of 4 Page 373 of 842 Part Lot Control provisions under the Planning Act prevent lands that are within a registered plan of subdivision from being further divided without a consent to sever and prevent the individual townhouse units from being created. Municipalities have the ability to lift Part Lot Control from blocks within a Plan of Subdivision to allow lot lines to be reconfigured or parts of a block to be conveyed without the need for a consent application. As all matters necessary for the development of the lands have been addressed through the subdivision process, a Part Lot Control By-law can be considered for the division of the subject lands. Approval of a Part Lot Control by-law is requested so that Block 106 can be divided into 6 parts to create 5 on-street townhouse dwelling units and an easement fo r stormwater management purposes. The exemption is to apply for two years to allow for flexibility in scheduling real estate closing dates and should be sufficient time to allow units to be absorbed by the market. Financial Implications/Budget Impact As Development Charges have already been collected, there are no financial implications Strategic/Departmental Alignment Council’s priority is to use infill opportunities for multi-unit development to diversify the range of housing available in existing neighbourhoods. The application is consistent with this priority. List of Attachments Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Block 106 Written by: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Manager, Current Planning Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 2 of 4 Page 374 of 842 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 3 of 4 Page 375 of 842 SCHEDULE 2 (Block 106) Page 4 of 4 Page 376 of 842 PBD-2022-34 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: PBD-2022-34 PLC-2022-004, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive, Registered Plan 59M-491, Chippawa West 9232, 9234, 9248, 9250, 9256, 9258, 9266, 9268, 9272 and 9274 Griffon Street Applicant: LH (Niagara) Ltd. Recommendation(s) That Council approve the request and pass the by-law included in today’s agenda to exempt Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive, Registered Plan 59M -491 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. Executive Summary LH (Niagara) Ltd. has requested Council pass a by -law to exempt Part Lot Control from Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive, on Registered Plan 59M -491 to allow the transfer of ownership of the semi-detached dwelling units that are under construction. The request can be supported based on the following: • The zoning permits semi-detached and on-street townhouse dwellings on the proposed parcel sizes; and, • The by-law will permit a deed to be created for each parcel containing a dwelling unit and permit each property to be sold separately. Background LH (Niagara) Ltd. has submitted a request to have Part Lot Control lifted from Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive on Registered Plan 59M-491, located at 9201-9203 Griffon Street (Lot 40); 9207-9209 Griffon Street (Lot 41); 9232-9234 Griffon Street (Lot 49); 9248-9250 Griffon Street (Lot 50); 9256-9258 Griffon Street (Lot 51); 9266-9268 Griffon Street (Lot 52); and 9272-9274 Griffon Street (Lot 53). The lifting of Part Lot Control is a planning tool that permits the creation of parcels in Blocks and Lots within registered plans of subdivision. In this case, the lifting of Part Lot Control is requested to allow the creation of 2 parts for each semi-detached house being constructed on Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive for a total of 14 semi-detached dwelling units. Page 1 of 6 Page 377 of 842 Analysis The subject lands are located on Griffon Street within the Chippawa West Subdivision (59M-491) which was registered on June 8, 2021. The subdivision contains blocks and lots of land for on-street townhouse dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and single detached dwelling units. Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive are zoned Residential Mixed (R3-760) by Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2006-205 & 2020- 014. The proposed parcels comply with the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements of the site specific R3-760 zone. Part Lot Control provisions under the Planning Act prevent lands that are within a registered plan of subdivision from being further divided without a consent to sever and prevent the individual townhouse units from being created. Municipalities have the ability to lift Part Lot Control from Blocks and Lots within a Plan of Subdivision to allow lot lines to be reconfigured or parts of a block to be conveyed without the need for a consent application. As all matters necessary for the development of the lands have been addressed through the subdivision process, a Part Lot Control By -law can be considered for the division of the subject lands. Approval of a Part Lot Control by-law is requested so that Lots 40, 41, and 49 to 53 inclusive can be split to create 2 lots for a total of 14 semi-detached dwelling units. The exemption is to apply for two years to allow for flexibility in scheduling real estate closing dates and should be sufficient time to allow units to be absorbed by the market. Financial Implications/Budget Impact As Development Charges have already been collected, there are no financial implications. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Council’s priority is to use infill opportunities for multi-unit development to diversify the range of housing available in existing neighbourhoods. The application is consistent with this priority. List of Attachments Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Lots 40 & 41 Schedule 3 - Lots 49-53 Written by: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Manager, Current Planning Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Page 2 of 6 Page 378 of 842 Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 3 of 6 Page 379 of 842 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 4 of 6 Page 380 of 842 SCHEDULE 2 (Lots 40 & 41) Page 5 of 6 Page 381 of 842 SCHEDULE 3 (Lots 49-53) Page 6 of 6 Page 382 of 842 PBD-2022-35 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: AM-2018-012, Exemption Request to 2-Year Waiting Period for a Minor Variance Chippawa East Draft Plan of Subdivision North side of Willick Road between Sodom Road and Willoughby Drive Recommendation(s) That Council consider passing the resolution to grant an exemption to the 2 -year waiting period for minor variances to allow Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for the proposed development. Executive Summary • Section 45 (1.3) of the Planning Act does not allow a minor variance application before the second year anniversary of a site specific zoning by-law amendment unless Council has declared by resolution under section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act that an application may be made to the Committee of Adjustment; • Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. is requesting that Council consider passing a resolution to allow them to file a minor variance application on th e draft plan approved Chippawa East subdivision lands. The applicable zoning by -law was passed on January 18, 2022. The passing of the resolution does not approve the requested variances, but indicates Council is satisfied that the implemented zoning regulations can be reviewed and varied by the Committee of Adjustment; and, • Planning staff support the request as notice, public hearing, decision making by the Committee of Adjustment, and appeal rights would still apply with the minor variance application. Page 1 of 12 Page 383 of 842 Background Proposal On January 18, 2022, City Council passed By-law No. 2022-06 which amended Zoning By-law No. 79-200 to permit a site specific Residential Mixed (R3) zone, the Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4) zone, the Environmental Protection Area (EPA) zone, and the Open Space (OS) zone for lands on the north side of Willick Road between Sodom Road and Willoughby Drive (see Schedule 1). City Council also draft approved the subdivision plan for the subject lands. The draft approved plan is shown on Schedule 2. Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. realized relief was needed to the lands zoned R3 - 1162 to apply consistent standards for the Chippawa East subdivision as what is in force and effect for the Chippawa West subdivision, to be able to construct the proposed dwellings. In order for the application to be heard by the Committee of Adjustment, it is necessary for Council to pass a resolution granting an exemption to the required 2 -year waiting period. Analysis Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. is requesting the following relief to the regulations in force and effect for the R3-1162 zone which were not requested with the zoning by-law amendment application: Zone Regulation Standard Regulation Minor Variance Request Difference Minimum front yard depth 6.0 metres 4.5 metres to dwelling unit 6.0 metres to garage 1.5 metres to dwelling unit No regulation Minimum interior side yard for an on street townhouse dwelling, triplex dwelling or quadruplex dwelling 3.0 metres 1.8 metres for a townhouse dwelling unit 1.2 metres Minimum exterior side yard width 4.5 metres 3.0 metres for a dwelling unit 1.5 metres Page 2 of 12 Page 384 of 842 Maximum lot coverage 45 % 50 % for a single or semi detached dwelling 60% for a townhouse dwelling 5 % for a single or semi detached dwelling 15% for a townhouse dwelling There is no benefit to waiting the balance of the 2 year waiting period before the filing of a minor variance application. Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. is seeking to obtain the appropriate planning approvals to market the dwelling units to future re sidents. A resolution is included in tonight’s Council agenda. Should Council adopt the resolution, they will be able to make application to the Committee of Adjustment for the subject lands. Notice, public hearing, decision making by the Committee of Adjustment, and appeal rights would still apply with the minor variance application. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis No operational implications and risk analysis. Financial Implications/Budget Impact No financial implications or budget impact. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Removal of the 2-year waiting period will allow Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. the ability to file an application with the Committee of Adjustment and obtain the appropriate planning approvals in an efficient time period. List of Attachments SCHEDULE 1 SCHEDULE 2 SCHEDULE 3 Written by: Julie Hannah, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Manager, Current Planning Approved - 02 May 2022 Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Page 3 of 12 Page 385 of 842 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 03 May 2022 Page 4 of 12 Page 386 of 842 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 5 of 12 Page 387 of 842 SCHEDULE 2 (Draft Plan of Subdivision) Page 6 of 12 Page 388 of 842 Page 1 of 2 SENT VIA EMAIL P – 2960 March 23, 2022 City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Attention: Mr. Andrew Bryce, MCIP, RPP Manager of Current Planning Re: Minor Variance Application Request Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. c/o DG Group Zoning By-law 2022-06 City of Niagara Falls Dear Mr. Bryce, Further to our recent discussions, kindly accept this request to submit a Minor Variance application to the City of Niagara Falls Committee of Adjustment in order to include some minor setback revisions that were inadvertently missed during the Zoning By-law Amendment review process. The minor variances as proposed will allow for the same standards, primarily as it relates to the townhouse dwelling units, to those that are in force and effect for the lands on the west side of Sodom Road. Given it is the same owner for both properties a consistent setback standard to apply to both townhouse dwellings is preferred. Unfortunately, these setback standards were not caught as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment review process and therefore we are seeking Council’s permission to allow the submission of a minor variance application to permit the same standards. It is important to note, the minor variance would not alter the draft plan of subdivision in anyway, but merely how the townhouse dwellings will be sited within the blocks. Again, the standards that will be requested have already been Council approved and utilized on the lands immediately to the west. Page 7 of 12 Page 389 of 842 Page 2 of 2 As such, we respectfully request Council permit the submission of a minor variance application to deal with this unfortunate oversight. Kindly find attached a cheque (#1014) in the amount of $400.00 made payable to the City of Niagara Falls as the prescribed fee for this request. Should you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, KLM PLANNING PARTNERS INC. Keith MacKinnon BA, MCIP, RPP Partner cc. Trevor Hall – Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. cc. Julie Hannah – City of Niagara Falls cc. Ellen Roupas – City of Niagara Falls Page 8 of 12 Page 390 of 842 Page 1 of 4 SENT VIA EMAIL P – 2960 March 29, 2022 City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Attention: Ms. Ellen Roupas Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Re: Minor Variance Application Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. By-law 2022-06 c/o DG Group City of Niagara Falls Dear Ms. Roupas, KLM Planning Partners Inc. acts on behalf of Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. c/o DG Group with respect the request for a Minor Variance application. As noted, Council approved on January 18, 2022 the above noted Zoning By-law, as it pertains to the noted site. Unfortunately, the zone standards which apply in particular to the townhouse dwellings on west side of Sodom Road within Zoning By-law 2006-205 were not included in the recently approved Zoning By-law particularly as it relates to zone category R3-1162. As such, as request to Council has been made to seek permission in order to file a Minor Variance application to deal with the following variances against By-law 79-200, within the R3-1162 zone category: By-law Section Required Proposed Variance 7.8.2.c 6 metres (19.7 ft.) plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27.1 4.5m for a dwelling unit 6.0m for the garage portion of a dwelling unit with the vehicular entrance to the front yard 2.5m for a roofed over 1 storey porch 1.5m for a dwelling unit Page 9 of 12 Page 391 of 842 Page 2 of 4 7.8.2.e.ii 3.0m minimum interior side yard for an on street townhouse dwelling, a triplex dwelling or a quadruplex dwelling 1.8m minimum interior side yard for an on street townhouse dwelling 1.2m 7.8.2.f 4.5m minimum exterior side yard width 3.0m to a dwelling unit 6.0m for the garage portion of a dwelling unit with the vehicular entrance to the exterior side yard 1.5m to a dwelling unit 7.8.2.g 45% maximum lot coverage 50% for a one-family detached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling 60% for an on-street townhouse dwelling 5% for a one- family detached dwelling or semi- detached dwelling 15% for an on- street townhouse dwelling Minor Variance Test Discussion This Section will summarize the requested variances in respect to passing the four tests of a Minor Variance, set out by Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. 1. Is the Application minor in nature? The requested variances are minor in nature and will make only minor adjustments to the development standards of the current zoning on the Subject Lands. The proposed variances have no impact on the draft approved plan of subdivision and merely apply standards that have already been approved by Council to the lands to the west, which are within the same ownership. In addition, the requested variances will not cause a negative visual impact on the public realm or streetscape. 2. Is the Application an appropriate and desirable use of the land? The draft plan has been approved along with the zoning by-law amendment. Unfortunately, these standards, which are approved by Council for the lands immediately to the west, were missed. The built form remains consistent should these variances be approved and there are no changes proposed to the draft approved plan of subdivision. Page 10 of 12 Page 392 of 842 Page 3 of 4 3. Is the Application consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The Official Plan is used to manage how the City grows and develops. The Official Plan guides housing, industry, offices and shops, as well as the infrastructure required to support a growing City. The portion of which are subject to the minor variance request are designated ‘Residential’ in the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan, which permits and allows for residential uses on the lands. In addition, the City of Niagara Falls recently approved the draft plan of subdivision for these lands along with a zoning by-law amendment to permit residential uses. The requested variance does not alter the intent of these items but merely adjust the setback standards to be consistent with those approved to the west and were originally intended to apply to these lands as well. For this reason, minor variances are keeping with the intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 4. Is the Application consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By- law? The City of Niagara Falls Zoning By-law regulates what land uses and building types are permitted on properties within the City. The Subject Lands are currently zoned R3-1162 by the City of Niagara Falls By-law 2022-06, which permits single, semi and townhouse dwelling units. As noted above, the variance request merely applies to some of the standards which are already approved and constructed on the adjoining lands to the west and were inadvertently missed during the zoning review of the approved zoning by-law amendment for these lands. It is for the above reasons that we are of the opinion that the requested variances are consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and represent good land use planning. As per the submission requirements, kindly find attached the following: 1. One (1) complete and executed minor variance application; 2. Nine (9) 11x17 copies of the draft plan approved subdivision; 3. One (1) cheque (#1015) in the amount of $2,200.00 made payable to the City of Niagara Falls representing the Committee of Adjustment application fee; 4. One (1) cheque (#1014) in the amount of $400.00 and made payable to the City of Niagara Falls representing the request to Council to submit the minor variance application fee; and, 5. One (1) cheque (#1019) in the amount of $435.00 made payable to the Regional Municipality of Niagara representing the Region of Niagara minor variance review fee. Page 11 of 12 Page 393 of 842 Page 4 of 4 Should you have any questions or concerns with the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, KLM PLANNING PARTNERS INC. Keith MacKinnon BA, MCIP, RPP Partner cc. Trevor Hall – Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. cc. Julie Hannah – City of Niagara Falls Page 12 of 12 Page 394 of 842 PBD-2022-36 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: PBD-2022-36 PLC-2022-007, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Block 109, 110, & 111, Registered Plan 59M-484, Forestview Estates 7153-7213 Parsa Street Applicant: Marken Homes Recommendation(s) That Council approve the request and pass the by-law to exempt Block 109, 110, & 111, Registered Plan 59M-484 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. Executive Summary Marken Homes has requested Council pass a by-law to exempt Part Lot Control from Block 109, 110, & 111, on Registered Plan 59M-484 to allow the transfer of ownership of the on-street townhouse dwelling units that are under construction. The request can be supported based on the following: • The zoning permits on-street townhouse dwellings on the proposed parcel sizes; and, • The by-law will permit a deed to be created for each parcel containing a dwelling unit and permit each property to be sold separately. Background Marken Homes has submitted a request to have Part Lot Control lifted from Block 109, 110, & 111 on Registered Plan 59M-484, located at 7153-7213 Parsa Street. The lifting of Part Lot Control is a planning tool that permits the creation of parcels in blocks within registered plans of subdivision. In this case, the lifting of Part Lot Control is requested to allow the creation of 5 parts for 5 townhouse dwelling units for Block 109; 5 parts for 5 townhouse dwellings units for Block 110; and 6 parts for 6 townhouse dwelling units for Block 111. Analysis The subject lands are located on Parsa Street within the Forestview Estates Subdivision (59M-484) which was registered on December 8, 2020. The subdivision contains blocks of land for on-street townhouse dwellings. Block 109, 110, & 111 are zoned Residenti al Page 1 of 7 Page 395 of 842 Mixed (R3-1081) by Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2019-003. The proposed parcels comply with the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements of the site specific R3-1081 zone. Part Lot Control provisions under the Planning Act prevent lands that are within a registered plan of subdivision from being further divided without a consent to sever and prevent the individual townhouse units from being created. Municipalities have the ability to lift Part Lot Control from blocks within a Plan of Subdivision to allow lot lines to be reconfigured or parts of a block to be conveyed without the need for a consent application. As all matters necessary for the development of the lands have been addressed through the subdivision process, a Part Lot Control By-law can be considered for the division of the subject lands. Approval of a Part Lot Control by-law is requested so that Block 109, 110, & 111 can be divided into 5 parts for 5 townhouse dwelling units for Block 109; 5 parts for 5 townhouse dwellings units for Block 110; and 6 parts for 6 townhouse dwelling units for Block 111. The exemption is to apply for two years to allow for flexibility in scheduling real estate closing dates and should be sufficient time to allow units to be absorbed by the market. Financial Implications/Budget Impact As Development Charges have already been collected, there are no financial implications. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Council’s priority is to use infill opportunities for multi-unit development to diversify the range of housing available in existing neighbourhoods. The application is consistent with this priority. List of Attachments Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Draft Reference Plan (Block 109) Schedule 3 - Draft Reference Plan (Block 110) Schedule 4 - Draft Reference Plan (Block 111) Written by: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Manager, Current Planning Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Page 2 of 7 Page 396 of 842 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 3 of 7 Page 397 of 842 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 4 of 7 Page 398 of 842 SCHEDULE 2 (Block 109) Page 5 of 7 Page 399 of 842 Schedule 3 (Block 110) Page 6 of 7 Page 400 of 842 Schedule 4 (Block 111) Page 7 of 7 Page 401 of 842 PBD-2022-37 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: PBD-2022-37 PLC-2022-005, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Block 101, Registered Plan 59M-484, Forestview Estates 7381-7421 Matteo Drive Applicant: Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. Recommendation(s) That Council approve the request and pass the by-law to exempt Block 101, Registered Plan 59M-484 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. Executive Summary Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. has requested Council pass a by-law to exempt Part Lot Control from Block 101, on Registered Plan 59M-484 to allow the transfer of ownership of the on-street townhouse dwelling units that are under construction. The request can be supported based on the following: • The zoning permits on-street townhouse dwellings on the proposed parcel sizes; and, • The by-law will permit a deed to be created for each parcel containing a dwelling unit and permit each property to be sold separately. Background Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. has submitted a request to have Part Lot Control lifted from Block 101 on Registered Plan 59M-484, located at 7381-7421 Matteo Drive. The lifting of Part Lot Control is a planning tool that permits the creation of parcels in blocks within registered plans of subdivision. In this case, the lifting of Part Lot Control is requested to allow the creation of 6 parts for 6 townhouse dwelling units. Analysis The subject lands are located on Matteo Drive within the Forestview Estates Subdivision (59M-484) which was registered on December 8, 2020. The subdivision contains blocks of land for on-street townhouse dwellings. Block 101 is zoned Residential Mixed (R3 - 1081) by Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2019-003. The proposed parcels comply with the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements of the site specific R3-1081. Page 1 of 4 Page 402 of 842 Part Lot Control provisions under the Planning Act prevent lands that are within a registered plan of subdivision from being further divided without a consent to sever and prevent the individual townhouse units from being created. Municipalities have the ability to lift Part Lot Control from blocks within a Plan of Subdivision to allow lot lines to be reconfigured or parts of a block to be conveyed without the need for a consent application. As all matters necessary for the development of the lands have been addressed through the subdivision process, a Part Lot Control By-law can be considered for the division of the subject lands. Approval of a Part Lot Control by-law is requested so that Block 101 can be divided into 6 parts to create 6 on-street townhouse dwelling units. The exemption is to apply for two years to allow for flexibility in scheduling real estate closing dates and should be sufficient time to allow units to be absorbed by the market. Financial Implications/Budget Impact As Development Charges have already been collected, there are no financial implications. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Council’s priority is to use infill opportunities for multi-unit development to diversify the range of housing available in existing neighbourhoods. The application is consistent with this priority. List of Attachments Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Draft Reference Plan (Block 101) Written by: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Manager, Current Planning Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 2 of 4 Page 403 of 842 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 3 of 4 Page 404 of 842 SCHEDULE 2 (Block 101) Page 4 of 4 Page 405 of 842 PBD-2022-38 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: PBD-2022-38 PLC-2022-008, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58, Registered Plan 59M-491, Lyons Creek Phase 5 9342-9350 White Oak Ave (Lots 19 and 20); 9337-9343 White Oak Ave (Lots 22 & 23); and 4243-4259 Shuttleworth Drive (Lots 57 & 58) Applicant: Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. Recommendation(s) That Council approve the request and pass the by-law to exempt Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58, Registered Plan 59M-491 from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. Executive Summary Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. has requested Council pass a by-law to exempt Part Lot Control from Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58, on Registered Plan 59M -491 to allow the adjustment of lot boundaries and transfer of ownership of semi-detached dwelling units that are under construction. The request can be supported based on the following: • The zoning permits semi-detached dwellings on the proposed parcel sizes; and, • The by-law will permit a deed to be created for each parcel containing a dwelling unit and permit each property to be sold separately. Background Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Inc. has submitted a request to have Part Lot Control lifted from Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58 on Registered Plan 59M-491, located at 9342- 9350 White Oak Ave (Lots 19 & 20); 9337-9343 White Oak Ave (Lots 22 & 23); and 4243 - 4259 Shuttleworth Drive (Lots 57 & 58). The lifting of Part Lot Control is a planning tool that permits the creation of parcels in blocks within registered plans of subdivision. In this case, the lifting of Part Lot Control is requested to allow: • the adjustment of the boundary line between lots 19 & 20 by 0.27 metres; • the adjustment of the boundary line between lots 22 & 23 by 0.2 metres; and Page 1 of 7 Page 406 of 842 • Lots 19, 22, 57, and 58 be divided into 2 parts for 2 semi-detached dwelling units on each lot, totaling 8 semi-detached dwelling units Analysis The subject lands are located on White Oak Avenue and Shuttleworth Drive within the Phase 5 of the Lyons Creek Subdivision (59M-491) which was registered on June 8, 2021. The subdivision contains blocks of land for on-street townhouse dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and single detached dwelling units. Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58 are zoned Residential Mixed (R3-760) by Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2006-205 & 2020-014 and further varied by A-2022-002, A-2022-003, and A-2022-004. The proposed parcels comply with the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements of the site specific R3-760 zone. Part Lot Control provisions under the Planning Act prevent lands that are within a registered plan of subdivision from being further divided without a consent to sever and prevent individual units from being created. Municipalities have the ability to lift Part Lot Control from blocks within a Plan of Subdivision to allow lot lines to be reconfi gured or parts of a block to be conveyed without the need for a consent application. As all matters necessary for the development of the lands have been addressed through the subdivision process, a Part Lot Control By-law can be considered for the division of the subject lands. Approval of a Part Lot Control by-law is requested so that: • the boundary line can be adjusted between lots 19 & 20 by 0.27 metres to the west; • the boundary line can be adjusted between lots 22 & 23 by 0.2 metres to the west; and • Lots 19, 22, 57, and 58 can be divided into 2 parts for 2 semi-detached dwelling units on each lot, totaling 8 semi-detached dwelling units The exemption is to apply for two years to allow for flexibility in scheduling real estate closing dates and should be sufficient time to allow units to be absorbed by the market. Financial Implications/Budget Impact As Development Charges have already been collected, there are no financial implications. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Council’s priority is to use infill opportunities for multi-unit development to diversify the range of housing available in existing neighbourhoods. The application is consistent with this priority. List of Attachments Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Draft Reference Plan (Lots 19 & 20) Page 2 of 7 Page 407 of 842 Schedule 3 - Draft Reference Plan (Lots 22 & 23) Schedule 4 - Draft Reference Plan (Lots 57 & 58) Written by: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Manager, Current Planning Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Approved - 03 May 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 3 of 7 Page 408 of 842 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 4 of 7 Page 409 of 842 SCHEDULE 2 (Lots 19 & 20) Page 5 of 7 Page 410 of 842 SCHEDULE 3 (Lots 22 & 23) Page 6 of 7 Page 411 of 842 Schedule 4 (Lots 57 & 58) Page 7 of 7 Page 412 of 842 R&C-2022-08 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: NFAG 2022 Fee for Service Agreement Recommendation(s) That City Council receive for information the one-year (2022) Fee for Service Agreement for the Niagara Falls Art Gallery (NFAG). Executive Summary The City of Niagara Falls has engaged local community organizations to provide direct services on the City’s behalf for assorted services. The Recreation & Culture Department has recreation and culture Niagara the Falls Agreements Service for Fee with organizations and individuals to deliver services. The Niagara Falls Art Gallery provides art programming at their site and off-site for preschoolers to older adults. Background The Niagara Falls Art Gallery vision to inspire children and adults of all ages throughout the community of Niagara Falls to participate in arts. NFAG mission states, to serve the community as a non-profit Art Gallery and place of educational learning, provide educational activities and to collect, conserve, promote and display professional works of art. The Recreation & Culture Department has historically (2006 – 2022) provided fee for service funding to the Niagara Falls Art Gallery. Funding has ranged from $56,000 - $27,000. Analysis The Recreation & Culture Department is committed to provide programs through community development. Community Development encourages partnerships, capacity building, which is innovative and cost effective. codepartments local municipal Other recreation deliver and ordinate culture and recreation programming. As the department currently does not provide this level of service, the city contracts Niagara Falls Art Gallery to provide this service. The attached Page 1 of 9 Page 413 of 842 agreement states the number of hours and defines services the organization is to provide. Staff are in the process of exploring programming options for the Niagara Falls Exchange. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Fee for service agreements are included in the City’s operations budget. At the Janu ary 25, 2022 City Council meeting, Council approved $28,000, fee for service funding for the Niagara Falls Art Gallery. Staff are in discussions with the Niagara Falls Art Gallery to develop a multiple year fee for service funding for 2023 2026. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Financial stability of the Corporation and to ensure resources are focused on core programs and services. List of Attachments R&C-2022-08-Attachment #1 Fee For Service Agreement NFAG 2022 Written by: Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation & Culture Submitted by: Status: Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation & Culture Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 02 May 2022 Page 2 of 9 Page 414 of 842 FEE FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT B E T W E E N : NIAGARA FALLS ART GALLERY (Hereinafter called the “Service Provider”) - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS (Hereinafter called the “City”) WHEREAS the City of Niagara Falls requires certain services described as arts and culture programming for children and youth. AND WHEREAS the Service Provider has undertaken to provide such services; NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and agreements hereinafter contained and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 1.1 The Service Provider hereby agrees to provide the services and to perform the duties as described in Schedule “A” to this Agreement (hereinafter the “Services”) which Schedule is hereto attached and is an integral part of this Agreement. 1.2 The Service Provider undertakes to ensure that they provide the agreed upon Services in accordance with a high standard of care, diligence and skill. 1.3 All Services performed by the Service Provider under this Agreement shall be performed to the satisfaction of the City acting reasonably. If the City determines that any of the Services performed by the Service Provider are unsatisfactory, the Service Provider shall remedy the unsatisfactory Service upon receipt of notice specifying the nature of the Service determined to be unsatisfactory. Upon receipt of such notice from the City, the Service Provider shall promptly correct the unsatisfactory Service to the City's satisfaction. Page 3 of 9 Page 415 of 842 2 2 TERM OF AGREEMENT 2.1 The Service Provider agrees to provide the Services from 01/01/2022 to 31/12/22 unless this Agreement is terminated earlier in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein. 3 FEES AND PAYMENT 3.1 The City agrees to make payment to the Service Provider for performing the Services under this Agreement in accordance with Schedule “B”, which Schedule is attached hereto and is an integral part of this Agreement. 4 AMENDMENTS 4.1 Changes in the scope of the work or Services or other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be implemented only upon written authorization from the City and formal, written amendment to this Agreement. Fees for any such changes, where appropriate, shall be as mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. 5 INDEMNIFICATION 5.1 The Service Provider shall exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its successors, officers, directors, agents, affiliates and employees from and against any and all liability, loss, cost, expense, damages, claims, fines, penalties, assessments or demands on account of injuries (including death) or other losses or damages to the Service Provider or the Service Provider’s employees, servants or agents or any other individuals associated with the Service Provider arising out of or resulting in any manner from or occurring in connection with the performance of the Services including but not limited to any claims for overtime pay, vacation pay, public holiday pay, notice of termination of employment (or termination pay in lieu of such notice), severance pay, wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, unjust dismissal, mental distress, wages, benefits, bonus, incentive compensation, disability, health, life, or other insurance premium payments or benefits, pension, interest, or any claims under any applicable laws relating to employment standards, labour relations, human rights, pay, equity, employment equity, occupational health and safety and workers’ compensation. 5.2 The Service Provider further acknowledges that the Service Provider, the Service Provider’s employees, servants and agents and any other individuals associated with the Service Provider have no entitlement and shall not have any claim against the City for any compensation or benefits of the type provided by the City to the City’s employees, including, without limitation, overtime pay, vacation pay, public holiday pay, notice of termination (or termination pay in lieu thereof), severance pay, retirement Page 4 of 9 Page 416 of 842 3 benefits, employment insurance, Canada Pension Plan, workers’ compensation, disability, health or life insurance premium payments or benefits, wages, bonus or incentive compensation. 5.3 The City shall not withhold federal, provincial or other taxes and premiums from any amounts payable to the Service Provider. The Service Provider shall be solely responsible for paying, and agrees to pay, such taxes in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Service Provider hereby exonerates, indemnifies and holds the City and its successors, officers, directors, agents and employees harmless from the Service Provider’s failure to comply with any of the obligations required under this Agreement including any liability, loss, cost, expense, damages, claims, fines, penalties, assessments or other actions asserted against the City relating to the non-payment or late payment of such taxes or its failure to comply with federal, provincial and municipal laws. Such indemnification shall include without limitation any liability, loss, cost, expense, damages, claims, fines, penalties or assessments and the City’s expenses (including reasonable legal fees) associated with its defence of any such actions. 5.4 The Service Provider shall be solely responsible for all physical injuries (including death) to persons (including, but not limited to, employees of the City) or damage to property (including but not limited to property of the City or the Service Provider or its employees, servants or agents or any other individuals associated with Service Provider) resulting from the negligent acts of the Service Provider or the Service Provider’s employees or individuals associated with Service Provider, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from loss and liability in respect of any and all claims on account of such injuries or damage. Such indemnification shall include indemnification for acts of the Service Provider’s employees and any individuals associated with the Service Provider that constitute crimes, such as theft, and intentional misbehaviour, while at any City facilities. The Service Provider shall be responsible for workers’ compensation claims filed by the Service Provider’s employees, servants or agents and any individuals associated with the City. 5.5 The Service Provider shall maintain a minimum of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in general liability insurance and auto liability insurance with minimum limits of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) and shall provide proof of such policies of insurance upon request of the City. 6 TERMINATION 6.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party on 30 days’ notice in writing to the contact noted in section 7 herein. Page 5 of 9 Page 417 of 842 4 7 NOTICES 7.1 Any notice, request or other communication hereunder to either of the parties hereto in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and be well and sufficiently given if sent by prepaid registered mail or delivered to the other party at its address as follows: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario, L2E 6X5 Attention: Director of Finance Niagara Falls Art Gallery 8058 Oakwood Drive Niagara Falls, Ontario, L2G 0J1 Attention: Debra Attenborough, Executive Director 7.2 Any notice to either party may be given by prepaid registered mail addressed to such party at its address as above stated and any notice so given shall be deemed to have been duly given on the second business day after which the envelope containing the notice was deposited, prepaid and registered in a post office. In the event of an interruption of mail service, all notices shall be delivered by personal delivery on the other party. 8 ENTIRE AGREEMENT 8.1 This Agreement supersedes and replaces any prior agreements (oral or written) between the City and the Service Provider with respect to the Services, and expressly discharges the City from any and all obligations and any existing or potential liabilities or claims arising out of any prior agreements for services. This Agreement (and the documents incorporated by reference in this Agreement) contains the entire agreement between the parties. Neither the parties, nor their agents, shall be bound by any terms, conditions, statements, warranties or representations not herein contained. No modification, extension or alteration of this Agreement shall be legally binding on either party unless executed in the same manner and form as this Agreement. The Service Provider shall not subcontract any portion of this Agreement, or the Services required hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City. Page 6 of 9 Page 418 of 842 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto executed this Agreement this 10th day of May, 2022. NIAGARA FALLS ART GALLERY Per: Name: Debra Attenborough Title: Executive Director Name: Title: I/We have authority to bind the corporation THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Per: Katharine Moldenhauer Director of Recreation & Culture Page 7 of 9 Page 419 of 842 6 SCHEDULE “A” DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AND DUTIES 1.Art Education and Leisure programming. 2.The Service Provider shall be responsible for the provision of the described Service and deliverables as described above and shall report to the following City official(s): Katharine Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation & Culture 3.The primary person(s) responsible for delivery of the Services on behalf of the Service Provider under this Agreement is/are as follows Niagara Falls Art Gallery staff under the direction of Executive Director, Debra Attenborough 4.Satisfactory Service delivery under this Agreement is defined as: Provide preschool, children, youth and adult art programming for the residents of Niagara Falls; Provide minimum number of programming hours: •2 hours/week for preschool; •6 hours/week for children; •2 hours/week for youth; •4 hours/week for adults and older adults 5.Service Providers must submit an annual report to applicable Director/Manager by January 30th of the following year which highlights the organization’s mandate, a detailed description of the Services provided and outcomes achieved through the agreement, the impact on the community as the result of the Services provided, plus a financial statement outlining how the City’s funding was utilized. This report should also include three year trend information about the particular Service’s utilization, establishing need for the fee for Service arrangements. Page 8 of 9 Page 420 of 842 7 SCHEDULE “B” FEES AND PAYMENT The Service Provider shall provide the Services for a total fee of Twenty-Eight Thousand DOLLARS $28,000.00 for 2022, payable according to the following schedule: (12) Monthly payments of $2,334.00. Page 9 of 9 Page 421 of 842 R&C-2022-09 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: May 10, 2022 Title: The dissolution of the Coronation 50 Plus Advisory Committee and the Rescinding of the Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Centre Constitution Recommendation(s) That council approve the dissolution of the Coronation 50 Plus Advisory Committee and to rescind the Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Centre constitution. Executive Summary At the September 14, 2021 City Council meeting, Council approved to initiate the proc ess of relocating the Coronation Centre older adult programs and activities to the MacBain Community Centre and to initiate a re-branding of the name and to increase the membership age to sixty years old. In light of these alternative collaborative changes, it is requested to dissolute the Advisory Committee and its members be released and discharged from all further responsibilities related to the Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Centre. As a result of the dissolution of the Advisory Committee the constitution is no longer relevant to its purpose and considered obsolete. Therefore it is requested to rescind the constitution. Background The City of Niagara Falls took ownership of the Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Centre in 2001. An Advisory Committee was established in 2002 with its primary goal to provide suggestions and recommendations on the provision of programs and services on behalf of the members of the centre. In addition the membership was governed by a constitution that outlined the fundamental principles as to how the centre operated, its working committees and by-laws. The Centre has now moved location and its services to the MacBain Community Centre. Due to the new operational measures, the Constitution and Advisory Committee are deemed redundant. Analysis In lieu of the Coronation Advisory Committee it is intended for the Mayors Senior Advisory Committee (SAC) to advise on any matters pertaining to Older Adults aged 60 Plus in the City of Niagara Falls. Page 1 of 2 Page 422 of 842 Financial Implications/Budget Impact Staff will continue educating and informing the membership of the Older Adults 60 plus of programs and information. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The City of Niagara Falls is committed to being transparent and accountable to our residents, providing easy access to information. Contributor(s) Hanya Nagy Written by: Jackie Droganes-Dobbie, Recreation and Culture Administrator Submitted by: Status: Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation & Culture Approved - 29 Apr 2022 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 May 2022 Page 2 of 2 Page 423 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo To:Bill Matson Subject:RE: 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest - June 17, 18, 19 2022 From: Scott Wright <swright@gordonwrightltd.com> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 2:29 PM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest - June 17, 18, 19 2022 Hi Bill, I have attached the application with the letter and a copy of our site plan. Thanks for your clarification below. If there is any way that our request to be declared a ‘Community Festival’ could be added to the April 12th meeting agenda, we would greatly appreciate it – we need that to submit with our Special Occasion Permit with the AGCO for our liquor licence – I’m afraid that if we don’t get that until after May 10 th that it may be really tight for us to get our licence by June 17 th. I apologise that I didn’t get the request letter to you sooner but our committee had to decide whether we would be proceeding with the full Ribfest event or another Drive Thru Ribfest like we did for the last 2 years. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Scott Wright, P. Eng., President and General Manager Gordon Wright Electric Limited 6255 Don Murie Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2G 0B1 P (905) 356-5730 F (905) 356-4588 Cell (905) 651-2432 E-mail swright@gordonwrightltd.com From: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: April 7, 2022 11:17 AM To: Scott Wright <swright@gordonwrightltd.com> Cc: Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest - June 17, 18, 19 2022 Scott, Page 424 of 842 2 There is a meeting on April 12th however the agenda has already been sent to Council. Then the next meeting is May 10th, a little later than usual due to the Easter long weekend. Bill From: Scott Wright <swright@gordonwrightltd.com> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 10:49 AM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest - June 17, 18, 19 2022 Hi Bill, Thanks for getting back to me. Yes I will complete the attached application form and get it back to you today. Is the May 10th Council meeting the next earliest meeting? Thanks, Scott Wright, P. Eng., President and General Manager Gordon Wright Electric Limited 6255 Don Murie Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2G 0B1 P (905) 356-5730 F (905) 356-4588 Cell (905) 651-2432 E-mail swright@gordonwrightltd.com From: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: April 7, 2022 10:33 AM To: Scott Wright <swright@gordonwrightltd.com> Cc: Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest - June 17, 18, 19 2022 Scott, This is something we can bring to the May 10th Council meeting for approval. In the meantime, could you take a few minutes to fill out the Fee Waiver Application form attached so we can present that request to Council. Bill Matson | City Clerk | Director of Clerks Services | City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | (905) 356-7521 ext 4342 | Fax 905-356-9083 | billmatson@niagarafalls.ca From: Scott Wright <swright@gordonwrightltd.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:50 AM Page 425 of 842 3 To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: 2022 Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest - June 17, 18, 19 2022 Hi Bill, It’s that time of year again – I have attached our letter requesting our 2022 Rotary Ribfest be declared a Community Event. I have also attached a separate letter requesting that the City Licence fees be waved for our event. We would appreciate it if you could advise us of the status of City Council meetings and when this item could be added to the City Council agenda. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else. Thanks, Scott Wright, P. Eng., Co-Chair of Niagara Falls Rotary Ribfest On behalf of the 2022 Ribfest Committee Contact information: Gordon Wright Electric Limited 6255 Don Murie Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2G 0B1 P (905) 356-5730 F (905) 356-4588 Cell (905) 651-2432 E-mail swright@gordonwrightltd.com Page 426 of 842 A Great City … For Generations To Come 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Director of Municipal Works / City Engineer enickel@niagarafalls.ca www.niagarafalls.ca Mayor Diodati and City Council Members April 26, 2022 City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Dear Mayor Diodati and City Council Members, RE: Request for Proclamation: National Public Works Week, May 15-21 Theme: “Ready and Resilient” On behalf of the many women and men employed to serve our community in the Municipal Works Division, your consideration to proclaim May 15 to 21, 2022 in the City of Niagara Falls as National Public Works Week is kindly requested. Ensuring our community has uninterrupted access to clean drinking water, safe roadways, and high-quality recreational amenities, and that our natural environment is protected and preserved, amongst a multitude of other things takes the collective efforts of all those working in Public Works including our engineers, managers, equipment operators, skilled labourers and employees at all levels of government and the private sector. The year 2022 marks the 62nd National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association and its Canadian affiliates. I would be personally delighted to have Niagara Falls recognize the contributions of Public Works employees here in in the City and join in with municipalities, provinces, territories and other jurisdictions across Canada and the United States in doing the same. Yours in service to the Community, Erik Nickel, P. Eng., Director of Municipal Works / City Engineer Page 427 of 842 His/Her Worship Mayor, I’m writing to you on behalf of Nature Canada’s ocean protection team with an opportunity to help create positive change for your community, and the natural world we all rely on. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. With it comes the duty to be leaders in protecting and restoring the ocean. As part of the Global Deal for Nature in the Paris Accords, our government has promised to protect 30 percent of oceans by 2030 through establishing Marine Protected Areas. In 2015 only one percent of Canadian oceans were protected. But as of 2020, due advocacy by Canadians like you, nearly 14 percent of the world’s oceans are now safeguarded for generations to come. Municipalities can be powerful change agents in the goal to protect 30 percent of the world’s oceans by 2030. We have seen this leadership in action in combating climate change, when cities and towns across the world stepped up to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and pressured federal governments to do the same. Whether on the coast or far inland, municipalities rely on ocean ecosystems for seafood production, climate regulation, and the preservation of unique and beautiful animals and ecosystems. Municipalities are on the front lines of climate change and feel effects firsthand, from extreme heat to extreme precipitation. Reaching our ocean protection goal will help us win the fight against global warming.Municipalities are on the front lines of climate change and feel effects firsthand, from extreme heat to extreme precipitation. The oceans play a pivotal role counteracting climate change as the largest carbon sink, providing more than half our oxygen while storing fifty times more carbon than the atmosphere. Oceans also regulate weather, helping to balance the uneven distribution of solar radiation. Here’s why we need you: Your voice as a municipality can influence national governments and have a direct effect on the quality of life for your residents. It’s as easy as having the council pass the attached resolution. By taking this simple step, you will be helping our policy team show government officials that Canadians support National Marine Protected Areas and encourage them to implement effective policies. It would mean a great deal to us if you could sign on to help secure a future for our generation and the generations to come. In solidarity with you and with our natural world, Paul Gregory Senior Oceans Campaigner Nature Canada is one of the oldest national nature conservation charities in Canada. For 80 years, we’ve helped protect over 110 million acres of parks and wildlife areas in Canada and countless species. Today, Nature Canada represents a network of over 130,000 members and supporters, guided by more than 1,200 nature organizations. Page 428 of 842 A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MUNICIPALITY X RECOGNIZING AND CELEBRATING WORLD OCEANS DAY 2022 AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF OCEAN CONSERVATION IN CANADA WHEREAS, Wednesday, June 8, 2022, is the 30th annual World Ocean’s Day. World Oceans Day is the United Nations day for celebrating the role of the ocean in everyday life and inspiring action to protect it. WHEREAS, Countries around the world, including Canada as a prominent leader, have committed to protecting 30% of their ocean territory by 2030 in order to reverse nature loss in the ocean and safeguard at-risk marine life. WHEREAS, The ocean is home to hundreds of species at risk, vulnerable ecosystems, and is a crucial carbon sink shielding us from the worst of climate change. WHEREAS, The ocean produces over half of the world’s oxygen and absorbs 50 times more carbon dioxide than our atmosphere. Therefore protecting the ocean is in the interest of all life on Earth, and communities both coastal and inland, as it is essential to our shared future. WHEREAS, It is the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, under various pieces of legislation and regulation, to establish marine protected areas in consultation with Indigenous Peoples.Many Indigenous nations and communities are leading in the conservation of the ocean, and have been stewards of the ocean since time immemorial. WHEREAS, It is important for municipal leaders to demonstrate support for actions to safeguard the ocean, as they have for action on climate change and other environmental matters of national importance. WHEREAS, In celebrating the ocean, and protecting its habitats and ecosystems, we can together raise the profile of ocean conservation’s critical role in improving planetary health and slowing the crisis of species collapse and ecosystem decline. Therefore be it resolved that the MUNICIPALITY OF X recognizes the 30th anniversary of World Oceans Day on June 8th, 2022 and supports national and international efforts to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030. Page 429 of 842 Apr 27, 2022 Historic Drummondville - Main & Ferry BIA Rick Tisi, Chairman 5974 Main Street Niagara Falls, ON Mayor Diodati & Members of Council, The Main & Ferry Business Improvement Association Board, have enclosed their 2022 Budget for Council’s approval. The AGM took place on March 9, 2022. The Board prepared a revised budget in March 2022 which was approved during the Main & Ferry BIA virtual meeting. The Board has put in reserve the finances required to cover expenses if levy payments are short in receivable in 2022. The Main & Ferry BIA Board is committed to support our small business by working together as a BIA for promoting new world ecommerce, pick-up and deliveries stops, and social awareness programs which are important for our restaurants & retail businesses. Main & Ferry BIA confirmed their commitment of support for the City of Niagara Falls Cultural Hub & Farmers Market “The Exchange”. As development continues, we as a board recognize the importance of a legacy that we can all be proud of to stimulate the city’s cultural and small business, and look forward to its long awaited opening. Yours sincerely Historic Drummondville BIA HISTORICDRUMMONDVILLE.COM historicdrummondville@gmail.com Rick Tisi, Chair Page 430 of 842 Apr 27, 2022 2022 Levy Debit Credit 2021 Levy - Annual $500 Quarterly Payments (+ $125 from 2021) Based on 78 properties $ 47,999.64 Opperating Auditor Report – City’s 3rd Party Report (2020)$ 4,500.00 Miscellaneous (Postage, Printing, Misc.)$ 500.00 Insurance $ 2,500.00 Quickbooks Online $ 240.00 AGM Advertising (Niagara Falls Review)$ 152.55 Online Banking (basic for Quickbooks, Banking Fee to link with Quickbooks)$ 60.00 Marketing Domain Name $ - Go Daddy Hosting $ 239.88 Social Advertising - Invittico (Matt & Umberto) Possible allocation elsewhere $ 14,500.00 Staff Liaison (Government/Business) Building Stakeholder Partnerships - liaison between the board, business, community and government. $ 20,000.00 Street Scaping Hanging Baskets Plants & Seasonal Maintenance $ 17,930.79 From 2021 Budget - Banners $ 6,000.00 Partnerships/Sponsorships Co-op Money From Exchange - Banners $ 3,000.00 From 2021 Budget - Market Legacy (Naming/Plaque)$ 10,000.00 Totals $ 76,623.22 $ 50,999.64 $ 25,623.58 Historic Drummondville BIA HISTORICDRUMMONDVILLE.COM historicdrummondville@gmail.com Page 431 of 842 LLBIA Revised 2022 Annual Budget - Approved by LLBIA Board May 5, 2022 REVENUE 2022 Revised Budget (June 17) Tax Levy Requisition from City 220,000.00 Investment Income 3,000.00 Net Revenue 223,000.00 Less: Expected Taxes written off by City 5,000.00 TOTAL REVENUE 218,000.00 Marketing Website 18,000.00 Artwork & Production 10,000.00 Social Media Ads, Adwords 10,000.00 TODS Signage 11,700.00 Website Hosting 700.00 Website Domains & Maintenance 300.00 Out of Town Marketing 5,000.00 Media Library / Videos 6,500.00 Billboard Campaign 12,000.00 Contingency 12,000.00 Total Marketing 86,200.00 Events New Years Eve 7,500.00 WFOL 2,500.00 Restaurant Week + New Event 8,000.00 Page 432 of 842 Total Events 18,000.00 Memberships & Conferences OBIAA 675.00 OBIAA Convention + Professional Development 1,285.00 FEO - FEO Convention - Total Membership & Conferences 1,960.00 Beautification Banners, Brackets & Bus Shelter Branding 32,000.00 Planters & Winter Greens 25,000.00 Repairs to Banner & Basket Arms - Total Beautification:57,000.00 Administration Project Administrator 40,000.00 Project Administrator - Expenses 1,000.00 Digital Marketing & Website Coordinator - Audit Expense 4,600.00 Bank Charges & Interest 140.00 Book Keeping 3,050.00 Insurance - Director's Liability $5M 3,000.00 Legal Fees 1,000.00 Mail Box 200.00 Meeting Expenses 250.00 Member Communications 100.00 Office Expenses 1,000.00 Misc Expense 500.00 Page 433 of 842 Total Administration 54,840.00 Total Operational Expense 218,000.00 NET OPERATIONAL INCOME - nil Page 434 of 842 CV FA CHIPPAWA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION May 01, 2022 City of Niagara Falls Chief Building Official 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, On Re: Special Occasion Permit and Noise Control By-Law To whom this may concern, On July 15 & 16, 2022, the Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Association (CVFA) will be hosting the Annual SPN Slo-Pitch Tournament and Street Dance. As part of the event, the CVFA has hired a number of bands to play the street dance on Saturday July 16th.The location of the street dance will be at the Chippawa Lions Park. We have enclosed a map of the planned event for your files. Additionally, we would like to ask for an extension of the Noise By-Law to 11:30pm for this event. Bands are scheduled to start playing at 5pm. As a non-profit organization, the monies raised from this event, as well as our other events are donated to such initiatives as: Student scholarships, Project Share donations that directly support residents of Chippawa and Breakfast Club to name a few. Should you require any further information, or if we may be of any assistance, please feel free to contact our Social Coordinator Brian Winrow at 905 651 9673 or Ken Prohaszka at 905 295 6317. Sincerely, Isabel Beland CVFA Secretary 8696 Banting Ave Niagara Falls, On L2G 6Z8 vox: 905 295 4398 email:chippawafire@gmail.com Page 435 of 842 .20..im. 1wxrw.uw2n.w_o%m¢ O?,?%uM7?. 1./omwmA%,?<;,§wo Fr:52...»mazm D./FF@m©0330 '33§¥‘<>\c5\LN} ‘#305%?»ML?r/r0ZWHLVC[WumfE$.>$T ?-9%-:a—~ Page 436 of 842 April 12 2022 RE: MORE HOMES FOR EVERYONE ACT At the meeting held on April 6, 2022, Council of the Township of Mulmur passed the following resolution regarding the More Homes for Everyone Act. Moved by Clark and Seconded by Hawkins WHEREAS Council supports removing red tape and expediting the creation of affordable housing through the proper review and approval AND WHEREAS Council values citizen input, professional planning recommendations and elected Official decision making; NOW THEREFORE, Council provides the following comments on Bill 109: 1. Final Decision making should rest with elected officials 2. Planner’s recommendations should be subject to public input and local expertise 3. Ratepayers should not be subsidizing development app lications through refunds to application fees intended to cover the cost of processing applications 4. That a definition of minor rezoning has not been established 5. Planners should not be put in a position of having to be experts and decision makers over all other disciplines 6. Delegating authority for site plans and creating penalties for site plan and minor rezonings will not solve housing crisis, as the proposed legislation targets single lot developments opposed to large scale residential development AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Province of Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Environmental Registry, the County of Dufferin and all Ontario municipalities. CARRIED. Sincerely, Tracey Atkinson Tracey Atkinson, CAO/Clerk/Planner Township of Mulmur Page 437 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Page 438 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 2 Contents Letter to Minister Clark .......................................................................3 Executive summary and recommendations ...............................4 Introduction ............................................................................................6 Focus on getting more homes built ..............................................9 Making land available to build .......................................................10 Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs ........................................................15 Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent ....................................18 Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply .............................................................22 Conclusion ..........................................................................................26 Appendix A: Biographies of Task Force Members ................27 Appendix B: Affordable Housing .................................................29 Appendix C: Government Surplus Land ....................................31 Appendix D: Surety Bonds ............................................................32 References ..........................................................................................33 Page 439 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 3 Letter to Minister Clark Dear Minister Clark, Hard-working Ontarians are facing a housing crisis. For many years, the province has not built enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population. While the affordability crisis began in our large cities, it has now spread to smaller towns and rural communities. Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to home buyers. The long-term trend is clear: house prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now. When striking the Housing Affordability Task Force, you and Premier Ford were clear: you wanted actionable, concrete solutions to help Ontarians and there was no time to waste. You asked us to be bold and gave us the freedom and independence to develop our recommendations. In the past two months, we have met municipal leaders, planners, unions, developers and builders, the financial sector, academics, think tanks and housing advocates. Time was short, but solutions emerged consistently around these themes: • More housing density across the province • End exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing • Depoliticize the housing approvals process • Prevent abuse of the housing appeals system • Financial support to municipalities that build more housing We present this report to you not as an “all or nothing” proposal, but rather as a list of options that the government has at its disposal to help address housing affordability for Ontarians and get more homes built. We propose an ambitious but achievable target: 1.5 million new homes built in the next ten years. Parents and grandparents are worried that their children will not be able to afford a home when they start working or decide to start a family. Too many Ontarians are unable to live in their preferred city or town because they cannot afford to buy or rent. The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians. The balance has swung too far in favour of lengthy consultations, bureaucratic red tape, and costly appeals. It is too easy to oppose new housing and too costly to build. We are in a housing crisis and that demands immediate and sweeping reforms. It has been an honour to serve as Chair, and I am proud to submit this report on behalf of the entire Task Force. Jake Lawrence Chair, Housing Affordability Task Force Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets, Scotiabank Page 440 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 4 Executive summary and recommendations House prices in Ontario have almost tripled in the past 10 years, growing much faster than incomes. This has home ownership beyond the reach of most first-time buyers across the province, even those with well-paying jobs. Housing has become too expensive for rental units and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. The system is not working as it should. For too long, we have focused on solutions to “cool” the housing market. It is now clear that we do not have enough homes to meet the needs of Ontarians today, and we are not building enough to meet the needs of our growing population. If this problem is not fixed – by creating more housing to meet the growing demand – housing prices will continue to rise. We need to build more housing in Ontario. This report sets out recommendations that would set a bold goal and clear direction for the province, increase density, remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth, prevent abuse of the appeals process, and make sure municipalities are treated as partners in this process by incentivizing success. Setting bold targets and making new housing the planning priority Recommendations 1 and 2 urge Ontario to set a bold goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years and update planning guidance to make this a priority. The task force then recommends actions in five main areas to increase supply: Require greater density Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways, and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing on undeveloped land should also be higher density than traditional suburbs, especially close to highways. Adding density in all these locations makes better use of infrastructure and helps to save land outside urban boundaries. Implementing these recommendations will provide Ontarians with many more options for housing. Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario can quickly create more housing supply by allowing more housing in more locations “as of right” (without the need for municipal approval) and make better use of transportation investments. Reduce and streamline urban design rules Municipalities require numerous studies and set all kinds of rules for adding housing, many of which go well beyond the requirements of the provincial Planning Act. While some of this guidance has value for urban design, some rules appear to be arbitrary and not supported by evidence – for example, requiring condo buildings to include costly parking stalls even though many go unsold. These rules and requirements result in delays and extra costs that make housing either impossible to build or very expensive for the eventual home buyer or renter. Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial standards for urban design, including building shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical character over new housing, no longer require municipal approval of design matters like a building’s colour, texture, type of material or window details, and remove or reduce parking requirements in cities over 50,000 in population. Page 441 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 5 Depoliticize the process and cut red tape NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a major obstacle to building housing. It drags out the approval process, pushes up costs, and keeps out new residents. Because local councillors depend on the votes of residents who want to keep the status quo, the planning process has become politicized. Municipalities allow far more public consultation than is required, often using formats that make it hard for working people and families with young children to take part. Too few technical decisions are delegated to municipal staff. Pressure to designate buildings with little or no heritage value as “heritage” if development is proposed and bulk listings of properties with “heritage potential” are also standing in the way of getting homes built. Dysfunction throughout the system, risk aversion and needless bureaucracy have resulted in a situation where Ontario lags the rest of Canada and the developed world in approval times. Ontarians have waited long enough. Recommendations 13 through 25 would require municipalities to limit consultations to the legislated maximum, ensure people can take part digitally, mandate the delegation of technical decisions, prevent abuse of the heritage process and see property owners compensated for financial loss resulting from designation, restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews, legislate timelines for approvals and enact several other common sense changes that would allow housing to be built more quickly and affordably. Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal Largely because of the politicization of the planning process, many proponents look to the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, to give the go-ahead to projects that should have been approved by the municipality. Even when there is municipal approval, however, opponents appeal to the Tribunal – paying only a $400 fee – knowing that this may well succeed in delaying a project to the point where it might no longer make economic sense. As a result, the Tribunal faces a backlog of more than 1,000 cases and is seriously under-resourced. Recommendations 26 through 31 seek to weed out or prevent appeals aimed purely at delaying projects, allow adjudicators to award costs to proponents in more cases, including instances where a municipality has refused an approval to avoid missing a legislated deadline, reduce the time to issue decisions, increase funding, and encourage the Tribunal to prioritize cases that would increase housing supply quickly as it tackles the backlog. Support municipalities that commit to transforming the system Fixing the housing crisis needs everyone working together. Delivering 1.5 million homes will require the provincial and federal governments to invest in change. Municipalities that make the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing supply should be rewarded, and those that resist new housing should see funding reductions. Recommendations 49 and 50 call for Ontario government to create a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding, and suggest how the province should reward municipalities that support change and reduce funding for municipalities that do not. This executive summary focuses on the actions that will get the most housing units approved and built in the shortest time. Other recommendations in the report deal with issues that are important but may take more time to resolve or may not directly increase supply (recommendation numbers are indicated in brackets): improving tax and municipal financing (32-37, 39, 42-44); encouraging new pathways to home ownership (38, 40, 41); and addressing labour shortages in the construction industry (45-47 ). This is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”. There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing housing prices and find solutions. This time must be different. Recommendations 50-55 set out ways of helping to ensure real and concrete progress on providing the homes Ontarians need. Page 442 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 6 Introduction Ontario is in a housing crisis. Prices are skyrocketing: the average price for a house across Ontario was $923,000 at the end of 2021.[1] Ten years ago, the average price was $329,000.[2] Over that period, average house prices have climbed 180% while average incomes have grown roughly 38%.[3] [4] Not long ago, hard-working Ontarians – teachers, construction workers, small business owners – could afford the home they wanted. In small towns, it was reasonable to expect that you could afford a home in the neighbourhood you grew up in. Today, home ownership or finding a quality rental is now out of reach for too many Ontarians. The system is not working as it should be. Housing has become too expensive for rental units and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. While people who were able to buy a home a decade or more ago have built considerable personal equity, the benefits of having a home aren’t just financial. Having a place to call home connects people to their community, creates a gathering place for friends and family, and becomes a source of pride. Today, the reality for an ever-increasing number of Ontarians is quite different. Everyone in Ontario knows people who are living with the personal and financial stress of not being able to find housing they can afford. The young family who can’t buy a house within two hours of where they work. The tenant with a good job who worries about where she’ll find a new apartment she can afford if the owner decides to sell. The recent graduate who will have to stay at home for a few more years before he can afford to rent or buy. While the crisis is widespread, it weighs more heavily on some groups than on others. Young people starting a family who need a larger home find themselves priced out of the market. Black, Indigenous and marginalized people face even greater challenges. As Ontarians, we have only recently begun to understand and address the reality of decades of systemic racism that has resulted in lower household incomes, making the housing affordability gap wider than average. The high cost of housing has pushed minorities and lower income Ontarians further and further away from job markets. Black and Indigenous homeownership rates are less than half of the provincial average.[5] And homelessness rates among Indigenous Peoples are 11 times the national average. When housing prevents an individual from reaching their full potential, this represents a loss to every Ontarian: lost creativity, productivity, and revenue. Lost prosperity for individuals and for the entire Ontario economy. Average price for a house across Ontario 2021 $923,000 $329,000 2011 +180%+38 % Over 1 0 Years average house prices have climbed while average incomes have grown Page 443 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 7 As much as we read about housing affordability being a challenge in major cities around the world, the depth of the challenge has become greater in Ontario and Canada than almost anywhere in the developed world. How did we get here? Why do we have this problem? A major factor is that there just isn’t enough housing. A 2021 Scotiabank study showed that Canada has the fewest housing units per population of any G7 country – and, our per capita housing supply has dropped in the past five years.[6] An update to that study released in January 2022 found that two thirds of Canada’s housing shortage is in Ontario.[7] Today, Ontario is 1.2 million homes – rental or owned – short of the G7 average. With projected population growth, that huge gap is widening, and bridging it will take immediate, bold and purposeful effort. And to support population growth in the next decade, we will need one million more homes. While governments across Canada have taken steps to “cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases. Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we need to build more housing in Ontario. Ontario must build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years to address the supply shortage The housing crisis impacts all Ontarians. The ripple effect of the crisis also holds back Ontario reaching its full potential. Economy Businesses of all sizes are facing problems finding and retaining workers. Even high-paying jobs in technology and manufacturing are hard to fill because there’s not enough housing nearby. This doesn’t just dampen the economic growth of cities, it makes them less vibrant, diverse, and creative, and strains their ability to provide essential services. Public services Hospitals, school boards and other public service providers across Ontario report challenges attracting and retaining staff because of housing costs. One town told us that it could no longer maintain a volunteer fire department, because volunteers couldn’t afford to live within 10 minutes drive of the firehall. Environment Long commutes contribute to air pollution and carbon emissions. An international survey of 74 cities in 16 countries found that Toronto, at 96 minutes both ways, had the longest commute times in North America and was essentially tied with Bogota, Colombia, for the longest commute time worldwide.[8] Increasing density in our cities and around major transit hubs helps reduce emissions to the benefit of everyone. Our mandate and approach Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing tasked us with recommending ways to accelerate our progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve housing affordability. Time is of the essence. Building housing now is exactly what our post-pandemic economy needs. Housing construction creates good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced to other countries. Moreover, the pandemic gave rise to unprecedented levels of available capital that can be invested in housing – if we can just put it to work. We represent a wide range of experience and perspectives that includes developing, financing and building homes, delivering affordable housing, and researching housing market trends, challenges and solutions. Our detailed biographies appear as Appendix A. Canada has the lowest amount of housing per population of any G7 country. We acknowledge that every house in Ontario is built on the traditional territory of Indigenous Peoples. 1.5MOntario must build homes over the next 10 years to address the supply shortage. Page 444 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 8 Our mandate was to focus on how to increase market housing supply and affordability. By market housing, we are referring to homes that can be purchased or rented without government support. Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates with government support) was not part of our mandate. The Minister and his cabinet colleagues are working on that issue. Nonetheless, almost every stakeholder we spoke with had ideas that will help deliver market housing and also make it easier to deliver affordable housing. However, affordable housing is a societal responsibility and will require intentional investments and strategies to bridge the significant affordable housing gap in this province. We have included a number of recommendations aimed at affordable housing in the body of this report, but have also included further thoughts in Appendix B. We note that government-owned land was also outside our mandate. Many stakeholders, however, stressed the value of surplus or underused public land and land associated with major transit investments in finding housing solutions. We agree and have set out some thoughts on that issue in Appendix C. How we did our work Our Task Force was struck in December 2021 and mandated to deliver a final report to the Minister by the end of January 2022. We were able to work to that tight timeline because, in almost all cases, viewpoints and feasible solutions are well known. In addition, we benefited from insights gleaned from recent work to solve the problem in other jurisdictions. During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over 140 organizations and individuals, including industry associations representing builders and developers, planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions; social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal level; academics and research groups; and municipal planners. We also received written submissions from many of these participants. In addition, we drew on the myriad public reports and papers listed in the References. We thank everyone who took part in sessions that were uniformly helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the housing crisis and the way out of it. We also thank the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who provided logistical and other support, including technical briefings and background. The way forward The single unifying theme across all participants over the course of the Task Force’s work has been the urgency to take decisive action. Today’s housing challenges are incredibly complex. Moreover, developing land, obtaining approvals, and building homes takes years. Some recommendations will produce immediate benefits, others will take years for the full impact. This is why there is no time to waste. We urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his cabinet colleagues to continue measures they have already taken to accelerate housing supply and to move quickly in turning the recommendations in this report into decisive new actions. The province must set an ambitious and bold goal to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If we build 1.5 million new homes over the next ten years, Ontario can fill the housing gap with more affordable choices, catch up to the rest of Canada and keep up with population growth. By working together, we can resolve Ontario’s housing crisis. In so doing, we can build a more prosperous future for everyone. The balance of this report lays out our recommendations. People in households that spend 30% or more of total household income on shelter expenses are defined as having a “housing affordability” problem. Shelter expenses include electricity, oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, water and other municipal services, monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, condominium fees, and rent. Page 445 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 9 Focus on getting more homes built Resolving a crisis requires intense focus and a clear goal. The province is responsible for the legislation and policy that establishes the planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide municipalities, land tribunals, and courts. Municipalities are then responsible for implementing provincial policy in a way that works for their communities. The province is uniquely positioned to lead by shining a spotlight on this issue, setting the tone, and creating a single, galvanizing goal around which federal support, provincial legislation, municipal policy, and the housing market can be aligned. In 2020, Ontario built about 75,000 housing units.[9] For this report, we define a housing unit (home) as a single dwelling (detached, semi-detached, or attached), apartment, suite, condominium or mobile home. Since 2018, housing completions have grown every year as a result of positive measures that the province and some municipalities have implemented to encourage more home building. But we are still 1.2 million homes short when compared to other G7 countries and our population is growing. The goal of 1.5 million homes feels daunting – but reflects both the need and what is possible. In fact, throughout the 1970s Ontario built more housing units each year than we do today.[10] The second recommendation is designed to address the growing complexity and volume of rules in the legislation, policy, plans and by-laws, and their competing priorities, by providing clear direction to provincial agencies, municipalities, tribunals, and courts on the overriding priorities for housing. 1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in ten years. 2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as the most important residential housing priorities in the mandate and purpose. The “missing middle” is often cited as an important part of the housing solution. We define the missing middle as mid-rise condo or rental housing, smaller houses on subdivided lots or in laneways and other additional units in existing houses. Page 446 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 10 Making land available to build The Greater Toronto Area is bordered on one side by Lake Ontario and on the other by the protected Greenbelt. Similarly, the Ottawa River and another Greenbelt constrain land supply in Ottawa, the province’s second-largest city. But a shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem. Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts. We need to make better use of land. Zoning defines what we can build and where we can build. If we want to make better use of land to create more housing, then we need to modernize our zoning rules. We heard from planners, municipal councillors, and developers that “as of right” zoning – the ability to by-pass long, drawn out consultations and zoning by-law amendments – is the most effective tool in the provincial toolkit. We agree. Stop using exclusionary zoning that restricts more housing Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules. For example, it’s estimated that 70% of land zoned for housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes.[11] This type of zoning prevents homeowners from adding additional suites to create housing for Ontarians and income for themselves. As one person said, “my neighbour can tear down what was there to build a monster home, but I’m not allowed to add a basement suite to my home.” While less analysis has been done in other Ontario communities, it’s estimated that about half of all residential land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing, meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law. In some suburbs around Toronto, single unit zoning dominates residential land use, even close to GO Transit stations and major highways. One result is that more growth is pushing past urban boundaries and turning farmland into housing. Undeveloped land inside and outside existing municipal boundaries must be part of the solution, particularly in northern and rural communities, but isn’t nearly enough on its own. Most of the solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the already small share of land devoted to agriculture. Modernizing zoning would also open the door to more rental housing, which in turn would make communities more inclusive. Allowing more gentle density also makes better use of roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other public services that are already in place and have capacity, instead of having to be built in new areas. The Ontario government took a positive step by allowing secondary suites (e.g., basement apartments) across the province in 2019. However, too many municipalities still place too many restrictions on implementation. For the last three years, the total number of secondary suites in Toronto has actually declined each year, as few units get permitted and owners convert two units into one.[12] These are the types of renovations and home construction performed by small businesses and local trades, providing them with a boost. 70 %It’s estimated that of land zoned for housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes. Page 447 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 11 Underused and vacant commercial and industrial properties are another potential source of land for housing. It was suggested to us that one area ripe for redevelopment into a mix of commercial and residential uses is the strip mall, a leftover from the 1950s that runs along major suburban streets in most large Ontario cities. “As of right” zoning allows more kinds of housing that are accessible to more kinds of people. It makes neighbourhoods stronger, richer, and fairer. And it will get more housing built in existing neighbourhoods more quickly than any other measure. 3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action: a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys on a single residential lot. b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies to remove any barriers to affordable construction and to ensure meaningful implementation (e.g., allow single-staircase construction for up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.). 4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or redundant commercial properties to residential or mixed residential and commercial use. 5. Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway houses province-wide. 6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting rooms within a dwelling) province-wide. 7. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with excess school capacity to benefit families with children. Align investments in roads and transit with growth Governments have invested billions of dollars in highways, light rail, buses, subways and trains in Ontario. But without ensuring more people can live close to those transit routes, we’re not getting the best return on those infrastructure investments. Access to transit is linked to making housing more affordable: when reliable transit options are nearby, people can get to work more easily. They can live further from the centre of the city in less expensive areas without the added cost of car ownership. The impacts of expanding public transit go far beyond serving riders. These investments also spur economic growth and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. We all pay for the cost of transit spending, and we should all share in the benefits. If municipalities achieve the right development near transit – a mix of housing at high- and medium-density, office space and retail – this would open the door to better ways of funding the costs. Other cities, like London, UK and Hong Kong, have captured the impacts of increased land value and business activity along new transit routes to help with their financing. Ontario recently created requirements (residents/hectare) for municipalities to zone for higher density in transit corridors and “major transit station areas”.[13] These are areas surrounding subway and other rapid transit stations and hubs. However, we heard troubling reports that local opposition is blocking access to these neighbourhoods and to critical public transit stations. City staff, councillors, and the province need to stand up to these tactics and speak up for the Ontarians who need housing. The Province is also building new highways in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and it’s important to plan thoughtfully for the communities that will follow from these investments, to make sure they are compact and liveable. Population density (people per km2) Tokyo London New York Toronto 4,200 1,700 450 1,800 Page 448 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 12 8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations within two years if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet provincial density targets. 9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on any streets utilized by public transit (including streets on bus and streetcar routes). 10. Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and residential use all land along transit corridors and redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed commercial and residential zoning in Toronto. 11. Support responsible housing growth on undeveloped land, including outside existing municipal boundaries, by building necessary infrastructure to support higher density housing and complete communities and applying the recommendations of this report to all undeveloped land. Start saying “yes in my backyard” Even where higher density is allowed in theory, the official plans of most cities in Ontario contain conflicting goals like maintaining “prevailing neighbourhood character”. This bias is reinforced by detailed guidance that often follows from the official plan. Although requirements are presented as “guidelines”, they are often treated as rules. Examples include: • Angular plane rules that require successively higher floors to be stepped further back, cutting the number of units that can be built by up to half and making many projects uneconomic • Detailed rules around the shadows a building casts • Guidelines around finishes, colours and other design details One resident’s desire to prevent a shadow being cast in their backyard or a local park frequently prevails over concrete proposals to build more housing for multiple families. By-laws and guidelines that preserve “neighbourhood character” often prevent simple renovations to add new suites to existing homes. The people who suffer are mostly young, visible minorities, and marginalized people. It is the perfect example of a policy that appears neutral on its surface but is discriminatory in its application.[14] Far too much time and money are spent reviewing and holding consultations for large projects which conform with the official plan or zoning by-law and small projects which would cause minimal disruption. The cost of needless delays is passed on to new home buyers and tenants. Minimum parking requirements for each new unit are another example of outdated municipal requirements that increase the cost of housing and are increasingly less relevant with public transit and ride share services. Minimum parking requirements add as much as $165,000 to the cost of a new housing unit, even as demand for parking spaces is falling: data from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario shows that in new condo projects, one in three parking stalls goes unsold. We applaud the recent vote by Toronto City Council to scrap most minimum parking requirements. We believe other cities should follow suit. While true heritage sites are important, heritage preservation has also become a tool to block more housing. For example, some municipalities add thousands of properties at a time to a heritage register because they have “potential” heritage value. Even where a building isn’t heritage designated or registered, neighbours increasingly demand it be as soon as a development is proposed. This brings us to the role of the “not in my backyard” or NIMBY sentiment in delaying or stopping more homes from being built. New housing is often the last priority A proposed building with market and affordable housing units would have increased the midday shadow by 6.5% on a nearby park at the fall and spring equinox, with no impact during the summer months. To conform to a policy that does not permit “new net shadow on specific parks”, seven floors of housing, including 26 affordable housing units, were sacrificed. Multiple dry cleaners along a transit route were designated as heritage sites to prevent new housing being built. It is hard not to feel outrage when our laws are being used to prevent families from moving into neighbourhoods and into homes they can afford along transit routes. Page 449 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 13 NIMBY versus YIMBY NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a large and constant obstacle to providing housing everywhere. Neighbourhood pushback drags out the approval process, pushes up costs and discourages investment in housing. It also keeps out new residents. While building housing is very costly, opposing new housing costs almost nothing. Unfortunately, there is a strong incentive for individual municipal councillors to fall in behind community opposition – it’s existing residents who elect them, not future ones. The outcry of even a handful of constituents (helped by the rise of social media) has been enough, in far too many cases, to persuade their local councillor to vote against development even while admitting its merits in private. There is a sense among some that it’s better to let the Ontario Land Tribunal approve the development on appeal, even if it causes long delays and large cost increases, then to take the political heat. Mayors and councillors across the province are fed up and many have called for limits on public consultations and more “as of right” zoning. In fact, some have created a new term for NIMBYism: BANANAs – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, causing one mayor to comment “NIMBYism has gone BANANAs”. We agree. In a growing, thriving society, that approach is not just bad policy, it is exclusionary and wrong. As a result, technical planning decisions have become politicized. One major city has delegated many decisions to senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote at Council. We heard that this situation is common across the province, creating an electoral incentive for a councillor to delay or stop a housing proposal, or forcing a councillor to pay the electoral cost of supporting it. Approvals of individual housing applications should be the role of professional staff, free from political interference. The pressure to stop any development is now so intense that it has given rise to a counter-movement – YIMBYism, or “yes in my backyard,” led by millennials who recognize entrenched opposition to change as a huge obstacle to finding a home. They provide a voice at public consultations for young people, new immigrants and refugees, minority groups, and Ontarians struggling to access housing by connecting our ideals to the reality of housing. People who welcome immigrants to Canada should welcome them to the neighbourhood, fighting climate change means supporting higher-density housing, and “keeping the neighbourhood the way it is” means keeping it off-limits. While anti-housing voices can be loud, a member of More Neighbours Toronto, a YIMBY group that regularly attends public consultations, has said that the most vocal opponents usually don’t represent the majority in a neighbourhood. Survey data from the Ontario Real Estate Association backs that up, with almost 80% of Ontarians saying they are in favour of zoning in urban areas that would encourage more homes. Ontarians want a solution to the housing crisis. We cannot allow opposition and politicization of individual housing projects to prevent us from meeting the needs of all Ontarians. 12. Create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals system: a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, or plans that prioritize the preservation of physical character of neighbourhood b) Exempt from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units or less that conform to the Official Plan and require only minor variances c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights, angular planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index, and heritage view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements; and d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow larger, more efficient high-density towers. 13. Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings beyond those that are required under the Planning Act. 14. Require that public consultations provide digital participation options. 15. Require mandatory delegation of site plan approvals and minor variances to staff or pre-approved qualified third-party technical consultants through a simplified review and approval process, without the ability to withdraw Council’s delegation. Page 450 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 14 16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process by: a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal heritage registers b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after a Planning Act development application has been filed 17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property owners for loss of property value as a result of heritage designations, based on the principle of best economic use of land. 18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews. We have heard mixed feedback on Committees of Adjustment. While they are seen to be working well in some cities, in others they are seen to simply add another lengthy step in the process. We would urge the government to first implement our recommendation to delegate minor variances and site plan approvals to municipal staff and then assess whether Committees of Adjustment are necessary and an improvement over staff-level decision making. Page 451 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 15 Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: of 35 OECD countries, only the Slovak Republic takes longer than Canada to approve a building project. The UK and the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety. And they save home buyers and tenants money as a result, making housing more affordable.[15] A 2020 survey of development approval times in 23 Canadian cities shows Ontario seriously lagging: Hamilton (15th), Toronto (17th), Ottawa (21st) with approval times averaging between 20-24 months. These timelines do not include building permits, which take about two years for an apartment building in Toronto. Nor did they count the time it takes for undeveloped land to be designated for housing, which the study notes can take five to ten years.[16] Despite the good intentions of many people involved in the approvals and home-building process, decades of dysfunction in the system and needless bureaucracy have made it too difficult for housing approvals to keep up with the needs of Ontarians. There appear to be numerous reasons why Ontario performs so poorly against other Canadian cities and the rest of the developed world. We believe that the major problems can be summed up as: • Too much complexity in the planning process, with the page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and by-laws growing every year • Too many studies, guidelines, meetings and other requirements of the type we outlined in the previous section, including many that go well beyond the scope of Ontario’s Planning Act • Reviews within municipalities and with outside agencies that are piecemeal, duplicative (although often with conflicting outcomes) and poorly coordinated • Process flaws that include reliance on paper • Some provincial policies that are more relevant to urban development but result in burdensome, irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural and northern communities. All of this has contributed to widespread failure on the part of municipalities to meet required timelines. The provincial Planning Act sets out deadlines of 90 days for decisions on zoning by-law amendments, 120 days for plans of subdivision, and 30 days for site plan approval, but municipalities routinely miss these without penalty. For other processes, like site plan approval or provincial approvals, there are no timelines and delays drag on. The cost of delay falls on the ultimate homeowner or tenant. The consequences for homeowners and renters are enormous. Ultimately, whatever cost a builder pays gets passed on to the buyer or renter. As one person said: “Process is the biggest project killer in Toronto because developers have to carry timeline risk.” Site plan control was often brought up as a frustration. Under the Planning Act, this is meant to be a technical review of the external features of a building. In practice, municipalities often expand on what is required and take too long to respond. 8,200 Then & Now Total words in: 1996 Provincial Policy Statement 17,000 2020 17,000 1970 Planning Act 96,000 2020 Page 452 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 16 An Ontario Association of Architects study calculating the cost of delays between site plan application and approval concluded that for a 100-unit condominium apartment building, each additional month of delay costs the applicant an estimated $193,000, or $1,930 a month for each unit.[17] A 2020 study done for the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) looked at impacts of delay on low-rise construction, including single-detached homes. It estimated that every month an approval is delayed adds, on average, $1.46 per square foot to the cost of a single home. A two-year delay, which is not unusual for this housing type, adds more than $70,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot house in the GTA.[16] Getting rid of so much unnecessary and unproductive additional work would significantly reduce the burden on staff. It would help address the widespread shortages of planners and building officials. It would also bring a stronger sense among municipal staff that they are part of the housing solution and can take pride in helping cut approval times and lower the costs of delivering homes. Adopt common sense approaches that save construction costs Wood using “mass timber” – an engineer compressed wood, made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use. Building taller with wood offers advantages beyond cost: • Wood is a renewable resource that naturally sequesters carbon, helping us reach our climate change goals • Using wood supports Ontario’s forestry sector and creates jobs, including for Indigenous people British Columbia’s and Quebec’s building codes allow woodframe construction up to 12 storeys, but Ontario limits it to six. By amending the Building Code to allow 12-storey woodframe construction, Ontario would encourage increased use of forestry products and reduce building costs. Finally, we were told that a shift in how builders are required to guarantee their performance would free up billions of dollars to build more housing. Pay on demand surety bonds are a much less onerous option than letters or credit, and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil, Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities. We outline the technical details in Appendix D. 19. Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial and municipal review process, including site plan, minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem an application approved if the legislated response time is exceeded. 20. Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure timelines are met. 21. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets out a binding list that defines what constitutes a complete application; confirms the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that if a member of a regulated profession such as a professional engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability and no additional stamp is needed. 22. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents. 23. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan of subdivision and standard set of conditions which clarify which may be included; require the use of standard province-wide legal agreements and, where feasible, plans of subdivision. 24. Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys. 25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit. Then: In 1966, a draft plan of subdivision in a town in southwestern Ontario to provide 529 low-rise and mid-rise housing units, a school site, a shopping centre and parks was approved by way of a two-page letter setting out 10 conditions. It took seven months to clear conditions for final approval. And now: In 2013, a builder started the approval process to build on a piece of serviced residential land in a seasonal resort town. Over the next seven years, 18 professional consultant reports were required, culminating in draft plan approval containing 50 clearance conditions. The second approval, issued by the Local Planning Appeals Board in 2020, ran to 23 pages. The developer estimates it will be almost 10 years before final approval is received. Page 453 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 17 Prevent abuse of the appeal process Part of the challenge with housing approvals is that, by the time a project has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (the Tribunal), it has usually already faced delay and compromises have been made to reduce the size and scope of the proposal. When an approved project is appealed, the appellant – which could just be a single individual – may pay $400 and tie up new housing for years. The most recent published report showed 1,300 unresolved cases.[18] While under-resourcing does contribute to delays, this caseload also reflects the low barrier to launching an appeal and the minimal risks if an appeal is unsuccessful: • After a builder has spent time and money to ensure a proposal conforms with a municipality’s requirements, the municipal council can still reject it – even if its own planning staff has given its support. Very often this is to appease local opponents. • Unlike a court, costs are not automatically awarded to the successful party at the Tribunal. The winning side must bring a motion and prove that the party bringing the appeal was unreasonable, clearly trying to delay the project, and/or being vexatious or frivolous. Because the bar is set so high, the winning side seldom asks for costs in residential cases. This has resulted in abuse of the Tribunal to delay new housing. Throughout our consultations, we heard from municipalities, not-for-profits, and developers that affordable housing was a particular target for appeals which, even if unsuccessful, can make projects too costly to build. Clearly the Tribunal needs more resources to clear its backlog. But the bigger issue is the need for so many appeals: we believe it would better to have well-defined goals and rules for municipalities and builders to avoid this costly and time-consuming quasi-judicial process. Those who bring appeals aimed at stopping development that meets established criteria should pay the legal costs of the successful party and face the risk of a larger project being approved. The solution is not more appeals, it’s fixing the system. We have proposed a series of reforms that would ensure only meritorious appeals proceeded, that every participant faces some risk and cost of losing, and that abuse of the Tribunal will be penalized. We believe that if Ontario accepts our recommendations, the Tribunal will not face the same volume of appeals. But getting to that point will take time, and the Tribunal needs more resources and better tools now. Recommendation 1 will provide legislative direction to adjudicators that they must prioritize housing growth and intensification over competing priorities contained in provincial and municipal policies. We further recommend the following: 26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission (“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence and expert reports, before it is accepted. 27. Prevent abuse of process: a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at least 30% affordable housing in which units are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years. b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party appeals. c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award full costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or by a municipality where its council has overridden a recommended staff approval. 28. Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow, and allow those decisions to become binding the day that they are issued. 29. Where it is found that a municipality has refused an application simply to avoid a deemed approval for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award punitive damages. 30. Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators and case managers), provide market-competitive salaries, outsource more matters to mediators, and set shorter time targets. 31. In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the finish line that will support housing growth and intensification, as well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant housing capacity. Page 454 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 18 Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent The price you pay to buy or rent a home is driven directly by how much it costs to build a home. In Ontario, costs to build homes have dramatically increased at an unprecedented pace over the past decade. In most of our cities and towns, materials and labour only account for about half of the costs. The rest comes from land, which we have addressed in the previous section, and government fees. A careful balance is required on government fees because, as much as we would like to see them lowered, governments need revenues from fees and taxes to build critically needed infrastructure and pay for all the other services that make Ontario work. So, it is a question of balance and of ensuring that our approach to government fees encourages rather than discourages developers to build the full range of housing we need in our Ontario communities. Align government fees and charges with the goal of building more housing Improve the municipal funding model Housing requires more than just the land it is built on. It requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities and other infrastructure. The provincial government provides municipalities with a way to secure funding for this infrastructure through development charges, community benefit charges and parkland dedication (providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent). These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not current taxpayers – should pay for growth. As a concept, it is compelling. In practice, it means that new home buyers pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or colleges that will be around for generations and may not be located in their neighbourhood. And, although building affordable housing is a societal responsibility, because affordable units pay all the same charges as a market unit, the cost is passed to new home buyers in the same building or the not-for-profit organization supporting the project. We do not believe that government fees should create a disincentive to affordable housing. If you ask any developer of homes – whether they are for-profit or non-profit – they will tell you that development charges are a special pain point. In Ontario, they can be as much as $135,000 per home. In some municipalities, development charges have increased as much as 900% in less than 20 years.[20] As development charges go up, the prices of homes go up. And development charges on a modest semi-detached home are the same as on a luxury 6,000 square foot home, resulting in a disincentive to build housing that is more affordable. Timing is also a challenge as development charges have to be paid up front, before a shovel even goes into the ground. To help relieve the pressure, the Ontario government passed recent legislation allowing builders to determine development charges earlier in the building process. But they must pay interest on the assessed development charge to the municipality until a building permit is issued, and there is no cap on the rate, which in one major city is 13% annually. Cash payments to satisfy parkland dedication also significantly boost the costs of higher-density projects, adding on average $17,000 to the cost of a high-rise condo across the GTA.[21] We heard concerns not just about the amount of cash collected, but also about the money not being spent in the neighbourhood or possibly not being spent on parks at all. As an example, in 2019 the City of Toronto held $644 million in parkland cash-in-lieu payments.[22] Everyone can agree that we need to invest in parks as our communities grow, but if the funds are not being spent, perhaps it means that more money is being collected for parklands than is needed and we could lower the cost of housing if we adjusted these parkland fees. A 2019 study carried out for BILD showed that in the Greater Toronto Area, development charges for low-rise housing are on average more than three times higher per unit than in six comparable US metropolitan areas, and roughly 1.75-times higher than in the other Canadian cities. For high-rise developments the average per unit charges in the GTA are roughly 50% higher than in the US areas, and roughly 30% higher than in the other Canadian urban areas.[19] Page 455 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 19 Modernizing HST Thresholds Harmonized sales tax (HST) applies to all new housing – including purpose-built rental. Today, the federal component is 5% and provincial component is 8%. The federal and provincial government provide a partial HST rebate. Two decades ago, the maximum home price eligible for a rebate was set at $450,000 federally and $400,000 provincially, resulting in a maximum rebate of $6,300 federally and $24,000 provincially, less than half of today’s average home price. Buyers of new homes above this ceiling face a significant clawback. Indexing the rebate would immediately reduce the cost of building new homes, savings that can be passed on to Ontarians. When both levels of government agree that we are facing a housing crisis, they should not be adding over 10% to the cost of almost all new homes. 32. Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units or for any development where no new material infrastructure will be required. 33. Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable for 40 years. 34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate. 35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and development charges: a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended purpose, and, where review points to a significant concern, do not allow further collection until the situation has been corrected. b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects, require municipalities to spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they were collected. However, where there’s a significant community need in a priority area of the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation of unspent and unallocated reserves. 36. Recommend that the federal government and provincial governments update HST rebate to reflect current home prices and begin indexing the thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal government match the provincial 75% rebate and remove any clawback. Make it easier to build rental In cities and towns across Ontario, it is increasingly hard to find a vacant rental unit, let alone a vacant rental unit at an affordable price. Today, 66% of all purpose-built rental units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 1979. Less than 15% of Toronto’s purpose-built rentals were constructed over the ensuing 40 years in spite of the significant population growth during that time. In fact, between 2006 and 2016, growth in condo apartments increased by 186% while purpose-built rental only grew by 0.6%.[12] In 2018, the Ontario government introduced positive changes that have created growth in purpose-built rental units – with last year seeing 18,000 units under construction and 93,000 proposed against a 5-year average prior to 2020 of 3,400 annually.[23] Long-term renters often now feel trapped in apartments that don’t make sense for them as their needs change. And because they can’t or don’t want to move up the housing ladder, many of the people coming up behind them who would gladly take those apartments are instead living in crowded spaces with family members or roommates. Others feel forced to commit to rental units at prices way beyond what they can afford. Others are trying their luck in getting on the wait list for an affordable unit or housing co-op – wait lists that are years long. Others are leaving Ontario altogether. Government charges on a new single-detached home averaged roughly $186,300, or almost 22% of the price, across six municipalities in southcentral Ontario. For a new condominium apartment, the average was almost $123,000, or roughly 24% of a unit’s price. of all purpose-built rental units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 1979. 66% Page 456 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 20 A pattern in every community, and particularly large cities, is that the apartments and rented rooms that we do have are disappearing. Apartment buildings are being converted to condos or upgraded to much more expensive rental units. Duplexes get purchased and turned into larger single-family homes. A major challenge in bridging the gap of rental supply is that, more often than not, purpose-built rental projects don’t make economic sense for builders and investors. Ironically, there is no shortage of Canadian investor capital seeking housing investments, particularly large pension funds – but the economics of investing in purpose-built rental in Ontario just don’t make sense. So, investments get made in apartment projects in other provinces or countries, or in condo projects that have a better and safer return-on-investment. What can governments do to get that investor capital pointed in the right direction so we can create jobs and get more of the housing we need built? Some of our earlier recommendations will help, particularly indexing the HST rebate. So will actions by government to require purpose-built rental on surplus government land that is made available for sale. (Appendix C) Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rental can be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes for condominium or other ownership housing.[24] The Task Force recommends: 37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and low-rise homes. Make homeownership possible for hardworking Ontarians who want it Home ownership has always been part of the Canadian dream. You don’t have to look far back to find a time when the housing landscape was very different. The norm was for young people to rent an apartment in their twenties, work hard and save for a down payment, then buy their first home in their late twenties or early thirties. It was the same for many new Canadians: arrive, rent, work hard and buy. The house might be modest, but it brought a sense of ownership, stability and security. And after that first step onto the ownership ladder, there was always the possibility of selling and moving up. Home ownership felt like a real possibility for anyone who wanted it. That’s not how it works now. Too many young people who would like their own place are living with one or both parents well into adulthood. The escalation of housing prices over the last decade has put the dream of homeownership out of reach of a growing number of aspiring first-time home buyers. While 73% of Canadians are homeowners, that drops to 48% for Black people, 47% for LGBTQ people[5] (StatsCan is studying rates for other populations, including Indigenous People who are severely underhoused). This is also an issue for younger adults: a 2021 study showed only 24% of Torontonians aged 30 to 39 are homeowners.[25] In Canada, responsibility for Indigenous housing programs has historically been a shared between the federal and provincial governments. The federal government works closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to improve access to housing for Indigenous peoples both on and off reserve. More than 85% of Indigenous people live in urban and rural areas, are 11 times more likely to experience homelessness and have incidence of housing need that is 52% greater than all Canadians. The Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls report mentions housing 299 times – the lack of which being a significant, contributing cause to violence and the provision of which as a significant, contributing solution. The Province of Ontario has made significant investments in Urban Indigenous Housing, but we need the Federal Government to re-engage as an active partner. While measures to address supply will have an impact on housing prices, many aspiring homeowners will continue to face a gap that is simply too great to bridge through traditional methods. The Task Force recognizes the need for caution about measures that would spur demand for housing before the supply bottleneck is fixed. At the same time, a growing number of organizations – both non-profit and for-profit are proposing a range of unique home equity models. Some of these organizations are aiming at households who have sufficient income to pay the mortgage but lack a sufficient down payment. Others are aiming at households who fall short in both income and down payment requirements for current market housing. Page 457 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 21 The Task Force heard about a range of models to help aspiring first-time home buyers, including: • Shared equity models with a government, non-profit or for-profit lender holding a second “shared equity mortgage” payable at time of sale of the home • Land lease models that allow residents to own their home but lease the land, reducing costs • Rent-to-own approaches in which a portion of an occupant’s rent is used to build equity, which can be used as a down payment on their current unit or another market unit in the future • Models where the equity gain is shared between the homeowner and the non-profit provider, such that the non-profit will always be able to buy the home back and sell it to another qualified buyer, thus retaining the home’s affordability from one homeowner to the next. Proponents of these models identified barriers that thwart progress in implementing new solutions. • The Planning Act limits land leases to a maximum of 21 years. This provision prevents home buyers from accessing the same type of mortgages from a bank or credit union that are available to them when they buy through traditional homeownership. • The Perpetuities Act has a similar 21-year limit on any options placed on land. This limits innovative non-profit models from using equity formulas for re-sale and repurchase of homes. • Land Transfer Tax (LTT) is charged each time a home is sold and is collected by the province; and in Toronto, this tax is also collected by the City. This creates a double-tax in rent-to-own/equity building models where LTT ends up being paid first by the home equity organization and then by the occupant when they are able to buy the unit. • HST is charged based on the market value of the home. In shared equity models where the homeowner neither owns nor gains from the shared equity portion of their home, HST on the shared equity portion of the home simply reduces affordability. • Residential mortgages are highly regulated by the federal government and reflective of traditional homeownership. Modifications in regulations may be required to adapt to new co-ownership and other models. The Task Force encourages the Ontario government to devote further attention to avenues to support new homeownership options. As a starting point, the Task Force offers the following recommendations: 38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to extend the maximum period for land leases and restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years. 39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth. 40. Call on the Federal Government to implement an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous Housing Strategy. 41. Funding for pilot projects that create innovative pathways to homeownership, for Black, Indigenous, and marginalized people and first-generation homeowners. 42. Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and affordable ownership projects. Page 458 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 22 Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply Our goal of building 1.5 million homes in ten years means doubling how many homes Ontario creates each year. As much as the Task Force’s recommendations will remove barriers to realizing this ambitious goal, we also need to ensure we have the capacity across Ontario’s communities to deliver this new housing supply. This includes capacity of our housing infrastructure, capacity within our municipal planning teams, and boots on the ground with the skills to build new homes. There is much to be done and the price of failure for the people of Ontario is high. This is why the provincial government must make an unwavering commitment to keeping the spotlight on housing supply. This is also why the province must be dogged in its determination to galvanize and align efforts and incentives across all levels of government so that working together, we all can get the job done. Our final set of recommendations turns to these issues of capacity to deliver, and the role the provincial government can play in putting the incentives and alignment in place to achieve the 1.5 million home goal. Invest in municipal infrastructure Housing can’t get built without water, sewage, and other infrastructure When the Task Force met with municipal leaders, they emphasized how much future housing supply relies on having the water, storm water and wastewater systems, roads, sidewalks, fire stations, and all the other parts of community infrastructure to support new homes and new residents. Infrastructure is essential where housing is being built for the first time. And, it can be a factor in intensification when added density exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure, one of the reasons we urge new infrastructure in new developments to be designed for future capacity. In Ontario, there are multiple municipalities where the number one barrier to approving new housing projects is a lack of infrastructure to support them. Municipalities face a myriad of challenges in getting this infrastructure in place. Often, infrastructure investments are required long before new projects are approved and funding must be secured. Notwithstanding the burden development charges place on the price of new housing, most municipalities report that development charges are still not enough to fully cover the costs of building new infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure in neighbourhoods that are intensifying. Often infrastructure crosses municipal boundaries creating complicated and time-consuming “who pays?” questions. Municipal leaders also shared their frustrations with situations where new housing projects are approved and water, sewage and other infrastructure capacity is allocated to the project – only to have the developer land bank the project and put off building. Environmental considerations with new infrastructure add further cost and complexity. The Task Force recommends: 43. Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external economic events, to withdraw infrastructure allocations from any permitted projects where construction has not been initiated within three years of build permits being issued. 44. Work with municipalities to develop and implement a municipal services corporation utility model for water and wastewater under which the municipal corporation would borrow and amortize costs among customers instead of using development charges. Page 459 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 23 Create the Labour Force to meet the housing supply need The labour force is shrinking in many segments of the market You can’t start to build housing without infrastructure. You can’t build it without people – skilled trades people in every community who can build the homes we need. The concern that we are already facing a shortage in skilled trades came through loud and clear in our consultations. We heard from many sources that our education system funnels young people to university rather than colleges or apprenticeships and creates the perception that careers in the skilled trades are of less value. Unions and builders are working to fill the pipeline domestically and recruit internationally, but mass retirements are making it challenging to maintain the workforce at its current level, let alone increase it. Increased economic immigration could ease this bottleneck, but it appears difficult for a skilled labourer with no Canadian work experience to qualify under Ontario’s rules. Moreover, Canada’s immigration policies also favour university education over skills our economy and society desperately need. We ought to be welcoming immigrants with the skills needed to build roads and houses that will accommodate our growing population. The shortage may be less acute, however, among smaller developers and contractors that could renovate and build new “missing middle” homes arising from the changes in neighbourhood zoning described earlier. These smaller companies tap into a different workforce from the one needed to build high rises and new subdivisions. Nonetheless, 1.5 million more homes will require a major investment in attracting and developing the skilled trades workforce to deliver this critically needed housing supply. We recommend: 45. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize municipalities, unions and employers to provide more on-the-job training. 46. Undertake multi-stakeholder education program to promote skilled trades. 47. Recommend that the federal and provincial government prioritize skilled trades and adjust the immigration points system to strongly favour needed trades and expedite immigration status for these workers, and encourage the federal government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000 the number of immigrants admitted through Ontario’s program. Create a large Ontario Housing Delivery Fund to align efforts and incent new housing supply Build alignment between governments to enable builders to deliver more homes than ever before All levels of government play a role in housing. The federal government sets immigration policy, which has a major impact on population growth and many tax policies. The province sets the framework for planning, approvals, and growth that municipalities rely upon, and is responsible for many other areas that touch on housing supply, like investing in highways and transit, training workers, the building code and protecting the environment. Municipalities are on the front lines, expected to translate the impacts of federal immigration policy, provincial guidance and other factors, some very localized, into official plans and the overall process through which homes are approved to be built. The efficiency with which home builders can build, whether for-profit or non-profit, is influenced by policies and decisions at every level of government. In turn, how many home developers can deliver, and at what cost, translates directly into the availability of homes that Ontarians can afford. Page 460 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 24 Collectively, governments have not been sufficiently aligned in their efforts to provide the frameworks and incentives that meet the broad spectrum of housing needs in Ontario. Much action, though, has been taken in recent years. • The Ontario government has taken several steps to make it easier to build additional suites in your own home: reduced disincentives to building rental housing, improved the appeal process, focused on density around transit stations, made upfront development charges more predictable, and provided options for municipalities to create community benefits through development. • The federal government has launched the National Housing Strategy and committed over $70 billion in funding.[26] Most recently, it has announced a $4 billion Housing Accelerator Fund aimed at helping municipalities remove barriers to building housing more quickly.[27] • Municipalities have been looking at ways to change outdated processes, rules, and ways of thinking that create delays and increases costs of delivering homes. Several municipalities have taken initial steps towards eliminating exclusionary zoning and addressing other barriers described in this report. All governments agree that we are facing a housing crisis. Now we must turn the sense of urgency into action and alignment across governments. Mirror policy changes with financial incentives aligned across governments The policy recommendations in this report will go a long way to align efforts and position builders to deliver more homes. Having the capacity in our communities to build these homes will take more than policy. It will take money. Rewarding municipalities that meet housing growth and approval timelines will help them to invest in system upgrades, hire additional staff, and invest in their communities. Similarly, municipalities that resist new housing, succumb to NIMBY pressure, and close off their neighbourhoods should see funding reductions. Fixing the housing crisis is a societal responsibility, and our limited tax dollars should be directed to those municipalities making the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing supply. In late January 2022, the provincial government announced $45 million for a new Streamline Development Approval Fund to “unlock housing supply by cutting red tape and improving processes for residential and industrial developments”.[28] This is encouraging. More is needed. Ontario should also receive its fair share of federal funding but today faces a shortfall of almost $500 million,[29] despite two thirds of the Canadian housing shortage being in Ontario. We call on the federal government to address this funding gap. 48. The Ontario government should establish a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding. This fund should reward: a) Annual housing growth that meets or exceeds provincial targets b) Reductions in total approval times for new housing c) The speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices 49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and approval timeline targets. We believe that the province should consider partial grants to subsidize municipalities that waive development charges for affordable housing and for purpose-built rental. Sustain focus, measure, monitor, improve Digitize and modernize the approvals and planning process Some large municipalities have moved to electronic tracking of development applications and/or electronic building permits (“e-permits”) and report promising results, but there is no consistency and many smaller places don’t have the capacity to make the change. Municipalities, the provincial government and agencies use different systems to collect data and information relevant to housing approvals, which slows down processes and leaves much of the “big picture” blank. This could be addressed by ensuring uniform data architecture standards. Improve the quality of our housing data to inform decision making Having accurate data is key to understanding any challenge and making the best decisions in response. The Task Force heard from multiple housing experts that we are not always using the best data, and we do not always have the data we need. Page 461 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 25 Having good population forecasts is essential in each municipality as they develop plans to meet future land and housing needs. Yet, we heard many concerns about inconsistent approaches to population forecasts. In the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the forecast provided to municipalities by the province is updated only when the Growth Plan is updated, generally every seven years; but federal immigration policy, which is a key driver of growth, changes much more frequently. The provincial Ministry of Finance produces a population forecast on a more regular basis than the Growth Plan, but these are not used consistently across municipalities or even by other provincial ministries. Population forecasts get translated into housing need in different ways across the province, and there is a lack of data about how (or whether) the need will be met. Others pointed to the inconsistent availability of land inventories. Another challenge is the lack of information on how much land is permitted and how much housing is actually getting built once permitted, and how fast. The Task Force also heard that, although the Provincial Policy Statement requires municipalities to maintain a three-year supply of short-term (build-ready) land and report it each year to the province, many municipalities are not meeting that requirement. At a provincial and municipal level, we need better data on the housing we have today, housing needed to close the gap, consistent projections of what we need in the future, and data on how we are doing at keeping up. Improved data will help anticipate local and provincial supply bottlenecks and constraints, making it easier to determine the appropriate level and degree of response. It will also be important to have better data to assess how much new housing stock is becoming available to groups that have been disproportionately excluded from home ownership and rental housing. Put eyes on the crisis and change the conversation around housing Ours is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”. There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing housing prices and find solutions so everyone in Ontario can find and afford the housing they need. This time must be different. The recommendations in this report must receive sustained attention, results must be monitored, significant financial investment by all levels of government must be made. And, the people of Ontario must embrace a housing landscape in which the housing needs of tomorrow’s citizens and those who have been left behind are given equal weight to the housing advantages of those who are already well established in homes that they own. 50. Fund the adoption of consistent municipal e-permitting systems and encourage the federal government to match funding. Fund the development of common data architecture standards across municipalities and provincial agencies and require municipalities to provide their zoning bylaws with open data standards. Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make funding conditional on established targets. 51. Require municipalities and the provincial government to use the Ministry of Finance population projections as the basis for housing need analysis and related land use requirements. 52. Resume reporting on housing data and require consistent municipal reporting, enforcing compliance as a requirement for accessing programs under the Ontario Housing Delivery Fund. 53. Report each year at the municipal and provincial level on any gap between demand and supply by housing type and location, and make underlying data freely available to the public. 54. Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government committee, including key provincial ministries and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our remaining recommendations and any other productive ideas are implemented. 55. Commit to evaluate these recommendations for the next three years with public reporting on progress. Page 462 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 26 Conclusion We have set a bold goal for Ontario: building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years. We believe this can be done. What struck us was that everyone we talked to – builders, housing advocates, elected officials, planners – understands the need to act now. As one long-time industry participant said, “for the first time in memory, everyone is aligned, and we need to take advantage of that.” Such unity of purpose is rare, but powerful. To leverage that power, we offer solutions that are bold but workable, backed by evidence, and that position Ontario for the future. Our recommendations focus on ramping up the supply of housing. Measures are already in place to try to cool demand, but they will not fill Ontario’s housing need. More supply is key. Building more homes will reduce the competition for our scarce supply of homes and will give Ontarians more housing choices. It will improve housing affordability across the board. Everyone wants more Ontarians to have housing. So let’s get to work to build more housing in Ontario. Page 463 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 27 APPENDIX A:Biographies of Task Force Members Lalit Aggarwal is President of Manor Park Holdings, a real estate development and operating company active in Eastern Ontario. Previously, Lalit was an investor for institutional fund management firms, such as H.I.G. European Capital Partners, Soros Fund Management, and Goldman Sachs. He is a past fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and a former Director of both Bridgepoint Health and the Centre for the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Lalit holds degrees from the University of Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania. He is also a current Director of the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation, the Sterling Hall School and the Chair of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario. David Amborski is a professional Urban Planner, Professor at Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional Planning and the founding Director of the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development (CUR). His research and consulting work explore topics where urban planning interfaces with economics, including land and housing markets. He is an academic advisor to the National Executive Forum on Public Property, and he is a member of Lambda Alpha (Honorary Land Economics Society). He has undertaken consulting for the Federal, Provincial and a range of municipal governments. Internationally, he has undertaken work for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and several other organizations in Eastern Europe, Latin America, South Africa, and Asia. He also serves on the editorial boards of several international academic journals. Andrew Garrett is a real estate executive responsible for growing IMCO’s $11+ Billion Global Real Estate portfolio to secure public pensions and insurance for Ontario families. IMCO is the only Ontario fund manager purpose built to onboard public clients such as pensions, insurance, municipal reserve funds, and endowments. Andrew has significant non-profit sector experience founding a B Corp certified social enterprise called WeBuild to help incubate social purpose real estate projects. He currently volunteers on non-profit boards supporting social purpose real estate projects, youth programs and the visual arts at Art Gallery of Ontario. Andrew sits on board advisory committees for private equity firms and holds a Global Executive MBA from Kellogg School Management and a Real Estate Development Certification from MIT Centre for Real Estate. Tim Hudak is the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA). With a passion and voice for championing the dream of home ownership, Tim came to OREA following a distinguished 21-year career in politics, including five years as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. In his role, Tim has focused on transforming OREA into Ontario’s most cutting-edge professional association at the forefront of advocacy on behalf of REALTORS® and consumers, and providing world-class conferences, standard forms, leadership training and professional guidance to its Members. As part of his work at OREA, Tim was named one of the most powerful people in North American residential real estate by Swanepoel Power 200 for the last five years. Tim is married to Deb Hutton, and together they have two daughters, Miller and Maitland. In his spare time, Tim enjoys trails less taken on his mountain bike or hiking shoes as well as grilling outdoors. Jake Lawrence was appointed Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets in January 2021. In this role, Jake is responsible for the Bank’s Global Banking and Markets business line and strategy across its global footprint. Jake joined Scotiabank in 2002 and has held progressively senior roles in Finance, Group Treasury and Global Banking and Markets. From December 2018 to January 2021, Jake was Co-Group Head of Global Banking and Markets with specific responsibility for its Capital Markets businesses, focused on building alignment across product groups and priority markets to best serve our clients throughout our global footprint. Previously, Jake was Executive Vice President and Head of Global Banking and Markets in the U.S., providing overall strategic direction and execution of Scotiabank’s U.S. businesses. Prior to moving into GBM, Jake served as Senior Vice President and Deputy Treasurer, responsible for Scotiabank’s wholesale funding activities and liquidity management as well as Senior Vice President, Investor Relations. Page 464 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 28 Julie Di Lorenzo (GPLLM, University of Toronto 2020), is self-employed since 1982, operates one of the largest female-run Real Estate Development Companies in North America. She was instrumental in the Daniel Burnham award-winning Ontario Growth Management Plan (2004) as President of BILD. Julie served as the first female-owner President of GTHBA (BILD) and on the boards of the Ontario Science Centre, Harbourfront Toronto, Tarion (ONHWP), St. Michael’s Hospital, NEXT36, Waterfront Toronto, Chair of IREC Committee WT, Havergal College (Co-Chair of Facilities), York School (interim Vice-Chair), and Canadian Civil Liberties Association Board. Julie has served various governments in advisory capacity on Women’s issues, Economic Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Awards include Lifetime Achievement BILD 2017, ICCO Business Excellence 2005 & ICCO Businesswoman of the Year 2021. Justin Marchand (CIHCM, CPA, CMA, BComm) is Métis and was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services (OAHS) in 2018. Justin has over 20 years of progressive experience in a broad range of sectors, including two publicly listed corporations, a large accounting and consulting firm, and a major crown corporation, and holds numerous designations across financial, operations, and housing disciplines. He was most recently selected as Chair of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA’s) Indigenous Caucus Working Group and is also board member for CHRA. Justin is also an active board member for both the Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership (CHIL) as well as Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, located in Bawaating. Justin believes that Housing is a fundamental human right and that when Indigenous people have access to safe, affordable, and culture-based Housing this provides the opportunity to improve other areas of their lives. Ene Underwood is CEO of Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Area), a non-profit housing developer that helps working, lower income families build strength, stability and self-reliance through affordable homeownership. Homes are delivered through a combination of volunteer builds, contractor builds, and partnerships with non-profit and for-profit developers. Ene’s career began in the private sector as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company before transitioning to not-for-profit sector leadership. Ene holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of Waterloo and a Master of Business Administration from Ivey Business School. Dave Wilkes is the President and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA (BILD). The Association has 1,300 members and proudly represents builders, developers, professional renovators and those who support the industry. Dave is committed to supporting volunteer boards and organizations. He has previously served on the George Brown College Board of Directors, Ontario Curling Association, and is currently engaged with Black North Initiative (Housing Committee) and R-Labs I+T Council. Dave received his Bachelor of Arts (Applied Geography) from Ryerson. Page 465 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 29 APPENDIX B:Affordable Housing Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation. With rapidly rising prices, more lower-priced market rental units are being converted into housing far out of reach of lower-income households. In parallel, higher costs to deliver housing and limited government funding have resulted in a net decrease in the number of affordable housing units run by non-profits. The result is untenable: more people need affordable housing after being displaced from the market at the very time that affordable supply is shrinking. Throughout our consultations, we were reminded of the housing inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous and marginalized people. We also received submissions describing the unique challenges faced by off-reserve Indigenous Peoples both in the province’s urban centres and in the north. While many of the changes that will help deliver market housing will also help make it easier to deliver affordable housing, affordable housing is a societal responsibility. We cannot rely exclusively on for-profit developers nor on increases in the supply of market housing to fully solve the problem. The non-profit housing sector faces all the same barriers, fees, risks and complexities outlined in this report as for-profit builders. Several participants from the non-profit sector referred to current or future partnerships with for-profit developers that tap into the development and construction expertise and efficiencies of the private sector. Successful examples of leveraging such partnerships were cited with Indigenous housing, supportive housing, and affordable homeownership. We were also reminded by program participants that, while partnerships with for-profit developers can be very impactful, non-profit providers have unique competencies in the actual delivery of affordable housing. This includes confirming eligibility of affordable housing applicants, supporting independence of occupants of affordable housing, and ensuring affordable housing units remain affordable from one occupant to the next. One avenue for delivering more affordable housing that has received much recent attention is inclusionary zoning. In simple terms, inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires developers to deliver a share of affordable units in new housing developments in prescribed areas. The previous Ontario government passed legislation in April 2018 providing a framework within which municipalities could enact Inclusionary Zoning bylaws. Ontario’s first inclusionary zoning policy was introduced in fall 2021 by the City of Toronto and applies to major transit station areas. Internationally, inclusionary zoning has been used successfully to incentivize developers to create new affordable housing by providing density bonuses (more units than they would normally be allowed, if some are affordable) or reductions in government fees. Unfortunately, the City’s approach did not include any incentives or bonuses. Instead, Toronto requires market-rate fees and charges for below-market affordable units. This absence of incentives together with lack of clarity on the overall density that will be approved for projects has led developers and some housing advocates to claim that these projects may be uneconomic and thus will not get financed or built. Municipalities shared with us their concerns regarding the restriction in the provincial IZ legislation that prohibits “cash in lieu” payments. Municipalities advised that having the option of accepting the equivalent value of IZ units in cash from the developer would enable even greater impact in some circumstances (for example, a luxury building in an expensive neighbourhood, where the cost of living is too high for a low-income resident). Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of all levels of government. The federal government has committed to large funding transfers to the provinces to support affordable housing. The Task Force heard, however, that Ontario’s share of this funding does not reflect our proportionate affordable housing needs. This, in turn, creates further financial pressure on both the province and municipalities, which further exacerbates the affordable housing shortages in Ontario’s communities. Page 466 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 30 Finally, many participants in Task Force consultations pointed to surplus government lands as an avenue for building more affordable housing and this is discussed in Appendix C. We have made recommendations throughout the report intended to have a positive impact on new affordable housing supply. We offer these additional recommendations specific to affordable housing: • Call upon the federal government to provide equitable affordable housing funding to Ontario. • Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of “affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability. • Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from property price appreciation) to be used in partnership with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the creation of more affordable housing units. This Trust should create incentives for projects serving and brought forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and marginalized groups. • Amend legislation to: • Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusive Zoning units at the discretion of the municipality. • Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing policies that apply to market housing. • Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for affordable housing units. • Encourage government to closely monitor the effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating new affordable housing and to explore alternative funding methods that are predictable, consistent and transparent as a more viable alternative option to Inclusionary Zoning policies in the provision of affordable housing. • Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment on below-market affordable homes. Page 467 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 31 APPENDIX C:Government Surplus Land Surplus government lands fell outside the mandate of the Task Force. However, this question came up repeatedly as a solution to housing supply. While we take no view on the disposition of specific parcels of land, several stakeholders raised issues that we believe merit consideration: • Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and development through RFP of surplus government land and surrounding land by provincially pre-zoning for density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use. • All future government land sales, whether commercial or residential, should have an affordable housing component of at least 20%. • Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized Crown property (e.g., LCBO). • Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher density building or relocate services outside of major population centres where land is considerably less expensive. • The policy priority of adding to the housing supply, including affordable units, should be reflected in the way surplus land is offered for sale, allowing bidders to structure their proposals accordingly. Page 468 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 32 APPENDIX D:Surety Bonds Moving to surety bonds would free up billions of dollars for building When a development proposal goes ahead, the developer typically needs to make site improvements, such as installing common services. The development agreement details how the developer must perform to the municipality’s satisfaction. Up until the 1980s, it was common practice for Ontario municipalities to accept bonds as financial security for subdivision agreements and site plans. Today, however, they almost exclusively require letters of credit from a chartered bank. The problem with letters of credit is that developers are often required to collateralize the letter of credit dollar-for-dollar against the value of the municipal works they are performing. Often this means developers can only afford to finance one or two housing projects at a time, constraining housing supply. The Ontario Home Builders’ Association estimates that across Ontario, billions of dollars are tied up in collateral or borrowing capacity that could be used to advance more projects. Modern “pay on demand surety bonds” are proven to provide the same benefits and security as a letter of credit, while not tying up private capital the way letters of credit do. Moving to this option would give municipalities across Ontario access to all the features of a letter of credit with the added benefit of professional underwriting, carried out by licensed bonding companies, ensuring that the developer is qualified to fulfill its obligations under the municipal agreement. Most important from a municipal perspective, the financial obligation is secured. If a problem arises, the secure bond is fully payable by the bond company on demand. Surety companies, similar to banks, are regulated by Ontario’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure they have sufficient funds in place to pay out bond claims. More widespread use of this instrument could unlock billions of dollars of private sector financial liquidity that could be used to build new infrastructure and housing projects, provide for more units in each development and accelerate the delivery of housing of all types. Page 469 of 842 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 33 References 1. Ontario Housing Market Report https://wowa.ca/ontario-housing-market 2. Global Property Guide https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/Canada/ Price-History-Archive/canadian-housing-market-strong-127030 3. National Household Survey Factsheet https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/ nhshi11-6.html#:~:text=Median%20After%2Dtax%20Income%20 of,and%20British%20Columbia%20at%20%2467%2C900 4. CMHC https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/ 5. The Globe And Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/ article-black-canadians-have-some-of-the-lowest-home- ownership-rates-in-canada/ 6. Scotiabank https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/ economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing. housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html 7. Scotiabank https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/ economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing. housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html 8. Expert Market https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/vehicle-tracking/ best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting 9. Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/198063/total-number-of- housing-starts-in-ontario-since-1995/ 10. Poltext https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/discoursV2/DB/ Ontario/ON_DB_1975_29_5.pdf 11. Toronto City Planning https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/ backgroundfile-173165.pdf 12. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) https://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ Urbanation-FRPO-Ontario-Rental-Market-Report-Summer-2020.pdf 13. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden- horseshoe/where-and-how-grow 14. More Neighbours Toronto https://www.moreneighbours.ca/ 15. The World Bank https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/ dealing-with-construction-permits 16. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/BILD%20Municipal%20 Benchmarking%20Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Sept%20 2020%20BILD.pdf 17. Construction and Design Alliance of Ontario (CDAO) http://www.cdao.ca/files/OAA/P5727%20-%20OAA%20Site%20 Plan%20Delay%20Study%20Update%20(2018).pdf 18. Tribunals Ontario 2019-20 Annual Report https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Tribunals_ Ontario_2019-2020_Annual_Report_EN_v2.html 19. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/FINAL%20-%20BILD%20-%20 Comparison%20of%20Government%20Charges%20in%20 Canada%20and%20US%20-%20Sept%2013%202019.pdf 20. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/FINAL%20GTA%20-%20 Development%20Charges%20-%2009%202020.pdf 21. Toronto Star https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2018/09/01/ where-did-the-money-go-parkland-dedication-fees-should-be- used-to-build-parks-in-gta.html 22. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/misc/BILD%20-%20New%20 Homeowner%20Money%20Report%20-%20Oct%205%20 2021%20(002)_Redacted.pdf 23. Urbanation Inc. https://www.urbanation.ca/news/336-gta-rental-construction- surged-2021-vacancy-fell 24. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) https://www.frpo.org/lobby-view/cities-still-ripping-off-renters 25. Edison Financial https://edisonfinancial.ca/millennial-home-ownership-canada/ 26. Government of Canada National Housing Strategy https://www.placetocallhome.ca/what-is-the-strategy 27. CMHC https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/ news-releases/2021/housing-accelerator-fund-rent-to-own-program 28. Toronto Star https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/ ford-government-announces-45-million-to-cut-red-tape-and- speed-up-applications-for-new-home-construction.html 29. Canadian Real Estate Wealth https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/ federal-funds-must-flow-for-housing-programs-334810.aspx Page 470 of 842 Planning and Development Services 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 MEMORANDUM CWCD 2022-71 Subject: Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Date: March 18, 2022 To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Diana Morreale, Acting Director, Community and Long Range Planning The purpose of this memo is to provide a copy of staff’s response letter to the recommendations contained within the “Report of the Ontario Housing Affordable Task Force” (Appendix 1). In December 2021, the Province created a Housing Affordability Task Force. The Task Force was created to deliver recommendations on ways to address market housing supply and affordability. The Province appointed nine members to the Task Force. In February 2022, the Task Force released recommendations to the public. The recommendations within the report centred on the following themes:  Focus on getting more homes built;  Making land available to build;  Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs;  Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent; and,  Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply; Appendix 1 to CWCD 2022-71 contains a letter to Minister Clark outlining staff’s response on the Task Force recommendations. Respectfully submitted and signed by ________________________________ Diana Morreale, MCIP, RPP Acting Director, Community and Long Range Planning Page 471 of 842 Niagara9/I/ Region ______________________________________________________________________ Planning and Development Services 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Sent via e-mail: steve.clark@pc.ola.org March 15, 2022 The Honourable Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 17th Floor, 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 2J3 Subject: Response to the Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Dear Minister Clark, On February 8, 2022, the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force (“Task Force”) published a total of 55 recommended actions aimed at increasing Ontario’s housing supply by 1.5 million households over the next ten years. The recommendations, which are aimed at all levels of government and their associated agencies, primarily seek to increase “as-of-right” intensification within urban areas, streamline development approvals and related timelines, improve tax and municipal financing, and reform the Ontario Land Tribunal appeals process. The Niagara Region appreciates the Province’s commitment to improving housing affordability across Ontario. Over 20,000 of Niagara’s households were reported to have been in core housing need as of 2016, primarily driven by a lack of affordable housing options within the community. Given the recent surge in housing prices experienced across the Province, rates of core housing need are have risen. Action must be taken to ensure more housing of all types are provided to meet the needs of our growing population. The provision of affordable, accessible, and adequate housing is a complex matter that requires coordination between all levels of government. The report focuses on the inefficiencies in the land development process and how it contributes to the crisis, however planning approvals at the municipal level are only one factor in housing affordability. There are other economic factors contributing to the housing supply challenge and affordability including: - building industry capacity (lack of labour); - supply chain and shortages in materials ; and, - approved land supply being held back by landowners. CWCD 2022-71 App 1 Page 472 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 2 While not addressed specifically in the Task Force’s report, the Province should also consider the specific challenges associated with increasing the supply of community housing (i.e. housing owned and operated by non-profit housing corporations, housing co-operatives and municipal governments) and supportive housing. Although an increase in market supply can address the issue of housing affordability in part, the private sector alone cannot solve the entirety of this problem and it is the community housing need that is the most dire and needs to be addressed. A collective effort from all levels of government, housing service providers, and the development industry is required to provide the necessary tools and interventions to address this problem. The Province should also consider the unique housing challenges faced by communities of all types and sizes, including small to medium sized cities and rural communities. A city like Toronto versus a city like Thorold will have access to different resources and require vastly different solutions towards the achievement of improved housing affordability. In short, a “one-size-fits-all” approach should be avoided. Regional and local staff have reviewed all recommendations provided by the Task Force. At this time, the Province has not specified which, if any, policy, regulation, and/or protocol changes the Province may elect to advance. In the absence of more substantive details relating to the recommendations, Regional and local staff have outlined general comments on the primary objectives and themes of the Task Force’s report below, which are shared with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their consideration. In addition to this letter, a few of our local municipalities have also indicated that they will be submitting comments on these recommendations. Increase Density and “As of Right” Permissions Relevant Task Force Recommendations 3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action: a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys on a single residential lot. b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies to remove any barriers to affordable construction and to ensure meaningful implementation (e.g., allow single-staircase construction for up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.). Page 473 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 3 4.Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or redundant commercial properties to residential or mixed residential and commercial use. 5.Permit as of right secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway houses province-wide 6.Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting rooms within a dwelling) province-wide. 7.Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with excess school capacity to benefit families with children. 8.Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations within two years if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet provincial density targets. 9.Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on any streets utilized by public transit (including streets on bus and streetcar routes). 11.Support responsible housing growth on undeveloped land, including outside existing municipal boundaries, by building necessary infrastructure to support higher density housing and complete communities and applying the recommendations of this report to all undeveloped land. Staff is generally supportive of the objective to increase the overall density and diversity of housing in built up areas. Over 60% of Niagara’s current housing stock is made up of single-detached dwellings. Although recent construction activity has begun a shift towards more medium density builds there is a range of housing types the Region is seeking to encourage through its new Niagara Official Plan. Staff do support flexibility in “as of right” permissions for housing, particularly within planned major transit station areas and strategic growth areas and in a manner that is compatible in scale with stable residential areas; however, staff cannot support intensification that is completely unplanned and unrestricted. Intensification must be considered in balance with other key considerations needed for the creation of complete communities, such as infrastructure and servicing Page 474 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 4 capacity, parking requirements, impacts to neighbourhood character, access to employment uses, and landscaping and public realm design. In the absence of municipal oversight through zoning, there are limited tools to ensure development and related services are planned for in a strategic manner. Recommendation 4, Regional staff support the conversion of underutilized commercial lands along major arterial transit routes as priority areas for mixed residential and commercial use, provided that these sites do not serve as land supply for population based employment. Recommendation 11, clarification is needed to understand what is meant by development “outside municipal boundaries”. If referring to settlement area expansions, existing Provincial policy provides sufficient ability for municipalities to consider adjustments to their urban and rural settlement area boundaries, and while Regional staff support higher densities and the creation of complete communities on potential expansion lands, staff do not support unplanned development within natural areas or agricultural lands. Development should be directed to settlement areas where infrastructure and service levels exists to support development vs. to areas outside of settlement of settlement area boundaries. The resultant financial burden on municipalites would be significant if development occurs outside of settlement area boundaries. Streamline Development Approvals Relevant Task Force Recommendations 12.Create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals system: a)Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, or plans that prioritize the preservation of physical character of neighbourhood. b)Exempt from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units or less that conform to the Official Plan and require only minor variances c)Establish province-wide zoning standards, or prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights, angular planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index, and heritage view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site plan exclusions Page 475 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 5 (colour, texture, and type of materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements; and d)Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow larger, more efficient high- density towers. 13.Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings beyond those that are required under the Planning Act. 14.Require that public consultations provide digital participation options. 15.Require mandatory delegation of site plan approvals and minor variances to staff or pre-approved qualified third-party technical consultants through a simplified review and approval process, without the ability to withdraw Council’s delegation. 16.Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process by: a)Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal heritage registers. b)Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after a Planning Act development application has been filed. 19.Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial and municipal review process, including site plan, minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem an application approved if the legislated response time is exceeded. 49.Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and approval timeline targets. 50.Fund the adoption of consistent municipal e-permitting systems and encourage the federal government to match funding. Fund the development of common data architecture standards across municipalities and provincial agencies and require municipalities to provide their zoning bylaws with open data standards. Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make funding conditional on established targets. Regional staff support the objective to streamline the development approvals process, expand the usage of delegated approval for applications that are technical and/or minor and nature, and reduce unnecessary delays in the delivery of needed housing supply. However, several of the recommendations noted above impede the ability for municipalities to consider local characteristics and existing built environments as part of planned development. It must also be acknowledged that development approval processes does not only rest with municipalities; there are Page 476 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 6 development approval processes that take place at the provincial level and there is the need to have appropriate staff resources available to thoses ministries and and a commitment to streamlining provincial development approval processes as well. NIMBY is a significant barrier for the development of affordable housing, community housing, supportive housing, and other facilities needed for homelessness services in particular, and presents a challenge for intensification in particular. Addressing NIMBY requires continued dialogue, education, negotiation and relationship building is required to demystify the perceived threats associated with growth and development, which is where the importance of public consultation should also be acknowledged. Public consultation allows opportunities to provide information with local residents, allow for open dialogue, and allow a variety of voices to be heard. Recommendation 12 c), although staff support additional guidance for flexible zoning standards, a Regional approach would be more appropriate . The growth forecasts, intensification targets, and existing built form in Niagara are different from those of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area. A “one size fits all” approach with such technical considerations would contribute to a homogenous urban form that disregards local characteristics Recommendation 13, Regional staff are of the opinion that the necessity for additional meetings remain at the discretion of the local municipality and/or approval authorities provided they comply with existing Planning Act timeframes. With regards to Recommendation 16, Regional staff note that recent changes to the Ontario Heritage Act includes statutory timeline limitations for when municipalities can designate a property following the submission of certain applications under the Planning Act. The conservation of culturally and historically significant resources is a Provincial objective that merit continued priority in site specific cases. Reform the Ontario Land Tribunal Appeals Process Relevant Task Force Recommendations 18.Restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews. 20.Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure timelines are met. Page 477 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 7 21.Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets out a binding list that defines what constitutes a complete application; confirms the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that if a member of a regulated profession such as a professional engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability and no additional stamp is needed. 26.Require appellants to promptly seek permission (“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence and expert reports, before it is accepted. 27.Prevent abuse of process: a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at least 30% affordable housing in which units are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years. b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party appeals. c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award full costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or by a municipality where its council has overridden a recommended staff approval. 28.Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow, and allow those decisions to become binding the day that they are issued. 29.Where it is found that a municipality has refused an application simply to avoid a deemed approval for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award punitive damages. 30.Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators and case managers), provide market-competitive salaries, outsource more matters to mediators, and set shorter time targets. 31.In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the finish line that will support housing growth and intensification, as well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant housing capacity. Regional staff agree that additional changes can be made to continuously improve the appeals process. For instance, subject to further information regarding the manner in which these objectives are implemented, Regional staff generally support the aims of Recommendations 20, 21, 26, 28 and 30 as a means of reducing baseless appeals and reducing the wait times for decisions to be rendered. Page 478 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 8 Regional staff are concerned, however, that measures to increase the filing fee for appeals as outlined in Recommendation 27 b) or to introduce the ability to award punitive costs as outlined in Recommendation 29 would essentially eliminate the ability for residents or small interest groups to participate in the appeals. Recommendation 18, allowing developers to appeal MCRs will result in a dramatic slow down of the growth management process, and ultimately, the development approvals process. In addition, there are competing interests within the development community itself that will serve to frustrate and lengthen the appeals process. One of the challenges of the last several years has been the instability in the planning and development sector as a result of the long protracted appeals associated with the original conformity excercises to the Growth Plan followed by several years of changes to Provinical legislation and Plans. Permitting these types of appeals will serve to undermine the Province’s goal of streamlining the approvals process and will prevent municipalities from bringing housing on-line in an expedited fashion. Recommendation 31, prioritization should focus on proposals that include an affordable housing component, and should allow for equitable consideration across the Province (i.e. in areas outside of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area).In clearing the existin backlog of appeals priorities should be given to municipal initiated amendments that are appealed. Improve Municipal Financing and Taxes Relevant Task Force Recommendations 25.Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit. 32.Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units or for any development where no new material infrastructure will be required. 33.Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable for 40 years. 34.Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate. 35.Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and development charges: Page 479 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 9 a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended purpose, and, where review points to a significant concern, do not allow further collection until the situation has been corrected. b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects, require municipalities to spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they were collected. However, where there’s a significant community need in a priority area of the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation of unspent and unallocated reserves. 36.Recommend that the federal government and provincial governments update HST rebate to reflect current home prices and begin indexing the thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal government match the provincial 75% rebate and remove any claw back. 37.Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and low-rise homes. 39.Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth. 42.Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and affordable ownership projects. 43.Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external economic events, to withdraw infrastructure allocations from any permitted projects where construction has not been initiated within three years of build permits being issued. 44.Work with municipalities to develop and implement a municipal services corporation utility model for water and wastewater under which the municipal corporation would borrow and amortize costs among customers instead of using development charges. The recommendations included above require further detail and analysis to provide substantive comments. There are a number of recommendations Regional staff have concerns with, including: Recommendation 25, The Region does not support the use of surety bonds as they do not offer the same financial security as a Letter of Credit. Recommendation 32, The Region currently has grant programs for development charges on social housing that meet specific grant program criteria. Infill units still create a demand for regional sevices. Development Charges (DCs) help pay for the construction of growth related infrastructure, waiving them for infill units will have Page 480 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 10 impacts on the Region’s finances and will shift growth costs to existing homeowners. Also, it is not clear what is meant by “no new material infrastructure” and this could lead to appeals based of different interpretations. Recommendation 33, DCs help pay for the construction of growth related infrastructure, waiving them for affordable housing will have significant impacts on the Region’s finances and will shift growth costs to existing taxpayer. Additional information is required on the definition of affordable. The Region currently has grant programs for development charges on social housing that meet specific grant program criteria. However, occupants of this housing type still create demand for services which are paid for by DCs. The cost of growth for these developments are funded from Regional taxes and shift growth costs to existing homeowners which also impacts affordability. The Provincial government should provide funding for such programs. Recommendation 34, The Region has concerns of the potential funding gap that will occur if interest rates are not included in DCs, this places a greater burden on the existing taxpayer. Municipal borrowing rates fluctuate so flexibility needs to be provided to municipalities. Recommendation 35(b), The Region does not support and prefers the current flexibility to adopt area specific or Region wide charges and the flexibility to prioritize use of DCs based on actual growth and need. Recommendation 37, the Niagara Region has a tax policy already in place that charges new multi-residential at the same tax rate as residential. Recommendation 44, the Region does not support. Municipal development charge models are effective tools to ensure growth pays for growth. Moving Forward Further consultation with the municipal sector is recommended before the implementation of any strategy, actions, or regulations in response to the Task Force’s recommendations to ensure that strong and effective solutions for facilitating the development of affordable housing is reflected in all communities across the Province. The Report recommendations does not address the need for additional mechanisms to support affordable housing from Provincial and Federal governments (i.e. tax incentives). Long-term funding from all levels of government must also be available to provide needed support services to create healthy mixed income communities. Page 481 of 842 Memorandum March 15, 2022 Page 11 Regional and local municipal staff are available to convene and contribute municipal expertise and knowledge in this matter. Respecfully, ________________________________ Diana Morreale, MCIP, RPP Acting Driector, Community and Long Range Planning Planning and Development, Niagara Region Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, Thorold, ON, L2V 4T7 Page 482 of 842 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 22, 2022 CL 8-2022, April 14, 2022 PEDC 3-2022, April 6, 2022 PDS 13-2022, April 6, 2022 DISTRIBUTION LIST SENT ELECTRONICALLY 2021 Reserve Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacities PDS 13-2022 Regional Council, at its meeting held on April 14, 2022, passed the following recommendation of its Planning and Economic Development Committee: That Report PDS 9-2022, dated April 6, 2022, respecting 2021 Reserve Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacities, BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and Local Area Municipalities. A copy of PDS 13-2022 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :cv CLK-C 2022-063 Distribution List Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Local Area Municipalities cc: M. Sergi, Commissioner, Planning and Development Services N. Oakes, Executive Assistant, Planning and Development Services I. Stetic, Water Wastewater Development Project Manager, Planning and Development Services Page 483 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 1 Subject: 2021 Reserve Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacities Report to: Planning and Economic Development Committee Report date: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 Recommendations 1. That this Report BE RECEIVED for information; and 2. That this Report BE CIRCULATED to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and Local Municipalities Key Facts • The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the reserve treatment capacities at Niagara's Water and Wastewater Treatment facilities. This reporting is required by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). • The data contained in this report assists in commenting on new development proposals and related servicing as well as planning for future treatment capacity. • All of Niagara Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) and Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) are positioned to accept growth beyond the minimum 10-year horizon. Financial Considerations This report provides Council with historical and projected treatment capacity and flow data. There are no direct financial implications in receiving this report. The reserve treatment capacities at the water and wastewater (W&WW) facilities are considered in commenting on new development proposals and related servicing and, as a result, could result in a financial impact related to specific future applications. Analysis The Infrastructure Planning and Development Engineering section of Planning and Development Services Department annually reports on an assessment of the average daily W&WW flows based on the previous five years, as recorded at our various facilities compared to MECP rated capacities for the facilities. A key objective of this report is to highlight potential capacity constraints and allow sufficient lead-time to plan for future capacity increases through the W&WW capital programs so that development Page 484 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ may continue unencumbered. This is a desktop exercise, which compares five-year (annual) average flows to the respective MECP Environmental Compliance Approval(s), formerly known as Certificate of Approval(s) for each facility, then incorporates 10-year growth forecasts into the calculation. Ongoing phasing and staging strategy works with our local municipal partners will further refine this assessment for understanding development capacity. This assessment does not reflect specific compliance, quality, sustainability, risk, or operational deficiencies at the treatment plants or trunk conveyance/transmission systems, which may affect the Region’s ability to approve new development or permit servicing extensions. For municipal wastewater treatment, weather is the key factor that results in peak wet weather flow, which impacts the collection and trunk sewers in both local and regional systems through “Rainfall Derived Inflow and Infiltration” (RDI&I). Wet weather flows can have substantial impact on available WWTP capacities and a direct impact on the limitations of available servicing capacity for future growth. Appendix 1 and 2 provide the annual average daily flows, five and three-year average flows from 2017 to 2021 for the water and wastewater treatment plants, respectively. Appendices 3 and 4 provide a summary of Niagara’s six water treatment facilities and eleven wastewater treatment facilities presenting their respective reserve capacities. It is worth noting that growth rates in recent years show an increase compared to time before, which consequently can affect the way this desktop exercise conducts the reserve capacity calculations. This can create a skewed sense of a greater reserve capacity available for the future if the annual daily flows are averaged over longer period. With a higher growth rate seen recently in the Region, it would be expected that Reserve Capacities averaged over a 3-year period are less then averaged over a 5-year period. Due to COVID over the last 2 years, there may have been some impacts on flows. However, averaging daily flows over a 5-year period versus a 3-year period in the Reserve Capacity calculations for 2021 does not show a compelling difference or significant trend. Figure 1 shows a comparison of the percentage of remaining reserve capacities for WTPs and WWTPs when daily flows are averaged over the last 3 and 5 years. Page 485 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ Figure 1: Reserve Capacity – Annual Flows Averaged over 3-Year and 5-Year Period 65 45 54 70 66 46 64 45 53 66 64 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Decew Falls WTP Grimsby WTP Niagara Falls WTP Port Colborne WTP Rosehill WTP Welland WTP% Reserve CapacityWTP WTP -Reserve Capacity 3-Y vs 5-Y Average Daily Flows 3 Y 5 Y 43 40 37 45 33 44 37 67 41 29 364238364237 44 38 63 39 29 36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Reserve CapacityWWTP WWTP -Reserve Capacity 3-Y vs 5-Y Average Daily Flows 3 Y 5 Y Page 486 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ At present, all of Niagara’s WTPs and WWTPs are positioned to accept growth beyond the minimum 10-year period (Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). Wet Weather Management In order to accommodate the anticipated growth from Niagara 2041, the 2016 W&WW Master Servicing Plan (MSP) investigated capacity upgrades (upgrades to trunk sewers, pumping station capacities, etc.), upstream management (storage, peak shaving, diversion), and peak flow management (flow reduction, Inflow & infiltration (I&I) reduction projects) for every wastewater system. Based on this review, there are wet weather projects listed with identified areas for targeted I&I removal to offset the requirement to upgrade and expand more expensive infrastructure all the way to the WWTPs. It is crucial to achieve the I&I reductions in order to offset the capacity needs from growth, to protect the environment, and mitigate potential basement flooding. The Region and Local Municipalities are continuing to work collaboratively to facilitate ongoing development throughout the region and provide the requisite servicing and capacity allocation in a responsible way to service the communities. In addition, the Region has been aiding Local Municipalities by funding the CSO Control Program as a part of the overall Wet Weather Management Strategy to support various I&I related projects and programs on the municipal side. This program has been reducing the impacts of I&I and has been a benefit to both, the Region and the Local Municipalities. The available funding for the 2022 CSO Control Program has been fully utilized and subscribed with applications from the Local Municipalities. A future report on the 2022 CSO Control Program is anticipated to be presented to the Planning & Economic Development Committee in the next month. Staff is working with the Development Industry including Public Works Officials, Building Officials, Developers, Consultants and Contractors to raise awareness on the wet weather management issues and potential upcoming changes to address this. The Region is also represented at the Expert Stakeholder Committee (ESC) for the Guideline to Undertaking Flow Monitoring of New Construction and will work with all stakeholders to move forward with a consistent approach for the review the flow monitoring of new subdivisions. Page 487 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ New South Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant Although this report identifies there is short term capacity available at the existing Niagara Falls WWTP, it only considers the treatment capacity at the plant for the next 10 years. It does not consider the constraints in the existing sanitary collection system, wet weather flow issues, consideration for development demands and longer term growth, or the required infrastructure improvements to get the flows to the plant. As part of Niagara 2041, there was an update to the Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan (MSP). Niagara Region retained GM BluePlan Engineering Ltd. (GMBP) to review, evaluate and develop water and wastewater servicing strategies for all servicing within the urban areas of the Region. The MSP Update used updated population and employment growth forecasts based on a 2041 planning horizon. Niagara Region is now working on the current 2021 MSP Update which is looking at potential growth out to 2051. Based on the Niagara 2051 planning review, the implementation and timing of the preferred solution for the new South Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant and Servicing Solution (SNF Servicing Solution) continues to be supported and is necessary to accommodate growth. In Niagara Falls, there is not enough capacity in the existing sewer system nor at the existing treatment plant to meet the increasing system demands resulting from growth as well as the increased wet weather flows due to aging infrastructure and climate change. The SNF Servicing Solution is essential to unlocking the development potential in the broader South Niagara area. The ability to redirect existing flows to the south, provide additional capacity in the new trunk sewer, provide flexibility for storage in the trunk sewer, and ultimately treat the wastewater flows at the new WWTP all contribute to a significant wet weather management program. In addition, the location of the new WWTP will provide flexibility for the potential for additional wet weather management through potential connections of other service areas such as Chippawa. Through the analysis undertaken as part of the Class EA process, it is estimated that the new South Niagara Wastewater Solutions strategy, will result in a reduction of over 60% of wet weather volume overflow to the environment. This new WWTP is integral to the overall growth servicing strategy that supports the anticipated residential and employment growth in the Niagara Falls, NOTL, and Thorold South service areas. This total growth is estimated to be over 75,000 people and jobs in the area out to the year 2051 with the new WWTP servicing approximately half of this growth along with the existing residents and businesses in South Niagara Falls and Thorold South. The new WWTP and collection system strategy is also considering Page 488 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ potential long term growth beyond 2051. The capital program to support the new WWTP will provide greater flexibility for development servicing in St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Thorold, and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Alternatives Reviewed An alternative to use a 3-year average daily flow in the reserve capacity calculation was reviewed. Since no significant difference or trend was found for the 2021 Reserve Capacity calculations, a 5-year average daily flow continued to be used. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities The report aligns with Council’s Priority of Responsible Growth and Infrastructure Planning by highlighting the reserve capacity available for growth at all Regional Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The report also provides MECP and local municipal partners operational summary and reserve capacity projections for Region’s Water and Wastewater Treatment facilities Other Pertinent Reports • PW 39-2021, September 9, 2021, South Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant – Budget and Property • PDS 22-2021, April 14, 2021, 2020 Reserve Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacities • PW 22-2017, May 30, 2017, 2016 Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan Update ________________________________ Prepared by: Ilija Stetic, B.Sc., PMP Project Manager Planning and Development Services _______________________________ Recommended by: Michelle Sergi, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development Services Page 489 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Phill Lambert, Director Infrastructure Planning and Development Engineering, John Brunet, AD Water Operations and Maintenance and Jason Oatley, Manager WW Quality & Compliance. Page 490 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendices Appendix 1 Annual Average Daily Flow 2017 to 2021 WTP Appendix 2 Annual Average Daily Flow 2017 to 2021 WWTP Appendix 3 Water Reserve Capacity Calculations for 2021 Appendix 4 Wastewater Reserve Capacity Calculations for 2021 Page 491 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Appendix 1 Appendix 1: WTP Annual Average Daily Flow 2017 - 2021 Water Rated Average Daily Flow (m3/d)5 Year Average 2017 / 21 3 Year Average 2019 / 21 Treatment Plant Capacity 3(m /d) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Decew Falls WTP 227,300 54,349 56,090 53,303 53,390 50,824 53,591 52,506 Grimsby WTP 44,000 14,032 14,919 14,029 15,726 14,872 14,716 14,876 Niagara Falls WTP 145,584 44,924 44,835 43,400 40,145 40,125 42,686 41,223 Port Colborne WTP 36,000 8,735 8,864 7,282 6,870 6,387 7,628 6,846 Rosehill WTP 50,026 12,395 12,872 11,188 11,024 11,710 11,838 11,307 Welland WTP 65,000 21,594 22,538 22,579 24,670 24,675 23,211 23,975 Page 7Page 492 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Appendix 2 Appendix 2: WWTP Annual Average Daily Flow 2017 - 2021 Wastewater Rated Average Daily Flow (m3/d) 5 Year Average 2017 / 21 3 Year Average 2019 / 21 Treatment Plant Capacity (m³/d) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Anger Avenue WWTP 24,500 15,000 14,624 15,146 13,580 13,171 14,304 13,966 Baker Road WWTP 31,280 20,897 19,975 20,910 17,952 17,081 19,363 18,648 Crystal Beach WWTP 9,100 5,915 5,874 6,276 5,688 5,256 5,802 5,740 Niagara Falls WWTP 68,300 44,684 41,489 41,360 35,242 35,197 39,594 37,266 NOTL WWTP 8,000 4,561 4,687 5,237 5,142 5,602 5,046 5,327 Port Dalhousie WWTP 61,350 34,823 35,095 36,681 34,113 31,793 34,501 34,196 Port Weller WWTP 56,180 32,090 36,881 39,211 33,751 33,176 35,022 35,379 Queenston WWTP 500 234 198 213 135 142 185 163 Seaway WWTP 19,600 12,082 12,580 13,472 11,299 10,200 11,927 11,657 Stevensville/Douglastown 2,289 1,635 1,670 1,729 1,592 1,552 1,636 1,624 Welland WWTP 54,550 35,407 34,643 37,137 33,617 34,288 35,019 35,014 Page 8Page 493 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Appendix 3 Appendix 3: WTP Reserve Capacities for 2021 Water Permit Rated Theoretical 90% of 5-Year Total Reserve Design Reserve 10-Year Surplus Treatment Plant To Take (1)Water Treatment Capacity Ave Day Capacity Ave Day (2)Capacity Ave Day Flow Peaking Factor Capacity Used Treatment Capacity Flow Rate Serviceable Population Forecast Population Population 10-Year MLD 90% MLD 275 Lpcd Equivalents Res & Emp Projection DeCew Falls 227.0 227.3 150.8 135.7 53.6 1.507 36%82.1 275 298,545 30,398 268,147 Grimsby 44.0 44.0 26.9 24.2 14.7 1.637 55%9.5 275 34,545 14,771 19,774 Niagara Falls 145.5 145.6 91.6 82.4 42.7 1.590 47%39.8 275 144,727 23,782 120,945 Port Colborne 45.5 36.0 22.7 20.4 7.6 1.589 34%12.8 275 46,545 1,552 44,993 Rosehill 78.0 50.0 33.0 29.7 11.8 1.514 36%17.9 275 65,091 6,375 58,716 Welland 110.0 65.0 43.7 39.3 23.2 1.487 53%16.1 275 58,545 12,292 46,253 Note 1: Original MOE approved quantity of raw water permitted (Permit To Take Water). Note 2: Region's W&WW MSP (GM BluePlan, 2017) requires planning process for expansion when plant capacity exceeds 80%, and expansion should be completed when capacity exceeds 90%. Page 9Page 494 of 842 PDS 13-2022 April 6, 2022 Appendix 4 Appendix 4: WWTP Reserve Capacity for 2021 Wastewater MECP 90% of 5-Year Total Reserve Design Reserve 10-Year Surplus Treatment Rated Plant Average Capacity Treatment Flow Serviceable Forecast Population Plant Capacity (1)Capacity Daily Flow Used 90%Capacity 3m/d (2)Rate 365 Lpcd Population Equivalents Population Res & Emp 10-Year Projection3m/d Anger Avenue (Fort Erie)24,500 22,050 14,304 58%7,746 365 21,221 4,277 16,944 Baker Road (Grimsby)31,280 28,152 19,363 62%8,789 365 24,080 16,791 7,289 Crystal Beach (Fort Erie)9,100 8,190 5,802 64%2,388 365 6,544 1,443 5,101 Niagara Falls (3)68,300 61,470 39,594 58%21,876 365 59,933 19,980 39,953 NOTL 8,000 7,200 5,046 63%2,154 365 5,902 2,644 3,258 Port Dalhousie (St. Catharines)61,350 55,215 34,501 56%20,714 365 56,751 15,005 41,746 Port Weller (St. Catharines)56,180 50,562 35,022 62%15,540 365 42,576 10,052 32,524 Queenston (NOTL)(4)500 450 185 37%265 365 727 99 628 Seaway (Port Colborne)19,600 17,640 11,927 61%5,713 365 15,653 1,622 14,031 Stevensville/Douglastown 2,289 2,060 1,636 71%424 365 1,163 795 368 Welland 54,550 49,095 35,019 64%14,076 365 38,566 12,912 25,654 Note 1: Region's W&WW MSP (GM BluePlan, 2017) requires planning process for expansion when plant capacity exceeds 80%, and expansion should be completed when capacity exceeds 90%. Note 2: Design Flow Rate incorporated 90 L/c/d of extraneous flow allowance Note 3: The Niagara Falls WWTP assessment includes the sewage flows from the St. David's area of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Note 4: The Queenston WWTP in Niagara-on-the-Lake has a unique capacity commitment of 226 m³/d for the following properties: Niagara Parks Commission (75 m³/d), Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (63 m³/d), Shalamar Campground (38 m³/d) and Ontario Power Generation (50 m³/d). Due to these commitments and limited UAB, limited residential growth is expected within the next 10 years within the tributary area. Page 10Page 495 of 842 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 22, 2022 CL 8-2022, April 14, 2022 PWC 3-2022, April 5, 2022 PW 11-2022, April 5, 2022 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY Inspection Programs and Condition of Niagara Region Trunk Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure PW 11-2022 Regional Council, at its meeting held on April 14, 2022, passed the following recommendation of its Public Works Committee: That Report PW 11-2022, dated April 5, 2022, respecting Inspection Programs and Condition of Niagara Region Trunk Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure, BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities. A copy of PW 11-2022 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :cv CLK-C 2022-065 cc: B. Zvaniga, Interim Commissioner, Public Works N. Coffer, Executive Assistant, Public Works G. Epp, Acting Associate Director, Water Wastewater Asset Management Page 496 of 842 PW 11-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 1 Subject: Inspection Programs and Condition of Niagara Region Trunk Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Report to: Public Works Committee Report date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 Recommendations 1. That this Report BE RECEIVED for information; and 2. That this Report BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities. Key Facts • The purpose of this report is to outline current inspections programs for linear sanitary sewer assets and report known structural or inflow and infiltration (I/I) issues, as directed by Public Works Committee on January 11, 2022. • Niagara Region owns and maintains 145 kilometers of trunk sanitary gravity sewers, 161 kilometers of sanitary force mains, and 2,093 sanitary access chambers across 11 municipalities. • Niagara Region inspects approximately 85 per cent of its conventional trunk sanitary gravity system once every three years. The remaining 15 per cent is large diameter trunk sewers which are inspected once every 10 to 15 years. • Niagara Region monitors sewer flows at 147 permanent locations and 57 temporary locations. Flow monitoring information is used for municipal Pollution Prevention and Control Plans (PPCPs), Master Servicing Plans (MSPs), Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) studies, billing, development planning, and capital project design. Financial Considerations The total replacement cost of Regional trunk sanitary gravity mains and sanitary force mains is over 1.1 billion dollars based on the 2016 Asset Management Plan, inflated to 2022 dollars. Sanitary gravity main and force main assets are designed for a useful service life that ranges between 60 and 100 years and sanitary access chambers are designed for a useful service life of 50 to 100 years. Asset service life and condition are influenced by various factors such as material, sewage characteristics, location, use, and the environment that it is installed in. The Region has several inspection and maintenance programs included in the approved operating budget to maximize useful life and maintain asset performance. These programs are detailed in Table 1. Page 497 of 842 PW 11-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ Table 1: Sanitary Gravity Main Inspection and Maintenance Programs Program Name Frequency Cost Conventional Trunk Sanitary Gravity Sewer CCTV Inspections (up to 1350mm) Annual Program $175,000 Sanitary Gravity Sewer Flushing Annual Program $100,000 Large Diameter Trunk Sanitary Gravity Sewer CCTV Inspection (1350mm and larger) Once every 10 to 15 years $210,000 Sanitary Access Chamber Inspection Once every 10 to 15 years $210,000 Suspended Pipe Inspection (These are elevated pipes that cross highways or water bodies) Once every 10 to 15 years $30,000 Analysis Niagara Region owns and maintains 145 kilometers of trunk sanitary gravity mains, 161 kilometers of sanitary force mains, and 2,093 sanitary access chambers across 11 municipalities. Appendix 1 contains a summary of linear assets by municipality. Existing programs for these assets can be grouped into five categories; inspection, flow monitoring, combined sewer overflow (CSO) control and wet weather management, maintenance, and rehabilitation and replacement. Inspection Trunk sanitary gravity sewers are large pipes that receive wastewater flows from smaller sewers and convey wastewater using the force of gravity. Niagara Region assesses the condition and performance of trunk sanitary gravity sewers using Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera equipment. Key observations are encoded into CTSpec which is a sewer inspection system that is built on National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) industry standards. Sanitary gravity mains with a diameter of 1350mm or less are inspected once every three years. These mains account for 85 per cent of all Regional trunk gravity mains. Trunk sanitary gravity mains that have a diameter greater than or equal to 1350mm are inspected once every 10 to 15 years. These large diameter sewers account for 15 per cent of all Regional trunk sanitary gravity mains. The difference in inspection frequency Page 498 of 842 PW 11-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ is due to the specialized equipment necessary to access and inspect sewers that have continuous high flow levels. Table 2 details the total length of sewers inspected over the past four years. Table 2: CCTV Program Summary Measurement in Meters 2018 2019 2020 2021 Inspection Length (M) 54,151 49,621 37,905 18,500* *2021 marked the end of one inspection contract and the start of a new contract. Delays in the procurement process due to competing priorities resulted in a gap in inspection contracts. As a result, the length of sewers inspected in 2021 was less than in prior years. Sanitary gravity sewer condition reporting is split into two groups, structural defects and service defects. Structural defects include collapses, cracks, pipe offsets, and other defects that impact the integrity of the pipe. Structural condition ratings range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing a new pipe with no defects, and 5 being a pipe that has one or more of the most severe defects. Appendix 2 provides a graphic overview of the current structural condition of Regional trunk sanitary gravity mains. Service or operational defects are defects that affect the performance of the pipe. These defects include debris, roots, and other blockages. Service condition ratings range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing a new pipe with no defects, and 5 is a pipe that has one or more of the most severe blockages. Appendix 3 provides a graphic overview of the current service condition for Regional trunk sanitary gravity mains. Fourteen per cent of sanitary trunk gravity mains have no data because these pipes were inspected fifteen years ago as part of a large diameter inspection contract and data was not imported into the sewer inspection system. Large diameter sewers can be extremely deep and have high and fast flows. Performing assessments of these sewers requires specialized equipment. A contract will be released later this year to re-inspect large diameter sanitary gravity sewers. Sanitary force mains are pressurized sewer pipes that convey pumped wastewater from a lower elevation to a higher elevation or across areas where deep excavation is not feasible. The cost of inspecting sanitary force mains is high because temporary flow bypass is required and gaining access to the pipe often exceed the costs of physical Page 499 of 842 PW 11-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ inspection. As a result, sanitary force main condition is calculated based on age and break history. Appendix 4 provides a graphic overview of sanitary force main condition. Sanitary access chambers are access shafts that provide access to sanitary gravity sewer pipes. Sanitary access chambers are inspected every 10 to 15 years. The last time the Region completed a system-wide access chamber inspection program was in 2009. Condition information grades from the 2009 system-wide inspection are shown in Appendix 5. Thirty-eight per cent of sanitary access chambers have not been inspected because of accessibility issues but the condition of many of these chambers are observed during CCTV pipe inspections. Service condition for another six per cent could not be obtained because of chamber size or configuration. A graphic breakdown is shown in Appendix 6. Deeper chambers may have stairs and landings that restrict inspection equipment. Flow Monitoring Since 2013, Niagara Region has continued to support Local Area Municipalities by offering remote access to customized SCADA screens offering both real-time status and historical data for wastewater collection system infrastructure servicing their municipality. Nine of the eleven serviced municipalities currently utilize this tool to assist them in making informed decisions during wet weather events. Niagara has since expanded the functionality of this tool by offering municipalities the option of creating automated alarming to notify of alarm events impacting critical collection system locations in their area. Niagara Region monitors sewer flows at 147 permanent locations and 57 temporary locations. Flow monitoring information is used for municipal Pollution Prevention and Control Plans (PPCPs), Master Servicing Plans (MSPs) including the 2021 Water and Wastewater MSP, Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) studies, billing, development planning, and capital project design. Over the past four years, Niagara Region has participated in the following plans: • 2018 Niagara Falls PPCP • 2019 Fort Erie PPCP • 2019 Grimsby Lincoln West Lincoln PPCP • 2019 St. Catharines PPCP • 2019 Welland PPCP • 2021 Niagara Region MSP Page 500 of 842 PW 11-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ CSO Control Program & Wet Weather Management The Regional Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program is a collaborative initiative between the Region and Municipal Partners and is managed by the Infrastructure Planning & Development Engineering group in Planning & Development Services. The CSO Program is part of the Wet Weather Management (WWM) Group, which has local municipal representation for all serviced areas. This group meets to review the CSO Program and cost-sharing funding for projects that deal with I&I issues on the municipal sanitary systems and includes funding as well Regional participation in projects like the PPCPs listed above. PPCPs will consider flow monitoring for the entire sanitary collection system including local municipal sewers as well as Regional sanitary trunk sewers and Regional sewage pumping stations to determine specific areas of greater I&I and direction for further study and remediation. The widely accepted CSO Control Program goal is to work on targeted I&I reduction to lower the risk of basement flooding and reduce overflows to the environment as well as gaining back existing capacity, postponing upgrades/expansions of wastewater infrastructure, and providing capacity for growth. The CSO Funding Program has been in place since 2007 and is intended to facilitate shared funding with the local Municipal partners to help mitigate the impacts of wet weather events on the Region-wide sanitary system and the environment. A total of approximately $68 million dollars of funding has been awarded from 2007- 2021 for 388 projects with LAMs. Maintenance When Regional asset defects are identified, it is triaged and resolved according to the level of risk. Major structural defects such as collapses or holes are repaired using annual maintenance budgets. Service defects such as roots, debris, grease deposits, or calcite are removed through the annual sewer flushing program. Table 3 details the total length of sewers cleaned over the past four years. Table 3: Sewer Flushing Program Summary Measurement in Meters 2018 2019 2020 2021 Flushing Length (M) 20,950 12,613 11,010 6,400* Page 501 of 842 PW 11-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ *2021 marked the end of one flushing contract and the start of a new contract. Delays in the procurement process due to competing priorities resulted in a gap in sewer flushing contracts. As a result, the total length of sewer flushing in 2021 was less than in prior years. Rehabilitation or Replacement Defects requiring sewer replacement or rehabilitation such as sewer relining are prioritized using the Corporate Asset Management Risk Assessment (CAMRA) model and added to the capital program. Over the past four years, over 17 million dollars has been spent relining the Stamford Interceptor Trunk Sewer in Niagara Falls and Oaks Park Trunk Sewer in Fort Erie. Table 4 details the total length of sewers that have been relined or replaced over the past four years. Table 4: Sewer Relining and Replacement Summary Measurement in Meters 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sanitary Gravity Main Relining Length (M) 1,278 1,563 690 1,558 Sanitary Gravity Main Replacement Length (M) 867 1,008 6 7 Sanitary Force Main Replacement Length (M) 1,128 3,184 1,597 1,673 Alternatives Reviewed Since the late 1990’s, Niagara Region has relied on camera-based technologies such as CCTV camera inspections for gravity pipe condition assessments. Camera-based technologies are well-established and cost-effective condition assessment methods that can be used on gravity pipes of various sizes and materials. The drawbacks of this technology are that it cannot inspect pipes that are submerged and it can only inspect internal pipe surface conditions. Alternative technologies such as acoustic and free-swimming leak detection equipment have been used to inspect sanitary force mains and sewers that are continuously submerged but success has been limited. Acoustic technology was used in 2012 to inspect a portion of the River Road Trunk Sanitary Sewer but this inspection was unsuccessful. In 2015, free-swimming technologies were used successfully to inspect the condition of 2,000 meters of the St Davids #1 (Cannery) Sewage Pumping Station force main. This technology was also used to inspect the Victoria Avenue Sewage Pumping Station force main however this inspection was unsuccessful. Page 502 of 842 PW 11-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ Due to sewer size, flow and access, it is not always economically feasible to conduct complete inspections of the entire wastewater system. A balance must be struck between the collection of condition information and the cost and risk of inspection. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities Information presented in this report relates directly to Council’s Strategic Priority 4.1 of committing to “high quality, efficient and coordinated core services” ________________________________ Prepared by: Greg Epp, CAMP, C.Tech Associate Director, W-WW Asset Management (Acting) Public Works Department _______________________________ Recommended by: Bruce Zvaniga P. Eng Commissioner of Public Works (Interim) Public Works Department _______________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Glenn Fulton, CET, Asset Performance Supervisor; Derek Falardeau-Mercier, P. Eng., Senior Technical Project Manager, Craig Courteau, P. Eng., Associate Director W-WW Integrated Systems, Phill Lambert, P. Eng., Director of Infrastructure Planning and Development Engineering and reviewed by Joseph Tonellato, P. Eng., Director W -WW. Appendices Appendix 1 Sanitary Sewer Network Statistics Appendix 2 Sanitary Trunk Gravity Main Structural Condition Appendix 3 Sanitary Trunk Gravity Main Service Condition Appendix 4 Sanitary Force Main Structural Condition Appendix 5 Sanitary Access Chamber Structural Condition Appendix 6 Sanitary Access Chamber Service Condition Page 503 of 842 PW 11-2022 Appendix 1 Sanitary Sewer Network Statistics Wastewater Network Fort Erie NOTL Grimsby Niagara Falls St. Catharines Port Colborne Number of Local Area Municipal Connections to Niagara Region Sewers 66 23 42 70 137 31 Niagara Region Average Sanitary Gravity Main Age (Years) 40.43 35.14 36.32 43.59 49.74 45.34 Niagara Region Average Sanitary Force Main Age Average (Years) 12.28 15.22 24.58 15.79 18.66 21.51 Approximate Local Area Municipal Sanitary Gravity Main Length (Km) 199.26 93.47 112.00 432.16 560.76 90.20 Niagara Region Sanitary Gravity Main Length (Km) 16.27 8.96 11.11 21.32 35.64 0.97 Approximate Local Area Municipal Sanitary Force Main Length (Km) 0.00 3.45 1.34 1.08 3.95 0.84 Niagara Region Sanitary Force Main Length (Km) 20.05 15.46 13.80 29.45 6.32 19.09 Number of Niagara Regional Access Chambers (Maintenance Holes & Underground Enclosures) 284 152 198 332 435 75 Number of Local Area Municipal Access Chambers (Maintenance Holes & Underground Enclosures) 2743 1678 2058 6065 8216 1135 Page 504 of 842 Wastewater Network Welland Thorold Lincoln West Lincoln Pelham Number of Local Area Municipal Connections to Niagara Region Sewers 83 36 20 5 31 Niagara Region Average Sanitary Gravity Main Age (Years) 36.18 41.35 41.89 18.67 32.66 Niagara Region Average Sanitary Force Main Age Average (Years) 23.11 23.29 26.77 12.81 13.07 Approximate Local Area Municipal Sanitary Gravity Main Length (Km) 235.79 102.22 85.57 33.15 66.51 Niagara Region Sanitary Gravity Main Length (Km) 28.02 5.76 7.56 0.34 5.27 Approximate Local Area Municipal Sanitary Force Main Length (Km) 1.59 0.00 3.64 0.18 0.48 Niagara Region Sanitary Force Main Length (Km) 13.54 8.90 13.90 14.01 6.91 Number of Niagara Regional Access Chambers (Maintenance Holes & Underground Enclosures) 275 118 127 31 79 Number of Local Area Municipal Access Chambers (Maintenance Holes & Underground Enclosures) 3913 1448 1255 501 989 Page 505 of 842 PW 11-2022 – Appendix 2 Sanitary Trunk Gravity Main Structural Condition Page 506 of 842 PW 11-2022 – Appendix 3 Sanitary Trunk Gravity Main Service Condition Page 507 of 842 PW 11-2022 – Appendix 4 Sanitary Force Main Structural Condition Page 508 of 842 PW 11-2022 - Appendix 5 Sanitary Access Chamber Structural Condition Page 509 of 842 PW 11-2022 – Appendix 6 Sanitary Access Chamber Service Condition Page 510 of 842 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 22, 2022 CL 8-2022, April 14, 2022 PWC 3-2022, April 5, 2022 PW 14-2022, April 5, 2022 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY Inspection of Regional Water Infrastructure PW 14-2022 Regional Council, at its meeting held on April 14, 2022, passed the following recommendation of its Public Works Committee: That Report PW 14-2022, dated April 5, 2022, respecting Inspection of Regional Water Infrastructure, BE RECEIVED and the following recommendations BE APPROVED: 1. That staff BE DIRECTED to consult with the area municipalities to review options for reinstating a water loss committee to collectively review strategies for targeted investigation and reduction of water loss, with a goal of providing an update to the 2007 Regional Water Loss report; 2. That Report PW 14-2022 BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities; and 3. That staff BE DIRECTED to provide a progress report for the June Public Works Committee meeting. A copy of PW 14-2022 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :cv CLK-C 2022-064 cc: B. Zvaniga, Interim Commissioner, Public Works N. Coffer, Executive Assistant, Public Works E. Shisler, Water Process Specialist, Water Wastewater Services Page 511 of 842 PW 14-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 1 Subject: Inspection of Regional Water Infrastructure Report to: Public Works Committee Report date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1. That staff BE DIRECTED to consult with the area municipalities to review options for reinstating a water loss committee to collectively review strategies for targeted investigation and reduction of water loss, with a goal of providing an update to the 2007 Regional Water Loss report; and 2. That this Report BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities. Key Facts • In 2021, Niagara Region delivered 56,065 ML of treated water through six water treatment plants and 313 km of watermain across 11 municipalities. • Operations staff monitor variations in flow and pressure throughout the system, and immediately report suspected main breaks to Regional and Area Municipal staff as observations warrant. Breaks on transmission mains are repaired immediately. • Distribution flow is monitored using 25 flow meters across Niagara, which are verified and calibrated on a semi-annual basis by a third party contractor. These flows are used not only for billing calculations, but also long-term planning associated with servicing, development planning and capital project design. • Between 2004 and 2007 a Water Loss Reduction Task Force comprised of Regional and Area Municipal representatives was formed to share experiences regarding water loss levels and strategies for reduction. • Niagara’s water transmission system is comprised of large diameter water mains of various pipe material. Approximately 89 per cent of these transmission mains are non-metallic, which is not favourable to acoustic leak detection. Leak detection involving invasive technologies or system shutdowns will potentially impact thousands of customers and may not be feasible on trunk systems. Financial Considerations Watermains are designed for a useful service life greater than 80 years and appurtenances such as valves are designed for a useful service life of 25 years. Access chambers are designed for a useful service life of 50 to 100 years. Asset service life and condition are influenced by various factors such as material, quality, location, use, and Page 512 of 842 PW 14-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ the environment that it is installed in. As thresholds for these criteria are met, watermains are selected for replacement through Capital funds. The annual cost of calibration, for flow meters used for billing, is approximately $18,000. A breakdown of these costs is provided in Table 2 below (Analysis: Calibration and Verification). A comprehensive review of water loss along all of Niagara Region’s transmission mains would be approximately $3,000 to $25,000 per km of main depending on the diameter of main and the water loss technology used. This estimate is based on the Region’s previous work regarding water loss strategies, and is contingent on watermain material, location and configuration of the transmission system. A summary of leak detection strategies is presented in the Analysis section below. Analysis Niagara Region owns and maintains 313 km of watermain and 973 underground enclosures across 11 municipalities. Appendix 1 contains a detailed summary by municipality. Table 1 below identifies the total length of pipe in the Regional network, by pipe material. Table 1: KM of Watermain by Pipe Material Material KMs of Watermain Percent of System Life Expectancy (Years) Average Age (Years) Concrete Pressure Pipe 137 44 70-80 43 PVC Plastic Pipe 108 35 75 17 Asbestos Cement Pipe 32 10 60-70 49 Ductile Iron 14 4 60-70 29 Cast Iron 10 3 60-70 58 Other 11 4 60-70 37 Operational Monitoring and Break Response Niagara operates six (6) water treatment plants. Operators at these facilities monitor variations in flow and pressure throughout the system and immediately report suspected main breaks to Regional and Area Municipal staff as observations warrant. As breaks Page 513 of 842 PW 14-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ are suspected, Niagara Region initiates the resources to investigate. Region staff often support Area Municipalities in locating and confirming breaks on Local infrastructure. To troubleshoot these events, Regional staff rely on trends from a variety of online instruments which measure flow, pressure, level etc. In the event that a failure is on Region infrastructure, Niagara Region maintenance staff use contractors for immediate repair of the main from a preapproved list of external parties detailed in the Water and Wastewater Emergency Response Procedure. Inspection and Maintenance Underground enclosures (valve chambers) are routinely inspected by internal maintenance personnel through routine preventative maintenance programs, such as the valve turning program. As required, maintenance personnel inspect and report on valve chamber condition and general operation to support troubleshooting of operational or distribution issues. For example, in January 2022, maintenance personnel inspected chambers along transmission watermains in the City of Port Colborne to provide feedback to the City on concerns related to main breaks in the local distribution system. At the time of inspection, all visible piping and valves were in good working order. Investigations Completed to Date Through Capital Project scoping and design, many studies and condition assessments have been completed to evaluate the integrity of transmission mains, valves and appurtenances. In addition to these studies, the following specific water loss investigations have occurred: 2004 to 2007: Water Loss Reduction Task Force and Regional Water Loss Assessment Project In 2004 the “Water Loss Reduction Task Force” comprised of Regional and Area Municipal representatives was formed. The purpose of this group was to share experiences regarding water loss levels and strategies for reduction. Through the “Water Loss Assessment Project” water balances were completed based on the data provided by the Region and Area Municipalities. The study was completed by Veritec Consulting Inc. and was finalized in 2007. The Regional Water Loss Assessment Project report is included in Appendix 2. Page 514 of 842 PW 14-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ 2011 - 2015: City of Port Colborne – Integration of Water Loss Analysis Tools into a SCADA System Between 2011 and 2014 a study was developed and conducted in the City of Port Colborne to develop off-line and real time tools to integrate the City’s water usage data with flow data from four district metered areas (DMAs). Niagara Region provided in- kind (SCADA) support for this project, which was also funded through the Showcasing Water Innovation Program. The goal of this project was to provide the City with flow monitoring to aid in locating and remediating unaccounted for water. 2020: Niagara Region Billing Meter Verification Demonstration to Town of Fort Erie In response to questions from the Town of Fort Erie, the Region invited Town staff to witness a third party calibration process at the Rosehill Water Treatment Plant for the billing meters impacting the Town. Following this demonstration, Niagara Region shared verification certificates with Town staff. 2021 – 2022; Niagara Region – Water and Wastewater Billing Flowmeter Audit This project is currently underway to review, confirm and make recommendations for improvements for all processes that contribute to the volumes used for billing. This work includes an audit of the accuracy and suitability of the Region’s billing flow meters and a comparison of current methods, including meter type and installation against best practices. Calibration and Verification Water meters are essential for process automation and are calibrated on a semi-annual basis. The cost for these calibrations is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Calibration of Flow Meters Program Name Frequency Cost Calibration of Non Mechanical Flow Meters Semi-annual ≈ $15,200 Calibration of Mechanical Flow Meters Semi-annual ≈ $2,200 Page 515 of 842 PW 14-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ When establishing the frequency of calibration required, Niagara Region takes into account whether or not the meter is used to meet legal requirements, industry standards for calibration, manufacturer recommendations and the conditions of use such as importance of collected data for use in other processes such as billing. There are 25 water meters used for billing, all of which are calibrated on a semi-annual frequency. Water QMS Risk Assessment An internal risk assessment is required every 36 months for each of Niagara Region’s water systems, with complementary risk assessment reviews to be completed at 12 and 24 months between the assessments. A full risk assessment for the Water QMS was completed in 2021, with reviews to follow in 2022 and 2023. Through the risk assessment exercise, the Water-Wastewater Asset Management group assesses risk associated with watermains using the risk scoring criteria outlined in the Corporate Asset Management Risk Assessment (CAMRA) model. Criteria for consideration includes factors such as; likelihood of failure, impact on users and the environment, financial risks and risks associated with compliance or social reputation of Niagara Region. There were no high-scoring risks identified during the 2021 full risk assessment. Any previously identified high-scoring risks have been mitigated through capital projects, operational adjustments, or through continual improvement initiatives. Leak Detection Technologies for Transmission Mains The three (3) most common methods of leak detection for transmission systems are in- line acoustic monitoring, non invasive acoustic monitoring and district metering. Costs associated with these methods vary depending on diameter and type of technology used and are detailed under the Financial Considerations section of this report. For both in-line and non invasive acoustic monitoring, sensors discern the acoustic activity associated with leaks by sending acoustic pulses to receivers attached to pipe appurtenances. Leak location is estimated by the arrival time of the pulses. When in-line acoustic monitoring is used, condition and configuration of the pipe i.e. tubercles, valves, bends and pipe appurtenances may obstruct equipment, and terrain changes may make installation and removal of equipment difficult. In-line monitoring can be disruptive to operations. While non-invasive installations pose less disruption to service and flow, this type of installation is sensitive to interferences. With increasing pipe diameter, there is less accuracy of the sensors to detect leakage. All acoustic leak detection is sensitive to pipe material and diameter. Acoustic methods work best with Page 516 of 842 PW 14-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ smaller diameter metallic pipes, and are less accurate with large diameter transmission mains. Approximately 89 per cent of Niagara Region’s transmission mains are non- metallic, and all are large diameter. District metering is an audit of the meters within a portion of the distribution system. Meters are installed to measure flow into and throughout a defined portion of the system, and flows are monitored to determine if leakage may be an issue. The installation of meters that detect bidirectional flow can also aid in locating leaks. Due to the size and configuration of Niagara Region watermains it may not be economically feasible to conduct a complete inspection of the entire transmission system. Regional infrastructure valves for shutting down sections of main are often located a considerable distance apart, and isolation and draining of sections at a time can put a significant number of residents and businesses out of service. In addition to these concerns, pressure transients caused by putting a main back into service could cause breaks within the Area Municipal system. Currently staff focus on areas where mains are known to be aged, have a higher occurrence of failure or the pipe material is most conducive to water loss investigation. Both infrastructure age and failure are well documented through the QMS Risk Assessment Process. Alternatives Reviewed The alternatives to reinstating a water loss committee to collectively review strategies for targeted investigation and reduction of water loss are: 1. Do nothing. Niagara Region could continue with current practices but this may be less effective in addressing the opportunities to further reduce any water loss. 2. Council could direct staff to procure external resources to undertake a comprehensive water loss assessment. This is not recommended without first re- establishing the water loss committee with Local Area Municipal staff participation to ensure that any assessment is comprehensive and has access to all available information. Page 517 of 842 PW 14-2022 April 5, 2022 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities Recommendations presented in this report relate directly to Council’s Strategic Priority 4.1 of committing to “high quality, efficient and coordinated core services”. Through coordinated efforts, the Region and Area Municipalities can collaborate on water loss reduction strategies. _______________________ Prepared by: Erin Shisler Water Process Specialist W-WW Services _________________________ Recommended by: Bruce Zvaniga P.Eng. Commissioner of Public Works (Interim) Public Works Department _______________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with John Brunet, Associate Director, Water Operations and Maintenance, and reviewed by Joe Tonellato, Director, W -WW Services. Appendices Appendix 1 Niagara Region – Watermain Statistics Appendix 2 2007 Regional Water Loss Assessment Project Page 518 of 842 PW 14-2022 Appendix 1 - Niagara Region Water Main Statistics Water FE NOTL Grimsby NF STC PC Welland Thorold Lincoln West Lincoln Pelham Total No. of connections to local infrastructure 79 109 26 97 144 25 117 50 54 3 35 739 Average age of infrastructure (water mains) 29.26 25.36 30.80 44.00 34.00 26.00 44.50 24.60 28.74 20.04 40.50 34 Km of Local water main 275.79 200.06 135.03 483.26 593.77 111.57 273.47 117.74 112.00 34.84 85.34 2423 KM of Regional water main 50.90 43.14 20.46 47.13 53.90 7.80 29.22 20.28 18.38 12.58 9.56 313 KM of water mains replaced over the past 10 years (2011) 5.50 0.06 2.50 0.08 12.77 1.41 0.74 2.57 0.06 0.52 0.00 26 KM of mains to be replaced over next 10 years 10.44 3.51 1.70 0.00 0.03 1.62 0.00 0.00 3.53 7.42 0.00 28 No. of Regional Underground Enclosures 129 98 76 133 180 30 149 74 57 32 15 973 No. of LAM Underground Enclosures 0 0 854 0 101 7 0 1 11 0 1 975 Page 519 of 842 PW 14-2022 Appendix 2 Region of Niagara Regional Water Loss Assessment Project JUNE 2007 FINAL REPORT Page 520 of 842 Executive Summary With increasing regulatory requirements dealing with water quality, water takings, and full cost recovery the need to understand the performance of water systems has never been more prevalent. Efficient management (and operational control) of water distribution system includes managing real and apparent water losses. In November 2004, representatives from both the Region and its area municipalities attended a two day workshop on current industry best practices for dealing with water loss assessment, validation, measurement and control. The group identified that a proper assessment (and validation) of the water loss levels within each AM’s water system should be initiated. The Region contracted Veritec Consulting Inc. to complete water balances for each of the area municipalities. This report highlights the results of the water balances completed for each participating area municipality. Balances were completed using PIFastCalc for Canada, a licensed software tool incorporating the standard water balance procedure and terminology adopted by both the AWWA and Canadian InfraGuide. PIFastCalc also calculates many benchmarking Performance Indicators (PIs). With respect to validation PIFastCalc for Canada incorporates confidence intervals that highlight data quality. Non-Revenue Water (NRW) is a “Basic” financial PI. Excluding demands in the City of Welland, the project identifies that collectively, the percentage of NRW in the Region is approximately 14% (i.e, 86% of water sold by the Region is accounted for by billed consumption in the area municipalities). The components of NRW are:  Unbilled, Authorized Consumption,  Apparent Losses, and  Real Losses Individually the percentage of NRW in the area municipalities ranges from 0% to 37%. Percentages of NRW, however, should not be used to compare and contrast the performance of one system versus another. The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) is a ratio of the volumes of Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) to Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). Unavoidable losses vary from system to system based on their characteristics (e.g. kilometers of water main, average system pressures, etc.). Calculated values of ILIs may facilitate the comparison of systems with respect to others as well as benchmark individual performance for annual comparisons. The World Bank Institute and AWWA have developed general descriptions, guidelines, and recommendations based on the Infrastructure Leakage Index and these may be reviewed by each municipality based on its calculated ILI. Veritec Consulting Inc. i Page 521 of 842 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Project Methodology 2 3.0 Results: Phase I – Data Collection 3.1.0 Water Supplied 4 3.2.0 Billed, Authorized Consumption Metered 6 3.3.0 Billed, Authorized Consumption Un-metered 8 3.4.0 Unbilled, Authorized Consumption Metered 8 3.5.0 Unbilled, Authorized Consumption Un-metered 8 3.6.0 Unauthorized Consumption 8 3.7.0 Apparent Loss – meter under-registration 9 3.8.0 Apparent Loss – customer meter data handling errors 10 3.9.0 Mains Length 10 3.10.0 Number of Hydrants 11 3.11.0 Number of Separately Billed Properties 11 3.12.0 Number of Unbilled Service Connections 11 3.13.0 Average pipe length, property line to billing meter 11 3.14.0 Average pressure when system pressurized 12 3.15.0 Assessed Marginal Costs 3.15.1 Assessed Marginal Costs of UACM 13 3.15.2 Assessed Marginal Costs of UACU 13 3.15.3 Assessed Marginal Costs of UC 13 3.15.4 Assessed Marginal Costs of ALMUR 13 3.15.5 Assessed Marginal Costs of ALDCD 13 3.15.7 Assessed Marginal Costs of RL 13 3.16.0 Costs of Operating the System 14 4.0 Results: Phase II – Water Balances 4.1.0 Financial Performance Indicators 4.1.1 Non-Revenue Water as % of System Input by Volume 14 4.1.2 Non-Revenue Water as % of System Input by Value 16 4.2.0 Operational Performance Indicators 4.2.1 Apparent Losses as a % of System Input 16 4.2.2 Real Losses in litres/service connections/day 17 4.2.3 Real Losses as Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) 18 5.0 Discussion 5.1.0 World Bank Institute Target Matrix 20 5.2.0 AWWA Guidelines 20 6.0 Recommendations 22 i ii Table of Contents Veritec Consulting Inc. ii Page 522 of 842 Table of Contents (con’t) Appendices Appendix A IWA Terminology Appendix B Supply Meter Accuracy Reports Appendix C Draft Report on Meter Accuracy in Niagara Region Appendix D NRW Trends Appendix E Component Analysis to Calculate Unavoidable Annual Real Loss Appendix F PIFastCalc Results – Fort Erie Appendix G PIFastCalc Results – Grimsby Appendix H PIFastCalc Results – Lincoln Appendix I PIFastCalc Results – Niagara Falls Appendix J PIFastCalc Results – Niagara-on-the-Lake Appendix K PIFastCalc Results – Pelham Appendix L PIFastCalc Results – Port Colborne Appendix M PIFastCalc Results – St. Catharines Appendix N PIFastCalc Results – Thorold Appendix O PIFastCalc Results – West Lincoln Veritec Consulting Inc. iii Page 523 of 842 1.0 INTRODUCTION With increasing regulatory requirements dealing with water quality, water takings, and full cost recovery the need to understand the performance of water systems has never been more prevalent. Efficient water system(s) management and operational control includes managing real and apparent water losses. The now defunct term “unaccounted- for-water” undermined efficiency in so far as the term “unaccounted-for” failed to identify causes or solutions. The term non-revenue water underlines inefficiencies and highlights the real cost(s) of water losses. Recognizing both costs and regulatory requirements, successful water loss programs must be two-fold; firstly, establishing the level of water losses and secondly, establishing programs to control and/or reduce these losses. The former justifies the investment in water loss reduction and control programs and may be used to track and report on project successes as well as identify program short-comings. In 2004, the Regional Municipality of Niagara created a working group consisting of Regional staff and representatives of its twelve area municipalities (AMs). The purpose of the “Water Loss Reduction Task Force” is to share experiences regarding water loss levels and strategies. In November 2004, a two day workshop on current industry best practices for dealing with water loss assessment, validation, measurement and control was sponsored by the Region. The task force identified that a proper assessment and validation of the water loss levels within each AM’s water system should be initiated. The AWWA and the Canadian InfraGuide have both adopted the International Water Association’s (IWA) Standard Water Balance. Using PIFastCalc for Canada V1, a licensed software package purchased by the Region on behalf of its area municipalities, water balances were completed based on the data provided by the area municipalities themselves. The following report summarizes the data collected as well as the results of the water balances with respect to the benchmarking performance indicators calculated within the software package. Individual copies of the PIFastCalc outputs are included in the appendices. Veritec Consulting Inc. 1 Page 524 of 842 2.0 PROJECT METHODOLOGY The goal of the Water Loss Assessment Project is to provide an appreciation of the components of water loss across the region and to identify areas in which losses can be addressed and ultimately reduced. Traditionally many distribution systems describe water losses as the percentage of unaccounted-for-water based on the simple calculation illustrated below: The IWA/AWWA Standard Water Balance (Figure 1) accounts for the total volume of water supplied by identifying the various components1 of both consumption as well as water losses using either measured or estimated quantities Own Sources System Input (allow for known errors) Water Exported Authorised Consumption Billed Authorised Consumption Revenue Water Billed Water Exported Water Supplied Billed Metered Consumption Billed Unmetered Consumption Water Imported Unbilled Authorised Consumption Non- Revenue Water Unbilled Metered Consumption Unbilled Unmetered Consumption Water Losses Apparent Losses Unauthorised Consumption Customer Metering Inaccuracies Real Losses Leakage on Mains Leakage and Overflows at Storages Leakage on Service Connections up to point of Customer Metering Figure 1: Overview of the Components of the IWA/AWWA Standard Water Balance PIFastCalcs is a licensed software package, purchased by the Region on behalf of its area municipalities, underlying the water loss assessment program. As evidenced in Figure 2 on the following page the standard water balance methodology is incorporated into the software. Based on the water balance, PIFastCalcs automatically calculates “Performance Indicators” (PIs) to assess both real and apparent water losses. And these performance indicators benchmark current losses allowing each area municipality to compare its own performance year-to-year as well as with other systems (locally and internationally). Tools (e.g., process reliability bands and 95 % confidence limits) highlight the potential need to further evaluate and/or verify data as well as track the overall effect of uncertainty regarding the data used to derive the water balance. 1 Appendix A includes the standard terminology of each of the balance’s components as included in PIFastCalcs. Veritec Consulting Inc. 2 Page 525 of 842 Figure 2: Copy of the “Water Balance & PIs” worksheet from PIFastCalc V1a Veritec Consulting Inc. 3 Page 526 of 842 3.0 RESULTS: PHASE I – DATA COLLECTION The following section summarizes the data collected with respect to the various components of the standard water balance. 3.1.0`Water Supply The Regional Municipality of Niagara itself is responsible for bulk water supply, treatment, transmission, and storage. Therefore the Region directly provided a monthly summary of metered volumes for each of its thirty-three billing meters. Based on the billing equations provided (Table 1) the data was used to derive the total volume of water supplied to each area municipality per month. Figure 3 illustrates the breakdown of nearly 74.5 million cubic meters sold in 2005. The Region also provided copies of the meter calibration tests completed in 2005 (Appendix B)2. Meters for accuracy reports were provided are highlighted in Table 1. Table 1 Regional Billing Equations Percentages of Regional Water Sales Attributed to Individual Area Municipalities West Lincoln Pelham Lincoln 1% 2% 3% Niagara-on-the- Lake 4% St. Catharines Thorold 31% 4% Grimsby 4% Port Colborne 5% Niagara Falls Fort Erie 24% 7% Welland 15% Figure 3: Water Supply in Niagara Region Area Municipality Billing Equation (Accuracy Reports provided for highlighted meters) Fort Erie 2T1+2T2-2S Grimsby 6T1-6D1-6D2 Lincoln 5D7+5D8+6D1 Niagara Falls 1T1+1T2-1D1-1D2-1D3-1D4 Niagara-on-the-Lake 5D5+5D6+1D1+1D2+1D3+5D9 Pelham 3D1+3D2 Port Colborne 4T1+4T2 St. Catharines (5T1+5T2+5T3+5T4+5T5)-5D1-5D2-5D3-5D4-5D5-5D6-5D7-5D8-5D9 Thorold 1D4+5D1-5D2+5D3+5D4 Welland 3T1+3T2+3T3-3D1-3D2 West Lincoln 6D2 Veritec distinguished between calibration reports for the meter vs. loop calibration reports. Veritec Consulting Inc. 2 4 Page 527 of 842 Table 2 summarizes the results of the meter accuracy tests. Each meter is tested at several flow rates. The range of accuracies recorded for each individual flow rate was between 96.5 and 101.6 percent3. Based on this data, and that meter accuracy reports for all the meters were not available, the confidence interval used in the PIFastCalcs software for the Region’s meters is +/- 3%. Table 2 Summary of Supply Meter Accuracy Results % Accuracy Meter ID Date Tested As Found As Left Avg. Min. Max. Avg. Min. Max. 6D2 5/24/2005 99.7 97.0 101.0 1D1 5/4/2005 97.0 94.3 101.0 99.3 96.5 101.0 10/13/2005 99.7 99.7 101.0 1D2 5/4/2005 99.8 97.0 100.6 1D3 5/20/2005 101 100.8 101.3 1D4 5/4/2005 49.8 9.8 101.3 100.2 98.2 101.1 10/13/2005 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.4 99.9 100.9 5D1 5/20/2005 100.1 99.7 100.6 5D2 5/20/2005 99.4 98.8 100.0 5D3 5/24/2005 100.7 99.3 101.6 5D5 5/202005 100.0 99.7 100.4 5D6 5/20/2005 99.4 97.5 101.0 OVERALL 4 70.5 (100.0) 0.0 (97.0) 101.6 (101.6) 100.0 96.5 101.1 Accuracy reports did highlight problems with the Mewburn Road meter. This meter records flows out of the Niagara Falls system and into the Niagara-on-the-Lake system. Figure 4 suggests that the meter was failing to record demands in N-O-T- L prior to being calibrated in May ‘05 and that it began failing again within weeks of the calibration. The failure of this meter may lead to overestimating supply to Niagara Falls and underestimating supply to N-O-T-L5. Figure 4: Monthly Volumes from Mewburn Monthly Volumes Registered at Mewburn Road 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 Jan-05Feb-05Mar-05Apr-05May-05Jun-05Jul-05Aug-05Sep-05Oct-05Nov-05Dec-05 Cubic Meters / monthMeter Accuracy Test / Meter RepairMeter Accuracy Test / Meter Repair Rd. 3 Excludes meters that required calibration. 4 Overall results for the “As Found” are summarized both with (and without) the meters requiring calibration. 5 Based on the original billing equations provided it also appears that flows recorded at 1D4 were subtracted from Niagara Falls but were not added to Niagara-on-the-Lake. It is likely that issues Veritec Consulting Inc. 5 Page 528 of 842 Data for the remainder of the balances were collected from the individual area municipalities. Table No. 3 on the following page summarizes, based on the input parameters of the PIFastCalc software, which area municipalities provided supporting data for each of these parameters. 3.2.0 Billed, Authorized Consumption – Metered (BACM) All municipalities provided at least partial data with respect to BACM6. The information provided ranged from complete billing databases to a single figure identified as the annual volume of water sold. With respect to establishing the water balances, errors introduced into the value of BACM may include the following:  Meter Accuracy,  Data Handling,  Estimated Readings, and  Meter Lag Times Meter accuracy and data handling errors are specifically addressed within the framework of the IWA Standard Water Balance and therefore are not evaluated with respect to the defining confidence in the value of BACM. Estimated readings and meter lag times may be used to indicate confidence in the value of BACM. The percentage of estimated reads reported by the AMs ranged from none (or, at least, no data was provided) to 16.4 % in St. Catharines. Municipal methods for estimating ranged from using the previous month, an average of the previous six months, or even doubling the previous bill (to get the customer’s attention). It is impossible to quantify or address errors due to estimated reads without copies of the billing database. Meter lag times introduce a difference between when water is consumed and when it is billed. As an example, in an analysis of the Niagara Falls billing approximately 7.6 % of billing in 2004 relates to water consumed prior to the start of the year, and similarly, 7.3 % of 2004’s consumption is derived based on meter readings recorded in 2005 (assuming that water is consumed equally throughout the period between meter readings). On an annual basis, it is often assumed these values will counter balance each other. Where possible, based on the datasets provided, meter lag times were addressed. surrounding this meter account for N-O-T-L reporting more water sold within the municipality than purchased from Region. 6 Billing data for Welland contained a limited number of accounts (~530). Much of Welland remains un- metered and customers are billed a flat rate. There was not deemed enough data to complete a water balance for Welland. Veritec Consulting Inc. 6 Page 529 of 842 Table 3 Summary of Data Collected by PIFastCalc Input Parameters Input Parameters for PIFastCalc (refer to Appendix A for Definition of Terminology) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls N-O-T-L Pelham PortColborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet WellandWest Lincoln WOS Volume from Own Sources All water supplied via the Regional Municipality of Niagara WI Water Imported √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ BACE Billed, Authorized Consumption Exported √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Assessed marginal cost of RL √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ BACM Billed, Authorized Consumption Metered √ √ √ ‘04 P P √ ‘04 P √ BACU Billed, Authorized Consumption Un-metered - √ - UACM Unbilled, Authorized Consumption Metered UACU Unbilled, Authorized Consumption Un-metered √ √ √ UC Unauthorized Consumption √ √ √ - √ ALMUR Apparent Loss – meter under-registration √ √ √ ALDCD Apparent Loss – customer meter data handling errors Lm Mains Length √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Nh Number of Hydrants √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ Nb Number of Separately Billed Properties √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ R Ratio of billed Service Connections to Billed Properties Nu Number of Unbilled Service Connections √ √ √ √ Lp Average pipe length, property line to billing meter √ √ √ √ √ √ √ P Average pressure when system pressurized √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Retail Cost / m3 (excluding base rate) Assessed marginal cost of UACM √ √ √ √ √ Assessed marginal cost of UACU Assessed marginal cost of UC Assessed marginal cost of ALMUR Assessed marginal cost of ALDCD Costs of Running system over period (excluding capital projects) √ √ √ √ √ √ Veritec Consulting Inc. 7 Page 530 of 842 3.3.0 Billed, Authorized Consumption – Un-metered (BACU) With the exception of identifying 179 flat rate customers in one specific municipality no details were provided with respect to what the flat rate was or what the estimated consumption was equal to. The remaining AMs provided no details regarding the volume of BACU. There are several flat rate customers in Welland. 3.4.0 Unbilled, Authorized Consumption – Metered (UACM) The Town of Grimsby identified street sweeping and sewer flushing as components of UACM. Assumedly the town provides a mobile hydrant meter but does not invoice the contractors who would be working for the Town. 3.5.0 Unbilled, Authorized Consumption – Unmetered (UACU) Identified sources of Unbilled, Authorized Consumption – Unmetered primarily relate to hydrant usage for the following:  Water Main Construction and Repairs (e.g. dewatering & flushing),  Water Service Repairs,  Fire Fighting & Training, and  Street Cleaning & Sewer Flushing (i.e., re-filling equipment) Figure 3 illustrates calculated estimates provided by Grimsby. Components of Authorised Consumption Components in Ml Total Additional information on sources of data and basis of estimates Billed Metered Billed Unmetered Unbilled Metered Unbilled Unmetered E = estimated R = Based on recordings Hydrant Usage (mobile meter) 2.12 2.12 R = Based on recordings, less Avertex New Construction/Rehab 2.45 2.45 E = estimated; 6 jobs x 3/job x 500 gpm x 1 hr. Fire/Training 13.64 13.64 E = estimated; 1 fire/yr. 2,000 Imp. Gal; Training 68 hrs/yr @ 1,000 gpm = 3,000,000 Imp. Gal Hydrant Flushing 18.18 18.18 E = estimated; dead-end 20 locations x 6/yr. x 3,000 Imp Gal + 3,000,000 Imp. Gal Hydroguard 2.95 2.95 E = estimated; 20 gpm x 6-4 hrs./day (50% of this in winter) Recreation 0.47 0.47 E = estimated; 3 parks approx. 6 gpm x 2 hrs/day x 5 months Figure 3: Portion of the “Consumption” worksheet extracted from Grimsby’s Balance Table 4 on the following page illustrates that Grimsby and Port Colborne provided breakdowns of their estimates that equate to 1.17% and 6.7 % of Water Supply, respectively. Thorold, Niagara-on-the-Lake, and Fort Erie identified relevant sources of UACU in their system and the latter provided an overall estimate equal to 5 % of Water Supply. The default estimate in PIFastCalcs is equal to 1.25% of Water Supplied. In the absence of estimates made by the municipality themselves the balances accept the default estimate. The 95 % confidence limits of +/- 100 % and process reliability band of “D” highlight the uncertainty with regards to this component. 3.6.0 Unauthorized Consumption (UC) Common components of unauthorized consumption are by-pass tampering, unauthorized use of fire services, and unauthorized use of hydrants. The default estimate in PIFastCalcs is equal to 0.25 % of Water Supply (+/- 100%). Both Grimsby and Fort Erie estimated 1 % whereas West Lincoln estimated 0.02 %. Port Veritec Consulting Inc. 8 Page 531 of 842 Colborne suggests approximately 5 household per year tamper with the meter by-pass but did not estimate the amount of loss. In the absence of a provided estimate the default value is accepted. Table 4 Summary of Data Collected Pertaining to UACU Estimates in ML/year √ indicates the AM recognizes this as a use but did not provide an estimate Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls N-O-T-L Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharine Thorold West Lincoln Water Main Construction & Repairs 7.8 1.8 Water Service Repairs 94.2 Water Quality √ 86.4 √ Hydrant Flushing √ 18.4 13.1 Blow-offs √ √ Fire Fighting / Training √ 13.6 √ 44.4 √ Sewer Flushing √ 14.6 √ Street Cleaning √ √ Recreation 0.6 6.4 TOTAL 197 40.4 - - - 260.9 - - - 3.7.0 Apparent Losses – Meter Under-Registration (ALMUR) As meters deteriorate with age and usage they are more likely to under-register water use. Because of the relative small number of meter accuracy reports provided an aggregated analysis of the tests provided by Grimsby, Niagara-on-the-Lake, and Port Colborne (Appendix C) was completed. The results of this analysis are summarized below. Table 5 Calculated Values of Meter Under-Registration & 95% Confidence Limits % Under Registration 95 % Confidence Limits Meters < 1” 0.5 7 Meters > 1” 1.0 7 Most municipalities provided a breakdown of consumption based on accounts for which meters are read based on cycles (e.g., 3 or 4 times per year) and those that are read monthly. In these cases the former group was associated with meters smaller than one inch and the latter with meters larger than one inch. If no breakdown was provided a 70/30 ratio was estimated and an overall value of 0.6% under-registration was assumed (with 95% confidence limits equal to +/- 7 %). Veritec Consulting Inc. 9 Page 532 of 842 3.8.0 Apparent Losses – Customer Data Handling (ALDCD) Across the Region, numerous methods are employed to retrieve and manage meter readings. Meter reads are collected using customer reading cards, physical meter reads, roll dial remotes, touchpads, and radio-reads. Billing software packages include: Easyroute, USTI Water System, Vadium, Vailtech, and AS400. Niagara Falls maintains a customized database. Sources of customer data handling errors are numerous and may collectively introduce significant error. Specifically, examples of the data handling errors which were identified included:  In Niagara Falls approximately 2% of records in the raw database were duplicates.  In Grimsby the summary spreadsheets of 2004 and 2005 contained inconsistent data pertaining to periods where meter reads bridged the calendar year; representing a potential error of approximately 1%.  In West Lincoln the original data submitted mismatched data billed monthly in 2004 with data billed quarterly in 2005. The 2005 summary provided included regional billing data from 2004.  Simple errors in arithmetic or difference in numbers, depending on the source used These examples are of errors that have been identified and corrected within the balance but undoubtedly there are errors that remain undetected – either because they are inherent in the data provided or because not all the data was provided 3.9.0 Length of Water Mains (Lm) The total length of water mains in the reporting AMs is equal to approximately 2,000 kilometers. Age and material are not specifically required in the water balance. Nonetheless most municipalities provided data on materials and Figure 4 provides an overall breakdown of the mains across the Region. It is assumed that the inventory of water mains is most likely accurate to within +/- 2 %. F Pecentage of Water Mains by Material CPP 3% PE PVC 36% CI 23% AC 11% DI 18% Unknow n 5% 4% igure No. 4 – Water Main Materials Veritec Consulting Inc. 10 Page 533 of 842 Some inaccuracies may be as a result of some AM including Regional water mains while others may not. Additionally, databases may be out of date with regards to new construction. 3.10.0 Number of Hydrants (Nh) There are approximately 10,500 hydrants in total. All of the AMs provided this data. 3.11.0 Number of Separately Billed Properties (Nb) PIFastCalc uses two values, the Number of Separately Billed Properties and the Ratio of Service Connections to Billed Properties (R) to calculate the Number of Billed Service Connections (Ns). Most AMs provided the number of billed services directly and a ratio of 1:1 is used. The total number of separately billed properties is equal to 113,228 – equivalent to the number of meters. 3.12.0 Number of Unbilled Service Connections (Nu) Unbilled service connections may include the following:  Fire connections, and  Un-metered municipal connections Most AM did not provide any data with regards to the number of unbilled service connections. Table 6 summarizes the data that was provided. Table 6 Summary of Reported Unbilled Service Connections Area Municipality Number of Unbilled Service Connections (Nu) Fort Erie 100 Port Colborne 28 Thorold 25 West Lincoln 6 3.13.0 Average Pipe Length – Property Line to Meter (Lp) Private service pipe length is an important consideration in the calculation of the performance indicators assessing real losses. This is because it is generally accepted that the majority of leaks occur on service connections. Table 7 summarizes the reported data. Veritec Consulting Inc. 11 Page 534 of 842 Table 7 Summary of Reported Lengths (in meters) – Property Line to Meter (Lp) Area Municipality Lp Area Municipality Lp Fort Erie 10 St. Catharines 7 Grimsby 10 Thorold 10 Niagara Falls 18 West Lincoln 9 N-O-T-L 8.5 3.14.0 Average System Pressure (P) The average system pressure entered in PIFastCalc should be a weighted average determined, for example, based on a list of static hydrant pressures many AM record during hydrant inspections. Table 8 summarizes the data provided which in some cases was simply a range of pressures. Table 8 Summary of Reported Pressures (in PSI) Pressure(s) Fort Erie 75 Grimsby 75 Lincoln - Port Colborne 58 Niagara Falls 94 Niagara-on-the-Lake Zone 1 44 – 69 Zone 2 56 – 97 Zone 3 45 – 102 Zone 4 66 – 92 St. Catharines Zone 1 50 – 100 Zones 2 & 3 50 – 80 Thorold 62 West Lincoln 62 3.15.0 Assessed Marginal Costs Within PIFastCalc several marginal costs are used to attempt to more accurately reflect the actual costs of various components of NRW. Unbilled, authorized consumption is typically valued at the cost which the AM purchases the water from the Region. Justification of this is that the AM, by not billing the customer, is assuming the costs. The costs of apparent losses is equal to the rate which the AM charges customers because this water is in fact being consumed by customers (sewer surcharges may also be applicable). Unauthorized consumption such as theft may be valued at a rate equal to the retail costs of water without the applicable sewer Veritec Consulting Inc. 12 Page 535 of 842 surcharge. Real losses are valued at the wholesale costs of water because this water is not consumed or used by anyone – eliminating the real losses eliminates the demand! Many AM may have never considered assessed marginal costs based on the components of the IWA Water Audit and therefore could not identify costs according to this breakdown. 3.15.1 Assessed Marginal Costs of UACM The rate(s) at which the individual AMs re-sell water vary. If base rates apply it may be difficult to directly distinguish the marginal costs of UACM. Table 9 summarizes the data collected. Table 9 Summary of Reported Water Rates Rate(s) Grimsby $0.73/m3 Port Colborne $0.756/m3 Thorold $47.76 for the first 27 m3 ($1.769/m3) $0.742/m3 in excess West Lincoln $1.109/m3 3.15.2 Assessed Marginal Costs of UACU In most cases the assessed marginal cost of unbilled, authorized consumption will be the same regardless of whether it is metered or un-metered. Possible exceptions may include considerations of sewer surcharges related to water consumption. 3.15.3 Assessed Marginal Costs of UC No data. 3.15.4 Assessed Marginal Costs of ULMUR No data. 3.15.5 Assessed Marginal Costs of ALDCD No data. 3.15.6 Assessed Marginal Costs of RL The assessed marginal cost of real losses is equal to the wholesale water rate at which the AM purchase water from the Region. This rate was equal to $0.40/m3 and $0.446/m3 in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Veritec Consulting Inc. 13 Page 536 of 842 3.16.0 Costs of Running the System Over the Period of the Balance The costs of running the system should be determined based on the operational costs plus the internal manpower costs minus the capitalized costs of self-constructed assets. Reported costs are summarized in Table 10 on the following page. Table 10 Summary of Reported Costs ($) of Running Water System(s) Reported Costs Grimsby $3,166,740 Lincoln $3,505,747 Thorold $2,648,400 West Lincoln $ 372,750 4.0 RESULTS: PHASE II – WATER BALANCES The following sections highlight the results of the individual water balances included in Appendices F through O. 4.1.0 Financial Performance Indicators 4.1.1 Non-Revenue Water as a Percentage of System Input Volume Percentage of Non-Revenue Water by Volume is considered a “Basic Level” Financial Performance Indicator. NRW may be particularly misleading with regards to comparing one system to another. Region wide the combined volume of BACM reported accounts for approximately 85% of the water purchased from the region by the reporting area municipalities. Individually the percentage of NRW within the area municipalities ranges from -1.3 % to 36.8 %. F Area Municipalities Percentage of Aggregated NRW in Participating Area Municipalities Lincoln West Lincoln 1% 3% Grimsby 5% Niagara Falls Thorold 28% 9% St. Catharines 25% Fort Erie 14% Port Colborne 15% igure 5: Percentage of Aggregated NRW in Participating Veritec Consulting Inc. 14 Page 537 of 842 Figure 6 illustrates the values of NRW in each area municipality. Confidence intervals are derived based on the confidence attributed to both the Region’s billing and the billing meters. The negative value calculated for Niagara-on-the-Lake may be accounted-for in part due to meter error discussed on page 5 of this report. Percentages of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of System Input Volume 95 % Confidence Limits Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Niagara-on-Pelham Port St. Thorold West Linc Falls the-Lake Colborne Catharines igure 6: Non – Revenue Water as a Percentage of System Input Volume oln F Insofar as trends in NRW may be more telling than an annual volume, a monthly analysis was completed for those municipalities that provided sufficient data (Appendix D). Figures 7a & 7b illustrate two examples of monthly variations in NRW which suggest different potential causes. Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005, Grimsby Regional Billing Record Grimsby Billing Record Cubic Meters per Month 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 0 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005, Port Colborne 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Cubic Meters per Month Regional Billing Record Port Colborne Billing Record Figures 7a & b – Trends in Non-Revenue Based on Monthly Volumes Purchased & BACM Veritec Consulting Inc. 15 Page 538 of 842 Figure 7a (Grimsby) suggests excessive unbilled water use in the summer period accounting for approximately 5 % of Water Supplied annually. Use of estimated reads, based on average annual consumption, may also account for Grimsby’s trend. Figure 7b (Port Colborne) suggests unbilled water use underlying billed consumption throughout the year. This underlying water use may be attributable to several factors including leakage. 4.1.2 Non-Revenue Water as % of System Input by Value As identified any Section 3.16 of this report many municipalities did not provide the costs of running the system during the period of the balance. Table 11 summarizes the results. Table 11 Non-Revenue Water as % of System Input by Value % of Non-Revenue Water as % of System Input by Value Fort Erie 8.4 % (+/- 25.2 %) Grimsby 3.6 % (+/- 35.6 %) Lincoln 14.7 % (+/- 12.8 %) Thorold 13.1 % (+/- 25.0 %) 4.2.0 Operational Performance Indicators 4.2.1 Apparent Losses as a % of Water Supply The recommended Performance Indicator for Apparent Losses is the % of Apparent Losses relative to Water Supply. Apparent losses include meter under-registration, errors in customer data handling, and unauthorized consumption. The values calculated for each of the municipalities are identified below. Table 12 Summary of Apparent Losses by Area Municipality % of Apparent Losses 95 % Confidence Limits Fort Erie 1.4 35.1% Grimsby 2.1 36.6% Lincoln 0.8 31.9% Niagara Falls 0.7 36.6% Niagara-on-the-Lake 0.9 30.0% Pelham 0.8 33.6% Port Colborne 0.7 18.7% St. Catharines 0.8 33.5% Thorold 0.7 34.1% West Lincoln 0.6 6.0% Differences in apparent losses primarily reflect the estimated percentages of unauthorized consumption (page 9). Values of meter-under registration were assumed equal in all the Veritec Consulting Inc. 16 Page 539 of 842 municipalities and no municipalities provided any estimates regarding data handling errors. Therefore, because Fort Erie and Grimsby estimated unauthorized consumption to be higher than the default value their apparent losses are greater. 4.2.2 Current Annual Real Losses in litres/service connection/day Figure 8a illustrates the Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) in each of the area municipalities. CARL are calculated by subtracting authorized consumption and apparent losses from the total volume of water supplied. The recommended Performance Indicator for Real Losses (Figure 8b) expresses the value of CARL in litres/service connection/day, when the system is pressurized7. Comparative Volumes of Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on- the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold West Lincoln Millions of Litres per Year IWA Level 1 Performance Indicator Op#24 - Real Losses (CARL / Total No. of Service Connections) -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on- the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold West Lincoln Litres per Service Connection per Day 95 % Confidence Limits Figure 8a & b: Comparative, calculated values of Current Annual Real Losses expressed in (a) ML/yr, and (b) litres/service connection/day when pressurized As illustrated in Figures 8a and b the volume of real losses in itself may be misleading in comparing area municipalities because it fails to account for the relative size of the 7 In the case of all these audits the systems are pressurized 100% of the time. Veritec Consulting Inc. 17 Page 540 of 842 distribution systems. By expressing losses in terms of litres/connection per day when the system is pressurized the volume of losses is put into context. Nonetheless the expression of CARL in these terms is considered a Level 1 (or basic) performance indicator because it does not account for differences in system pressure which significantly influence water losses due to leakage. 4.2.3 Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) The advanced (Level 3) operational performance indicator for real losses is the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI). The ILI is a ratio of the CARL to Unavoidable Annual Real Losses. Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) Some “measure” of water loss due to leakage is unavoidable in all water distribution systems. Background leakage, including small leaks and weeps, is unavoidable in that individual sources are either undetectable and/or the cost-to- benefit does not justify repair/replacement. In addition there are unavoidable losses due to reported/unreported leakage. These losses relate to the time between when leak(s) occurs and is repaired. Unavoidable losses are controllable through various best-management-practices (e.g., speed and quality of repairs, active leakage control). The calculated values of UARL assume best-management-practices. Appendix E provides a summary of the component analysis for calculating UARL. Based on the assumptions described in Appendix E, the value of UARL in each area municipality is calculated based on the following: • total length of water mains • total number of service connections • total length of customer supply pipe, and • the average system pressure Figure 9, on the following page, illustrates the components of CARL in each of the area municipalities. Potentially recoverable losses represent the difference between CARL and UARL. The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) provides guidance as to how well real losses are being managed (in terms of repairs, active leakage control and infrastructure management) at the current operating pressure8. 8 The ILI does not imply that pressure management in a system is optimal, or economic. If system pressures are excessive, or subject to surges, then pressure management may result in additional benefits for real losses management - in particular, a reduction in new burst frequency and annual repair costs, and a reduction in flow rates of existing leaks. So even if a low ILI is being achieved, there may still be opportunities to reduce annual real losses by improved pressure management. Veritec Consulting Inc. 18 Page 541 of 842 Breakdown of Current Annual Real Losses -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on- the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold West Lincoln Million of Litres per Year Potentially Recoverable Losses Unavoidalbe / Detectable Losses Unavoidable / Undetectable Background Losses Figure 9: Illustration of the components making up the Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) Comparative Infrastructure Leakage Indexes ILI = CARL/UARL -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on- the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold West Lincoln ILI = CARL / UARL 95 % Confidence Limits Figure 10: Illustration of Calculated ILI for each area municipality Veritec Consulting Inc. 19 Page 542 of 842 An ILI equal to 2, for example, suggest Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) are two- times greater than the Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) if best-management- practices were followed. Figure 10 on the preceding page illustrates the calculated ILIs of each of the participating area municipalities. Based on the calculated ILIs and on the guidelines provided by both the World Bank Institute and the AWWA the following section provides some general discussion of the real losses in the area municipalities. 5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1.0 World Bank Institute Target Matrix / Banding PIFastCalc identifies where the calculated ILI fits into a target matrix developed by the World Bank Institute and incorporated into its NRW training modules. These guidelines are included in the individual reports in Appendices F through O and summarized in the following table. In the WBI’s target matrix, general descriptions are made which describe a system’s performance in real loss management based on its calculated ILI. Table 13 General Description of Real Loss Management Performance ILI Range Band Area Municipality ILI General description of Real Loss Management Performance < 2 A Niagara-on-the-Lake -0.6 Further loss reduction may be uneconomic unless there are shortages; careful analysis needed to identify cost-effective improvement Grimsby 1.3 Lincoln 1.6 Niagara Falls 2.2 Potential for marked improvements; consider pressure management, better active leakage control practices, and better network maintenance St. Catharines 2.3 2 to 4 B Pelham 2.4 West Lincoln 2.5 Fort Erie 2.7 4 to 8 C Thorold 5.6 Poor leakage record; tolerable only if water is plentiful and cheap; even then, analyze level and nature of leakage and intensify leakage reduction efforts >8 D Port Colborne 8.7 Very inefficient use of resources; leakage reduction programs imperative and high priority 5.2.0 AWWA General Guidelines Table 14, on the following page, summarizes the general guidelines developed by AWWA’s Water Loss Committee which again categorize system based on the calculated ILI. Veritec Consulting Inc. 20 Page 543 of 842 Table 14 AWWA General Guidelines Pertaining to Infrastructure Leakage Index ILI Water Resource Operational Financial Range Band Area Municipality ILI Considerations Considerations Considerations Niagara-on-the-Lake -0.6 Available resources are Operating with system leakage above this level would Water resources are costly to develop or purchase; ability to < 2 A Grimsbygreatly limited and are very 1.3 difficult / environmentally require expansion of existing infrastructure and/or increase revenues via water rates is greatly limited because Lincoln unsound to develop 1.6 additional water resources to meet demand of regulation or low ratepayer affordability 2 to 4 B Niagara Falls St. Catharines PelhamWest Lincoln Fort Erie 2.2 Water resources are believed to be sufficient to meet long-2.3 term needs, but demand 2.4 management interventions (leakage management, water 2.5 conservation) are included in 2.7 long-term planning Existing water supply infrastructure capability is sufficient to meet long-term demand as long as reasonable leakage management controls are in place Water resources can be developed or purchased at reasonable expense; periodic water rate increases can be feasibly imposed and are tolerated by the customer population Superior reliability, capacity 4 to 8 C Thorold Water resources are plentiful, 5.6 reliable, and easily abstracted and integrity of the supply infrastructure make it relatively immune to Cost to purchase or obtain/treat water is low, as are rates charged to customers shortages Although operational and financial considerations may allow a long-term ILI greater than 8.0, >8 D Port Colborne 8.7 such a level of leakage is not an effective utilization of water as a resource. Setting a target level greater than as an incremental goal to a smaller long-term target – is discouraged Veritec Consulting Inc. 21 Page 544 of 842 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The water balances have been completed based on the data provided. In all cases it is advisable to update and complete the data. With regards to managing real losses (leakage and overflows from systems up to the point of customer metering or consumption) best management practices recognize the following:  Pressure Management  Speed and Quality of Repairs  Active Leakage Control, and  Pipeline and Assets Management PIFastCalc’s recommendations are based on the World Bank Institute’s ILI Bands. Individual municipalities are grouped in these bands in Tables 13 and 14. Table 15 is reproduced from the ILI Guidelines worksheet within the software. Table 15 WBI Recommendations WBI Recommendations for BANDS A B C D Investigate pressure management options Yes Yes Yes Investigate speed and quality of repairs Yes Yes Yes Check economic intervention frequency Yes Yes Introduce/improve active leakage control Yes Yes Identify options for improved maintenance Yes Yes Assess Economic Leakage Level Yes Yes Review break frequencies Yes Yes Review asset management policy Yes Yes Yes Deal with deficiencies in manpower, training and communications Yes Yes 5-year plan to achieve next lowest band Yes Yes Fundamental peer review of all activities Yes Veritec Consulting Inc. 22 Page 545 of 842 Page 546 of 842 Volume from Own Sources: The volume of water input to a system from the Water Supplier’s own sources Water Imported or Exported: The volume(s) of bulk transfers across operational boundaries System Input Volume: The volume input to that part of the water supply system to which the water balance calculation relates, corrected for known errors. Equal to VOLUME FROM OWN SOURCES plus WATER IMPORTED Water Supplied: Equal to the SYSTEM INPUT VOLUME minus WATER EXPORTED Authorized Consumption: Volume of metered and/or un-metered water taken by registered customers, the water supplier and others who are implicitly or explicitly authorized to do so by the water supplier, for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Authorized consumption may include items such as fire fighting and training, flushing of mains and sewers, street cleaning, watering of municipal gardens, public fountains, frost protection, building water, etc. These may be billed or unbilled, metered or un-metered. Water Losses: The difference between SYSTEM INPUT and AUTHORISED CONSUMPTION. Water losses can be considered as a total volume for the whole system, or for partial systems such as raw water mains, transmission or distribution systems, or individual zones. In the above definition of Water Losses, 'Authorized Consumption' includes bulk exports of water across operational boundaries. When doing the Water Balance calculation, a convenient alternative method of calculating Water Losses is 'Water Supplied - (Authorized Consumption - Water Exported)' Apparent Losses: Includes all types of inaccuracies associated with customer metering, plus unauthorized consumption (theft or illegal use). Over-registration of customer meters, leads to under-estimation of REAL LOSSES. Under-registration of customer meters, leads to over- estimation of REAL LOSSES. Real Losses: Physical water losses from the pressurized system, up to the point of measurement of customer use. The annual volume lost through all types of leaks, breaks and overflows depends on frequencies, flow rates, and average duration of individual leaks, breaks and overflows. Although physical losses after the point of customer flow measurement or assumed consumption are excluded from the assessment of REAL LOSSES, Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 547 of 842 this does not necessarily mean that they are not significant or worthy of attention for demand management purposes. Revenue Water: Those components of SYSTEM INPUT which are billed and produce revenue (also known as BILLED AUTHORISED CONSUMPTION). Equal to BILLED WATER EXPORTED, BILLED METERED CONSUMPTION and BILLED UNMETERED CONSUMPTION Non- Revenue Water: Those components of SYSTEM INPUT which are not billed and do not produce revenue. Equal to UNBILLED AUTHORISED CONSUMPTION, APPARENT LOSSES and REAL LOSSES Unbilled, Authorized Those components of AUTHORISED Consumption: CONSUMPTION which are not billed and do not produce revenue. Equal to UNBILLED METERED CONSUMPTION and UNBILLED UNMETERED CONSUMPTION Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 548 of 842 Page 549 of 842 Page 550 of 842 Page 551 of 842 Page 552 of 842 Page 553 of 842 Page 554 of 842 Page 555 of 842 Page 556 of 842 Page 557 of 842 Page 558 of 842 Page 559 of 842 Page 560 of 842 Page 561 of 842 Page 562 of 842 Analysis background Customer meters are the cash register of the utility and are responsible for ensuring an equitable distribution of water volume and income throughout various different customer classes within a utility and as such it is extremely important to analyze the accuracy of the meters on a regular basis and where necessary make repairs or replace groups of meters. In addition to being the cash register meters are responsible for a large amount of consumption data which can be used for other engineering functions such as hydraulic models and in this case the annual water balance which is used to disaggregate components of consumption, apparent loss and real loss in order to identify appropriate and efficient intervention programs for each loss type and volume. Using AWWA test flows and volumetric participation to identify weighted average accuracy for water balance purposes Data has been imported into our analysis programs and analyzed using the volume weighted percentages suggested in AWWA manual M36 table 2-7 for small meters and table 2-10 for large meters. It should be noted that further improvements to this analysis could be made by data logging samples of meter consumption profiles and applying them to the weighted average calculations as opposed to using the suggested values in M361 and M62. AWWARF Project No. 418 Residential Water Use Patterns of 1993 states; “Standards for domestic 5/8in. and 3/4in. water meters are based on a flow range of 0.25gpm to 20gpm. The range is assumed to be typical of the average domestic consumer. However, limited surveys of these domestic water use rates have not, until now, adequately substantiated this range.” Although the project concluded that “overall patterns of water use across the range of hours and flow rates were remarkably stable across geographic regions” Based on AWWA published data the following weighted % volumes have been used for the 5/8 inch and ¾ inch meter weighted accuracy calculations. There were no 1 inch meters in the test sample so these have not been considered. In order to check if the volumes used in the M36 report are representative Veritec has undertaken a detailed analysis of 1200 data logged residential consumption profiles consisting of meters 5/8 to 1 inch in diameter, which were undertaken as part of the national AWWARF REUWS study in 19993. 1 “Water audits and leak detection” American water works association (AWWA) manual of water supply practices M36 second edition 1999 page 20 table 2-7 (5/8 inch meters) 2 “Water meters-selection installation testing and maintenance” AWWA manual of water supply practices M6 fourth edition 1999 page 60 3 “Residential end uses of water” American Water Works Association Research Foundation 1999 1 Page 563 of 842 Percent of Time Range Average Percent of Volume (gpm) (gpm) 15% Low 0.50 to 1 0.75 2% 70% Medium 1 to 10 5.00 63.8% 15% High 10 to 15 12.50 34.2% Table 1 percent of volume calculations used for small meters taken from AWWA M6 and M36 table 2-7 The results shown below in Table 2 clearly indicate that the M36 results are in the right order of magnitude and that the volumes actually passed at the flow rates used to generate the low flow test results are very small compared to those volumes which pass at the medium and high test flow rates. It is important to note that this data set included 100 profiles from an Eastern Ontario utility. Flow range GPM Volume % 0 – 0.25 4,978.79 0.05 0.26 – 0.50 63,756.66 0.59 0.51 – 0.75 121,274.58 1.13 0.76 – 1.0 192,455.03 1.79 1.01 – 10.0 7,835,760.04 72.77 > 10 2,549,331.51 23.68 Total 10,767,556.61 100.00 Table 2 volumes consumed at different flow ranges from AWWARF REUS The percent of volume at each flow rate changes for larger meter sizes and based on the same AWWA publication material available the following percent of volume were used for the estimations of weighted meter accuracy for large meters;  Low 10%  Medium 65%  High 25% It should be noted that larger customer meters are generally subject to a wider variation of flow profile as the nature of demand can differ – Veritec therefore reiterates the need to check a sample of flow profiles for the larger meter class. Statistics of the sample set and the meter population Customer meter test data ranging from 5/8 inch to 6 inch was made available from 3 cities within the Niagara Region as shown below:  Town of Grimsby  Niagara on the Lake  Port Colborne 2 Page 564 of 842 No information was provided as to whether or not the test samples were representative of random samples so for Veritec analysis we have assumed they are. Veritec recommends stratified random sampling of various meter sizes for future more detailed analysis of economic meter maintenance. Data supplied broken into small and large meter classes was as follows:  Small me ters are classed as 1 inch and less – 11 samples  Large meters classed as 1.5 inch and more – 26 samples The total meter population for the Niagara Region is as follows:  Small me ters - 104,848  Large meters - 8,380 Results The tables below show the first look at the weighted meter accuracy by volume for small meters in Table 3 and for large meters Table 4. Both sets of meters have an overall meter accuracy which is within the AWWA recommended range. However upon review of the low flow accuracy it can be seen that on average it is significantly below the recommended AWWA range however using the volume weighted % contribution the lower flows have little impact on the overall average. Test Flow Rate Test High Test Medium Test Low No. of Test Results 11 11 11 Average Accuracy 98.46% 99.84% 84.28% Variance 0.001 0.000 0.089 Standard Dev 2.47% 1.80% 29.78% 95% Confidence 1.46% 1.06% 17.60% Average Meter Error at each flow rate -1.54% -0.16% -15.72% % of Consumption Volume Passed at Test Flow 34.2% 63.8% 2.0% Contribution to Overall Average Meter Error -0.53% -0.10% -0.31% Overall Meter Error -0.94% Overall Meter Accuracy 99.06% Table 3 First look meter accuracy for small meters Veritec would suggest that the cities continue to review meter accuracy using this component based approach paying particular attention to the medium flow range which has most impact on the overall meter accuracy. Once this starts to deteriorate then it is time to consider meter replacement in the case of the smaller meters and meter replacement or repair in the case of the larger meters. 3 Page 565 of 842 Test Flow Rate Test High Test Medium Test Low No. of Test Results 26 26 26 Average Accuracy 100.10% 99.50% 92.54% Variance 0.001 0.001 0.035 Standard Dev 2.25% 2.47% 18.59% 95% Confidence 0.87% 0.95% 7.15% Average Meter Error at each flow rate 0.10% -0.50% -7.46% % of Consumption Volume Passed at Test Flow 25.0% 65.0% 10.0% Contribution to Overall Average Meter Error 0.03% -0.32% -0.75% Overall Meter Error -1.04% Overall Meter Accuracy 98.96% Table 4 First look meter accuracy for large meters Confidence Confidence in the test results has been calculated first for each of the test flow rates used in this analysis and then secondly confidence in the overall meter accuracy has been calculated for use in the annual water balance. Both small and large meter tests sets display a small variance around the mean for the medium and high flow rates and a larger variance around the mean for the low flow results. The small meter test sample has one stuck meter at the low flow rate which makes a big difference to the small test set. Table 5 below shows the difference in confidence if this meter is removed from the sample. Test Flow Rate Test High Test Med Test Low No. of Test Results 10 10 10 Average Accuracy 98.48% 100.24% 92.71% Variance 0.001 0.000 0.012 Standard Dev 2.60% 1.31% 10.83% 95% Confidence 1.61% 0.81% 6.71% Average Meter Error at each flow rate -1.52% 0.24% -7.30% % of Consumption Volume Passed at Test Flow Rate 34.2% 63.8% 2.0% Contribution to Overall Average Meter Error -0.52% 0.15% -0.15% Overall Meter Error -0.51% Overall Meter Accuracy 99.49% Table 5 Confidence is increased in low flow tests if the stuck meter is removed Confidence in that range of tests improves from 17.6% as shown in Table 3 to 6.7% as shown in Table 5. 4 Page 566 of 842 This example indicates the influence that one stuck meter can have on a sample test set, particularly when the test sample is small. Veritec would recommend that a larger set of data is used for future more detailed analysis and that stuck meters are removed from the test sets and the issue of stuck meters is dealt with as a separate component of the water balance. Further details can be supplied upon request. Analysis by percentage meter error Total pop (N) 104,848 Sample count (n) 10 Average registration % (AWWA method) 99.49% Average meter error % 0.51% Sample variance off % under-reg 0.0126 N-n 104,838 n-1 9 Var(Ybar) 0.001396929 Sqrt(Var(Ybar)) 0.037375507 Zstat for 95% 1.96 CI limits +/- of meter error % 7.33% Table 6 Confidence in overall meter accuracy for small meters for annual water balance As there has been no analysis of stuck meter frequency or response time to replace stuck meters the stuck meter has been removed from the test set and overall confidence increases from +/-17 to +/-7.3%. However this is still a large range and could be improved by a larger test sample. Analysis by percentage meter error Total pop (N) 8,380 Sample count (n) 26 Average registration % (AWWA method) 98.96% Average meter error % 1.04% Sample variance off % under-reg 0.0357 N-n 8,354 n-1 25 Var(Ybar) 0.001423053 Sqrt(Var(Ybar)) 0.037723377 Zstat for 95% 1.96 CI limits +/- of meter error % 7.39% Table 7 Confidence in overall meter accuracy for large meters for annual water balance There were no stuck meters in the large meter test sample and therefore the overall average accuracy and the confidence have been taken at face value. Recommendations This analysis serves as a first look at the impact of weighted overall meter accuracy by small and large meter category and allows volumes of apparent loss to be calculated in the annual water balance along with the confidence in 5 Page 567 of 842 those volumes. Should the Region wish to refine this analysis in order to improve confidence in the apparent loss volumes and also to build a stronger business case for the correct meter accuracy intervention plan then Veritec would suggest that ongoing analysis include the following tasks:  Undertake flow profiling of key meter sizes and classes to determine weighted volume components for low, medium and high flow rates  Undertake stratified random sampling and analysis of key meter sizes  Increase sample size to in excess of 30 for each class to be analyzed  Treat stuck meters separately and look at utility response time to change out to calculate volume for annual water balance 6 Page 568 of 842 Page 569 of 842 Cubic Meters per Month Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 *, Fort Erie (* All meters appear to be read monthly) 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Regional Billing Record Fort Erie Billing Record Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 5,219 3,943 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 570 of 842 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 * , Grimsby (* Monthly Billing for Grimsby based on a combination of monthly reads and 3 times annually reads) Cubic Meters per Month 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Regional Billing Record Grimsby Billing Record Annual Volumea ('000 m3/year) 3,220 2,742 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 571 of 842 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 *, Lincoln (* All meters appear to be read monthly) 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Cubic Meters per Month Regional Billing Record Lincoln Billing Record Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 2,601 2,363 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 572 of 842 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2004 *, Niagara Falls 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Regional Billing Record Niagara Falls Billing Record Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 13,244 15,873 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Cubic Meters per Month Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 573 of 842 Cubic Meters per Month 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Jan-05 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 *, Niagara-on-the-Lake (No metering data beyond annual value provided) Regional Billing Record Niagara-on-the-Lake Billing 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 3,225 3,184 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 574 of 842 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 *, Pelham (* No metering data beyond annual value provided) 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Cubic Meters per Month Regional Billing Record Pelham Billing Record Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 1,440 1,722 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 575 of 842 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 *, Port Colborne (* Monthly Billing for Port Colborne based on a combination of monthly reads and quarterly reads) Cubic Meters per Month 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Regional Billing Record Port Colborne Billing Record Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 4,500 3,909 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,469 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Veritec Consulting Inc Page 576 of 842 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2004*, St. Catharines (* Monthly Billing for West Lincoln based on a combination of monthly reads and quarterly reads) 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 Cubic Meters per Month Regional Billing Record St. Catharines Billing Record Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 19,477 21,824 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 577 of 842 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 *, Thorold (No metering data beyond annual value provided) 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Cubic Meters per Month Regional Billing Record Thorold Billing Record Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 2,386 3,187 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 578 of 842 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 *, Welland (No data provided for 2005 / partial data for 2004) Regional Billing Record Welland Billing Record Cubic Meters per Month Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 10,449 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 579 of 842 Illustration of Non-Revenue Water in 2005 *, West Lincoln (* Monthly Billing for West Lincoln based on a combination of monthly reads and quarterly reads) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Cubic Meters per Month Regional Billing Record West Lincoln Billing Record Annual Volumes ('000 m3/year) 721 827 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 580 of 842 Page 581 of 842 Appendix D: Component Analysis to Calculate Unavoidable Annual Real Losses Page 582 of 842 Page 583 of 842 Page 584 of 842 Page 585 of 842 Page 586 of 842 Page 587 of 842 Page 588 of 842 Page 589 of 842 Page 590 of 842 Page 591 of 842 Page 592 of 842 Page 593 of 842 Page 594 of 842 Page 595 of 842 Page 596 of 842 Page 597 of 842 Page 598 of 842 Page 599 of 842 Page 600 of 842 Page 601 of 842 Page 602 of 842 Page 603 of 842 Page 604 of 842 Page 605 of 842 Page 606 of 842 Page 607 of 842 Page 608 of 842 Page 609 of 842 Page 610 of 842 Page 611 of 842 Page 612 of 842 Page 613 of 842 Page 614 of 842 Page 615 of 842 Page 616 of 842 Page 617 of 842 Page 618 of 842 Page 619 of 842 Page 620 of 842 Page 621 of 842 Page 622 of 842 Page 623 of 842 Page 624 of 842 Page 625 of 842 Page 626 of 842 Page 627 of 842 Page 628 of 842 Page 629 of 842 Page 630 of 842 Page 631 of 842 Page 632 of 842 Page 633 of 842 Page 634 of 842 Page 635 of 842 Page 636 of 842 Page 637 of 842 Page 638 of 842 Page 639 of 842 Page 640 of 842 Page 641 of 842 Page 642 of 842 Page 643 of 842 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 26, 2022 CL 8-2022, April 14, 2022 PEDC 3-2022, April 6, 2022 PDS 4-2022, April 6, 2022 DISTRIBUTION LIST SENT ELECTRONICALLY Development Applications Monitoring Report – 2021 Year End PDS 4-2022 Regional Council, at its meeting held on April 14, 2022, passed the following recommendation of its Planning and Economic Development Committee: That Report PDS 4-2022, dated April 6, 2022, respecting Development Applications Monitoring report - 2021 Year End, BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Niagara Home Builders Association, Niagara Industrial Association, local Chambers of Commerce and School Boards. A copy of PDS 4-2022 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :cv CLK-C 2022-061 Page 644 of 842 Development Applications Monitoring Report – 2021 Year End April 26, 2022 Page 2 cc: M. Sergi, Commissioner, Planning and Development Services N. Oakes, Executive Assistant, Planning and Development Services A. Shanks, Development Planner, Planning and Development Services Distribution List Local Area Municipalities Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Niagara Home Builders Association Niagara Industrial Association M. Balsom, President/CEO, Greater Niagara Chamber of Commerce D. Fabiano, Executive Director, Niagara Falls Chamber of Commerce, Port Colborne/Wainfleet Chamber of Commerce, Welland/Pelham Chamber of Commerce, Greater Fort Erie Chamber of Commerce M. Ward, President/CEO, Niagara-on-the-Lake Chamber of Commerce R. Shelley, Executive Director, Grimsby Chamber of Commerce D. Potter, Executive Director, West Lincoln Chamber of Commerce S. Mabee, Niagara District School Board M. Ladouceur, Conseil scolaire Viamonde S. Whitwell, Niagara Catholic District School Board A. Aazouz, Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique Centre-Sud Page 645 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 1 Subject: Development Applications Monitoring Report – 2021 Year End Report to: Planning and Economic Development Committee Report date: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 Recommendations 1. That this Report BE RECEIVED for information; and 2. That this Report BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Niagara Home Builders Association, Niagara Industrial Association, local Chambers of Commerce and School Boards. Key Facts • The purpose of this report is to inform Regional Council of 2021 development application activity in Niagara Region. • Regional Development Planning and Engineering staff reviewed 826 development applications in 2021 (39% increase from 2020 application volumes). • Regional Development Planning and Engineering staff provided comments for 848 pre-consultation meetings in 2021 (54% increase from 2020). • The Region received $1,794,233 in review fees for development applications in 2021 (33% increase from 2020 fees). • The related 2021 End of Year Growth and 5 Year Growth Trend Report (Report PDS-9-2022) provides information on growth in Niagara in 2021. Development application volumes typically equate to an increase in housing starts, completions, and building permits in later years. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the increased development application volumes experienced in 2021 will impact growth trends in the future. Page 646 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ Financial Considerations There are no direct financial implications associated with this report. Analysis Development Applications Regional Development Services staff reviewed 826 development applications in 2021, representing a 39% increase from 595 applications reviewed in 2020. Figure 1 illustrates the number of applications considered by Development Planning and Engineering staff from 2013 to 2021. Development applications are circulated to the Region based on Provincial legislation requirements, including the Niagara Escarpment Commission legislation, and the existing 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Region and Local Area Municipalities for planning in Niagara. Development Services has the ability to waive its review function on certain types of minor development applications in local municipalities. This represents an effort to increase efficiency in the planning review function in Niagara. Page 647 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ Lower volumes in 2020 were attributable to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, as a result of a short pause in the processing of development applications while municipalities adjusted to working remotely and holding virtual meetings. 2021 volumes rebounded significantly and were greater than those experienced in any year since 2013, representing a 13% increase from the previous peak of 730 applications in 2017. Figure 2 below provides the breakdown of development applications, by type, reviewed by Regional staff in 2021. Some complex development proposals often require multiple planning approvals. As an example, subdivision and condominium applications may also need amendments to the municipal Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law to facilitate the development. The categories with the most applications considered by Regional staff in 2021 were Zoning By-law Amendment (130), followed closely by Site Plan (126), Consent (i.e. severances) (116), and Minor Variance (105). The distribution of applications circulated to the Region by municipality during 2021 is shown on Figure 3. Municipalities with the most applications received by the Region were Fort Erie (125), Niagara Falls (92), Welland (85), and Lincoln (83). Nearly every Page 648 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ municipality (with the exception of Niagara Falls) experienced an increase in applications considered from 2020 to 2021. Regional staff were also involved in reviewing several complex development applications in 2021, as highlighted in Appendix 1 of this report. This often requires review that is more extensive as these applications typically affect a broad range of issues (i.e. environmental impacts, traffic impacts and urban design considerations, etc.). For several of these applications, Regional staff also assisted with urban design peer review, at the request of local municipal staff, as well as preparing design alternatives and contributing to discussions with developers, most notably through the participation in several design charrettes aimed at improving design outcomes. Pre-consultation Meetings Development Planning and Engineering staff attend regular pre-consultation meeting sessions two days each month in each local municipality. These meetings are to determine complete application submission requirements and assist in the processing of applications. The COVID-19 pandemic required planning staff at the Region and the local municipalities to adapt to an online meeting format starting in April 2020. Developers, property owners, local staff and agencies were able to participate effectively in these virtual pre-consultation meetings. The use of virtual pre-consultation Page 649 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ meetings has been well received by development proponents and their consultants as it affords efficiency and time savings, such as the ability to attend “back to back” pre- consultation meetings in different municipalities without the need to travel. Figure 4 illustrates the number of pre-consultation meetings attended by Development Planning and Engineering staff from 2013 to 2021. In 2021, Regional staff attended 848 pre-consultation meetings, which is a 54% increase from the 2020 total (552), and a 37% increase from the previous yearly high from 2017 (622). The number of pre- consultation meetings is generally an indicator of anticipated future development application volumes; accordingly, staff expect development application activity to remain high in 2022. Figure 5 illustrates the number of pre-consultation meeting by municipality in 2021 that included Regional staff. The municipalities with the highest levels of pre-consultation activity were Fort Erie (136) and Niagara Falls (114), followed by St. Catharines (112), Thorold (77), and Port Colborne (67). Page 650 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ Regional Review Fees Regional review fees are intended to offset Regional costs for the development review service. Figure 6 summarizes the fees collected between 2013 and 2021 for the Regional review of development applications. The 2021 total of $1,794,233 represents a 33% increase from 2020. This relates to the increased number of development applications received between 2020 and 2021, as well as the large number of complex applications received (i.e. Regional Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan), which generally have higher review fees. As the total volume of development applications is expected to remain high in 2022, development review fees are also expected to remain high. Page 651 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ The increased fees are also due in part to the receipt of a Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) application in November 2021 for a new quarry in Niagara Falls (Upper’s Quarry). The Region is also currently processing the ROPA application for the proposed expansion of the Port Colborne Quarry (Pit 3), and has held a pre- consultation meeting for the proposed expansion of another quarry, which is expected to proceed in 2022. In addition, staff anticipate potentially receiving a further ROPA application in 2022 for an expansion of another existing quarry based on correspondence from the quarry operator. Quarry applications are the most complex, and are very time intensive to process, with many technical studies that often require peer reviews to assist staff in areas in which the department does not have in-house expertise. The application fees approved by Regional Council reflect the complexity and staff resources involved in reviewing quarry applications. As a best practice, the Region, with the participation of the affected local area municipality and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, has implemented a Joint Agency Review Team (JART) to share resources, including a single peer reviewer for each technical study, in order to maximize efficiencies. Page 652 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________ 2022 Outlook Staff anticipate development application volumes will remain high in 2022, as trends in the fourth quarter of 2021 showed an increase in applications by 29% compared to the fourth quarter of 2020. Additionally, as noted previously, staff consider the high number of pre-consultation meetings attended by Regional staff in 2021 to be an indicator of a high volume of development applications in the future. The increased level of development in recent years represents a ‘new normal’ for the Region. Regional Development Services has adjusted its approach and practices to be solution-oriented and proactive in response to these increased development volumes. By providing ongoing support to our local municipalities, the Region strives to realize complete community planning outcomes that encourage the best possible development throughout the Region. This includes the urban design function within Development Planning, which serves to elevate the quality of development within Niagara through both the review of development applications, as well as providing support to local municipal planning teams in approaches and programs aimed at achieving well- designed built environments. In addition, at a policy level, the Planning and Development Services Department partners with local area municipalities in undertaking district and secondary planning to proactively establish integrated land use planning policies that provides direction for the development of complete communities, and facilitates the receipt of future development applications which achieve Regional and local municipal Council goals and desired development outcomes. Alternatives Reviewed As this report is for information purposes, there are no alternatives reviewed. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities This report provides information on development application activity that contributes to strong economic prosperity throughout the communities within the Niagara Region. This relates to Council’s Strategic Priority of Supporting Business and Economic Growth, as well as Sustainable and Engaging Government through ensuring high quality, efficient and coordinated core services. Page 653 of 842 PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________ Other Pertinent Reports • PDS-24-2021 Development Applications Monitoring Report – 2020 Year End ________________________________ Prepared by: Amy Shanks Development Planner Planning and Development Services _______________________________ Recommended by: Michelle Sergi, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development Services ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Cheryl Selig, MCIP, RPP, Acting Manager, Development Planning and Pat Busnello, MCIP, RPP, Acting Director, Development Approvals. Appendices Appendix 1 Current Major Development Applications Page 654 of 842 Appendix 1 of PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Appendix 1: Current Major Development Applications Planning and Development Services Staff participated in the review of a number of major development applications in 2021. A summary of some of these major development applications are provided in the table below. Municipality Application Developer Details Status Fort Erie 7 Central Avenue Type: Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Compass Land Developments Ltd. Applications are for a 12-storey mixed use building with 230 residential units and 879.9 m² commercial space. Regional comments were provided on January 7, 2022. Grimsby West Lincoln Memorial Hospital Type: Site Plan Hamilton Health Sciences Application relates to the comprehensive redevelopment of the existing hospital. Regional comments were provided for Phase 1 of the Site Plan on April 1, 2021. Construction is planned to begin in 2022, with the new hospital opening in early 2025. Grimsby Century Condos 6 Doran and 21-23 Main Street Type: Local Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan DeSantis Homes Applications are for a 4-storey mixed use building with 92 residential units with 2 commercial units totaling 463m² on the first floor.   A comprehensive public Urban Design Charrette with Town, Region and Applicant was completed in early 2021. Site plan approved.Page 655 of 842 Appendix 1 of PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Municipality Application Developer Details Status Lincoln 3221 North Service Road Type: Zoning By-law Amendment LJM Developments Application proposes 2 residential towers (25 and 23 storeys, respectively) that share a common 6-storey podium, with a total of 431 residential units. The site is located in the Prudhommes Secondary Plan Area adjacent to the proposed Prudhommes Landing development.  Regional comments were provided for the third submission on October 15, 2021.  A comprehensive public Urban Design Charrette with Town, Region and Applicant was completed in Spring 2021. Lincoln Prudhommes Landing 3245, 3293, 3305, 3319, 3325, 3335 and 3339 North Service Road Type: Zoning By-law Amendment Prudhommes General Partner Inc. Application proposes various amendments to the previously approved zoning for the Prudhommes Landing site to reflect an updated concept plan prepared by the developer that proposes approximately 2,090 residential units in a range of low, medium and high density as well as mixed-use housing forms, employment, commercial, natural environment, park and open space uses. In addition to proposed adjustments to the approved zone boundaries, the amendment proposes flexibility for additional height and units in the high-rise residential areas at the east end of the site.  Regional comments were provided on February 9, 2022. Page 656 of 842 Appendix 1 of PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Municipality Application Developer Details Status Niagara Falls New South Niagara Hospital Type: Site Plan Niagara Health System Application relates to the Campus Planning for new Niagara South Hospital site.  Campus Plan was finalized in September 2019.  Project was incorporated into Ministry of Health Functional Program Submission.  Stage 1 of the Site Plan has been completed for issuance of RFP. Niagara Falls Riverfront Residential Community Type: Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision GR (CAN) Investments Ltd. Applications are for an estimated total of 1,045 residential units (consisting of single-detached, semi-detached, townhouse and apartment units), 1.86 hectares of parkland and open space, and 17 hectares of natural area. Regional conditions of approval include servicing, natural heritage requirements, site remediation, etc.  Draft Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment approved.  Developer proceeding to address conditions of draft approval for first phase. Page 657 of 842 Appendix 1 of PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Municipality Application Developer Details Status Niagara Falls Upper’s Quarry Type: Regional Official Plan Amendment, Local Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment Walker Aggregates Inc. Applications are proposed to permit the establishment of a new quarry on the property.  The Region, with the participation of the City and the NPCA, has implemented a Joint Agency Review Team (JART) to review the application. External agencies and the public have also been circulated for comment.  Public Open House scheduled for March 23, 2022. Niagara-on- the-Lake Stone Eagle Winery Type: Regional Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment Solmar Inc. Applications are proposed to permit a new estate winery and secondary uses (wine retail, indoor and outdoor hospitality areas, restaurant/function room, and kitchen and dry food services). The Regional Official Plan Amendment is proposed to permit a new private sanitary connection to serve the proposed winery.  Staff are reviewing the applications, and have circulated external agencies and the public for comment.  Public Open House scheduled for March 3, 2022  Statutory Public Meeting (for the Regional Official Plan Amendment) scheduled for April 6, 2022. Page 658 of 842 Appendix 1 of PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Municipality Application Developer Details Status Pelham Park Place North Type: Local Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision Mountainview Homes Applications are to permit the creation of two blocks, with zoning permissions for an apartment dwelling, nursing home, senior citizens home, or townhouse dwellings. The development will have approximately 180 to 287 dwelling units in total, depending on the concept plan selected to be built.  Regional comments were provided on January 21, 2021, August 31, 2021 and January 3, 2022.  Applications were approved by Town Council on January 24, 2022. Port Colborne Port Colborne Quarry – Pit 3 Expansion Type: Regional Official Plan Amendment, Local Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment Port Colborne Quarries Inc. (Rankin Construction Inc.) Applications are proposed to permit an expansion of the existing Port Colborne Quarry onto lands to the east of the existing Pit 3.  The Region, with the participation of the City and the NPCA, has implemented a Joint Agency Review Team (JART) to review the application. External agencies and the public have also been circulated for comment.  Public Open House held on September 9, 2021. Page 659 of 842 Appendix 1 of PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Municipality Application Developer Details Status Thorold 1149 Kottmeier Road Type: Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdvision 800460 Ontario Limited Applications are for the creation of 52 single-detached lots and 42 street townhouse dwellings.  Regional comments were provided on September 13, 2021.  Applications were approved by City Council on November 2, 2021. St. Catharines 88 James Street Type: Site Plan 88 James Street Holdings Inc. Application is for a 30-storey mixed use building with 276 dwelling units and 452.2 m2 commercial space.  Regional comments provided to City on May 27, 2021 and September 24, 2021. Page 660 of 842 Appendix 1 of PDS 4-2022 April 6, 2022 Municipality Application Developer Details Status Welland John Deere – Dain West Subdivision Type: Regional Official Plan Amendment, Local Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision Empire Homes Application is for a mixed use subdivision that allows for a maximum development of 870 residential dwelling units (consisting of detached, semi- detached and townhouse dwellings), a 4 hectare mixed-use employment block, a stormwater management pond, an elementary school, parks and open space on approximately 74 hectares of land.  Applications were approved by City Council on May 4, 2021.  Local Official Plan Amendment and Regional Official Plan Amendment approved by Regional Council on June 24, 2021.  Developer proceeding to address conditions of draft approval. West Lincoln Smithville West Type: Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Marz Homes Applications are to permit the creation of 46 single-detached lots and 9 future development blocks, totalling approximately 268 units.  Regional comments were provided on December 4, 2020 and July 23, 2021.  Applications were approved by Township Council on May 28, 2021 (Zoning By-law Amendment) and November 25, 2021 (Draft Plan of Subdivision). Page 661 of 842 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 26, 2022 CL 8-2022, April 14, 2022 PEDC 3-2022, April 6, 2022 PDS 9-2022, April 6, 2022 DISTRIBUTION LIST SENT ELECTRONICALLY 2021 Census Series: Population and Dwelling Counts PDS 9-2022 Regional Council, at its meeting held on April 14, 2022, passed the following recommendation of its Planning and Economic Development Committee: That Report PDS 9-2022, dated April 6, 2022, respecting 2021 Census Series: Population and Dwelling Counts, BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to Local Area Municipalities, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Niagara Home Builders Association, Niagara Industrial Association, local Chambers of Commerce and School Boards. A copy of PDS 9-2022 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :cv CLK-C 2022-062 Page 662 of 842 2021 Census Series: Population and Dwelling Counts April 26, 2022 Page 2 cc: M. Sergi, Commissioner, Planning and Development Services N. Oakes, Executive Assistant, Planning and Development Services G. Bowie, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services Distribution List Local Area Municipalities Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Niagara Home Builders Association Niagara Industrial Association M. Balsom, President/CEO, Greater Niagara Chamber of Commerce D. Fabiano, Executive Director, Niagara Falls Chamber of Commerce, Port Colborne/Wainfleet Chamber of Commerce, Welland/Pelham Chamber of Commerce, Greater Fort Erie Chamber of Commerce M. Ward, President/CEO, Niagara-on-the-Lake Chamber of Commerce R. Shelley, Executive Director, Grimsby Chamber of Commerce D. Potter, Executive Director, West Lincoln Chamber of Commerce S. Mabee, Niagara District School Board M. Ladouceur, Conseil scolaire Viamonde S. Whitwell, Niagara Catholic District School Board A. Aazouz, Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique Centre-Sud Page 663 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 1 Subject: 2021 Census Series: Population and Dwelling Counts Report to: Planning and Economic Development Committee Report date: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 Recommendations 1. That this Report BE RECEIVED for information; and 2. That this Report BE CIRCULATED to Local Area Municipalities, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Niagara Home Builders Association, Niagara Industrial Association, local Chambers of Commerce and School Boards. Key Facts • Population and Dwellings, from the 2021 Census of Population, were released by Statistics Canada on February 9, 2022. • Niagara’s population increased by 30,000 people between 2016 and 2021, the highest 5-year increase since the baby boom era (1951-1961). • The City of Thorold had Ontario’s fourth highest growth rate and 8th fastest in Canada, with a 27% increase in population between 2016 and 2021. • All municipalities in Niagara experienced an increase in population during the census period for the first time since 2006. • Nearly 40% of dissemination areas in Niagara experienced a decline in population over the last five years showing decline in more established neighbourhoods and growth in newly developing areas. Financial Considerations There are no financial implications associated with this report. Analysis 2021 Census and Topic Release Schedule The Census of Population is conducted by Statistics Canada every five years. In the census year, the survey is sent out in May to every household in Canada for completion. The last survey was conducted in May 2021. Page 664 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ There will be seven major releases of Census data throughout 2022. The seven release dates and topics are summarized as follows: Census Data Release Date Census Topic February 9, 2022 • Population and dwelling counts April 27, 2022 • Age • Sex at birth and gender • Type of dwelling July 13, 2022 • Families, households, and martial status • Canadian military experience • Income August 17, 2022 • Language September 21, 2022 • Indigenous peoples • Housing October 26, 2022 • Immigration, place of birth and citizenship • Ethnocultural and religious diversity • Mobility and migration November 30, 2022 • Education • Labour • Language of work • Commuting • Instruction in the official minority language This report is the first in a series of reports that will be prepared by staff throughout the year to summarize key findings, trends and data points from the 2021 Census topic releases. The information provided in this report is based on the seven data points that were released for population and dwelling counts released on February 9, 2022. The seven data points are: Page 665 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ • Population, 2021 • Population, 2016 • Population percentage change, 2016 to 2021 • Total private dwellings • Private dwellings occupied by usual residents • Population density per square kilometre • Land area in square kilometres This report provides baseline data for further analysis as the remainder of 2021 census information is released throughout 2022. Strongest Population Growth in 70 Years Niagara Region added over 30,000 people between 2016 and 2021. This is the largest population increase in a five-year period since the baby boom era and highest annual growth rate (1.3%) since 1986. As shown in Figure 1, the pace of population growth has been increasing since 2011. Between 2016 and 2021 Niagara added an average of 6,000 people per year. Page 666 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ Figure 1: Niagara Region population and growth rate (1986 to 2021) The pace of growth between 2016 and 2021 is lower than what is needed to meet the 2051 population target of 694,000. Niagara needs to add an average of 6,750 people per year to achieve population forecasts identified in the draft Niagara Official Plan. Niagara’s population increase of 30,000 is lower than comparative upper- and single-tier municipalities in Ontario. Table 1 shows Niagara’s growth is close to Hamilton (32,400) but well below Simcoe (53,500), Waterloo (52,000) and Halton (48,200). When comparing growth rate, Niagara is growing faster than Hamilton but below other municipalities in the Growth Plan outer ring (Waterloo, Simcoe and Middlesex). 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 350,000 375,000 400,000 425,000 450,000 475,000 500,000 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Annual Growth RateCensus PopulationNiagara Region Population and Growth Rate Population Growth Rate Page 667 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ Table 1: 2021 population and growth rate among comparative municipalities in Ontario. Census Division 2021 Population 2016 Population Population Change Growth Rate Halton 596,637 548,435 48,202 9% Waterloo 587,165 535,154 52,011 10% Hamilton 569,353 536,917 32,436 6% Simcoe 533,169 479,635 53,534 11% Middlesex 500,563 455,526 45,037 10% Niagara 477,941 447,888 30,053 7% Essex 422,860 398,953 23,907 6% Municipal Population and Growth Rates All 12 municipalities in Niagara experienced population growth between census periods for the first time since 2001-2006. Niagara Falls had the largest increase in population (6,345), followed by Thorold (5,015), St. Catharines (3,690) and Welland (3,455). Thorold had the highest population growth rate with an increase of 27%, which is the highest municipal growth rate in Niagara, 4th in Ontario and 8th in Canada. 11 out of 12 municipalities had a population increase above 6%, excluding St. Catharines (3%). The lower growth rate in St. Catharines is not due to a lack of population growth as the City added the third most population. Rather, the lower rate of 3% is reflective of St. Catharines having the largest population base in Niagara. Port Colborne had a 9% growth rate in the 2021 Census which is appears to be attributed to a combination of new residents and a shift in seasonal residents now considering Port Colborne their usual place of residence. Figure 2 provides a summary of population and growth rates for each municipality in Niagara. Page 668 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ Figure 2: 2021 population and growth rate by municipality Growth Concentrated Along Highway Corridors and Designated Greenfield Areas Appendix 1 and 2 identify population growth based on geography. Appendix 1 identifies population growth by municipality and Appendix 2 looks at Dissemination Areas 1 (DA). As shown on Appendix 1, the greatest concentration of growth over the last 5 years has been located primarily along the 406 corridor in Niagara Falls, Thorold, and St. Catharines. Population growth remains strong along the QEW corridor but has slowed in Grimsby and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Appendix 2 provides greater clarity on areas of population change within municipalities. The areas with the highest levels of population growth are situated within Designated Greenfield Areas and are made up of large developments that have been built over the 1 A dissemination area (DA) is a small, relatively stable geographic unit with an average population of 400 to 700 persons based on data from the previous Census of Population Program 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Growth RateIncrease in PopulationMunicipal Population Growth: 2016 to 2021 Population Growth Rate Page 669 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ last five years. Such developments can be seen in west Smithville, west Welland, south Thorold and south Niagara Falls. Appendix 2 also highlights the decline in population across more established neighbourhoods and the rural area. Nearly 40% of DA’s in Niagara experience a decline in population of the last 5 years. Pace of Growth Shifting to Central and South Niagara One of the notable trends from the 2021 Census is the shifting pace of growth across municipalities in Niagara. The highest municipal growth rates from the 2016 Census were primarily in north Niagara within Greenbelt municipalities. This trend has shifted over the last five years with most municipalities in Niagara having experienced an increase in population between 7% and 9%. Figure 3 explores the difference in growth rate between the 2016 and 2021 Census. Figure 3: Change in growth rate between 2016 Census and 2021 Census -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%Change in Pace (%)Difference between 2016 and 2021 Growth Rate Page 670 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________ As shown in Figure 3, the greatest change in growth rate was within Thorold (22%), Port Colborne (10%), Wainfleet (8%), and Fort Erie (5%). Niagara-on-the-Lake experienced the largest decline in growth rate, going from 14% to 9%. The 9% growth rate in Niagara-on-the-Lake is still significant and the second highest in Niagara. Population growth in Niagara-on-the-Lake is likely to remain at this pace as development within the Glendale District Plan area continues. Growth in Total Dwelling Units A total of 11,685 dwelling units were added to Niagara Region between 2016 and 2021, a 6% increase. Niagara Falls (2,515), St. Catharines (2,100), Thorold (1,360), Welland (1,210) and Grimsby (1,045) added the most dwelling units over the census period. Figure 4 highlights housing growth by municipality. Figure 4: Municipal Household Growth between 2016 and 2021 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Increase (%)HouseholdsMunicipality Municipal Household Growth: 2016 to 2021 Page 671 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________ While information on housing mix will not be released until April 27, 2022, we can interpret a few trends from the limited information we do have. Figure 5 compares the rate of household growth to population growth. Higher rates in municipalities like Grimsby (67%), St. Catharines (57%) and Pelham (49%) imply housing growth has been within medium to high density unit types (townhomes and apartments) where there are few people per unit. It may also imply an aging demographic where, despite healthy housing growth, the population is declining within existing units. Alternatively, lower rates such as Port Colborne (23%), Fort Erie (24%), Thorold (27%) and Wainfleet (27%) imply housing growth has been primarily in lower density housing types and/or population growth has been within existing units. This topic will be revisited through future reports as we get additional information on housing mix and age. Figure 5: 2021 rate of household to population growth 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%RateRate of Household to Population Growth (2021 Census) Page 672 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 10 ______________________________________________________________________ Alternatives Reviewed This report provides Planning and Economic Development Committee a summary of the first release of data from the 2021 census. No alternatives were considered. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities • Supporting Businesses and Economic Growth The census provides key information and details on business and economic growth trends. This topic is not addressed in this report but will be the subject of a future report once data is released in November, 2022. • Healthy and Vibrant Community The census provides key socioeconomic data. This topic is not addressed in this report but will be the subject of a future report once data is released throughout 2022. • Responsible Growth and Infrastructure Planning The census is the authoritative source for population data that is used by departments across the Region. This information is critical for monitoring the Official Plan and insuring to the Region plans growth and infrastructure responsibly. • Sustainable and Engaging Government This report, and forthcoming reports for this series, is aimed at providing Planning and Economic Development Committee information from the census so Council is engaged and aware of trends in Niagara. Other Pertinent Reports PDS 2-2022 Niagara Official Plan: Proposed Draft for Consultation PDS 23-2021 2020 End of Year Growth Report and 5 Year Growth Trend Page 673 of 842 PDS 9-2022 April 6, 2022 Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Prepared by: Greg Bowie Senior Planner Planning and Development Services _______________________________ Recommended by: Michelle Sergi, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development Services ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with John Federici, Planner and reviewed by Diana Morreale, Acting Director of Community and Long Range Planning. Appendices Appendix 1 Population Growth by Municipality (2016 to 2021) Appendix 2 Population Growth by Dissemination Area (2016 to 2021) Page 674 of 842 Grimsby Lincoln St. Catharines Niagara-on-the-Lake Niagara Falls Thorold Welland Pelham West Lincoln Wainfleet Port Colborne Fort Erie LEGEND Population Growth 500 - 1,000 1,100 - 2,100 2,200 - 3,600 3,700 - 6,400 © 2022 Niagara Region and its suppliers. Projection is UTM Zone 17N CSRS, NAD83. This map was compiled from various data sources. The Niagara Region makes no representations or warranties whatsoever, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency or otherwise of the information shown on this map. 10 km Appendix 1: Population Growth by Municipality (2016 to 2021)N Page 675 of 842 Grimsby Lincoln St. Catharines Niagara-on-the-Lake Niagara Falls Thorold Welland Pelham West Lincoln Wainfleet Port Colborne Fort Erie LEGEND <0 (Decline) 1 - 250 251 - 500 501 - 1,000 > 1,000 © 2022 Niagara Region and its suppliers. Projection is UTM Zone 17N CSRS, NAD83. This map was compiled from various data sources. The Niagara Region makes no representations or warranties whatsoever, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency or otherwise of the information shown on this map. 10 km NAppendix 2: Population Growth by Dissemination Area (2016 to 2021)Page 676 of 842 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 29, 2022 CL 9-2022, April 28, 2022 PDS 14-2022, April 28, 2022 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES NIAGARA PENINSULA CONSERVATION AUTHORITY SENT ELECTRONICALLY Proposed Niagara Official Plan PDS 14-2022 Regional Council, at its Special meeting held on April 28, 2022, passed the following resolution: That Report PDS 14-2022, dated April 28, 2022, respecting Proposed Niagara Official Plan, BE RECEIVED and BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). A copy of Report PDS 14-2022 (report only) is attached for your reference. All documents related to the proposed Official Plan may be found at: https://niagararegion.ca/official-plan/proposed-plan.aspx Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk CLK-C 2022-071 cc: M. Sergi, Commissioner, Planning & Development Services N. Oakes, Executive Assistant, Planning & Development Services D. Heyworth, Official Plan Consultant Page 677 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 1 Subject: Proposed Niagara Official Plan Report to: Regional Council Report date: Thursday, April 28, 2022 Recommendations 1. That this report BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). Key Facts • The purpose of this report is to provide an overview on the proposed Niagara Official Plan (NOP) and to inform the April 28, 2022 statutory public meeting. • The NOP contains a wide range of policies that set out what we protect, where and how the Region will grow, and policy tools for success. • The NOP policies protect the natural environment, Niagara Escarpment, source water, agricultural system, aggregate resources, and cultural heritage and archaeology. • The NOP plans for a population of 674,000 and 272,000 jobs by 2051 and allocates growth to local municipalities by establishing intensification targets for built up areas and densities for greenfield areas and strategic growth areas. • The NOP includes policies to support the success of our growth by requiring the development of district and secondary plans, the use of urban design to guide built form, and preparing subwatershed plans for growth areas. • The report addresses the consultation received on the January 2022 draft NOP and highlights key changes made. • Input on the proposed NOP will be received throughout the statutory process. In addition to this statutory public meeting, a statutory open house was held on the proposed NOP on April 7, 2022. • All input received on the proposed NOP will be considered and a revised NOP will be recommended for adoption by Regional Council in June 2022. • The deadline for submitting the Niagara Official Plan to the Province is July 1, 2022. Page 678 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ Financial Considerations There are no financial considerations directly related to this report. Council approved the resources to complete the NOP over a five year period as part of the 2017 Budget Process. The growth forecasts associated with the NOP inform the Niagara 2051 initiatives, guiding updates to the Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan (MSP), Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Development Charges Study (DCS). These key master plans and studies identify growth related projects to be undertaken and identify related capital costs to ensure financial responsibility and accountability are appropriately placed and maintained. Analysis The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the proposed NOP, consultation to date, and to advise Council of the statutory requirements of the open house and public meeting under the Planning Act. The NOP must conform to all provincial policies and plans, assess our land needs to accommodate provincial growth forecasts, identify systems to protect and plan for future infrastructure and financials. On March 30, 2022, the proposed NOP was released for public comment, and an official notice was issued for both the statutory open house and public meeting under the Planning Act. The open house was scheduled and held on April 7, 2022 and the public meeting is occurring today, on April 28, 2022. The proposed NOP can be viewed at https://niagararegion.ca/official-plan/proposed-plan.aspx. The development of a new Niagara Official Plan was launched on July 5, 2018 with a special meeting of Council to provide the public with an opportunity to identify areas of interest. Over the following years, several background reports were produced on a variety of themes related to growth management, the natural environment, the agricultural system, housing, and employment. The background work was followed by the creation of themed policy sections which culminated in a consolidated draft of the official plan made available for public review in January 2022. The consolidated draft incorporated Council reviewed directions on settlement area boundary expansions and natural environment system (NES) mapping and policies. At the end of March 2022, a proposed NOP was made available for formal consultation under the Planning Act. Appendix 1 provides a more detailed chronology of steps taken to develop the NOP. Page 679 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ Consultation and Next Steps A significant amount of consultation went into the development of the proposed NOP, including outreach with the public, agencies, stakeholder groups, First Nations and Indigenous communities, local municipalities and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. Appendix 1 also outlines the consultation which has taken place on the development of the NOP from the beginning of the process. More specifically, to assist in gathering comments on the draft consolidated NOP from January to March 2022 the following consultation steps were taken: • The draft plan was posted on the website; • Agencies were circulated; • Subscribers for information on the NOP were e-mailed a newsletter; • Public Information Sessions were held on Settlement Area Boundary Review (January 24, 2002), NES (February 10, 2022) and all components of the NOP (February 24, 2022); • A zoom workshop was held to inform urban property owners with newly mapped natural heritage features; • An NES mapping tool was made available for property owners and public to comment on specific mapped natural features; • Presentations have been made to local municipal councils; and, • Staff have been in direct contact with Ministry to discuss conformity in an effort expedite approval when the NOP adoption package is sent to the province. The Niagara Official Plan The NOP is the first comprehensive review since the original policy plan was approved in the early 1970’s. The NOP is a long range planning document that will set out what we protect, where and how the region will grow, and policy approaches for success. The NOP implements a planning horizon to 2051, which conforms with the timeframe in A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019, amended 2020) (Growth Plan). The requirements for an Official Plan is set out in the Planning Act. Additionally, the NOP must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and not conflict with the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Page 680 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ The region is developing an entire new Official Plan to ensure contemporary policies are developed in order to: • address provincial policy conformity, matters of Regional interest and provide policy support to the local municipalities; • guide planning at a Regional level while assisting local municipalities with managing growth pressures including policies that support the protection of established neighbourhoods and varying intensification rates across municipalities; • prioritize climate change throughout the Plan to achieve sustainable and resilient communities; • improve mapping and policies to protect the natural features and water resources of the natural environment system; • protect the agricultural system and land base, and provide for opportunities for value added agriculture; • support a diverse range of housing types and sufficient housing supply to address affordability and market demand; and, • identify employment areas to protect for long term investment. The NOP is built on a vision derived from pillar statements which were developed from public and Council consultation. The pillar statements are: EXCEPTIONAL development and communities - Well planned, high quality development in appropriate locations that improves our communities, while protecting what is valuable. DIVERSE housing types, jobs and population - A wide mix of housing types and employment opportunities that attract diverse populations to Niagara across all ages, incomes and backgrounds. THRIVING agriculture and tourism - A prosperous agricultural industry and world-class tourism opportunities that grow our economy and elevate the Niagara experience. RESILIENT urban and natural areas - Areas rich in biodiversity that mitigate and adapt to climate change while strengthening Niagara’s ability to recover from extreme weather events. Page 681 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ Policy Content and Directions Many policies across the plan relate to one another and work together to create co- benefits, like protecting the natural environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and growing the economy, while also improving quality of life. One of the best examples of policy interconnection is climate change. The climate change pulls policy directions from other areas of the plan that support addressing climate change such as complete communities, strategic growth areas, intensification in proximity to public transit, green infrastructure and protecting the environment. The climate change section also commits the Region to future work such as completing greening and adaptation strategies and climate modelling. The core policy directions of the NOP related to the resources we protect, how and where we grow, and the policy tools for success are found throughout different Chapters in the NOP. For the purposes of this report the core policy directions of the NOP are summarized below. What We Protect The NOP contains key policy directions that protect significant resources such as the natural environment, Niagara Escarpment, source water, agricultural system, aggregate resources and cultural heritage and archaeology. Based on consultation the NES and agriculture systems were considered fundamental to protect. In this regard policy directions on the NES go beyond the provincial plan requirements in what is protected. The NES is an overlay designation across Niagara Region. Individual features are identified within the NES and specific policies apply to protect these features depending on their geographic location in the system. There are policies requiring Environmental Impact Studies and for transition policies for development applications initiated or in process. The policies of the Agricultural Section aim to protect the Region’s agricultural system land base and provided value added agricultural opportunities. Additionally, the proposed NOP identifies Specialty Crop lands, Prime Agricultural lands and Rural lands. Specialty Crop lands are protected in conformity with Greenbelt Plan policies and Prime Agricultural lands are protected from fragmentation and non-farm development. Rural residential development is limited to Rural areas. Page 682 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ How and Where We Grow The Growth Plan requires the Region to plan for a population of 674,000 and 272,000 jobs by 2051. In order to plan for this growth, the Region is required to allocate growth to local municipalities, set intensification targets for built up areas, densities for greenfield areas, strategic growth areas and determine if there is sufficient settlement area land to accommodate the growth to 2051.The Region has planned for a population 20,000 people higher than the provincial forecast with the extra population being accommodated in the built up areas of Welland and Lincoln. The NOP contains policies supporting a housing mix to address aging in place and housing affordability, as well as setting affordable housing targets. There are policies to support gentle density and integration of intensification in established neighborhoods as well as flexibility for municipalities to plan for intensification in a manner that addresses their local needs provided the intensification targets of the plan are met. Urban settlement areas are the focus of growth. The Region is required to plan for growth (population and employment) to 2051 and despite an intensification target of 60% in built up areas certain municipalities need additional community or employment lands based on the Region’s land needs assessment. To accommodate allocated growth, the proposed NOP includes urban expansions in West Lincoln, Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Welland and Pelham/Thorold, as well as hamlet expansions in West Lincoln and Wainfleet. The location of expansion areas were selected through a comprehensive Settlement Area Boundary Review (SABR). Larger expansion areas shall develop by secondary plan and sub-watershed planning to ensure natural areas are protected. Strategic Growth areas are a focus of growth because of available infrastructure and transit. These areas include: the provincial Urban Growth Centre of downtown St. Catharines; GO Station areas of Grimsby, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, and future station in Lincoln; downtowns of Niagara Falls and Welland; and the South Niagara Falls Regional Growth Centre. Over 30 percent of all growth is directed to these areas. Secondary planning will be required for Strategic Growth Areas and where existing secondary plans are in effect these will be reviewed to determine the necessity of updates. Employment Areas are identified for protection over the long term. Conversion of Employment Areas can only take place through a Municipal Comprehensive Review. The NOP identifies density targets and employment uses for Core, Dynamic and Knowledge and Innovation Employment Areas. Page 683 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ Policy Tools for Success The NOP includes policy tools to support the management of our growth while protecting our resources by requiring the development of district and secondary plans, the use of urban design to guide built form, and preparing subwatershed plans for growth areas. District and Secondary Plans are community level plans that establish a blue print for how a community will grow identifying strategic areas for intensification and ensuring infrastructure and transportation planning along with community consultation are considered. These plans envision the types of land uses to be developed within a specified area and the improvements needed to realize a vision. Secondary plans will be required for strategic growth areas and expansion areas. Urban design will play an important role in fitting intensification in developed areas and enhancing the public realm. The NOP includes policies and guidelines that outline the scale, form and design standards used for a community’s built form, streetscape, and public realm. Infrastructure policies support where and how we grow and provide a sustainable transportation system that accommodates forecasted growth. The Water and Wastewater and Transportation Master Plans are informed by the NOPs growth allocations. Sub-watershed planning or its equivalent will compliment and inform secondary plans and ensure growth scenarios consider the natural environment system on a comprehensive scale. Changes Based on Consultation The proposed NOP revises the draft made available for comment between January and March 2022. Significant feedback was received on the draft consolidated NOP from the public, agencies, interest groups, First Nations and Indigenous communities, local municipalities and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. Comments received and regional response can be reviewed within the following Appendices at: https://www.niagararegion.ca/official-plan/proposed-plan-comments-jan- mar-2022.aspx Page 684 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2- Comments on the draft Consolidated NOP Appendix 3- Comments on the NES Appendix 4- Summary of Comments on NES Mapping Appendix 5- Comments/Requests Submitted for SABR after the March 4, 2022 deadline After considering all the consultations, revisions were made throughout the Plan. Appendix 6, attached to this report, identifies key changes made in terms of policy additions or changes in direction for the sections in each of the Chapters. Some revisions and important matters to bring to Council’s attention are: • Urban and hamlet expansions as per the Council endorsed Reports PDS 6 2022 and PDS 7 2022. • New strategic growth area boundary in Niagara Falls around the future hospital site as discussed in Report PDS 6-2022. • Alignment with provincial policy with respect to protected major transit station areas (Go Station areas) and providing opportunities for inclusionary zoning in these areas. • Revisions to the policy to clarify that the NES is an overlay, to align with a core policy that allows refinements to limits of features without a Regional Official Plan amendment. • A new Schedule C4 incorporating definitions and criteria for NES features. • Changes to the transition policies for the NES. • New climate change policies addressing the preparation of a municipal energy plan, exploring options for green building development standards; considering opportunities to integrate electric vehicle charging, and committing the Region to LEED silver for new Corporate facilities. • Technical and editorial changes to Aggregate policies to ensure that proposed policies are consistent with the PPS and conform to provincial plans. • Recognition of existing rural employment areas, outside settlement area boundaries, in Thorold and Port Colborne. • Clarification of the intent of future employment areas recognizing their consideration in long range planning. • Stronger acknowledgement of First Nations and Indigenous communities in engagement, archaeological management and cultural heritage planning. Page 685 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________ Next Steps Staff will consider all the comments submitted on the proposed NOP. The final version of the NOP will be presented with supporting material to complete the Municipal Comprehensive Review. If adopted all the materials will be submitted to the Province for approval. A recommendation report with the final NOP will be presented to Council in June 2022 for adoption to meet the Provincial deadline of July 1, 2022. Alternatives Reviewed This report is for information purposes. There can be more than one good planning approach to achieve the policies and objectives set out in the NOP. Consultation to date has identified a variety of competing interests. The NOP works to strike a balance between these interests to ensure the social and economic health of our communities. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities The Niagara Official Plan supports the following Council Strategic Priorities: • Supporting Business and Economic Growth- Through long range planning for the supply and retention of a broad range of community and employment lands that offer community related employment and industrial employment opportunities to attract and support economic wellbeing; • Healthy and Vibrant Community- Through planning for safe, healthy neighbourhoods that are attractive, inclusive and connected, based on complete community principles and design; • Responsible Growth and Infrastructure Planning- Through coordinated, efficient use of existing infrastructure and optimizing planned infrastructure that will service the communities of Niagara and facilitate movement of people and goods; and • Sustainable and Engaging Government: Through planned growth that is fiscally sustainable and fosters strong, successful relationships between all levels of government in the supply of services and infrastructure. Page 686 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 10 ______________________________________________________________________ Other Pertinent Reports PDS 40-2016 Regional Official Plan Update PDS 41-2017 New Official Plan Structure and Framework PDS 3-2018 New Official Plan Update PDS 6-2018 Natural Environment Project Initiation Report PDS 18-2018 Natural Environment – Project Framework PDS 9-2019 New Official Plan Consultation Timeline Framework PDS 10-2019 Update on Natural Environment Work Program – New Regional Official Plan CWCD 122-2019 Agricultural and Environmental Groups – Draft Stakeholder Lists CWCD 150-2019 Update on Official Plan Consultations – Spring 2019 CWCD 179-2019 Notice of Public Information Centres – Natural Environment Work Program, New Regional Official Plan CWCD 271-2019 Update on Consultation for New Official Plan PDS 32-2019 Natural Environment Work Program – Phases 2 & 3: Mapping and Watershed Planning Discussion Papers and Comprehensive Background Study PDS 1-2020 New Niagara Official Plan – Public Consultation Summary PDS 3-2020 Ecological Land Classification Mapping Update PDS 9-2020 Niagara Official Plan – Consultation Details and Revised Framework CWCD 153-2020 Natural Environment Work Program Update – New Niagara Official Plan PDS 26-2020 Natural Environment Work Program – Phase 4: Identification and Evaluation of Options CWCD 314-2020 Update Natural Environment Work Program PDS 35-2020 Niagara Official Plan Consultation Update PDS 4-2021 Niagara Official Plan – Steps and Direction Moving Forward PDS 1-2021 Natural Environment Work Program – 2nd Point of Engagement CWCD 2021-70 Mapping and Data for Natural Environment Options PDS 17-2021 Niagara Official Plan Consolidated Policy Report PDS 30-2021 Niagara Watershed Plan – Draft for Consultation PDS 32-2021 Update on Niagara Official Plan - Further Draft Policy Development PDS 36-2021 Consultation Response and Further Policy Development PDS 39-2021 Niagara Official Plan: Employment Area Conversion Recommendations PDS 8-2021 Niagara Official Plan: Natural Environment System Page 687 of 842 PDS 14-2022 April 28, 2022 Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________ PDS 41-2021 Settlement Area Boundary Review - Urban Recommendations PDS 42-2021 Settlement Area Boundary Review - Rural Recommendations PDS 2-2022 Niagara Official Plan - Proposed Draft for Consultation PDS 6-2022 Niagara Official Plan: Final Urban Settlement Area Recommendations PDS 7-2022 Niagara Official Plan: Final Rural Settlement Area Recommendations ________________________________ Prepared by: Dave, Heyworth, MCIP, RPP Official Plan Policy Consultant Planning and Development _______________________________ Recommended by: Michelle Sergi, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development Services ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Diana Morreale, Acting Director of Community and Long Range Planning. Appendices Appendix 1 Key NOP Development Steps/ Consultation on the NOP (Note: Appendices 2-5 available electronically only) Appendix 2 Comments on the draft Consolidated NOP Appendix 3 Comments on the Natural Environment System (NES) Appendix 4 Summary of Comments on NES Mapping (available electronically) Appendix 5 Comments/Requests Submitted for SABR after the March 4/ 2022 Appendix 6 Key Policy Changes to the Draft Consolidated NOP Page 688 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:comment for may 10th council meeting From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 8:41 AM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-comment for may 10th council meeting I would like to make these comments and submit these documents about this item on the agenda. Do not redact this report To Council, These are some of my comments concerning affordable housing in Niagara falls. I think its fair to say, everyone on the entire planet is concerned about affordable housing, so once your over telling us that your someone that is concerned about affordable housing, like its a mandatory complimentary greeting, lets actually start discussing the reality of the situation. Affordable housing solutions require people that feel everyone deserves a fair opportunity to live a normal life unburdened by the race to acquire financial wealth at the expense of social wealth, like that of some many developers these days, everything seems centered around maximum profits. I have witnessed the slum cities of south Africa, homeless people by the thousands with no jobs or any hope for any change to be more than they are. Concentrations on this scale may never happen here but the underlining causes exist everywhere. Societies leaders are provided the opportunity and resources to make sure that these situations don't occur, clearly it doesn't work everywhere for what ever the various reasons are, over population, natural disasters, corruption, incompetence to mention a few. Page 689 of 842 2 As far as the city of Niagara falls goes, I cant recall any completed affordable housing initiatives within the term of this sitting council. Be careful now council, I'll be honest with you here, I'm setting you up, I want to see who is going to speak up and say something along the lines that we created this and we created that, what did you create, ten dwelling units, twenty maybe even a few more in the hopes to defend yourselves, but what is the current need, hundreds, thousands, to say there are tens of new units, if indeed there are even that many completed still only shows that over nearly four years you failed in any significance progress. Go back on the first recorded meetings of this councils term and watch the discussions you had on affordable housing and then ask yourselves what you have achieved, be prepared for disappointment. It all comes down to good leadership, anyone can be a leader if enough people want them to be one, if they say the right words and smile and wave and get on social media enough. But what have you done lately, if at all, towards addressing affordable housing. Nearly four years now and what have you got to show for it, has any new affordable housing projects completed in that time in the city of Niagara falls. We don't want to hear what you hope will get done, you had four years to do something, we don't want to hear your excuses we want to see newspaper articles showing normal everyday people walking through the front doors of the buildings that were built, do you have those pictures. Today, in the hear and now, you are being weighed, you are being measured, you are being found wanting. You created, and the entire council chairs, an affordable housing committee, prove this committee hasn't failed to produce any completed developments. All its initiatives appear to have failed. What happen to that project concerning the two subject parcels of land — between Kalar and Pitton roads, and off Charnwood Avenue. How did that five thousand dollars for an artist rendition work out for you. What has happen to this grand affordable housing project on park street, so far you have spend two million dollars to remove a much needed parking lot for the downtown core, leaving what looks like a massive bomb crater, you didn't even have the planning merit to maintain an interim use while your attempting to do whatever it is your doing over there. I got the impression the external municipal procedures, programs and assistance the city was hoping for failed to materialized and the project is in a state of indefinite suspension, the politically correct term for failure. Were listing, so tell us some more promises of how your working in the back ground to further these goals. I have enclosed documents that show what this city has been doing in the background, at the expense of affordable housing projects moving forward within the downtown core you have promoted for-profit developers that appear to have no intentions of integrating affordable housing in their developments. Did you initiate a MZO request to acquire the planning requirements needed to complete the park street affordable housing project, I don't recall such a request going before council, but I did see such a request approved by council for these for-profit developments. City staff even dismissed an affordable housing MZO inquiry. How much more hypocritical can this city get when it come to affordable housing in the downtown core. Page 690 of 842 3 These documents will allow the people of this city to see what the leadership of this council and city staff has done to frustrate the solutions of our affordable housing situation. Not only have the actions of council members, but also the inactions of council members, resulted in unnecessary delays and a failure of confidence in your ability to effectively exercise the powers available to a municipality to implement policy to resolve this situation. Even the CAO of Niagara falls has spoken to the failures of this municipality to implement policy to address this situation, referencing the information contained in these attached documents I have provided for the public to view today, concerning the OLT appeals and MZO request in the most resent council meeting. Reports were produced to support his comments so do to do I submit my reports to support my comments. Anyone can be a mayor or councilor, the statically probability that the existing members of this council are the best qualified of the entire population of Niagara falls are quite slim. Having prior knowledge of the information continued in these documents, I am surprised that out of sheer self preservation certain council members haven't made motion for a no-confidence vote in the leadership abilities of certain other members of council, namely Mayor Jim Diotia , councilor Wayne Thompson and councilor Wayne Campbell, for these individuals have shown a total disregard for the office by there actions. I have explored and immersed myself in the differing cultures of some near twenty different countries on this planet, I have experiences enough to last the rest of my life should I not be able to continue the journey, so many that some even merge into each other and I lose track of where I did what and when, but the memories are always good ones. One event comes to mind that suits the topic of what is happening within this council. I have visited southern African countries many times, of course going on safari and seeing the big five was on the bucket list. So my good friend, the owner of the hostel business I help out with when visiting South Africa, and I decides to drive to the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Game Reserve. Like anything new and exciting your heart races and with heighten attention you search the lands for that next elusive rare animal. We spent several days driving around the park, we managed to see many of the animals but the cats eluded us, they are very good at hiding in the tall grass. One time we even came out of a shop on the reserve and had to wait for a wild unrestrained bull elephant to finish eating the leaves beside our truck. We were determined to remain until we saw the big cats. What was once a heart pounding experience to see a giraffe or elephant was now a distraction. On our fourth day driving around the park we noticed a park tour bus driving really slow up ahead around a bend, so we stop and waited, next thing we saw was a rhinoceros walking down the pathway towards us. For those of you who have never seen this animal up close and free ranging, it is the most powerful living force you could possibly image. An elephant may be big but you still get the impression you might be able to get away from one, not so with these animals. If it wants you there's nowhere you could possibly hide. Anyways, I quickly said to my fiend, "pull over to the side of the path, but not to far over, enough that when it walks by I can reach out and touch it". I didn't get the chance, upon approaching our trucks position it turned and entered the undergrowth. After that event we decided to leave the park, despite not seeing the cats we so desperately wanted to. Page 691 of 842 4 Not because we ran out of time, because we ran out of respect. Respect for what consti tutes crossing a line. This animal could have destroyed our little truck without any effort, it could have killed us without provocation, and I was will to reach out an touch it. We had gotten to comfortable with our surrounding and we lost sight of them. Clearly some of the longer term council members have gotten too comfortable in their surroundings and are willing to take risks, even possibly break laws, and then have the expectation that they wont be called out on it, well you are being called out on it, your leadership abilities are being questioned, and in this particular case, the people who need affordable housing sooner rather than later are the ones being affected. So go on talk about your affordable housing plans, but what good is talking about them if the leaders who implement them have lost sight of their responsibilities. That is what I want to talk about. Council members bring up their concerns on how to enforce by-laws all the time, I am bringing up my concerns on the ability to create these by-laws. I am certainly glad that this public forum is available that I can do so. That's it for now, this letter may not be as thorough as I may like, but its on time, this time. It will all come out at the public OLT hearing. All the information presented here has been made pubic and should not be withheld or redacted in any way. Thank you, Joedy Burdett 4480 Bridge St Niagara Falls, ON L2E2R7 905 353 8468 info@niagaratinting.com CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 692 of 842 Sunday, March 20, 2022 A Report on Niagara Falls Downtown Buildings 4274 Bridge Street Below are pictures that show the property damage to the building. Windows are smashed with glass lying on the ground. Some have old doors propped up to look like the have been boarded up, others completely open to the environment. The bricks above window archways are beginning to crumble. The sheer volume of water that must be able to penetrate the buildings envelope has the potential to cause hazardous mold growth not to mention the possibility of internal structural damage to the wooden floors and walls as well as the potential structural damage of the buildings foundation from the thaw freeze cycle of a basement saturated with moisture. Clearly there must be numerous violations of the City of Niagara Falls Property Standards by-Law if not also the Fire Code. Is the City of Niagara Falls going to allow another building to fall into such a state of decay that it is no longer financially viable to restore it, they have in the past. Or perhaps we should all just wait for an "accidental" fire to burn it down to the ground, it has happened before. This building is right beside the Train and Bus Stations as well as on the route to and from the United States via the Bridge. As first impressions go, what kind of message are the leaders of our City giving by allowing a building that is just around the corner from our very own City Hall to fall into such a state of disrepair and have permitted it to remain in this state for so long. There are Fire Codes, Building Codes, Property Standard Codes that helps protect these buildings and help protect people from these building. They devalue adjacent properties, taint the image of our City and disrespect the people who call the Downtown home. If the people in charge of these "authorities having jurisdiction" cannot see what is happening in their own back, perhaps new "people" are needed. It is distressing when such gross acts of negligence are permitted to go unnoticed. Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street Joedy Burdett Page 693 of 842 Page 694 of 842 An appellant's comprehensive non-definitive report of The City of Niagara Falls initiated Downtown Zoning By-Law 2021-40 Part Two Violating Section 34(12(a)(i) and Section 34(17) of the Planning Act. Section 34(12)(a)(I) Before passing a by-law the council shall ensure that sufficient information and material are made available to enable the public to understand generally the zoning proposal that is being considered by the council. Section 34(17) Where a change is made in a proposed by-law after the holding of the public meeting the council shall determine whether any further notice is to be given in respect of the proposed by-law. The refined wording of the above regulations of the Planning Act reflects the relevant wording of those regulations in the context of this document. A consolidated comprehensive non-definitive list of the changes that occurred to By-Law 2021-40 after the March 2nd, 2021 public meeting and prior to the passing of the By-Law at the March 23rd, 2021 Council Meeting The draft By-Law regulations after the Public Meeting are a consolidation of the Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting document, the Power Point document, the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation with Map document, PBD-2021-09 document, and the verbal discussions with city staff at the Public Meeting. All five sources where currently in circulation and unrepealed at the time. This document is not for the purpose of determining the soundness or validity of a regulation, that topic is addressed in the Errors and Higher Legislative Conflicts document to be presented at the OLT hearing. Nor is this document for the purpose of determining if Mayor Jim Diodati and Councilor Wayne Thompson Violated Section 34(20.1) and Section 34(20.2) of the Planning Act or contravened The Niagara Falls Council Code of Conduct, that topic is addressed in the Council Code of Conduct complaint and The Integrity Commissioner Incident documents. This document's purpose is to reveal all the changes that occurred to the proposed regulations of By-Law 2021-40 after the public meeting of March 2, 2021 and prior to its passing at the Council Metting of March 23, 2021, and more importantly to explicitly reveal the changes that were not disclosed to Council as per Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, and were also subsequently not disclosed to the general public as per Section 34(12(a)(i) of the Planning Act. This document uses By-Law 2021-40, as passed and subsequently appealed, as the primary document. The changes listed below are in chronological order from there entry within that document. Where there is a change by omission within the primary document it is included under the entry (Omitted) where it correlates to the information provided from the consolidated public meeting information. Page 695 of 842 Section 3 1. Section 2 Definitions shall be amended by inserting the following section after section 2.69: (d) “2.73 “Bicycle Parking Space” means a space to park a bicycle. 1. This was not a proposed definition. Section 4 1. Section 4 General Provisions shall be amended by adding the following sections after section 4.36. (a) (iv) A bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of 1.8 meters in length, a minimum of 0.6 meters in width, and overhead clearance in covered spaces shall be a minimum of 2.1 meters. 1. This was not a proposed provision. 2. Section 4 General Provisions shall be amended by adding the following sections after section 4.36. (a) (v) Notwithstanding subsection c above, where a bicycle parking space provides for vertical storage of a bicycle, the minimum length may be reduced to 1.2 meters. 1. This was not a proposed provision. 3. Section 4 General Provisions shall be amended by adding the following sections after section 4.36. (a) (vi) Notwithstanding subsections a) and c), where a bicycle parking space is located within a bicycle locker, overhead clearance shall not be required. 1. This was not a proposed provision. 4. Section 4 General Provisions shall be amended by adding the following sections after section 4.36. (a) (vii) A bicycle parking space shall abut an access aisle which shall be a minimum of 1.5 meters in width. 1. This was not a proposed provision. Section 5 Page 696 of 842 1. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.1(jj) CB2: Apartment Dwelling except on Queen Street, and Park Street (between Ontario Ave and Erie Avenue), where dwelling units are only permitted in a building in combination with one or more of the uses listed in this section and further provided that such dwelling units, except entrances thereto, are located above the ground floor. 1. Dwelling unit use was not proposed to be remove from Permitted Uses. 2. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.1(jj) CB3: Apartment Dwelling 1. Dwelling unit use was not proposed to be remove from Permitted Uses. 3. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.1(jj) CB4 or CB4-1: CB4 or CB4-1: Apartment Dwelling 1. Dwelling unit use was not proposed to be remove from Permitted Uses. 4. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.1(jj) CB5: Dwelling units are only permitted in a building in combination with one or more of the uses listed in this section and further provided that such dwelling units, except entrances thereto, are located above ground floor. 1. Apartment Dwelling unit use was proposed to be a Permitted Use. 2. The Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting, PBD-2021-09 and the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation documents proposed residential uses on the ground floor. 5. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.1(jj) CB6: Dwelling units are only permitted in a building in combination with one or more of the uses listed in this section and further provided that such dwelling units, except entrances thereto, are located above ground floor. 1. Apartment Dwelling unit use was proposed to be a Permitted Use. Page 697 of 842 2. The Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed residential uses on the ground floor. 6. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.A(c)(ii) where no part of the building is used for residential purposes - 3 meters plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, provided that no rear yard is required where the rear yard where the rear lot line abuts a public lane or a public parking lot 1. The “yard where the rear lot line abuts a public lane” having been changed from the current By- Law 79-200 “lot line abuts a public land” was not a proposed regulation. 2. The Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting and PBD-2021-09 documents and the verbal interaction of city staff proposed no changes to the CB zone. 7. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.A(I) Minimum number of parking spaces: In accordance with Table 1 of section 4.19 and section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 1. The Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting, PBD-2021-09 and the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation documents proposed no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 2. Table 1 of section 4.19 and Section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 does not provide no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “In accordance with section 4.19.1” 8. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(b)(i) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not a proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. Page 698 of 842 9. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(b)(ii) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters - 6 meters 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 6 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. 10. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(c)(i) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less - 6 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 11. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(c)(ii) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of None was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 12. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(d) Minimum rear yard depth – 3 metres, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable Page 699 of 842 1. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum rear yard – 3 meters”. 13. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(f)(i) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 14. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(f)(ii) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 6 meters. 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 15. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: .5.2.B(g)(i) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 6 meters plus any applicable distance specific in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. Page 700 of 842 16. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(g)(ii) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. 17. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: (Omitted) Minimum height of a building or structure - 9 meters 1. The removal of Minimum height of a building or structure – 9 meters regulation was not proposed. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum height – 9 meters” 18. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(j)(ii) Minimum number of parking spaces: In accordance with Table 1 of section 4.19 and section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 1. The PBD-2021-09 and the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation documents proposed no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 2. Table 1 of section 4.19 and Section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 does not provide no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “In accordance with section 4.19.1” 19. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.B(m) Minimum amenity area for apartment dwellings - 20 sq. m per dwelling unit 1. “Amenity area for apartment dwellings” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Power Point presentation, the Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting, the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “amenity area for residential” Page 701 of 842 20. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: .5.2.B(p) Minimum glazing for ground floor facades on Erie Avenue and Queen Street - 60% 1. The exclusion of Minimum glazing for ground floor facades to buildings other than on Erie Avenue and Queen Street only was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of Minimum glazing for ground floor facades for Queen Street was not the proposed regulation 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation proposed “Minimum Glazing for Ground Floor Facades fronting Erie Avenue” 4. The PBD-2021-09 and Power Point documents propose “maximum building lengths of 60m with ground floor glazing of 60%” 21. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(b)(i) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not a proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. 22. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(b)(ii) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters - 6 meters 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 6 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. 23. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: .5.2.C(c)(i) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less - 6 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable Page 702 of 842 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 24. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(c)(ii) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of None was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 25. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(d) Minimum rear yard depth – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum rear yard – 3 meters”. 26. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(e)(i) Minimum interior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – None 1. A Minimum interior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “Minimum interior side yard - None” Page 703 of 842 27. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(e)(ii) Minimum interior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 3 meters 1. A Minimum interior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 3 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “Minimum interior side yard - None” 28. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(f)(i) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 29. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(f)(ii) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 6 meters. 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 30. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: .5.2.C(g)(i) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 6 meters plus any applicable distance specific in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. Page 704 of 842 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. 31. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: .5.2.C(g)(ii) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. 32. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: .5.2.C(i) Minimum height of a building or structure - 9 meters, subject to section 4.27 1. The inclusion of “subject to section 4.27” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum height 9 meters”. 33. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(k)(ii) Minimum number of parking spaces: In accordance with Table 1 of section 4.19 and section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 1. The PBD-2021-09 and Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation documents proposed no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 2. Table 1 of section 4.19 and Section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 does not provide no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “In accordance with section 4.19.1” 34. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(n) Minimum amenity area for apartment dwellings - 20 sq. m per dwelling unit Page 705 of 842 1. “Amenity area for apartment dwellings” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Power Point presentation, the Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting, the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “amenity area for residential” 35. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: (Omitted) Maximum building length – 60 meters 1. The removal of Maximum building length – 60 meters regulation was not proposed. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum building length - 60 meters” 36. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.C(p) Minimum glazing for ground floor facades - 60% 1. The inclusion of all other ground floor facades other than “fronting River Road” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation proposed “Minimum Glazing for Ground Floor Facades fronting River Road- 60%” only. 3. The PBD-2021-09 and Power Point documents propose “maximum building lengths of 60m with ground floor glazing of 60%” 4. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and the PBD-2021-09 and Power Point documents conflict. 37. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(b)(i) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not a proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. 38. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: Page 706 of 842 8.5.2.D(b)(ii) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters - 6 meters 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 6 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. 39. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(b)(iii) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters in CB4-1 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. 40. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(c)(i) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less - 6 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 41. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(c)(ii) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of None was not the proposed regulation. Page 707 of 842 3. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 42. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(d) Minimum rear yard depth – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 2. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum rear yard – 3 meters”. 43. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(e)(i) Minimum interior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – None 1. A Minimum interior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “Minimum interior side yard - None” 44. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(e)(ii) Minimum interior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 3 meters 1. A Minimum interior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 3 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “Minimum interior side yard - None” 45. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(f)(i) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable Page 708 of 842 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 46. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.d(f)(ii) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 6 meters. 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 47. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.d(f)(iii) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters in CB4-1 – 6 meters. 3. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 4. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 48. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(g)(i) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 6 meters plus any applicable distance specific in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. Page 709 of 842 49. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(g)(ii) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. 50. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(i) Minimum height of a building or structure - 9 meters, subject to section 4.27 1. The inclusion of “subject to section 4.27” was not the proposed regulation. 2. Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum height 9 meters”. 51. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: (Omitted) Maximum podium height – 14 meters 1. The omission of the Maximum podium height regulation was not proposed. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposes “Maximum Podium Height – 14 meters” 52. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(l)(ii) Minimum number of parking spaces: In accordance with Table 1 of section 4.19 and section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 1. PBD-2021-09 and the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation documents proposed no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 2. Table 1 of section 4.19 and Section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 does not provide no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “In accordance with section 4.19.1” Page 710 of 842 53. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(o) Minimum amenity area for apartment dwellings - 20 sq. m per dwelling unit 1. “Amenity area for apartment dwellings” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Power Point presentation, the Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting, the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “amenity area for residential” 54. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.D(p) Minimum amenity area for apartment dwellings for CB4-1 - 10 sq. m per dwelling unit 1. “Amenity area for apartment dwellings” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Power Point presentation, the Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting, the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “amenity area for residential” 55. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(b)(i) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not a proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. 56. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(b)(ii) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters - 6 meters 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 6 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. Page 711 of 842 57. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(c)(i) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less - 6 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 58. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(c)(ii) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of None was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 59. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(d) Minimum rear yard depth – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum rear yard – 3 meters”. 60. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(e)(i) Minimum interior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – None Page 712 of 842 1. A Minimum interior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “Minimum interior side yard - None” 61. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(e)(ii) Minimum interior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 5 meters 1. A Minimum interior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 5 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “Minimum interior side yard - None” 62. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(f)(i) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 63. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(f)(ii) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 6 meters. 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 1. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 64. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: Page 713 of 842 8.5.2.E(g)(i) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 6 meters plus any applicable distance specific in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. 65. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(g)(ii) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. 66. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(i) Minimum height of a building or structure - 9 meters, subject to section 4.27 1. The inclusion of “subject to section 4.27” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum height 9 meters”. 67. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(l)(ii) Minimum number of parking spaces: In accordance with Table 1 of section 4.19 and section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 1. The PBD-2021-09 and Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation documents proposed no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 2. Table 1 of section 4.19 and Section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 does not provide no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “In accordance with section 4.19.1” Page 714 of 842 68. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(o) Minimum amenity area for apartment dwellings - 20 sq. m per dwelling unit 1. “Amenity area for apartment dwellings” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Power Point presentation, the Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting, the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “amenity area for residential” 69. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.E(r) Minimum glazing for ground floor facades – 60% 1. The inclusion of Minimum glazing for residential ground floor facades was not a proposed regulation. 2. The Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum Glazing for Commercial Facades fronting Erie Avenue and Bridge Street” 70. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(b)(i) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not a proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. 71. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(b)(ii) Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters - 6 meters 1. A Minimum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 6 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum front yard depth - 3 meters”. Page 715 of 842 72. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(c)(i) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less - 6 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 73. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(c)(ii) Maximum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum front yard depth based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of None was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum front yard depth - 6 meters”. 74. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(d) Minimum rear yard depth – 3 meters, plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum rear yard – 3 meters”. 75. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(e)(i) Minimum interior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – None Page 716 of 842 1. A Minimum interior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “Minimum interior side yard - None” 76. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(e)(ii) Minimum interior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 10 meters 1. A Minimum interior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The distance of 10 meters was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “Minimum interior side yard - None” 77. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(f)(i) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 3 meters plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 78. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(f)(ii) Minimum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – 6 meters. 1. A Minimum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum exterior side yard - 3 meters”. 79. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: Page 717 of 842 8.5.2.F(g)(i) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less – 6 meters plus any applicable distance specific in section 4.27, where applicable 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The inclusion of “plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27, where applicable” was not the proposed regulation. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. 80. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(g)(ii) Maximum exterior side yard width for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters – None 1. A Maximum exterior side yard width based upon “portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Maximum exterior side yard - 6 meters”. 81. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(i) Minimum height of a building or structure - 9 meters, subject to section 4.27 1. The inclusion of “subject to section 4.27” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum height 9 meters”. 82. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(m)(ii) Minimum number of parking spaces: In accordance with Table 1 of section 4.19 and section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 1. The PBD-2021-09 and Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation documents proposed no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 2. Table 1 of section 4.19 and Section 19.1.73 of By-law 79-200 does not provide no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses. 3. The Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “In accordance with section 4.19.1” 83. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: Page 718 of 842 (Omitted) Maximum Floor Plate Area – 759 square meters 1. The omission of “Maximum Floor Plate Area” was not proposed. 84. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(p) Minimum amenity area for apartment dwellings - 20 sq. m per dwelling unit 1. “Amenity area for apartment dwellings” was not the proposed regulation. 2. The Power Point presentation, the Notice of Remote Electronic Public Meeting, the Proposed Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation and PBD-2021-09 documents proposed “amenity area for residential” 85. By-law 79-200 is amended by deleting Section 8.5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 8.5: 8.5.2.F(s) Minimum glazing for ground floor facades – 60% 1. The inclusion of Minimum glazing for residential ground floor facades was not a proposed regulation. 2. The Zoning Changes Final Draft for Public Consultation document proposed “Minimum Glazing for Commercial Facades fronting Erie Avenue and Bridge Street” 86. The Zoning of 4478 Bridge Street was changed from CB4 to Open Space Notwithstanding the regulations of 8.5.2.X, a use which is lawfully being carried on the date of the passing of this by-law, or the erection or use of a building or structure with a maximum building height of 12 meters, shall be subject to the regulations of 8.5.2.A Section 34(17) Where a change is made in a proposed by-law after the holding of the public meeting the council shall determine whether any further notice is to be given in respect of the proposed by- law. At the March 23, 2021 Council Meeting city staff had a discussion with Council in respect to addressing the change that had occurred to the zoning status of 4478 Bridge St. (#86). They further addressed the “transition clause”. (86) and changes to the tower setbacks for zones CB5 (14 stories) and CB6 (20 stories), this was also addressed within the PBD-2021-12 documents (#56, #58, #61, #63, #65, #71, #73, #76, #78, #80). Aside from the regulations mentioned above, approximately 100+/- changes, some regulations had multiple changes, were made to By-Law 2021-40 between the Pubic Meeting and the passing of the By- Law that were not brought to the attention of Council and the general public. Page 719 of 842 Some of the changes above are significant, #83 created unlimited floor plate area, #5 prevents zone CB6 buildings from having more than 3 dwelling units. The ramifications of the changes are not the topic here, what is, is that they were not presented to Council prior to the passing of By-Law 2021-40. People makes mistakes. But there comes a point when a threshold is crossed where a few mistakes are no longer just mistakes but become negligence and in the case of public officials, breach of Duty. The sheer scale alone of the number of changes to not be presented to Council cannot be considered a simple mistake. Furthermore, staff provided and participated in a process to present regulation changes to Council's attention, as was indicted prior, yet neglected to mention any of the above remaining regulation changes. This is just not acceptable from an organization that has planning staff with hundreds of years in combined planning experience and practiced access to out-sourced professional help. Section 34(12)(a)(i) Before passing a by-law the council shall ensure that sufficient information and material are made available to enable the public to understand generally the zoning proposal that is being considered by the council. The wording of Section 34(12)(a)(i) infers this condition is in effect right up to the moment that council passes the motion to approve the By-Law. Document PBD-2021-12 was an active and valid information source for this topic at this time also as is the information written prior in this document. Although there appeared to be contraventions of Section 34(12)(a)(i) early on in the amendment process recent events have made those events insignificant and are not addressed. The events leading up to the allegation that a violation of Section 34(17) of the Planning Act occurred also contribute to the allegation that a violation of Section 34(12)(a)(i) of the Planning Act occurred. Section 34(12)(a)(i) of the Planning Act states that the public is supposed to understand “generally” what is being proposed. It would appear that the definition of “generally” in the context of passing a by- law is the only source of contention as to whether the public “understands”. The underling function of why does the public need to “understand generally the zoning proposal” needs to be addressed. It is not actually stated why but it is important enough to justify the command statement that “council shall ensure “. From the perspective of this document, the public has certain “as of rights” when it comes to planning matters. One of the most prominent of those rights, is the right to appeal a by-law. It is very important to have the correct information to choose to exercise that right. “Sufficient information” needs to be “correct information” and this is the conundrum. Although a lot of information was provided to the public, in the end it wasn’t enough to satisfy the requirement of “Sufficient information” in Section 34(12)(a)(i). Page 720 of 842 Too much of the “Sufficient information” was incorrect and misdirecting, basically corrupting its purpose. The list above demonstrates an example of the scale of the corruption to the information that was “made available” to not only the Council but also to the general public. The presentations of this “corrupted information” occurred throughout the by-law process. Below are examples from the two written documents issued at the March 23 meeting, By-law 2021-40 and the 28- page PDB-2021-12 report and the Notice and Explanatory Note passing of Zoning By-Law no. 2021-40. PDB-2021-12 states “Ground floor residential uses permitted on the ground floor within the CB3 – CB6 zones” which conflicts with By-law 2021-40 stating “CB5 and CB6 zones … Dwelling units are only permitted in a building... further provided that such dwelling units... are located above ground floor.” PDB-2021-12 states “no minimum parking requirement for non-residential uses” which conflicts with By-law 2021-40 stating “In accordance with Table 1 of section 4.19 and section 19.1.73 of By-law 79- 200". This provision does not allow unlimited non-residential parking. DB-2021-12 states “0-meter interior side yard setbacks" which conflicts with By-law 2021-40 stating within multiple zones “for any portion of a building with a height greater than 12 meters - 3-10 meters”. Notice and Explanatory Note passing of Zoning By-Law no. 2021-40 states “Permits ground floor residential uses within the CB3 – CB6 zones” which conflicts with By-law 2021-40 stating “CB5 and CB6 zones … Dwelling units are only permitted in a building... further provided that such dwelling units... are located above ground floor.” The conflicting statements within these formal documents and the revelation of regulation changes are the last and, in most cases, the definitive sources of information to rely upon to decide if what is presented justifies an appeal. I appealed the By-Law on the principle that I felt some of the regulations were not to my satisfaction. I have background knowledge in planning and am a building Code Designer and it was difficult to for me to compile this report, it would not be practical to expect a member of the public without that kind of knowledge and experience to comprehend the effects of this By-Law the way it was written and presented. To that point, if the information in this report is validated, Council and city planning staff also, are not aware of this information, for logic dictates they would not have allowed it to happen in the first place, that is their job after all. What we are discussing is, has the public been denied “Sufficient information” to make an educated decision to as to whether or not to appeal the By-Law. The AHJ has to make that decision, my burden is to demonstrate to the AHJ that it is a valid argument to investigate. So, if the information above is not enough, allow me to point this out. Like all subjective arguments there needs to be a test of proof as to one state or the other. Does the balance of probabilities weight in favor of the owners of the properties with zones CB5 and CB6, with the development potential in the tens of millions of dollars, filing an appeal because #4 and #5 above prevent more than 3 dwelling units within a building? These zones permit building 14-20 stories high. Page 721 of 842 Does the balance of probabilities weight in favor of the owners of the properties surrounding zone CB6, filing an appeal because #83 above now allows unlimited tower area? Many people commented negatively sighting the detrimental effects that these buildings would have when they were limited to a floor plate of 750 square meters. This regulation was omitted without any information being provided to the public; I doubt anyone other than myself is aware of this. Does the balance of probabilities weight in favor of the owners of the properties in any zone, filing an appeal because the multi-zone regulation “Minimum front yard depth for any portion of a building with a height of 12 meters or less prevents constructing portions of a building under 12 meters from being built anywhere other than adjacent to the front yard setback? For that matter, does the balance of probabilities weight in favor of any person filing an appeal because of any example within the list having not been presented to the public? Of course, people would have appealed those conditions had they been better informed, those are last seconds of the game concealed deal breaker regulations changes, whether by design or by accident is irrelevant at this point, they exist in the here and now. Only two people appealed the By-Law, I know the other appellant is only interested in parking for his business and has no interest in other regulations. I will try to fix what I can but, in the end, this situation is wrong in so many ways and needs to be dealt with appropriately. It's unfortunate, considering the circumstances of the scale of the financial investments, both existing and proposed, being in the hundreds of millions of dollars, that the apparent disregard by staff to the respect that this process should have been given and the evidence available, that it leads me to believe that this cannot go unnoticed. To do so would encourage further acts of disrespect for the processes that our lawmakers have worked so hard to create, to protect the general public from just these kind of events from happening. I request that it be investigate by the proper AHJ if the events described above constitute a violation of Section 34(17) and Section 34(12)(a)(i) of the Planning Act. Please feel free to contact me, I am more than willing to clarify anything within this document. Joedy Burdett Page 722 of 842 Page 723 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:comment for may 10th council meeting From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 8:41 AM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-comment for may 10th council meeting I would like to make these comments and submit these documents about this item on the agenda. Do not redact this report To Council, These are some of my comments concerning affordable housing in Niagara falls. I think its fair to say, everyone on the entire planet is concerned about affordable housing, so once your over telling us that your someone that is concerned about affordable housing, like its a mandatory complimentary greeting, lets actually start discussing the reality of the situation. Affordable housing solutions require people that feel everyone deserves a fair opportunity to live a normal life unburdened by the race to acquire financial wealth at the expense of social wealth, like that of some many developers these days, everything seems centered around maximum profits. I have witnessed the slum cities of south Africa, homeless people by the thousands with no jobs or any hope for any change to be more than they are. Concentrations on this scale may never happen here but the underlining causes exist everywhere. Societies leaders are provided the opportunity and resources to make sure that these situations don't occur, clearly it doesn't work everywhere for what ever the various reasons are, over population, natural disasters, corruption, incompetence to mention a few. Page 724 of 842 2 As far as the city of Niagara falls goes, I cant recall any completed affordable housing initiatives within the term of this sitting council. Be careful now council, I'll be honest with you here, I'm setting you up, I want to see who is going to speak up and say something along the lines that we created this and we created that, what did you create, ten dwelling units, twenty maybe even a few more in the hopes to defend yourselves, but what is the current need, hundreds, thousands, to say there are tens of new units, if indeed there are even that many completed still only shows that over nearly four years you failed in any significance progress. Go back on the first recorded meetings of this councils term and watch the discussions you had on affordable housing and then ask yourselves what you have achieved, be prepared for disappointment. It all comes down to good leadership, anyone can be a leader if enough people want them to be one, if they say the right words and smile and wave and get on social media enough. But what have you done lately, if at all, towards addressing affordable housing. Nearly four years now and what have you got to show for it, has any new affordable housing projects completed in that time in the city of Niagara falls. We don't want to hear what you hope will get done, you had four years to do something, we don't want to hear your excuses we want to see newspaper articles showing normal everyday people walking through the front doors of the buildings that were built, do you have those pictures. Today, in the hear and now, you are being weighed, you are being measured, you are being found wanting. You created, and the entire council chairs, an affordable housing committee, prove this committee hasn't failed to produce any completed developments. All its initiatives appear to have failed. What happen to that project concerning the two subject parcels of land — between Kalar and Pitton roads, and off Charnwood Avenue. How did that five thousand dollars for an artist rendition work out for you. What has happen to this grand affordable housing project on park street, so far you have spend two million dollars to remove a much needed parking lot for the downtown core, leaving what looks like a massive bomb crater, you didn't even have the planning merit to maintain an interim use while your attempting to do whatever it is your doing over there. I got the impression the external municipal procedures, programs and assistance the city was hoping for failed to materialized and the project is in a state of indefinite suspension, the politically correct term for failure. Were listing, so tell us some more promises of how your working in the back ground to further these goals. I have enclosed documents that show what this city has been doing in the background, at the expense of affordable housing projects moving forward within the downtown core you have promoted for-profit developers that appear to have no intentions of integrating affordable housing in their developments. Did you initiate a MZO request to acquire the planning requirements needed to complete the park street affordable housing project, I don't recall such a request going before council, but I did see such a request approved by council for these for-profit developments. City staff even dismissed an affordable housing MZO inquiry. How much more hypocritical can this city get when it come to affordable housing in the downtown core. Page 725 of 842 3 These documents will allow the people of this city to see what the leadership of this council and city staff has done to frustrate the solutions of our affordable housing situation. Not only have the actions of council members, but also the inactions of council members, resulted in unnecessary delays and a failure of confidence in your ability to effectively exercise the powers available to a municipality to implement policy to resolve this situation. Even the CAO of Niagara falls has spoken to the failures of this municipality to implement policy to address this situation, referencing the information contained in these attached documents I have provided for the public to view today, concerning the OLT appeals and MZO request in the most resent council meeting. Reports were produced to support his comments so do to do I submit my reports to support my comments. Anyone can be a mayor or councilor, the statically probability that the existing members of this council are the best qualified of the entire population of Niagara falls are quite slim. Having prior knowledge of the information continued in these documents, I am surprised that out of sheer self preservation certain council members haven't made motion for a no-confidence vote in the leadership abilities of certain other members of council, namely Mayor Jim Diotia , councilor Wayne Thompson and councilor Wayne Campbell, for these individuals have shown a total disregard for the office by there actions. I have explored and immersed myself in the differing cultures of some near twenty different countries on this planet, I have experiences enough to last the rest of my life should I not be able to continue the journey, so many that some even merge into each other and I lose track of where I did what and when, but the memories are always good ones. One event comes to mind that suits the topic of what is happening within this council. I have visited southern African countries many times, of course going on safari and seeing the big five was on the bucket list. So my good friend, the owner of the hostel business I help out with when visiting South Africa, and I decides to drive to the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Game Reserve. Like anything new and exciting your heart races and with heighten attention you search the lands for that next elusive rare animal. We spent several days driving around the park, we managed to see many of the animals but the cats eluded us, they are very good at hiding in the tall grass. One time we even came out of a shop on the reserve and had to wait for a wild unrestrained bull elephant to finish eating the leaves beside our truck. We were determined to remain until we saw the big cats. What was once a heart pounding experience to see a giraffe or elephant was now a distraction. On our fourth day driving around the park we noticed a park tour bus driving really slow up ahead around a bend, so we stop and waited, next thing we saw was a rhinoceros walking down the pathway towards us. For those of you who have never seen this animal up close and free ranging, it is the most powerful living force you could possibly image. An elephant may be big but you still get the impression you might be able to get away from one, not so with these animals. If it wants you there's nowhere you could possibly hide. Anyways, I quickly said to my fiend, "pull over to the side of the path, but not to far over, enough that when it walks by I can reach out and touch it". I didn't get the chance, upon approaching our trucks position it turned and entered the undergrowth. After that event we decided to leave the park, despite not seeing the cats we so desperately wanted to. Page 726 of 842 4 Not because we ran out of time, because we ran out of respect. Respect for what consti tutes crossing a line. This animal could have destroyed our little truck without any effort, it could have killed us without provocation, and I was will to reach out an touch it. We had gotten to comfortable with our surrounding and we lost sight of them. Clearly some of the longer term council members have gotten too comfortable in their surroundings and are willing to take risks, even possibly break laws, and then have the expectation that they wont be called out on it, well you are being called out on it, your leadership abilities are being questioned, and in this particular case, the people who need affordable housing sooner rather than later are the ones being affected. So go on talk about your affordable housing plans, but what good is talking about them if the leaders who implement them have lost sight of their responsibilities. That is what I want to talk about. Council members bring up their concerns on how to enforce by-laws all the time, I am bringing up my concerns on the ability to create these by-laws. I am certainly glad that this public forum is available that I can do so. That's it for now, this letter may not be as thorough as I may like, but its on time, this time. It will all come out at the public OLT hearing. All the information presented here has been made pubic and should not be withheld or redacted in any way. Thank you, Joedy Burdett 4480 Bridge St Niagara Falls, ON L2E2R7 905 353 8468 info@niagaratinting.com CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 727 of 842 To Council, These are some of my comments concerning affordable housing in Niagara falls. I think its fair to say, everyone on the entire planet is concerned about affordable housing, so once your over telling us that your someone that is concerned about affordable housing, like its a mandatory complimentary greeting, lets actually start discussing the reality of the situation. Affordable housing solutions require people that feel everyone deserves a fair opportunity to live a normal life unburdened by the race to acquire financial wealth at the expense of social wealth, like that of some many developers these days, everything seems centered around maximum profits. I have witnessed the slum cities of south Africa, homeless people by the thousands with no jobs or any hope for any change to be more than they are. Concentrations on this scale may never happen here but the underlining causes exist everywhere. Societies leaders are provided the opportunity and resources to make sure that these situations don't occur, clearly it doesn't work everywhere for what ever the various reasons are, over population, natural disasters, corruption, incompetence to mention a few. As far as the city of Niagara falls goes, I cant recall any completed affordable housing initiatives within the term of this sitting council. Be careful now council, I'll be honest with you here, I'm setting you up, I want to see who is going to speak up and say something along the lines that we created this and we created that, what did you create, ten dwelling units, twenty maybe even a few more in the hopes to defend yourselves, but what is the current need, hundreds, thousands, to say there are tens of new units, if indeed there are even that many completed still only shows that over nearly four years you failed in any significance progress. Go back on the first recorded meetings of this councils term and watch the discussions you had on affordable housing and then ask yourselves what you have achieved, be prepared for disappointment. It all comes down to good leadership, anyone can be a leader if enough people want them to be one, if they say the right words and smile and wave and get on social media enough. But what have you done lately, if at all, towards addressing affordable housing. Nearly four years now and what have you got to show for it, has any new affordable housing projects completed in that time in the city of Niagara falls. We don't want to hear what you hope will get done, you had four years to do something, we don't want to hear your excuses we want to see newspaper articles showing normal everyday people walking through the front doors of the buildings that were built, do you have those pictures. Page 728 of 842 Today, in the hear and now, you are being weighed, you are being measured, you are being found wanting. You created, and the entire council chairs, an affordable housing committee, prove this committee hasn't failed to produce any completed developments. All its initiatives appear to have failed. What happen to that project concerning the two subject parcels of land — between Kalar and Pitton roads, and off Charnwood Avenue. How did that five thousand dollars for an artist rendition work out for you. What has happen to this grand affordable housing project on park street, so far you have spend two million dollars to remove a much needed parking lot for the downtown core, leaving what looks like a massive bomb crater, you didn't even have the planning merit to maintain an interim use while your attempting to do whatever it is your doing over there. I got the impression the external municipal procedures, programs and assistance the city was hoping for failed to materialized and the project is in a state of indefinite suspension, the politically correct term for failure. Were listing, so tell us some more promises of how your working in the back ground to further these goals. I have enclosed documents that show what this city has been doing in the background, at the expense of affordable housing projects moving forward within the downtown core you have promoted for-profit developers that appear to have no intentions of integrating affordable housing in their developments. Did you initiate a MZO request to acquire the planning requirements needed to complete the park street affordable housing project, I don't recall such a request going before council, but I did see such a request approved by council for these for-profit developments. City staff even dismissed an affordable housing MZO inquiry. How much more hypocritical can this city get when it come to affordable housing in the downtown core. These documents will allow the people of this city to see what the leadership of this council and city staff has done to frustrate the solutions of our affordable housing situation. Not only have the actions of council members, but also the inactions of council members, resulted in unnecessary delays and a failure of confidence in your ability to effectively exercise the powers available to a municipality to implement policy to resolve this situation. Page 729 of 842 Even the CAO of Niagara falls has spoken to the failures of this municipality to implement policy to address this situation, referencing the information contained in these attached documents I have provided for the public to view today, concerning the OLT appeals and MZO request in the most resent council meeting. Reports were produced to support his comments so do to do I submit my reports to support my comments. Anyone can be a mayor or councilor, the statically probability that the existing members of this council are the best qualified of the entire population of Niagara falls are quite slim. Having prior knowledge of the information continued in these documents, I am surprised that out of sheer self preservation certain council members haven't made motion for a no- confidence vote in the leadership abilities of certain other members of council, namely Mayor Jim Diotia , councilor Wayne Thompson and councilor Wayne Campbell, for these individuals have shown a total disregard for the office by there actions. I have explored and immersed myself in the differing cultures of some near twenty different countries on this planet, I have experiences enough to last the rest of my life should I not be able to continue the journey, so many that some even merge into each other and I lose track of where I did what and when, but the memories are always good ones. One event comes to mind that suits the topic of what is happening within this council. I have visited southern African countries many times, of course going on safari and seeing the big five was on the bucket list. So my good friend, the owner of the hostel business I help out with when visiting South Africa, and I decides to drive to the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Game Reserve. Like anything new and exciting your heart races and with heighten attention you search the lands for that next elusive rare animal. We spent several days driving around the park, we managed to see many of the animals but the cats eluded us, they are very good at hiding in the tall grass. One time we even came out of a shop on the reserve and had to wait for a wild unrestrained bull elephant to finish eating the leaves beside our truck. We were determined to remain until we saw the big cats. What was once a heart pounding experience to see a giraffe or elephant was now a distraction. On our fourth day driving around the park we noticed a park tour bus driving really slow up ahead around a bend, so we stop and waited, next thing we saw was a rhinoceros walking down the pathway towards us. For those of you who have never seen this animal up close and free ranging, it is the most powerful living force you could possibly image. An elephant may be big but you still get the impression you might be able to get away from one, not so with these animals. If it wants you there's nowhere you could possibly hide. Page 730 of 842 Anyways, I quickly said to my fiend, "pull over to the side of the path, but not to far over, enough that when it walks by I can reach out and touch it". I didn't get the chance, upon approaching our trucks position it turned and entered the undergrowth. After that event we decided to leave the park, despite not seeing the cats we so desperately wanted to. Not because we ran out of time, because we ran out of respect. Respect for what constitutes crossing a line. This animal could have destroyed our little truck without any effort, it could have killed us without provocation, and I was will to reach out an touch it. We had gotten to comfortable with our surrounding and we lost sight of them. Clearly some of the longer term council members have gotten too comfortable in their surroundings and are willing to take risks, even possibly break laws, and then have the expectation that they wont be called out on it, well you are being called out on it, your leadership abilities are being questioned, and in this particular case, the people who need affordable housing sooner rather than later are the ones being affected. So go on talk about your affordable housing plans, but what good is talking about them if the leaders who implement them have lost sight of their responsibilities. That is what I want to talk about. Council members bring up their concerns on how to enforce by-laws all the time, I am bringing up my concerns on the ability to create these by-laws. I am certainly glad that this public forum is available that I can do so. That's it for now, this letter may not be as thorough as I may like, but its on time, this time. It will all come out at the public OLT hearing. All the information presented here has been made pubic and should not be withheld or redacted in any way. Should anyone of the public wish to contact people to express their option here are some contacts. Joedy Page 731 of 842 1 Good evening, Niagara Falls Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any person. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this April the 17th by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this City, isn't there? Corruption and deception, personal agendas and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have manipulation of laws and systems of suppression coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were distracted. Who wouldn't be? The though of losing your livelihood to lockdowns, losing loved ones or not being able to support your family during a pandemic. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Self preservation and a duty of care got the best of you, and in your time of need you trusted the Municipally of Niagara Falls. They promised you order, they promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. I sought to end that silence. Last year I appealed the Downtown Zoning By-Law, to remind this City of what it has forgotten. Forty years ago our great leaders wished to embed the seventeenth of April forever in our memory. The hope was, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest you allow the words in this letter go unnoticed. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me. Page 732 of 842 2 Saturday, April 10, 2022 The Niagara Falls MZO Report On March 22, 2022 a Minister's Zoning Order recommendation letter was approved by Niagara Falls City Council. There are times when a single individual is in the right place at the right time. I accepted the responsibility I had to be that individual to avert a travesty when the city proposed to non-conform the Downtown Core and will continue to protect the interests of the residents of Niagara Falls throughout the appeal process. It should not have to be my continued sole responsibility though, to also bring the people responsible for the allegations within this documents to be brought to justice. To the authorities having jurisdiction, I would asked that you step up and take that mantle. I will of course, continue on my own if need be, for I cannot in good conscious allow my government to disregard its citizens rights and this Rule of Law everyone seems so keen to praise, to go unnoticed. To Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, it may do you well to scrutinize the legal and moral path that has lead to this Minister's Zoning Order request as well as the path going forward. From my perspective, I looks a lot like a Minister's Zoning Order being manipulated in an attempt to conceal and heal self inflicted wounds as well as frustrating a much more serious allegation of a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violation. To the residents of Niagara Falls, remind the governments of now, that what was then, still is and should never be forgotten. People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. This document is being sent to all those mentioned within, that is to say, everyone from the Attorney General of Canada to the general public. Page 733 of 842 3 The Perfect Circle "Giotto was a Florentine painter, architect and sculpture of immense talent. As the artist who first broke free from the constraints of medieval and byzantine art, he’s considered the first genius of the Italian renaissance. At the start of the 14th century, word of Giotto’s mastery reached Pope Benedict XI in Lombardy. The Pope sent a courtier to Florence to see who this Giotto was, with a view to commissioning some paintings for Saint Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. The courtier first traveled to Siena to collect designs from other masters. He then went to Giotto’s studio in Florence and asked for a drawing to take back to the Pope. Giotto took a canvas, dipped his brush in red paint, pinned his arm to his side and drew a perfect circle with his hand. He grinned and said “Here’s your drawing”. The courtier, feeling mocked, asked for another drawing. Giotto replied “This is enough, and more than enough.” Although he suspected that he was being taken for a ride, the courtier took Giotto’s drawing back to the Pope along with the other masters’ drawings. The courtier explained how Giotto had drawn the circle unaided, and the Pope and his advisers realised just how much Giotto surpassed all the other painters of the era. Giotto got the job. Giotto’s proof of his masterpiece was his free-hand circle. It was a concise way for him to demonstrate his enormous technical skill. Watching him draw the circle, it probably looked easy, but undoubtedly it took years, if not decades, of practice to get that kind of lazy, deft skill." My Perfect Circle Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing "Here's your drawing". "There is no maximum floor plate area limit" Page 734 of 842 4 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out those rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. The Charter is one part of the Canadian Constitution. The Constitution is a set of laws containing the basic rules about how our country operates. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada; all other laws must be consistent with the rules set out in it. If they are not, they may not be valid. Since the Charter is part of the Constitution, it is the most important law we have in Canada. Any person in Canada – whether they are a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident or a newcomer – has the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter. The Charter protects those basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians that are considered essential to preserving Canada as a free and democratic country. It applies to all governments – federal, provincial and territorial – and includes protection of fundamental freedoms. Everyone has the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; the Charter protects the right of the press and other media to speak out. These freedoms are set out in the Charter to ensure that Canadians are free to create and express their ideas, gather to discuss them and communicate them widely to other people. These activities are basic forms of individual liberty. They are also important to the success of a democratic society like Canada. In a democracy, people must be free to discuss matters of public policy, criticize governments and offer their own solutions to social problems. . Page 735 of 842 5 Ontario’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act These laws promote accountability, transparency, public participation, fairness in decision-making and protect the privacy rights of individuals. Accountability The public’s ability to hold elected representatives responsible for how they carry out their roles. Transparency The public’s right to know what government is doing and how decisions have been reached. Public participation Citizen involvement in policy development and decision-making. Fairness in decision-making An individual’s ability to present their side of an issue, and their right to access the information on which a decision-maker will act, including the criteria to be applied. Privacy rights of individuals The Act requires that local government institutions protect the privacy of an individual’s personal information existing in government records. It also gives individuals the right to request access to municipal government information. Freedom of Opinion and Expression vs. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy The Charter of Rights states we all have the Freedom of Opinion and Expression, yet without information it is somewhat difficult to form an opinion and therefore, the ability to express ourselves. Governments’ often temper the release of information through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. When choosing to withhold information from the public sometimes the balance between those two Rights can be interpreted incorrectly. A regulatory requirement to file information and reports may amount to a restriction on freedom of expression where failure to comply is backed by sanctions such as fines or imprisonment (Harper, supra, paragraphs 138-139). Page 736 of 842 6 The Ontario Land Tribunal Appeal Some of the information presented here has not been disclosed to the general public. In light of the Minister's Zoning Order request it seems appropriate do so now. An under construction pubic website will be available within the next few months and will contain every document, email conversations, video and any other files in my possession and a detailed analysis of the events. Disclaimer, it is not my intention to provide any of this information in any context that would invite any legal action against me. It is an opinion and others are well to do their own inquiries as to the validity or soundness of the information within and how they wish to react. Excuse any format, grammar or spelling errors, I am not in the business of writing planning reports. The Planning Act Timing and manipulation of the chain of events Information and public meeting; open house in certain circumstances (paraphrased) 34(12) Before passing a by-law under this section council shall ensure that, (a)(i) sufficient information and material is made available to enable the public to understand generally the zoning proposal that is being considered by the council, and (ii) at least one public meeting is held for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed by-law; and (b) in the case of a by-law that is required by subsection 26 (9), the council shall ensure that at least one open house is held for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to review and ask questions about the information and material made available under subclause (a)(i). 34(12)(ii)(b) applies because ... Updating zoning by-laws 29(9) No later than three years after a revision (official plan) under subsection (1) or (8) comes into effect, the council of the municipality shall amend all zoning by-laws that are in effect in the municipality to ensure that they conform with the official plan. The official plan came into effect on June 14, 2018, the zoning by-law was passed on the twenty-third of March 2021 Timing of open house (14) The open house required by clause (12) (b) shall be held no later than seven days before the public meeting required under subclause (12) (a) (ii) is held. Page 737 of 842 7 The open house scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2021 was fourteen days later than before the public meeting of Tuesday, March 2, 2021. This appears to be the first manipulation in the chain of events and the first direct violation of the Planning Act. Intern event Brian Dick During the public meeting of Tuesday, March 2,2021, Brian Dick stated falsehoods in response to comments by resident Nick Monachese. Brian Dick clearly states ... "If he (Mr. Monachese) wanted to redeveloped, even under the existing zoning, if this (zoning by-law ammendment) was not to occur, he would have to assemble land" and "but even that (land acquisition) would need to occur in today's current zoning point". Brian Dick is the Manager of Policy Planning of the City of Niagara Falls, as an experienced planning specialist he should have known that Mr. Monachese did not need to assemble land to redeveloped under the existing zoning regulations. Brian Dicks' comments were published in the Niagara Falls Review. These comments were never recanted or corrected. This appears to be the second manipulation in the chain of events and the second direct violation of the Planning Act. I contacted former CAO Ken Todd on this matters and his position was he supported Brian Dicks performance. Note: The meeting was not recorded. Page 738 of 842 8 Further notice Alex Herlovitch and Brian Dick 34(17) Where a change is made in a proposed by-law after the holding of the public meeting mentioned in subclause (12) (a) (ii), the council shall determine whether any further notice is to be given in respect of the proposed by-law and the determination of the council as to the giving of further notice is final and not subject to review in any court irrespective of the extent of the change made in the proposed by-law. This processes was monumentally violated, firstly there are literally a hundred or so discrepancies of changes that were not revealed to council. This appears to be the third manipulation in the chain of events and the third direct violation of the Planning Act; if each change, not reported, is can be considered as a separate violation, then add one hundred or so additional manipulations in the chain of events and direct violations of the Planning Act. To make matters worse, during the meeting, city staff went so far as to create a theater to reveal changes, yet failed to present all the changes thereby manipulating the narrative that all the changes had been reveled. This appears to be the fourth manipulation in the chain of events and the forth direct violation of the Planning Act. Notice of passing of by-law (paraphrased) 34(18) If the council passes a by-law under this section the council shall ensure that written notice of the passing of the by-law is given in the prescribed manner, no later than 15 days after the day the by-law is passed. 34(18.1) The notice shall contain a brief explanation of the effect, if any, that any written submissions relating to the by-law that were made to the council before its decision, any oral submissions relating to the by-law that were made at a public meeting and any other information that is prescribed had on the decision. The notice contains the false information "Permits ground floor residential uses within the CB3 - Cb6 zones". Page 739 of 842 9 Ground floor residential uses are not permitted within the CB5 and CB6 zones (The current Minister's Zoning Order is actually requesting ground floor residential uses in the CB6 zone). This appears to be the fifth manipulation in the chain of events and the fifth direct violation of the Planning Act. Appeal to Tribunal (paraphrased) Mayor Jim Diodati, Councilor Wayne Thompson, City Council and city staff 34(19) Not later than 20 days after the day that the giving of notice any person, before the by-law was passed, that made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council may appeal to the Tribunal by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the fee charged by the Tribunal. Very shortly after the existence of the appeals were revealed to city staff and council members I was approached privately by Councilor Wayne Thompson in my place of business, to paraphrase the conversation, it pretty much when along these lines, whatever the city could “assist me with” in my own development plans was “on the table” if I was willing to dismissed the appeal. I agreed to negotiate. During these so called “negotiations” I began to become uncomfortable that Councilor Wayne Thompson and Mayor Jim Diodati were the only two council members participating in the negotiations and requested the other councilors be involved. The response I receive from Planning Director Alex Herlovitch of the City of Niagara Falls was that our negotiations were confidential and the other council members could not participate. Proverbial alarm bells and flashing red lights were going off at that moment. I am somewhat suspicions of our local government due to my prior dealing with City Hall and apparently it was well justified. How can two of the most prominent council members be permitted to be involved in the negotiations and the others excluded. Use of dispute resolution techniques (20.1) When a notice of appeal is filed under subsection (19), the council may use mediation, conciliation or other dispute resolution techniques to attempt to resolve the dispute. Notice and invitation (20.2) If the council decides to act under subsection (20.1), Page 740 of 842 10 (a) it shall give a notice of its intention to use dispute resolution techniques to all the appellants; and (b) it shall give an invitation to participate in the dispute resolution process to, (i) as many of the appellants as the council considers appropriate, Under the planning Act, a precondition of having negotiations with appellants is, the entire council is required to approve the negotiations and the appellants are to be given notice of intent. I disregarded Alex Herlovitchs' comments and informed all of council that the negotiations were occurring and requested conformation that council indeed approved them. Needless to say, “negotiations” abruptly ended. Council made no response to my inquiry. This appears to be the sixth manipulation in the chain of events and sixth direct violation of the Planning Act as well as multiple contraventions of the Code of Conduct by Councilor Wayne Thompson and Mayor Jim Diodati specifically, as well other Council members and various city planning staff and other negotiators. The persons involved and these events have been brought to the attention of the Integrity Commissioner's Office, Ontario Ombudsman’s Office and the OLT. The Minister's Zoning Order recommendation request Jason Burgess So now we have a developer requesting help from these very same councilors and city staff to assist in requesting a Minister's Zoning Order. During the council meeting of Tuesday, March 22, 2022, Jason Burgess stated falsehoods when responding to Councilor Lori Lococos' question concerning the impact the Minister Zoning Order would have on the Ontario Land Tribunal appeals. He clearly states ... "an MZO would overrule it anyways so at the end of the day if the Minister agrees with this then those appeals would be squashed anyways by the MZO so it actually would facilitate you know the movement of park street you know social housing quicker actually than the OLT appeal process because I'm holding up you know the park street redevelopment project for affordable housing because of an OLT appeal that were trying to get quashed because we don't think it has planning merit so to hold up something else you this is one of the underling challenges that the committee looked at for approval process is that you know you can have these appeals that delay projects and add cost to Page 741 of 842 11 things going forward so I don't want to feed into that would be my position and like I said if the Minister contemplates this and approves it then those two appeals would be gone and would be effectively muted anyways." Jason Burgess is the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Niagara Falls, that is to say, there is no individual of higher authority. Jason Burgess should know that the proposed Minister's Zoning Order is restricted to zones CB6 and CB3. Approval of the Minister's Zoning Order would not squash or mute the appeals, the appeals would be in full effect over zones CB1, CB2, CB4, CB4(1) and CB5. The Affordable housing initiative he references is located at 4500 Park Street, it is in zone CB4(1) and zoning provisions related to that zone would not be influenced by the Minister's Zoning Order approval. To suggest that the Minister's Zoning Order approval would facilitate the expediting of the affordable house initiative in the CB4(1) zone is misleading. To manipulate the narrative concerning a socially sensitive topic such as the park street affordable housing project and the Minister's Zoning Order to influence a vote is deceitful. This appears to be the seventh manipulation in the chain of events. . Observations To witness in real-time the apparent corruption of a Chief Administrative Officer in less than one year is astounding. From my perspective, being a first person witness involved in the events described and the available evidence it appears these developers, city staff and certain councilors were working together from day one and were willing to go to such extreme lengths as to circumvent, manipulate and violate established planning procedures to achieve their own agenda with little regard to the rights of others. The act of reading published notices, participating in public open houses and meetings are the various established planning methods to acquire the necessary information to form an opinion of planning matters, when that access to information is manipulated and withheld it deigns the fundamental principle to be able to make that opinion. The Planning Act stipulates what information must be provided and how it is to be provided. The Municipality of Niagara Falls, that is to say, the mayor, certain city councilors and city staff have failed to provide, manipulated, and withheld that information. It is therefore, not reasonable to conclude that 34(12) (a)(i) sufficient information (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) and material has been made available to enable the public to understand generally (form an opinion) the zoning proposal that is Page 742 of 842 12 being considered by the council. Even council members themselves appear to not have understood generally the zoning proposal. Quite frankly, the municipality has violated the planning act and failed to provide "sufficient information" at every stage of the zoning amendment process, from the first notices of the public meetings, during both the March second and twenty third council meetings to the final notice of passing, they have violated the rules governing negotiations and have even gone so far as to manipulate information of a third council meeting one year later to support the Minister's Zoning Order request. The staggering scale of the manipulations in the chain of events, the direct violations of the Planning Act as well as a contraventions of the Code of Conduct are tantamount to violations of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Freedom of Opinion and Expression. The Municipality of Niagara Falls not only needs to justify many planning errors within the zoning by-law before the Ontario Land Tribute but also needs to defend themselves before the Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario for violating The Charter of Rights, Freedom of Opinion and Expression. The Ontario Land Tribunal is currently in possession of requests for motions for discovery of city documents and the compulsory completion of extensive questionnaires for all council members. I cannot in good conscious dismiss the appeal, there are just too many basic underlining planning errors and also despite the benefits projects such as this represent, it’s not socially acceptable to take what we want, when we want it, anyhow we want to and that we need to recognize that sometimes the ends don’t justify the means, especially when it involves disregarding constitutional freedoms. To be witness to the lengths these people are willing to go to achieve their agenda is surreal. The crux of it is, that mostly likely had they just presented their position from the beginning they most likely would have had the support of the majority of the community and avoided having to resort to this Minister's Zoning Order process. Sincerely, I am indifferent to the Minister's Zoning Order and the development proposal; I am only trying to fix inherent procedural and zoning errors that affects all development within the downtown core, developers and residents alike, and prevent future occurrences. Unlike other laws that can have varying degrees of violations and solutions, planning laws provide only two, in compliance or not in compliance. And only one solution, to comply. That is why it is so important planning laws are correct from creation. Page 743 of 842 13 In the end the development will be what it was meant to be, hopefully with proper planning this time around. Creditability I don't sense the Minister's Zoning Order request will prevent the municipality from having to correct by-laws errors and answer the allegations of violating the Planning Act and Charter of Rights and Freedoms but it may certainly frustrate the process. No doubt those named in this document will do whatever is within their means to avoid even the possibility of being put into the position to be judged for their actions and attempts to discredit the information presented here and myself are inevitable but in the end the truth will come out. Then on the topic of creditability ... The explanation of ... My Perfect Circle "There is no maximum floor plate area limit". It's my way to demonstrate that the authors of the draft by-law, that is to say, the entire planning staff of the city of Niagara Falls, the entire city council as well as the very developers requesting an "increase" to the maximum floor plate area are not aware that there is no maximum floor plate area limit written within By-Law 2021-40. Right now as written the by-law would allow massive unlimited floor area structures to be constructed within the Downtown Core, larger than any current existing building in the entire city of Niagara Falls. The statement "There is no maximum floor plate area limit" is to ask the question, what possible reality has to exist, for the entire Corporation of The Municipality of Niagara Falls to not know that, yet I do. "The courtier, feeling mocked, asked for another drawing. Giotto replied “This is enough, and more than enough.” Although he suspected that he was being taken for a ride, the courtier took Giotto’s drawing back to the Pope along with the other masters’ drawings. The courtier explained how Giotto had drawn the circle unaided, and the Pope and his advisers realized just how much Giotto surpassed all the other painters of the era. Giotto got the job. Giotto’s proof of his masterpiece was his free-hand circle. It was a concise way for him to demonstrate his enormous technical skill. Wa tching him draw the circle, it probably looked easy, but undoubtedly it took years, if not decades, of practice to get that kind of lazy, deft skill." Page 744 of 842 14 This is but a single planning error explained, I assure you there are many, many more within the by-law that will come to light during the appeal hearing. There are so many, that even with the changes the developers have requested through the Minister's Zoning Order, it's fairly certain remaining CB3 and CB6 zone provisions the developers have requested to remain are most likely flawed and detrimental to their proposed development. Their letter to the city suggests they don't even know these errors exist. Holding a position of authority doesn't guarantee credibility or even competency ... The Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Niagara Falls, Jason Burgess, during the March, 22 2022 council meeting stated ... "especially when our position, officially of the city, neither one of those appeals have any planning merit" "we've gone on record saying both those two appeals should be dismissed outright because of lack of appropriate planning merit and to say that should be an argument to do something else against planning I would say would be inconsistent with the corporation's existing position on the matter so I don't think it should be factored in if it was you know if there was something that was directly linked to it then you know that's for council to decide but from staff's point of view we don't think that those two items that are being appealed have any planning merit." The current "no maximum floor plate limit" reality is absolutely a planning merit and a massive planning error on the part of the by-law authors. The "maximum floor plate area of 750 sq meters" was removed from the by-law between the public meeting and council voting. This was one of the apparent hundred or so third manipulations in the chain of events and third direct violation of the Planning Act. The Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Niagara Falls, Jason Burgess has demonstrated that he, and the entire city, by extension, doesn't comprehend the scope and seriousness of what is occurring. Other planning officials in other Municipalities will probably be rolling there eyes when they read "we've gone on record saying both those two appeals should be dismissed outright because of lack of appropriate planning merit". He states several times ... "I don't think", I have to agree with that revelation. He also states ... Page 745 of 842 15 "if there was something that was directly linked to it then you know that's for council to decide ", then he follows that up with "from staff's point of view we don't think that those two items that are being appealed have any planning merit". Something of a convoluted statement to say the least. Councilors Lori locco and Caroline Ioannoni, whom appear to be the two most ostracized council members when it comes to addressing planning matters, were the smartest people in that conversation. They asked the right questions and had the right concerns, although Jason Burgess apparently didn't actually know the appeals had planning merit and were indeed directly linked he nevertheless still managed to dismissed both councilors valid conversations as, if not frivolous, then apparently not to be concerned with. There is of course no way to determine how his actions influenced the outcome of the vote of the councilors, but one thing is for certain his words were not all based on facts and indeed many were based on incorrect information. I know there is a Tribunal procedure such that when new information is to be presented at the hearing, that council was not aware of, council is given the opportunity make comment and they will mostly certainly get to do so in this appeal. I am aware also that the vote to recommend the Minster's Zoning Order is not subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction but should it not be asked of council if they wish to reconsider there vote in light of the information revealed in these documents. It's disconcerting that the Chief Administrative Officer, entrusted by council to provide accurate information, apparently doesn't even know the facts of the most significant planning events concerning the downtown core in the last forty years. For someone like myself it is certainly reasonable to expect me to make planning mistakes, but for sunshine salaried individuals who have dedicated their careers to dealing with planning matters it is inexcusable. Who decides how staffs negligence, I think we can agree the word alleged doesn't have to be used, is investigated and what recourses need to be taken, just what or who are the benefactors and beneficiaries here. One would think municipal creditability would require a public inquiry into Jason Burgess actions at this point. Mayor Jim Diodati as a proponent of the Minster's Zoning Order stated ... "we spent a year doing the rezoning of the downtown so we've had I think ample public input on everything". His definition of "ample public input on everything" when it come to this topic leaves something to be desired. Page 746 of 842 16 His opinion is just that, an opinion, and in light of the information presented within this document his credibility doesn't appear to carry much weight. Councilor Wayne Thompson, I voted for Councilor Wayne Thompson in the last election, I never voted in my entire life until then, so that should say something in and of itself. I have great respect for accomplishments he has achieved throughout his career, so when I say, I am suspect Mr. Thompson may not be able to perform council duties, I understand the implications. To watch him at council meetings he appears frequently distracted, the mayor appears to often redirect his focus on the matters at hand and reminds him of his most recent actions. It even appears that he has difficulty articulating at times. Clearly he has the best of intentions to perform council duties but I am concerned that his current state of being may allow others to manipulates his judgement. I won't be able to vote for Mr. Thompson this time around, I would certainly consider it an honor to attend his legacy party but I suspect I won't be invited. At first I could not understand Mayor Jim Diodati and Councilor Wayne Thompson's motives and agenda, they were suspect at best and insubstantial. Now that their involvements with these developers have been revealed through this Minster's Zoning Order request the narrative unfolds. Councilor Wayne Campbell stated "I don't care if I get re-elected", need I say more. Councilor Vince Kerrio specifically and many other councilors for supporting him, should still be under the authority of the Ombudsman's Office to answer code of conduct allegations for inciting reprisals against integrity complaint applicants a most serious moral offence. Councilor Victor Pietrangelo was very helpful during the draft by-law process, I give credit where credit is due, it was unfortunate that city staff members deceived him when he was quite adamant that no rights were to be taken away from existing property owners during the lead up to the vote. Councilor Chris Dabrowski's planning merit knowledge appears limited to commenting on repairing potholes and signs he has to interact with, he even has an active council campaign website on this very day, even before the election has started. Aside from praising everything and anything that can be praised, it appears that Councilor Mike strange may have never contributed a planning merit option in his entire term in council. Page 747 of 842 17 I understand that its not a requirement to have planning merit qualifications to be an elected councilor but it does make it that much more important that the people they rely on to provide that kind of information know what there talking about. Even Bill Matson, the city clerk makes mistakes, he not only mistakenly failed to inform council that an integrity complaint inquiry was dismissed because the commissioner was of the opinion the matter should be addressed by a different authority having jurisdiction but also frustrated the process through administration errors. It is a documented fact that it is the municipality that is the one refusing to mediate though the Ontario Land Tribunal, both appellants have requested it, its the appellants that want to allow the Ontario Land Tribunal to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. But when you have the city lawyers rejecting and challenging discovery of information requests, recommending alternative procedures that involve exceedingly long time frames, motioning of summary dismissals based on the theory the appeals having no planning merit (even when face with overwhelming planning evidence to the contrary), and private developers unwilling to step up and address there own concerns through the Ontario Land Tribunal is it somewhat difficult. They had the same right to appeal what they wanted and didn't get but choose not to. I too, am not immune to the appeals effects, I possess upwards of four thousand sq meters of land area fronting Bridge street, the main arterial roadway, nearly adjacent to the proposed expanded transit station. Enough to construct forty story tower buildings as well with a Minister's Zoning Order but I am prepared to resolve my differences through the Ontario Land Tribunal process. Everyone downstream of the municipalities failed agenda is getting affected by its failure. Its no wonder these developers are requesting a Minister's Zoning Order, I certainly had the desire to cut as many ties to this municipalities influence as possible when I was requesting assistance from the city for my own Minister's Zoning Order recommendation, my request was for a full capacity satellite affordable housing development and was nonchalantly dismissed . Why should any developer not be suspect that every stage of their development will involve similar efficiency from this municipality. Transparency Whatever the whys and wherefores, matters such as this appear to be done in quiet circles. Despite being the most powerful and controversial planning tool in the provinces arsenal, as of the writing of this letter, this Minister's Zoning Order request has avoided public Page 748 of 842 18 exposure, no mention within news circles and presented through council with a procedure of mass approvals. This development proposal and Councils approval of its recommendation will no doubt come as somewhat of a shock to the public when this finally comes to light. What little of the development proposal that has been made public was presented as a letter to the City of Niagara Falls during the March 22, 2022 Council meeting. It was somewhat limited and vague in its content, that is to say no presentation or drawings of the development proposal have been released. Physical, financial and social planning matters When discussing the impacts of projects of this scale, discussion of minor zoning provisions such as yard setbacks etc. are somewhat inconsequential. I suspect in most cases total relief of the provisions are requested and granted. So for the most part I will address community scale planning matters, that is to say, those that affect the surrounding community, not site-specific matters. Physical, financial and social planning matters should most likely be thoroughly researched and evaluated prior to zoning implementations whether it be by the public participation process or a Minister Zoning Order, unlike site specific provisions that generally don’t affect others, Physical, financial and social planning matters do. The development proposal is located within an area designated as a Major Transit Station and also a Community Improvement Area and that this designation prevents appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal on the basis of building heights, that is to say, a desire to increase building height could only be acquired via another By-Law amendment, which would involve the public’s participation or a Ministers Zoning Order which precludes public participation. Building Height For the last several years the entire community has been participating in working towards an equable compromise between increasing growth and existing community standards and values. Consultations with various authorities having jurisdiction and public stakeholders were conducted and official plan and zoning by-law amendments were enacted though public meetings and council approvals. So now we have a development proposal requesting forty story building height towers over several blocks closest to the transit station bordering Bridge, Erie, Queen and River Road. The proposal is requesting twenty stories of building height greater than the recently approved zoning by-law of twenty stories, which in of itself, is an increase of sixteen stories or four times greater than the existing building height limit, that is to say, the Page 749 of 842 19 building height request is thirty six stories or ten times greater than current existing build form. With exemptions to building heights for mechanical services etc. it’s fair to say the final build would be much higher than forty stories. The Transit Station Secondary Plan, a subsection of the official plan which is the guide for development within the City of Niagara Falls, as well as the recently approved zoning by-law was created to permit twenty story building heights closest to the transit station and subsequent building heights of fourteen, ten, eight, six and four the greater distance away for the transit station. Throughout the entire process of the official plan and zoning amendments there was a constant theme that developments within the downtown core would take a staggered building height approach. The construction of tall towers and the increased potential of accommodation density that comes with them are generally considered an asset when addressing increasing housing stock, commercial retail space and revitalizing efforts. The development proposal is located within an area of the downtown core that is surrounded by compatible land uses or perhaps a better description would be, the near total absence of any land uses, as it is clearly obvious that over time, either by design or happenstance this area has become devoid of purpose. There are no discernible close non- compatible uses. Streets generally separate the development from adjoining uses. Falls views, I haven't done the calculations but instinctively suspect that twenty stories is not high enough in the proposed area to provide suitable views of the falls. Having the boasting rights of such would definitely be the crowning glory from a financial perspective, the promotional benefits and sale price of units would certainly be greatly enhanced. Wind concerns associated with tall buildings would appear to be localized within the proposed developmental area for the most part. To have such a dense concentration of forty story towers rising up within such a small localized area surrounded by much lower build capabilities seems somewhat contrary to the overall grand scale of the downtown core principle. It certainly is contrary to a uniform skyline appearance. A radius of several kilometers of low rise buildings surround the entire area. So much effort was dedicated to determining proper build form heights that six separate zones were created, maintaining that principle, as it seemed to have been quite important during the public consultation processes should be evaluated. Should the fundamental concept of the downtown core be altered so drastically as to allow such tall structures and the staggered building height principle were to continue to remain it would appear that increasing the maximum height of surrounding zones would be in order. Page 750 of 842 20 Scope of area As was mentioned as a concern by the city staff the land area of the Minister's Zoning Order request encompasses much more land then that needed for the proposed development. It is not clear if the developers control all the land within this area. There seems to be an unpredictable assumption that all the lands should be blanketed by the Minister's Zoning Order. This can set a dangerous precedent and can also lead to "sunset clause" issues. Sunset clause Increased development capacity certainly increases property values. An official plan and zoning by-law can do it, certainly this Minister's Zoning Order will. It would be fair to say the requested Minister's Zoning Order would add hundreds of millions of dollars of potential worth to the lands influenced by it. This can certainly be abused, the lands could be sold shortly after at great profit with no guarantee that the original development would occur as planned. Surrounding land values could become in a state of flux affecting adjacent property tax assessments, perhaps even forcing land sales due to financial tax burdens. Land equity values may be subject to manipulation to secure financing, or to avoid taxes due. Sunset clauses put a time limit on changes, if the lands are not developed as agreed upon the right is revoked. This should definitely be considered. I recall a news interview were Mayor Jim Diodati discussed his concerns of these events happening in the city, it must have slipped his mind this time around. Direct sunshine Like any other resource, direct sunshine for all reasonable planning concerns should be treated as property rights. Just like restricting upstream water flow preventing downstream access can created considerable planning conflicts, so too does restricting access to direct sunlight. Clearly, there will have to be shading studies. Shade impacts to eastern and southern properties located outside of the development area should be somewhat negligible in that the sun rises from the southeast. Western properties located outside of the development area risk losing direct sunrise sunshine. Page 751 of 842 21 Northern properties located outside of the development area may be subjected to perpetual shadows with the combination of reduced yard setbacks and taller structures. Within the development area is another matter though, provided the developers do indeed control all the lands they are requesting the Minister's Zoning Order to affect this should amount to on-site compromises but if they do not then non-controlled properties could have major direct sunlight impacts. Density and the accompanying waste consumption associated with it One would think that the original official plan and zoning by-law had taken into account the waste disposal capacity of the current infrastructure. A lot of effort and resources must have been dedicated to compiling a comprehensive sustainable development plan for the downtown core. The communities of Thorold South and St David’s are just a few examples that come to mind that had moratoriums in place preventing development due to lack of sewage disposal capacity. The downtown core still has intergraded waste water and storm water runoff systems. This infrastructure should most likely have been taken into account when the recent zoning by-law was being drafted and may have been a limiting factor of calculations. The increased demand of nearly doubling the waste water usage within the proposed Minister's Zoning Order development area certainly needs to be evaluated from an overall community development perspective The uncertainty of not knowing the entirety of the areas development may present challenges to calculating waste disposal capacities. No development should be allowed to draw down on community resources to such extent as to negatively impact surrounding development potentials. Sustainable planning is not the business of first come first served. Community Improvement Plan I recall Mayor Jim Diotia advocated the continuation of certain Community Improvement Plan programs, status quo, despite the regional staffs desire not to do so. Whether it was intended to directly influence this development will most likely remain a mystery. I would suspect the proposed development is going to take advantage of the Community Improvement area programs. Page 752 of 842 22 City staff routinely present to council updates on the financial sustainability of Community Improvement Plan programs reserves when presenting applications. In the past city staff recommendations always stated that funds were available, this suggests that there is a limited reserve and, if so, would suggest large scale development projects may risk the consumption all the funds that were to be available to all Community Improvement Plan area property owners. Privately owned public spaces are proposed by the developers. If this is just some indoor outdoor walking and sitting area we have plenty of those. If its an indoor Olympic size swimming pool to replace the one we lost to the hockey arenas then their on the right path, anything less than then those types of public spaces are just redundant. If whatever there proposing is free and not a paid service even better. Affordable Housing In the here and now it is not enough to simply buy your way out of this obligation. Although there are planning support measures available to municipalities to obligate developments to financially support community improvements and affordable housing initiatives off site, they should no longer be an escape mechanism of the responsibility to integrate affordable housing into all forms of developments. Whether the Minister's Zoning Order request is granted or not this should be a current day, red line for all development approvals. This development appears to be totally for profit. If one signature is going to add hundred of millions of dollars of worth then it better well be earned. To allow every dwelling unit within the proposed development to be supply and demand pricing is not community support. Inclusionary Zoning secures this responsibility. If this project is to be presented in the light as the catalyst of revitalization of the downtown core, then also make it a hallmark moment, show that government is truly willing to step up to their commitments to address the affordable housing crisis by demonstrating that even luxury for-profit developments need to accept this responsibly. Parking They say death and taxes are the two constants in life, well the difficulty of finding a parking spot in a major municipal downtown core appears to be right up there now a days. It was mentioned in a recent development that a reduction in parking could not be justified on the grounds that it would be unreasonable to expect tenants of multi-hundred Page 753 of 842 23 thousand to million dollar dwelling units to not own at least one car. Not to mention the visitor accommodation requirements. Of course being located beside a transit hub is supportive to reduce parking requirements, its also supportive to increased public parking. Again does reality play out here that people will not have at least one car per dwelling unit. It 's not a health care facility were discussing, it is a luxury condominium development, one parking space per unit is already a reduction from the former requirement. The lower two floors of the development, if used as commercial retail space, have no parking controls as written in the new by-law. Each block is approximately nine thousand sq meters, conservatively cut that area in half and at the existing standard of one parking space for every twenty five sq meters of retail space your looking at an exemption of one hundred and eighty parking spaces times four blocks for seven hundred or so for zone CB6 area alone, plus CB3. A total exception for any dwelling units located immediately above those two floors exists within that by-law as well. The projected volumes of travelers using the public transportation system are irrelevant here. These travelers are from somewhere else and when they get off the train or bus there gone. The locals that live in that development area are going to be just like you and I. Needing a car to shop at places like Outlet malls, Niagara Square or visit other cities. I don't get the impression the development is a self contained community worthy of giving up personal transportation freedom such as could be done in downtown Toronto. Their going to need a parking spot. I recall shuttle services may have been proposed. Well to just throw that out there leaves quite a few questions. This would have to be something much more efficient than, like anywhere in the city being able to just call a taxi, last I knew being able to get a taxi didn't justify a reduction in parking requirement. A free parking spot on site would certainly be a lot more efficient in both time and money. Now if there was an existing underground transport system to Niagara Square or Wal- Mart then you got your .6 parking requirement. It appears the same argument for the recently approved Victoria avenue development holds true here as well. Niagara Falls downtown is not St. Catharines downtown so please don't try to compare them. St Catharines downtown is surrounded by a massive established community support infrastructure, Niagara falls downtown is not, and the dream of it being so is not the reality of it at the moment. Relying on some revolutionary parking scheme seems risky, once Pandora's Box is opened it can't be closed. Build two towers and lets see what happen after, once those two towers go up, do you really think you will be able to stop the two others. Time to Page 754 of 842 24 acknowledge reality and the influences of development money. The saying, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission, is quite often true. Even the proposed parking lot off Erie avenue cannot be used to reduce the on-site parking requirement as it is necessary for public parking. Which will most likely be consumed by travelers which in turn isn't that conducive to the concerns of the other appellant that the loss of the Park street paring lot reduces access to local markets. It seems there is a high potential for a lot of spillover parking issues with a reduced dwelling unit requirement. I suppose if the developers and or municipality agreed (in writing) to build a community parking lot or structure at the Erie avenue location and use that proposed shuttle system of theirs (in writing) to transport tenants to and from their cars it might work out in the end. The service to and from the parking lot could even be offered as a local community transport system as well, somewhat like at airport parking lots. I suspect all the parking issues would be resolved and Joe would dismiss his appeal if customers were afforded an efficient and free transport to and from the various businesses and a remote parking area. Long distance parking is not practical during our winter months so suggesting walking or biking to and fro is not a suitable solution. As far as the proposal for a six storey podium, it appears only dependant on a forty story building height and increased density. Without knowing if the Ministry will approve the Minister's Zoning Order it is not worth discussing but would certainly become redundant if the height does not justify it. Whatever the hopes and dreams are of the master planers for the infrastructure of the downtown core, the reality is in the here and now and apparently near future it doesn’t exist. And if all developers have to experience the same municipal planning efficiency it could be much longer. Amenity Space This is from the By-Law 2021-40 Section 2 Definitions shall be amended by inserting the following section after section 2.69: (a) “2.70 “Amenity Area” means the area of a lot and/or building intended for the use and enjoyment of the tenants of such lot and/or building, and shall include areas that are landscaped open spaces, patios, privacy areas, balconies, communal lounges, swimming pools, play areas, roof decks, sundecks and similar uses, located on the same lot, but shall not include a building’s service areas, parking lots, aisles or access driveways, or Planting Strip.” This is from PBD-2022-027, Analysis Page 755 of 842 25 Amenity Area The letter from the consultant proposes to reduce the amenity area from 20 sq.m. to 2 sq.m. of indoor space and 2 sq.m. of outdoor space. Amenity space is outdoor spaces where residents can enjoy the outdoors. Amenity space is extremely important in instances where not additional amenity or public outdoor areas are located. In this case the subject lands are adjacent to a public park and within close proximity to a trail system. In addition, the City’s Zoning By-law does not include a balcony as part of open space areas, but all units within the development bounded by Erie Avenue, Zimmerman Avenue, Bridge Street and Queen Street will have balconies with 2 sq.m. Recommendation: Staff recommend that as a condition, a minimum of 2 sq.m. of balcony space be provided in addition to the 2 sq.m. of indoor space and 2 sq. m. of outdoor space for the lands bounded by Erie Avenue, Zimmerman Avenue, Bridge Street and Queen Street and that all other lands be subject to the amenity space requirements in the CB6 and CB3 zones.. The two excerpts from By-Law 2021-40 and PBD-2022-027 are another example of planning staffs credibly. Staff write about open space, indoor space and outdoor space like there different categories of amenity area and state that balconies are not included. It's written in By-Law 2021-40 that balconies are amenity space and there is no distinction as to whether the amount of indoor or outdoor amenity qualifies as the required amenity area, it could all be one or the other as well. I can't follow what there speaking to. As well, when justifying the amenity reduction by stating there was a park near by is that a reference to the tiny building lot size piece of land beside city hall that has a few playground pieces of equipment or are you references a life size recreational location somewhere else in the area. A mystery surrounds where the city came up with the twenty square meters per dwelling unit quantity to begin with. No study was reveled, and there are many instances of reports and studies other municipalities have done after extensive investigations on this subject where performed The minimum size for an Ontario Building Code dwelling unit is only twelve square meters. The city proposed twenty square meters per dwelling unit for the general downtown core, decided to reduce their own property requirement to ten square meters and now we have a developer requesting four square meters per dwelling unit. Page 756 of 842 26 Clearly, there’s an issue with what is and is not the appropriate quantity for amenity space per dwelling unit. Heritage and existing buildings There are not too many building remaining in the area. From a heritage perspective, the two heritage designated buildings on Zimmerman Avenue are pretty much immune to alteration. There are some regulations such that their presence can influence the build forms around them. As for the ones on Erie Avenue and Bridge Street, they are only heritage listed so for all practical purposes based upon the development proposals presented they will be demolished. I can't see this municipality making an effort to preserve there heritage status. Most of the other buildings will also be demolished in time, even the Ryerson hubs' days are numbered. In the meantime though, those that do remain should at least conform to current Fire Codes and Property Standard By-Laws to avoid encouraging trespassing and arson not to mention the stigma that comes from the appearance of dilapidated properties. The old Hotel Europa directly across from the transit station is (was) currently in this state. There are also two old train bridges in the area, the bridges themselves and the old railway lands they supplied are wonderful heritage features in the area and most likely should be preserved and made into a heritage pathway connecting the iconic Whirlpool Rapids Bridge to the rest of the city. Niagara Region (Upper Tier Municipality) Sure, city council approved the Minister's Zoning Order request but did the Regional Council sign off on it as well, Bridge Street is a regional road. I don't recall a regional council Minister's Zoning Order recommendation vote recently. If not its too late now, the provinces alleged cut off date of March 31 to remit the Minister's Zoning Order request, as stated by Mayor Jim Diodati and Jason Burgess at the March 22, 2022 council meeting, is now passed. The Region is also well into completing an extensive Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the proposed Minister's Zoning Order area. Are the Minister's Zoning Order conditions going to require the proposed development to be compatible with this reconstruction or allow it to circumvent them. Page 757 of 842 27 I'll leave off with this, after all I do have a business to run ... This report is by no means comprehensive, the minutia where left out, those will come out at the appeal hearing, but for what is contained, it should do well enough for most. To the residents of Niagara Falls, remind the governments of now, that what was then, still is and should never be forgotten. People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. Steve Clark minister.mah@ontario.ca Council councilmembers@niagarafalls.ca Niagara Falls Review letters@niagaradailies.com Joedy Burdett info@niagaratinting.com Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St. Niagara Falls, ON Page 758 of 842 PBD-2022-027 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 22, 2022 Title: Request for Council Resolution for a Minister's Zoning Order for lands bounded by Erie Road, Bridge Street, Queen Street and River Road Recommendation(s) That City Council pass the following Resolution to support the requested Ministry's Zoning Order (MZO). the City of Niagara Falls supports the requested MZO subject to the following conditions: 1. That all lands beyond the lands bounded by Erie Avenue, Zimmerman Avenue, Bridge Street and Queen Street be subject to parking in accordance with the CB6 and CB3 zoning unless the 0.6 spaces per unit can be justified through a Parking Demand Analysis to the satisfaction of the City’s Municipal Works; 2. That the lands be subject to site plan approval subject to the policies and by -laws of the City and the urban design policies in 3.11-3.13 in the Downtown Niagara Falls Go Station Secondary Plan; 3. That a condition be added to deal with Section 37 Community Benefits through the site plan approval process to be used in the downtown area for improvements, features or affordable housing; 4. That a minimum of 2 sq.m. of balcony space be provided in addition to the 2 sq.m. of indoor space and 2 sq.m. of outdoor space; 5. That the developer submits a parking demand analysis report to justify the 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit parking ratio and that the developer be permitted to construct the podium and the first two towers of the development only. After full occupancy, the parking capacity/need will need to be reevaluated through a subsequent study to confirm if the 0.6 spaces per unit is still an acceptable parking ratio for the overall development. Both reports will require Municipal Works approval; 6. That a heritage impact study be submitted as part of site plan approval process; 7. That future road widenings in accordance with Section 4.27.1 are not hindered by the proposed development; and 8. That the City review in detail the draft by-law before submitting the final requested by-law to the Minister. Executive Summary Page 1 of 14 Page 759 of 842 On Council’s agenda for March 22, 2022 is a letter from NPG Planning dated March 12, 2022 requesting that Council support their request for an Minister’s Zoning Order on the lands east of Erie Road to the Niagara Parkway and bounded to the north by Bridge Street and to the south by Queen Street. The request is generally to permit these lands to: • increase the height from 20 storeys (66m) to 40 storeys (132.5m) from Erie Road to Cataract Avenue and to increase the height from 8 storeys to 25 storeys from Cataract Avenue to the Niagara River; • increase the podium height from a maximum of 14m to a maximum of 6 storeys (21m); • permit a maximum floor plate 920 sq.m.; • reduce the amenity area for residential from 20 sq.m . to 2 sq.m. indoor and 2 sq.m outdoor for each residential unit; • reduce the parking from 1 space per unit to 0.6 spaces per unit; • reduce the bicycle parking from 0.5 spaces per unit to 0.35 spaces per unit; • permit a minimum Tower separation of 25m; • permit townhouse units on ground floor along Park Street; and • permit other changes include reduction of front yard depth, reduction to minimum exterior side yard depth, maximum lot coverage, maximum length of building. The proposal put forth by NPG Planning Solutions is located in a major transit stati on area and increased density is supported by the policies in the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Planning staff are supportive of the proposal subject to conditions. Background The subject lands are bounded by Erie Road, Bridge Street, Queen Street and River Road. The subject area being considered by a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) is within the Niagara Falls GO Station Secondary Plan area. This plan was adopted by the City and subsequently approved by the Niagara Region on June 14, 2018. Council in March 2021 adopted a zoning amendment to implement the policies of the Niagara Falls GO Station Secondary Plan area (OPA No. 125) approved in 2018. Two appeals were received and forwarded to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The first appeal, submitted was based on the perceived lack of parking that would occur as a result of the new zoning and the second appeal was related to a number of issues with the general direction of the zoning amendment. The request is to address changes under Section 34 of the Planning Act through an MZO. An MZO prevails over any other zoning by-law in effect in the area, giving the Minister complete authority to regulate land use on specific lands under Section 47 of the Planning Act. The MZO authority is a tool that can be used to support and expedite the delivery of government priorities, including transit-oriented communities, affordable Page 2 of 14 Page 760 of 842 housing, long-term care homes and strategic economic recovery projects by removing potential barriers and delays. The Minister through the MZO can also require a site plan agreement between the landowner and the municipality, and impose directions with respect to the agreement, including specified matters such as massing, relationship to adjacent buildings etc, that may or may not be dealt with in the agreement. The MZO process does not include a notice or a hearing prior to the making of an order but the Minister shall give notice of the order within thirty days in a manner that is considered proper by the Minister. Analysis The Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the City’s Niagara Falls GO Station Secondary Plan supports intensification near Major Transit Station areas. The proposal is near the GO station as well as the City's transit terminal. This location is ideal for additional density and supports Provincial policy to prioritize intensification in major transit station areas. Policy 2.2.4 (9) of the Growth Plan states: Within all major transit station areas, development will be supported, where appropriate, by: a. planning for a diverse mix of uses, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to support existing and planned transit service levels; b. fostering collaboration between public and private sectors, such as joint development projects; c. providing alternative development standards, such as reduced parking standards; and d. prohibiting land uses and built form that would adversely affect the achievement of transit-supportive densities. Planning staff have reviewed the letter submitted by NPG Planning Solutions and offer the following comments to Council. Land Subject to the MZO Staff have concerns as to the size of the area subject to the MZO. These lands are beyond the design concepts staff have seen and cause a concern for parking availability in the area and impacts on the downtown core. Page 3 of 14 Page 761 of 842 Recommendation: Staff recommend that a condition be included in the Council resolution that all lands beyond the lands bounded by Erie Avenue, Zimmerman Avenue, Bridge Street and Queen Street be subject to parking in accordance with the CB6 and CB3 zoning unless the 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit can be justified through a Parking Demand Analysis report to the satisfaction of the City’s Municipal Works. Height/Podium Height The height of the proposed building will not negatively impact the skyline of the City and will assist in providing additional ridership and density to a major transit area. In addition, the Province’s Task Force on Affordability recommends unlimited height and density in areas near major transit stations. Given the additional height to the podium staff would like to ensure that the design of the building does not create a block face wall but rather creates a pedestrian level feel at the podium through such items as colonnades or awnings. These matters can b e addressed at the site plan stage. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the resolution of Council include a condition that the development be subject to site plan approval subject to the policies and by-laws of the City and the urban design policies in 3.11-3.13 in the Downtown Niagara Falls Go Station Secondary Plan. Council under Section 37 of the Planning Act permits bonusing for height and/or density beyond that which is permitted by the Official Plan and/or the Zoning By -law in exchange for benefits within the neighbourhood. Recommendation: Staff suggest an additional condition be added to the site plan approval process to deal with Section 37 benefits/Community Benefit agreement. These benefits could provide amenities to the immediate area to mitigate the impacts associated with the requested height/density through improvement/features downtown or through the creation of affordable housing units. Amenity Area The letter from the consultant proposes to reduce the amenity area from 20 sq.m. to 2 sq.m. of indoor space and 2 sq.m. of outdoor space. Amenity space is outdoor spaces where residents can enjoy the outdoors. Amenity space is extremely important in Page 4 of 14 Page 762 of 842 instances where not additional amenity or public outdoor areas are located. In this case the subject lands are adjacent to a public park and within close proximity to a trail system. In addition, the City’s Zoning By-law does not include a balcony as part of open space areas, but all units within the development bounded by Erie Avenue, Zimmerman Avenue, Bridge Street and Queen Street will have balconies with 2 sq.m. Recommendation: Staff recommend that as a condition, a minimum of 2 sq.m. of balcony space be provided in addition to the 2 sq.m. of indoor space and 2 sq. m. of outd oor space for the lands bounded by Erie Avenue, Zimmerman Avenue, Bridge Street and Queen Street and that all other lands be subject to the amenity space requirements in the CB6 and CB3 zones. Parking/Bicycle Parking The proposed reduction in parking to 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit causes some concerns as the City’s transit infrastructure and the City’s commercial core is not able to effectively support the residents of this development at this time. The secondary plan policies however do speak to consideration of alternative parking requirements for mixed use and high density developments supported by a Parking Demand Analysis report completed to the satisfaction of the City. Recommendation: Staff suggest that as a condition, the developer submits a parking demand analysis report to justify the 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit parking ratio and that the developer be permitted to construct the podium and the first two towers of the development only . After full occupancy, the parking capacity/need will need to be re -evaluated through a subsequent study to confirm if the 0.6 spaces per unit is still an acceptable parking ratio for the overall development. Both reports will require Municipal Works approval. The reduction to bicycle parking is not a concern for staff. If an issue arises where there is insufficient bicycle parking for the developments, this type of parking can be accommodated in dwelling units. Floor plate and Tower Separation The proposed increase to the maximum floor plate and the reduction to the tower separation by 5 metres are minor deviations that will not negatively impact the design. Heritage Page 5 of 14 Page 763 of 842 The subject lands have designated heritage structures on site and staff are concerned the with the impact of the new buildings on the heritage structures in the area. Recommendation: Staff would request that a condition be included in Council's resolution to request that a heritage impact study be submitted as part of site plan approval. Road Widenings The City’s Secondary Plan requires that road widenings be accommodated in accordance with Section 4.27.1 of the City’s Official Plan. Based on the preliminary draft by-law prepared by the consultant it is unclear if this will be met in all instances. This should be included as a condition to ensure that the public realm amenities can be accommodated now and in the future. Recommendation: That a condition be included in Council's resolution to state that future road widenings in accordance with Section 4.27.1 are not hindered by the proposed development. Other changes There are a few other minor requests such as a reduction of front yard depth, reduction to minimum exterior side yard depth, maximum lot coverage, maximum length of building. The requested changes are minor requests and support the commercial ground floor moving closer to the street and support the utilization of the block more efficiently. The process for the MZO is not formally laid out by the Province, but the standard practice is to request the MZO in writing to the Minister along with a council resolution. Staff have provided recommendations to Council and should they wish to pass a resolution to support the MZO to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, staff request that it be done with the recommended conditions to ensure the development of these lands do not negatively impact the streetscape, the pedestrian realm, the history of the area, parking supply, amenity space and future road widenings and that it provides a long term positive community benefit. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis Staff will monitor the impacts of the proposed development on municipal parking facilities over the long term. No other operational impacts are anticipated. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Page 6 of 14 Page 764 of 842 There are no financial implications associated with the proposed Minister's Zoning Order. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The proposed request for a Minister's Zoning Order supports the Council's strategic vision to promote a vibrant and diverse economy downtown. List of Attachments Attachment 1: Letter re MZO March 14 2022 Written by: Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment Submitted by: Status: Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 17 Mar 2022 Page 7 of 14 Page 765 of 842 March 12, 2022 Mayor and Members of Council City of Niagara Falls, Niagara Falls, ON Dear Mayor Diodati and Members of City Council: RE: Downtown Niagara Falls – GO Transit Station Secondary Plan Area We are writing this letter to you in regard to the GO Transit Station Secondary Plan Area and several blocks which are located within the Secondary Plan Area. NPG Planning Solutions Inc. are the planning consultants to the owners/future applicants for redevelopment of these blocks. Our clients are pursuing redevelopment of several blocks in the GO Transit Station Secondary Plan Area for future housing and mixed-use development. The blocks can generally be described as the central/higher density blocks (outlined in blue) and two blocks at the eastern edge of the GO Transit Station Secondary Plan Area (outlined in hatching). A map showing the areas we are addressing is below. Lands highlighted in blue are the higher density area; lands with the hatching are proposed for higher density but are proposed to provide a gradation of density and height towards the Niagara River. The lands have been designated for growth and redevelopment in the GO Transit Station Secondary Plan. The land use designation in the Secondary Plan is Mixed Use 1 – Downtown for the central four blocks. This designation is for the higher density development in the GO Transit Station Area. Our clients are supportive of the planned growth in downtown Niagara Falls for this area. Page 8 of 14 Page 766 of 842 2 Figure 1 – Subject Lands Our clients have been working on advancing detailed plans for the development of the first block (Queen, Erie, Park, Zimmerman block) to achieve new housing, new street retail businesses on Queen Street; a mix of housing sizes and types; and development through four towers on the block with significant amenity and open space areas. Overall, the proposed redevelopment will provide over 1,700 new housing units in this block when the full block is built out. In addition to the new housing and retail spaces, the proposed redevelopment of the first block includes significant commitments to excellence in architectural design. These commitments will continue for the entire area outlined in Figure 1. For the first block, four towers are proposed on the site with a tower floor plate that balances providing new housing in the towers with architectural design. The podium of each building integrates on-site parking and bicycle parking. The podium design is located closer to the street so that the tower portion of each building may be set back to achieve the superior Page 9 of 14 Page 767 of 842 3 design in terms of tower separation. Particular attention is being paid to the street frontages – retail frontage on Queen Street; townhouse type units on Park Street; and access to the retail and amenity areas from each of the four streets. Our clients have engaged a broad based leading team of professional consultants to prepare an integrated application for the appropriate development standards for the first block. We are aware that the City’s implementing Zoning By-law has been appealed. We believe there is a solution that allows the appeal process to be addressed while our client’s project advances. As you are aware, Ontario faces a significant need for additional housing. Recent reports from the Province confirm the deficiency and the need for solutions that advance new housing being built. The redevelopment of the GO Transit Station Area lands identified in this letter is one such solution because: • The GO Station Transit Secondary Plan was completed through a full public process and review to identify the development approach for this Major Transit Station Area; • Major Transit Station Areas are a key focus area for growth in Ontario including eliminating any appeal of Official Plan policies related to Major Transit Station Areas; • The draft of the new Niagara Region Official Plan includes Major Transit Station Areas as strategic growth areas in the Region; • This advances new housing 5 minutes from the Niagara Falls GO Station leverages the investment in GO transit service made by the Province of Ontario; • This supports transit in Niagara through GO Transit and the forthcoming integrated transit model for Niagara; • This is reinvestment in Queen Street – the historic downtown retail street in Niagara Falls. We are seeking the City’s support to request a Ministerial Zoning Order under the Planning Act. The request would allow the redevelopment process to proceed in concert with the City, working collaboratively to update the zoning standards for these blocks through the Minister’s process. We are committed Page 10 of 14 Page 768 of 842 4 to working with the City of Niagara Falls on developing appropriate zoning standards through the Minister’s regulation. Our clients have advanced plans for these blocks. The plans are largely integrated with and implement the City’s “CB6” Zone provisions as adopted in By-law 2021-40 and “CB3” Zone provisions for the eastern two blocks. However, in preparing these plans, certain adjustments to the adopted By-law have been noted and are included in the Appendix, together with the rationale for each, to this letter. We request that these revised provisions be incorporated into the request for the Ministerial Zoning Order together with the CB6 and CB3 Zoning passed by the City in By-law 2021-40. The request for the Ministerial Zoning Order requires the support of Niagara Falls City Council. We recognize this is an important matter for the City. However, we believe the public interest is being served by advancing this project that is largely aligned to the work the City and Region have completed in the GO Transit Station Secondary Plan. The proposed revisions to the zoning of this block achieves the goals, objectives and policies of the GO Transit Station Secondary Plan: • Concentrating mixed use on Queen and Park Streets; • Enhancing downtown Niagara Falls through eyes on the street and adjacent to the City’s major downtown open spaces; • Animating the street level through street level retail, windows and doors fronting onto the streets; • Integrating transit supportive active transportation and cycling infrastructure in the redevelopment and each of the four buildings; • Supporting the public realm design of Erie Street between Queen Street and Park Street; • Advanced public realm enhancement to the redevelopment, the commercial areas, and the overall development; • Implementing the Structured Parking policies of the GO Transit Station Secondary Plan; • Incorporating façade design that faces the street; • Enhanced podium and tower design beyond the minimum requirements in the Secondary Plan; and, • Enhancing tower separation to address wind and shadow mitigation. Page 11 of 14 Page 769 of 842 5 The MZO would permit the advancement of the standard Site Plan Control application process to ensure appropriate design and standards for the proposed development. The redevelopment of this area will be supported by investment in community benefits by our client. This includes Privately Owned Public Spaces (“POPS”) which is a leading approach to integrating accessible open space in private developments. The POPS approach allows amenity for both residents of the development and the general public. Our clients will also be implementing Transportation Demand Management Solutions on the sites through measures such as car share, local shuttle service to destinations in Niagara Falls, achieving the City’s required bicycle parking standards for the developments; and integrating active transportation access to the buildings/sites in each development. Superior architectural design is a key approach for these redevelopments. This includes a focus on the pedestrian at the street level; using the podium/tower design philosophy to balance new housing with the street level experience; tower separation; appropriate floor plates of the towers to permit skyline and sunlight access to the street and public spaces; and attention to the skyline features to enhance the skyline of downtown Niagara Falls. Thank you for your consideration of this request. We would be pleased to work with the City to advance this important redevelopment in the City’s Major Transit Station Area, to build new housing in downtown Niagara Falls, and to advance the enhanced architectural design in the downtown. Sincerely, Mary Lou Tanner, FCIP, RPP Principal Planner NPG Planning Solutions Inc. C 289 776 8904 mtanner@npgsolutions.ca Page 12 of 14 Page 770 of 842 6 PROPOSED ZONING REVISIONS – CB6 ZONE AND CB3 ZONE: 1. Increase height to a maximum of 40 storeys (CB6 Zone) – the increased height, together with the increased podium height, allows for a consistent approach to the skyline and providing additional housing in downtown Niagara Falls. The additional housing provides additional customers for downtown businesses. Development of Major Transit Station Areas in other communities has shown that increased housing leads to increased jobs in the area. 2. Increase height to a maximum of 25 storeys (CB3 Zone) – the increased height together with appropriate urban design allows for a gradation of built form towards the Niagara River, incorporating appropriate podium/tower design, supporting additional housing, and providing views to the Niagara River for these buildings. This is enhanced urban design through the design of these blocks. 3. Increase podium height to a maximum of 6 storeys – this request is appropriate given the bedrock in the area (limiting the number of underground parking levels) and the requirement for on site parking. This podium height includes parking on the interior with residential units and ground floor retail at the front of each building for the majority of the floors, ensuring the parking is not visible from the street. 4. Establish a Maximum Floor Plate Area of 920m2 – this floor plate is more consistent with current urban design practice – creating a floor plate that provides increased access to sunlight between towers. 5. Amenity Area for Residential 2m2 (Indoor) & 2m2 (Outdoor) – this block is an integrated redevelopment that provides a mix of indoor and outdoor amenity. There is a significant commitment to accessible spaces for the public from the street level with access to the retail spaces throughout the site. This design approach creates a walkable integrated retail pedestrian environment throughout the site, achieving goals of activating public spaces and creating active transportation opportunities to integrate with the street level activity and access throughout the MTSA. 6. Parking Residential = 0.6/unit & Bicycle = 0.35/unit – these parking provisions must be considered together. The vehicle parking reduction is appropriate given the downtown location and the proximity to the GO Station and Niagara Regional Transit. Further, the bicycle parking provisions support dual goals of reducing reliance on automobiles and Page 13 of 14 Page 771 of 842 7 providing the active transporation infrastructure stipulated in the GO Transit Station Seconday Plan Area. 7. Minimum Tower Separation of 25m – Together with the reduced tower floor plate, this separation distance provides adequate spacing between towers to allow sunlight penetration and views of the sky. Page 14 of 14 Page 772 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject: more comments for may 10th council meeting From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 8:54 AM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Fw: more comments for may 10th council meeting From: Niagara Tinting Sent: Friday, May 06, 2022 8:41 AM To: Bill Matson Subject: comment for may 10th council meeting I would like to make these comments and submit this document about this item on the agenda. A letter to the region. My public comments on the Niagara Region Official Plan Amendments I wish for all this information to be attached to the public agenda document/comments permitted at a public meeting. The reports and documents attached were provide to all Regional Councilors as well as many others and should be considered public knowledge so it should not be redacted in any way. It was created prior to my knowledge of the Regions Draft Official Plan Amendment proposal. It does appear that I share a lot of the regions visions on their moving forward policies, in principle I agree with the proposed changes. I would like to bring your attention a particular development plan for the Niagara Falls downtown Core. Page 773 of 842 2 I suspect our Mayor and city staff was privy to the development proposal well before the Niagara Falls Zoning By-Law amendment and it had considerable influence in its creation. Our Mayor is also a member of Regional Council. One event stands out concerning his involvement on Region Council. When he championed the cause to retain sections of the C.I.P. programs, I recall he made the argument that areas in Niagara Falls, as well as other areas in other cities could still benefit from the programs but not in the amended form the Region was moving forward on. I even recall him sighting an example of a development proposal that wound benefit from the programs continuing as is. In retrospect, what does appear to be a deception on his part is that he fail to mention that a large development was online to possibly take advantage of the program, that development would be the one brought forward during the Ministers Zoning Order request. The entire planning processes within his sphere of influence appears to have been manipulated to the benefit of this massive development avoiding the need to accommodate affordable housing. I can't help but think that one of the primary goals of a collaboration between the Mayor and these developers is to get that building permit before the policy to accommodate affordable house comes into effect. Once the permit is issued the planning regulations of the day are locked in. The Ministers Zoning Order recommended by the City of Niagara Falls appears as an attempt to circumnavigate the Regions authority as well, in that it will timely override even the Regions Official Plan vision in development requirements for affordable housing. I'm not sure what the Region can do at this point, the City of Niagara Falls has shown their hand that they are willing to break the chain of command so to speak, which if I were a Regional Councilor would feel very offended by its actions. I can't say as to how the Mayor, with his confidential knowledge via being on Regional council and of the development proposal has conspired to influence the planning regulations for this particular development proposal but it does appear that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that he did influence them. It would be a shame to miss the opportunity to require this development to comply with the visions of the Niagara Regions Official Plans vision of integrated affordable housing. It was my intentions to present before the OLT that affordable housing was not addressed by zoning by-law 2021-40. I was going to recommend that the new parking requirements, namely the one that allows the residential units above commercial floors to be exempt, be altered to allow that exemption if also those units were affordable housing stock. This reasoning was such that the savings of not having to provide a parking spot could somewhat justify a lower rent/sale and the chances of those tenants requiring a parking spot are less likely. Its worth a try. I have a situation very similar to what I would be proposing, in this case the tenant has parking but no car, the tenant appears to live agreeably without one. I'm not saying affordable housing suggests these tenants are poor, just that they appear to be able to accommodate to different lifestyles more easily then those more affluent. It could be many years and well beyond the current term of many of the region council members before another opportunity of this scale presents itself. I have done my part by bringing my opinions to your attention prior to the public meeting on this matter. Perhaps councilors can shared there opinion on affordable housing, if they have one, concerning this development with the Minister. Page 774 of 842 3 My public comments on the Niagara Region Official Plan Amendments Do not redact this report Thank you, Joedy Burdett 4480 Bridge St Niagara Falls, ON L2E2R7 905 353 8468 info@niagaratinting.com CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 775 of 842 April 28th, 2022 Mayor and City Council City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6X5 To Whom This Will Concern, We are excited to inform you that we have recently been recognized at the 2022 Ontario BIA Assoication Conference in Niagara Falls for outstanding work. The Ontario BIA Association (OBIAA) supports more than 300 BIAs across Ontario and once a year they distribute awards to some of the BIAs who have gone above and beyond. Our submission, which highlighted our work in the Special Events + Promotions – Large Award category was judged on five BIA pillars: Innovation, Replication, Representation, Outcome, and Accessibility. A committee of our BIA peers across Ontario chose our submission of Dowtown Niagara Falls Christmas Market as particularly exemplary in each of these categories. This initiative would not have been possible without your support and for that we are grateful and encourage you to also celebrate in this award with us. As such we are attaching several photos that you are welcome to share on your social media. When doing so please be sure to tag us @downtownniagarafalls and @OBIAA_ We encourage you to check out www.obiaa.com/conference/awards for more information on the OBIAA Awards and www.obiaa.com to learn more about the fantastic resources they provide. Thank you again for your support with this initiative and we are excited to see our City lead the way in Ontario. Best Regards, Chloe Atienza Social Media Assistant On Behalf of Downtown Niagara Falls BIA Board of Directors 4605 QUEEN STREET NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2E 2L7 P. 905-356-5444 / DOWNTOWNNIAGARAFALLS.COM Page 776 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:-comment for may 10th council meeting From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 5:30 PM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-comment for may 10th council meeting 11.3. Correspondence from Downtown BIA - Recognition of Downtown BIA at the 2022 Ontario BIA Association Conference Letter attached from the Downtown BIA informing Council of recent recognition at the 2022 Ontario BIA Association Conference in Niagara Falls. Congratulation DBIA, currently you also have a Human Rights Compliant filed against it and Wayne Campbell has been reported to the Ombudsman's office of violating is code of conduct, as well as multiple FOI appeals files against the organization, some of them for failing to follow the municipal Act. I was wondering if you will be putting the same effort into resolving those issues as you did with the Christmas Market. You seem very capable at spending other peoples money but when it comes time to answer the questions about how you spend that money it appears you resist like its going to exposing you for doing something illegal. It seems odd to pat yourselves on the back for some ordinary token award when real world problems still exist in the management of the DBIA. Perhaps the city can help you also if you ask them too. Joedy Burdett Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St. Do not redact this letter. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 777 of 842 Office of the City Clerk MatthewTrennum 905227-6613 ext.226 matthew.trennum@thoroId.ca City of Thorold ’3540 Schmon Parkway Po.Box.1044 \\'I"lm'l>Sltijn;(llimb Tile z\/lzmnluin...ThomldON L2V4A7 May 5,2022 Sent ELECTRONICALLY Re:Thorold City Council Submission -Bill 109 At its meeting held on May 3”‘,2022,Thorold City Council adopted the following resolution respecting Council’s submission to the Province pertaining to Bill 109 and the recommendations proposed by the Province’s Housing Affordability Task Force: THAT Report CC2022—39 BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to Regional Council,Niagara’s Local Area Municipalities,Local MPPs and AMO. Please find appended to this correspondence,a copy of Report CC2022—39and the City’s submission to the Province for your information. Yours truly, MatthewTrennum City Clerk Page 778 of 842 CC Title: Council’s Submission to the Province respecting Bill 109 and the recommendations proposed by the Province’s Housing Affordability Task Force Report Number: CC2022-39 Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 03, 2022 Report Prepared: Thursday, April 28, 2022 RECOMMENDATION(S): That Report CC2022-39 BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to Regional Council, Niagara’s Local Area Municipalities, and Local MPPs and AMO. REPORT: Please find attached to this Report as Appendix 1, City Council’s submission to the Province respecting Bill 109 and the recommendations proposed by the Province’s Housing Affordability Task Force. This submission was submitted on behalf of Regional Council on Friday, April 29, 2022, as directed by City Council as directed at its meeting held on Monday, April 25, 2022. BUDGETARY STATUS: There are no budget implications to this Report STRATEGIC PLAN: Responsible Community Growth and Infrastructure Planning CANADIAN CONTENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: Appendix 1 – City Council’s Comments on Bill 109 and the recommendations proposed by the Province’s Housing Affordability Task Force Page 779 of 842 PREPARED BY: “original signed” Matthew Trennum, City Clerk SUBMITTED BY: “original signed” Matthew Trennum, City Clerk APPROVED BY: “original signed” Manoj Dilwaria, Chief Administrative Officer Page 780 of 842 Appendix 1 to Report CC2022-39 At a Special Council meeting held on Monday, April 25, 2022, Thorold City Council held a round table discussion on the impacts of Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, and the recommendations proposed by the Province’s Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF). Thorold City Council supports the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO’s) response to the HAFT report, and specifically addressed the following issues during the roundtable discussion: • Increasing the supply of housing, without municipal intervention through planning and financial instruments, will not address affordability. Rather, a more targeted approach, to ensure an appropriate mix of supply is needed to ensure the needs of individuals of all income levels in Ontario are met; • The importance of municipal decision-making and the insight provided by locally elected officials. Additional municipal engagement on these issues is necessary, to ensure a productive and coordinated approach to addressing housing affordability; and • More generally the need for a comprehensive examination of housing, rather than specific policy outcomes. As an additional comment, specifically related to zoning by-law and official plan amendment applications, City Council recommends that the timelines for response to an application should be determined by a formula based on the size of the municipality and its level of growth, rather than a set amount of time for all municipalities. The City of Thorold is experiencing vast growth at this time. Although a boom for the City itself, the ability for planning staff to manage the increased workload, and receive punitive penalties if they don’t, is a risk to smart growth planning. With regards to the passing of Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, the City Council additionally wished to support the resolution passed by the Township of Mulmar, at its meeting on April 6, 2022, which stated the following: 1. Final Decision making should rest with elected officials 2. Planner’s recommendations should be subject to public input and local expertise 3. Ratepayers should not be subsidizing development applications through refunds to application fees intended to cover the cost of processing applications 4. That a definition of minor rezoning has not been established 5. Planners should not be put in a position of having to be experts and decision makers over all other disciplines 6. Delegating authority for site plans and creating penalties for site plan and minor rezonings will not solve housing crisis, as the proposed legislation targets single lot developments opposed to large scale residential development AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Province of Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Environmental Registry, the County of Dufferin and all Ontario municipalities. Page 781 of 842 J. Paul Dubé, Ombudsman 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower / 483, rue Bay, 10e étage, Tour sud Toronto, ON M5G 2C9 Tel./Tél. : 416-586-3300 Facsimile/Télécopieur : 416-586-3485 TTY/ATS : 1-866-411-4211 www.ombudsman.on.ca Facebook : facebook.com/OntarioOmbudsman Twitter : twitter.com/Ont_Ombudsman YouTube : youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsman BY EMAIL Mayor Jim Diodati Council for the City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 May 5, 2022 Dear Mayor Diodati: Re: Closed meeting complaint My Office received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Niagara Falls (the “City”) violated the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 20011 (the “Act”). Specifically, the complaint alleged that meetings of the Board of Directors of the Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation (“HoldCo”) are meetings of City council, and that these meetings do not comply with the Act’s open meeting requirements because they are not open to the public. I am writing to share the outcome of my review. For the reasons set out below, I have concluded that HoldCo is not subject to the open meeting rules, and that council for the City therefore did not contravene the open meeting requirements under the Act. I have also found that HoldCo has not violated its own internal meeting rules in closing its Board meetings to the public. Ombudsman’s role and authority As of January 1, 2008, the Act gives anyone the right to request an investigation into whether a municipality has complied with the Act in closing a meeting to the public.2 Municipalities may appoint their own investigator. The Act designates the Ombudsman as the default investigator for municipalities that have not appointed their own. My Office is the closed meeting investigator for the City of Niagara Falls. 1 SO 2001 c 25. 2 Ibid at s 239.1. Page 782 of 842 2 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower / 483, rue Bay, 10e étage, Tour sud Toronto, ON M5G 2C9 Tel./Tél. : 416-586-3300 Facsimile/Télécopieur : 416-586-3485 TTY/ATS : 1-866-411-4211 www.ombudsman.on.ca Facebook : facebook.com/OntarioOmbudsman Twitter : twitter.com/Ont_Ombudsman YouTube : youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsman In addition, my Office has authority to review complaints regarding the administrative conduct of public sector organizations, including municipalities, local boards, and municipally-controlled corporations. My Office has investigated hundreds of closed meetings since 2008. To assist municipal councils, staff, and the public, we have developed an online digest of open meeting cases. This searchable repository was created to provide easy access to the Ombudsman’s decisions on, and interpretations of, the open meeting rules. Council members and staff can consult the digest to inform their discussions and decisions on whether certain matters can or should be discussed in closed session, as well as issues related to open meeting procedures. Summaries of the Ombudsman’s previous decisions can be found in the digest: www.ombudsman.on.ca/digest. Background By-law 2000-97 was passed by the City on May 8, 2000. It authorizes the incorporation of HoldCo and transfers the City’s employees, assets, liabilities, rights and obligations with respect to the generation, transmission, distribution and retailing of electricity to HoldCo. According to this by-law, HoldCo was incorporated under the Ontario Business Corporations Act pursuant to section 142(1) of the Electricity Act, 1998 3 and sections 71 and 73 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.4 HoldCo acts as a holding company for other corporations, and is an asset held by the municipality. The City is its sole shareholder. HoldCo’s procedural by-law dictates that the City appoints each member of the Board of Directors. HoldCo’s Board currently consists of eight directors, each of whom is a City councillor. When sitting as the Board of Directors for HoldCo, these individuals have a fiduciary duty to the corporation.5 In addition, the CAO of the City acts as the CEO of HoldCo. The CEO of HoldCo told us that the corporation has a separate staff and separate legal representation from the City and that there is no operating agreement between HoldCo and the City. He also told us that HoldCo does not seek authorization or advice from council in its decision-making. 3 SO 1998, c 15, Sched A. 4 SO 1998, c 15, Sched B. 5 BCE Inc., Re, 2008 SCC 69 at para 37. Page 783 of 842 3 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower / 483, rue Bay, 10e étage, Tour sud Toronto, ON M5G 2C9 Tel./Tél. : 416-586-3300 Facsimile/Télécopieur : 416-586-3485 TTY/ATS : 1-866-411-4211 www.ombudsman.on.ca Facebook : facebook.com/OntarioOmbudsman Twitter : twitter.com/Ont_Ombudsman YouTube : youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsman Board meetings are not public and reports from these meetings are not publicly filed. During these meetings, the Board does not discuss council matters. Ombudsman review My Office reviewed the City’s procedural by-law, HoldCo’s procedural by-law, and documents related to HoldCo’s creation. We also spoke with the current CEO and previous CEO of HoldCo. Municipal Act’s open meeting requirement Section 239 of the Municipal Act provides that all meetings must be open to the public unless they fall within one of the listed exceptions found in that section of the Act. The open meeting rules apply only to meetings of municipal councils, local boards, and committees of either of them. Therefore, the meetings of the Board of Directors for HoldCo must come within one of these categories in order for the open meeting rules to apply. HoldCo is not a local board As noted above, HoldCo was incorporated under the Ontario Business Corporation Act pursuant to section 142(1) of the Electricity Act, 19986 and sections 71 and 73 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.7 Section 142(6) of the Electricity Act, 1998 8 indicates that any corporation incorporated under that section is deemed not to be a local board for the purposes of any Act. Accordingly, HoldCo is not a local board subject to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. HoldCo is not a committee of council under the Act Section 238(1) of the Municipal Act defines a “committee” as any advisory or other committee, subcommittee or similar entity of which at least 50per cent of the members are also members of one or more councils or local boards. The composition of HoldCo’s Board meets this definition, but in assessing if an entity can be considered a committee, my Office also considers its role and function. My Office has found that a body that exercises delegated authority from council to make decisions or recommendations is 6 Supra note 3. 7 Supra note 4. 8 Supra note 3 at s 142(6). Page 784 of 842 4 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower / 483, rue Bay, 10e étage, Tour sud Toronto, ON M5G 2C9 Tel./Tél. : 416-586-3300 Facsimile/Télécopieur : 416-586-3485 TTY/ATS : 1-866-411-4211 www.ombudsman.on.ca Facebook : facebook.com/OntarioOmbudsman Twitter : twitter.com/Ont_Ombudsman YouTube : youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsman likely to be a committee.9 A body is not likely to be a committee if it serves an administrative purpose, merely exchanges information, or advances previously decided positions.10 HoldCo was incorporated for the purposes of distributing and retailing electricity and associated business activities in lieu of the City. Rather than delegate its own authority to HoldCo, the City transferred its employees, assets, liabilities, rights and obligations relating to the distribution and retailing of electricity to HoldCo. HoldCo does not exercise delegated authority from council. Although the Board consists of councillors, it does not require approval from council, on behalf of the City, to make decisions. It also does not serve any kind of advisory role in relation to the City. The current CEO of HoldCo explained that Board discussions pertain solely to the routine decision-making of the corporation. Both the current CEO and previous CEO told my Office that the Board does not discuss municipal business in any capacity at its meetings. Accordingly, our review indicates that HoldCo’s Board is not a committee of council under the Act. While the membership of HoldCo’s Board meets the requirement for a committee as defined in the Act (that is, at least 50 per cent of the members are also members of one or more councils or local boards), a review of its function and purpose indicates that it does not act like a committee by exercising delegated authority from council and it does not play an advisory role to council. HoldCo is not a committee of council under the City’s procedural by-law Our Office has previously found that a body may also be subject to the open meeting requirements if it is a committee as defined in the municipality’s procedural by-law 11 or is considered by the municipality to be a committee.12 9 Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into whether Heads of Council in West Parry Sound have been holding illegal closed meetings including on February 19, 2015, (December 2015), online. 10 Hamilton (City of) (Re), 2014 ONOMBUD 11, online: <https://canlii.ca/t/gtmh8>; Deep River (Town of) (Re), 2017 ONOMBUD 17, online: <https://canlii.ca/t/hqspf>. 11 Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into whether the Long Term Care Task Force for the Regional Municipality of Niagara held an illegally closed meeting on May 13, 2015, (November 2015), online; Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into a complaint about a meeting held by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton on October 20, 2020, (April 2021), online. 12 Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into a complaint about a meeting held by the Nuclear Waste Community Liaison Committee for the Township of Hornepayne on January 12, 2016, (December 2016), online. Page 785 of 842 5 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower / 483, rue Bay, 10e étage, Tour sud Toronto, ON M5G 2C9 Tel./Tél. : 416-586-3300 Facsimile/Télécopieur : 416-586-3485 TTY/ATS : 1-866-411-4211 www.ombudsman.on.ca Facebook : facebook.com/OntarioOmbudsman Twitter : twitter.com/Ont_Ombudsman YouTube : youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsman The City’s procedural by-law defines a committee of council as “any board, commission or committee established by Council, which has at least one (1) Member appointed from Council. The Member(s) appointed by Council may be Member(s), staff of the City, and/or member(s) of the public.13 In interpreting whether a body is a “committee” under a municipality’s procedural by-law, my Office also considers the function or purpose of the group, and whether the municipality has formally established the group as a “committee” subject to the Act’s open meeting requirements.14 As noted above, HoldCo’s Board does not function as a committee of council and it takes action without approval or delegated authority from council. Additionally, HoldCo has not been formally established as a committee by the City. Accordingly, it is not a committee of council under the City’s procedural by-law. As the Board is not a local board or a committee of council under either the Act or the City’s procedural by-law, it is not subject to the Act’s open meeting rules. HoldCo is a municipally-controlled corporation While the open meeting rules apply only to municipal councils, local boards, and committees of either of them, since 2016 my Office has had jurisdiction to review complaints about the administrative conduct of municipalities, local boards, and municipally-controlled corporations. The Act defines a municipally-controlled corporation as “a corporation that has 50 per cent or more of its issued and outstanding shares vested in the municipality or that has the appointment of a majority of its board of directors made or approved by the municipality, but does not include a local board as defined in subsection 1 (1).”15 The City is HoldCo’s sole shareholder and the City also appoints the entirety of HoldCo’s Board of Directors. As HoldCo is also not a local board, it meets the definition of a municipally-controlled corporation. 13 City of Niagara Falls, Procedural By-Law 2019-04 (15 January 2019) online: <https://niagarafalls.ca/pdf/by-laws/procedural-by-law.pdf> at s 1. 14 Lucan Biddulph (Township of) (Re), 2021 ONOMBUD 17 at paras 24-28, online: <https://canlii.ca/t/jjq6h>. 15 Supra note 1 at s 223.1. Page 786 of 842 6 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower / 483, rue Bay, 10e étage, Tour sud Toronto, ON M5G 2C9 Tel./Tél. : 416-586-3300 Facsimile/Télécopieur : 416-586-3485 TTY/ATS : 1-866-411-4211 www.ombudsman.on.ca Facebook : facebook.com/OntarioOmbudsman Twitter : twitter.com/Ont_Ombudsman YouTube : youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsman Municipally-controlled corporations are not subject to the open meeting rules, which only apply to meetings of councils, local boards and their committees. However, the meeting practices of these corporations must align with their own internal by-laws. HoldCo’s procedural by-law does not require notice of meetings to be provided to the public. It also does not require meetings to be open to the public or for any information from these meetings to be provided to the public. As such, HoldCo has not contravened its internal regulations in failing to hold open meetings and in declining to make meeting records public. Conclusion Council for the City of Niagara Falls has not contravened the open meeting requirements in closing meetings of HoldCo’s Board of Directors to the public. Additionally, the meeting practices of the Board of HoldCo do not contravene its internal procedural requirements. I would like to thank the City of Niagara Falls for its co-operation during my review. The Clerk has confirmed that this letter will be included as correspondence at an upcoming council meeting. Sincerely, Paul Dubé Ombudsman of Ontario Cc. Bill Matson, Clerk Jason Burgess, CAO Page 787 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:-comment about may 10th council meeting From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 9:02 AM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-comment about may 10th council meeting Please put these comments as comments to the entire agenda. I would like to make the general comment that your practice of only three business days to respond to published council agendas does not leave much time to submit comments. I find I am rushed to do so. please consider making those agendas public sooner. It is an issue about your council meetings procedure policy that may arise in the future. Thanks Joedy Burdett Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 788 of 842 4605 QUEEN STREET NIAGARA, ON L2E 2L7 P. 905-356-5444 / DOWNTOWNNIAGARAFALLS.COM April 12th, 2022 Mayor and City Council City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6X5 To Whom This Will Concern, The Downtown Niagara Falls Board of Management has been diligently working on purchasing security cameras for installation within the BIA catchment. The BIA has committed the funds for both purchase and installation costs; however, the placement of the cameras to create one interconnected system has been difficult. The Board of Management for the Downtown Niagara Falls BIA is requesting permission from the City of Niagara Fall Council to place the cameras on the arches with a power connection for 360 views of intersections, side streets, and Queen Street. While it's excellent when security cameras catch a crime in action, it's even better when they stop a crime before it starts. That's the power of security cameras for cities — they act as an effective deterrent to would-be criminals. Studies have found that Security Cameras in public places can help reduce crime and vandalism and assist law enforcement in apprehending criminals whose malfeasance is caught on camera. The BIA is hoping these Security Cameras will be utilized as both prevention and assistance to police or BIA members when averting or catching criminals or accidents. The BIA would incur all expenses related to the project, installing and ensuring the system's maintenance. The BIA would also be responsible for collecting, storing, and access of data. Additionally, the Board has engaged a privacy lawyer specializing in municipal governance to create a Downtown Niagara Falls Business Improvement Area ("NFBIA") Policy governing CCTV Security Cameras having Oversight into Public Spaces – see attached. We're hoping to install before the May long weekend when we see an influx of visitors and complete the painting of the arches. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out! Sincerely, The Board of Management for Downtown Niagara Falls Page 789 of 842 Downtown Niagara Falls Business Improvement Area (“NFBIA”) Policy governing CCTV Security Cameras having Oversight into Public Spaces. POLICY TITLE: Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area (“NFBIA”) Policy governing CCTV Security Cameras having Oversight into Public Spaces. APPROVED BY: EFFECTIVE DATE: REVIEW DATE: 1. Policy Statement The Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area (“NFBIA”) recognizes the balance between an individual’s privacy and the need to protect the safety and security of the public. In respecting this balance, the NFBIA is committed to integrating security best practices with the responsible use of technology. The NFBIA ensures that the information captured on CCTV security cameras is maintained as private, confidential and secure, except in situations outlined by this policy. 2. Purpose The objectives of the digital video recording equipment deployment are: to ensure the safety of visitors to the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area; to ensure the security of buildings and property in the area; to deter crime; and to support the promotion and economic development of the NFBIA as an attractive business and shopping area. 3. Definitions “Archive” means the process of moving data that is no longer actively used to a separate storage device for long-term retention. “City” means the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. “Consistent purpose” means personal information collected by the NFBIA used for the purpose for which it was collected or similar consistent purposes when carrying out NFBIA business. The individual to whom the information relates might reasonably expect the use/disclosure of their personal information for those consistent purposes. “Control” (of a record) means the power or authority to make a decision about the use or disclosure of a record. “Custody” (of a record) means the keeping, care, watch, preservation or security of a record for a legitimate business purpose. While physical possession of a record may not always constitute custody, it is the best evidence of custody. “Destruction” means the physical or electronic disposal of records or data by means of disposing, recycling, deletion or overwriting. This also includes the destruction of records or data residing on computers and electronic devices supplied or paid for by the Corporation. Page 790 of 842 “Digital video recording equipment” means any type of video recording and reception equipment used as part of the CCTV security camera video surveillance system. “Freedom of information process” means a formal request for access to records made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). “Head” refers to the Board of Management of the NFBIA. “Information and Privacy Commissioner” means the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (commonly referred to as the IPC). The IPC hears appeals of decisions made by Heads of institutions, issues binding orders, conducts privacy investigations, and has certain powers relating to the protection of personal privacy as set out in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). “Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA)” means legislation that governs access to and the privacy of municipal records. “Niagara Falls Downtown Area” means the boundaries of the NFBIA within the City of Niagara Falls, as established by City Council. “Personal information” means recorded information about an identifiable individual, as outlined in MFIPPA. “Privacy breach” means an incident involving unauthorized disclosure of personal information, including it being stolen, lost or accessed by unauthorized persons. “Record” means information however recorded or stored, whether in printed form, on film, by electronic means or otherwise, and includes documents, financial statements, minutes, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, plans, maps, drawings, photographs and films; includes transitory records. “Retention period” means the period of time during which a specific records series must be kept before records in that records series may be disposed of. “Service provider” means a video service provider, consultant or other contractor engaged by the NFBIA in respect of the video surveillance system. “Video surveillance system” means a video, physical or other mechanical, electronic, digital or wireless surveillance system or device that enables continuous or periodic video recording, observing or monitoring of individuals in public spaces. 4. Authority This Policy is enacted by the NFBIA in accordance with its authority delegated by City Council pursuant to Bylaw # 98-247, which entrusted the NFBIA with responsibility for the improvement, beautification and maintenance of certain municipally owned lands, buildings and structures in the area beyond such improvement, beautification and maintenance as is provided at the expense of the municipality at large; events, business recruitment, communication, and the marketing and promotion of the area as a business shopping area; and in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. 5. Scope Page 791 of 842 This policy applies to digital video recording equipment installed by the NFBIA in the Niagara Falls Downtown Area. This policy does not apply to covert surveillance used as an investigation tool for law enforcement purposes or in contemplation of litigation. The collection of personal information through digital video recording equipment is limited to that which is necessary for the proper administration of lawful municipal activities to ensure the safety of residents and visitors; to ensure the security of buildings and property in the area; to deter crime; and to support the promotion and economic development of the NFBIA as an attractive business and shopping area. 6. Providing Notice Signs are posted at public access points to all viewing areas where the cameras are present. Signs will be visible to the public. All attempts are made to ensure proper signage is posted at all locations using a video surveillance system. A Notice of Collection, required under section 29 of MFIPPA, will also be available to the public through the NFBIA website, public directories, or alternate formats such as pamphlets or signage based on the nature of the public’s use of specific facilities. The Notice may be revised on a site-by-site basis to reflect unique or specific uses of the images. The Notice of Collection shall provide as follows, as amended to reflect the unique or specific use of images: “The collection of personal information by video surveillance systems is authorized under the Municipal Act. Surveillance systems will be used for the proper administration of lawful municipal activities to ensure the safety of residents and visitors; to ensure the security of buildings and property in the area; to deter crime; and to support the promotion and economic development of the NFBIA as an attractive business and shopping area. Access to system equipment and recorded images is restricted to authorized staff. Surveillance images may be disclosed to law enforcement or other public agencies to assist in authorized investigations. Any questions about this collection can be obtained by contacting the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area Executive Director at (905) 356-5444 or by email at info@downtownniagarafalls.com .” 7. Camera placement Where possible, all cameras that are adjustable or moveable are restricted to prohibit the viewing of locations not intended to be monitored. Cameras are prevented from looking through a window of an adjacent building or areas where a higher level of privacy is expected, such as private amenity space. Only the NFBIA or its designate may install, change or authorize a service provider or employee to install or change a camera’s permanent setting. None of the cameras may be moved from the original locations nor will the views of the cameras be adjusted other than for normal panning, tilting and security required zoom adjustments without the explicit permission of the NFBIA or its designate. 8. Signage Page 792 of 842 The NFBIA shall ensure that individuals are informed of the collection of personal information through the installation of signage in easily readable lettering, in the public area and in a position easily viewed by the public. Signs will explain that the area is monitored by video cameras, why the cameras are in place and where members of the public can obtain further information about the installation. Signs shall provide as follows: “To promote safety this area is under video surveillance. Images may be recorded and/or monitored. Information collected by the use of video equipment in this area is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001 in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For further information contact the NFBIA at (905) 356-5444.” 9. MFIPPA Since images of individuals collected by the digital video recording equipment are considered to be the personal information of the individuals photographed, any recordings generated by the digital video recording equipment are subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). All requests for access to recordings must be made through a written MFIPPA request. All MFIPPA requests must be forwarded to the Executive Director of the NFBIA, or their designate, and will be considered on their merits and the requirements of MFIPPA. 10. Requests for disclosure The NFBIA shall not disclose a video record to any individual or organization except as permitted through MFIPPA. 11. Public requests for disclosure Any person may make a written request for access to video records created through a video surveillance system through the freedom of information process. Access may depend on whether there is a justified invasion of another individual’s privacy and whether any exempt information can be reasonably severed from the record. 12. Internal requests for disclosure NFBIA employees or consultants may request a copy of a video recording if it is necessary for the performance of their duties in the discharge of the NFBIA’s function. 13. Law enforcement requests NFBIA may disclose a copy of a video recording to a law enforcement agency where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an unlawful activity has occurred and has been captured by the video surveillance system in accordance with section 32. (g) of MFIPPA. 14. Use of video recordings The information collected through the digital video recording equipment shall be used only for the purposes of ensuring the safety of visitors to the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area; ensuring the security of buildings and property in the area; deterring crime; and supporting the promotion and economic development of the NFBIA as an attractive business and shopping area. 15. Access to video recordings Page 793 of 842 The Executive Director of the NFBIA or their designate shall access video recordings only for the purposes set out in paragraph 14 above, and/or in accordance with the provisions of MFIPPA. Records may be released to a law enforcement agency in response to a verbal request only in situations involving an emergency, imminent danger or hot pursuit. All other requests for access by law enforcement authorities must be made through the freedom of information process. Viewing of the recorded information is restricted to the Executive Director of the NFBIA or their designate. Viewing will be permitted only for purposes compatible with the original purpose for the installation of the digital video recording equipment. Approved viewing of the recorded information must be conducted in private and in the presence of authorized persons only. A log will be kept to record access to the recordings. An entry will be made each time the recordings are consulted or any time a copy is made of any part of them. The log entry will note the person(s) accessing the recordings and the reason for access. The recording access log will be located in a secure area of the NFBIA offices and/or secure virtual space. Recordings must be released if they are subject to a subpoena, search warrant, summons or other order of the courts or a quasi-judicial tribunal. In these cases a digital copy of the original recording will be provided. If the requesting parties require the hard drive, a copy of the recording will be made before release of the hard drive. All actions taken in response to a subpoena etc. including the information that a copy was made will be entered into the log. 16. Retention and destruction of records The recording and storage equipment will be stored in a secure, non-public area at all times. Images are recorded on digital video servers with a storage area network (SAN) located in a secure area accessible only by the Executive Director of the NFBIA or their designate. Recordings are retained for one month (30 days) or until storage capacity is reached. The data is then overwritten. In cases where the surveillance system records activities that relate to an insurance, liability, law enforcement or other similar issue, the appropriate section of the recording will be copied to suitable media and stored in a separate secure location for a period of no less than one (1) year or a longer appropriate length of time. Video that has not been requested by the public, NFBIA employees, or law enforcement agencies within the maximum retention period is considered transitory and is automatically erased by being overwritten. 17. Responsibility The Executive Director of the NFBIA, or their designate, is responsible for the purchase, deployment, operation and maintenance of the digital video recording equipment and for providing for the maintenance, control, retention, and destruction of video records generated in accordance with this Policy. The Executive Director of the NFBIA, or their designate, shall: Page 794 of 842 i. Respond to requests for disclosure under the freedom of information or applicable routine disclosure procedures; ii. Ensure a public notice for video surveillance has been placed at all locations that have a video surveillance system; iii. Respond to requests from the public and employees about the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information captured by a digital video surveillance system; iv. Respond to appeals and privacy complaints received through the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC); v. Ensure the appropriate use of the video surveillance system at the location is in compliance with this policy; vi. Delegate and assign responsibility regarding who will act on their behalf in following procedures relating to this policy in their absence; vii. Investigate and report any privacy breaches to the appropriate parties; viii. Ensure that employees are monitoring compliance with the retention periods applicable to the video surveillance systems. 18. References Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90m56_e.htm Information and Privacy Commissioner: http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/Privacy Page 795 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:-comment for may10 council meeting From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 5:40 PM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-comment for may10 council meeting 12.1. Downtown Security Cameras - Request for Council The Downtown BIA is seeking permission from the Niagara Falls' Council to install security cameras on the arches in Downtown. City of Niagara Falls - Security Cameras CLEAN Policy NFBIA Security Cameras revised August 26 2021 I would like to point out that the DBIA has been requested to allow camera recording of meetings for hearing disabled persons. If your investing in cameras it would be a good time to acquire one for your meeting so members and the public can watch, instead of making disabled persons pay for these recording devices themselves. Also would it not be better to solve the reasons you need security camera more then to watch the problem. Who watches these recordings? Are they available to the public through FOI request? Will they be used to promote events? Joedy Burdett Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St. Do not redact this letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 796 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo To:Clerk Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-Jake Hiebert Way From: Rich Merlino <onerichmerlino> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:46 AM To: Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>; Wayne Campbell <wcampbell@niagarafalls.ca>; Chris Dabrowski <cdabrowski@niagarafalls.ca>; Carolynn Ioannoni <ioannoni@niagarafalls.ca>; Vince Kerrio <vkerrio@niagarafalls.ca>; Lori Lococo <llococo@niagarafalls.ca>; Victor Pietrangelo <vpietrangelo@niagarafalls.ca>; Mike Strange <mstrange@niagarafalls.ca>; Wayne Thomson Fallview Account <wthomson@fallsviewgroup.com> Cc: Clerk <clerk@niagarafalls.ca>; Jason Burgess <jburgess@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Jake Hiebert Way Good morning Mayor Diodati and Councillors, Greetings on this Easter holiday weekend. I am writing to you today to formally request that the City of Niagara Falls rename St. Clair Avenue (the portion between Queen Street & Park Street, where Jake's Chip Wagon conducted business for many, many years) to JAKE HIEBERT WAY. I, was deeply saddened to hear of Mr. Hiebert's passing, and my sincere condolences go out to the Heibert family on their loss of a Husband, Father, and Grandfather . This email is a followup to a Facebook post I created on Thursday, April 13th of which many of you were tagged. Within a short period of time, the post requesting the renaming (as stated above) was liked by 406 people, commented on by 112, and shared 35 times. Every single like, comment, and share was extremely positive and many supporting the idea. I certainly don't need to tell all of you that Jake was a wonderful man and that he and his wife touched many people over the years with the Chip Wagon, always willing to chat while cutting potatoes in his iconic Chip Wagon. The truck is iconic and certainly part of Niagara Falls history. Some people on FB suggested the City should acquire the truck and preserve it somewhere in the City. I will leave that for another day/discussion. I am sensitive to the fact that the family needs time to grieve their loss and that timing is of utmost importance, however I didn't want to miss out on an opportunity to formally suggest a way in which our City can show gratitude to a true local legend. Maybe posthumously awarding the key to the City is another possibility. (if this hasn't already been done given the history and longevity of Jake's contribution over the years) It should be noted that I have not reached out to the Hiebert family to request their permission, so due diligence on the part of the City of Niagara Falls would be required. On behalf of all the Jake's Chip Wagon fans, I thank you for your consideration. Respectfully yours, Rich Merlino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 797 of 842 P.O.Box 263 37 Millmrmor Place De/aware,Ontario NOL IEO V alerie M ’Garry Law Oj?ce Certified Specialist in Municipal Law File Number:458 April 19,2022 SENT BY EMAIL ONLY CONFIDENTIAL His Worship Mayor Jim Diodati and Council of the Municipality of Niagara Falls, 4310 Queen Street, Niagara Falls,Ontario L2E 6X5 Dear Mesdames and Sirs; Re:Unlawful activity on Willow Road Please be advised that we are the solicitors for David White,who resides at 5981 Willow Road,Niagara Falls. He has been experiencing significant abuse of both his property and his person,by a)individuals or contractors; b)who have been engaged to deposit a huge number of dead and decaying tree stumps‘at two addresses on Willow Road. One is a 50 acre parcel,at 6409 Willow Road,apparently owned by an F.Mulleboom (and spouse?)and the other is a 10 acre parcel,at 6153 Willow Road,apparently owned by a Wayne Maudlin.We cannot speak to the ownership with certainty,as we have not conducted a title search to verify any information,but we are confident that the City records can provide more information,should the City wish to avail itself of that option.That, however,is not the main reason for this correspondence. They are,apparently,contractors from Fort Erie,and,although they appear to haverespectedmyclient's request that they cease dumping decaying items at the properties on‘(and,incidentally,the vermin that those attract)Telephone."(519)652-5329 Fax.‘(519)652-9773e-mail:valerie@ciIj2law.caPage 798 of 842 Page 2 Willow Road for the moment,that does not solve the problem.The pile of rotting and decaying material,with all that that attracts,remains, The City has many resources available to it to obtain com pliance with City by—|aws without actually having to lay charges,although that is,obviously,an option.None of those appear to have been used yet. That does not,however,mean that my client is simply going to “carry on”without registering his dissatisfaction. The stumps themselves,in the condition in which they exist,would be bad enough. However,in addition to reducing the farmland to what is,in effect,a garbage dump, because of the diseased and dead and decaying stumps,the two properties are also sheltering large numbers of rats.The rats,alone,would be enough to take things from “bad"to “terrible”,but the predators of the rats,such as foxes,raccoons,opossums and skunks to name only a few,have rendered the situation intolerable.The larvae of insects alone,on top of all of that,can and does feed a metropolis of predators and makes the situation impossible to live in. This activity is impossible for anyone to tolerate and the City has the power to deal with it. My client has been in contact with various City departments,to try to obtain some relief.To date,he has received a “less than fulsome”response,to put it politely.I,too, confess that my inability to speak to a “real person"about all of this,which might have helped to solve the problem,is frustrating.However,that was not to be.I have checked the City's website,trying to shortcut all of this with a conversation with a live person,lest you think that I have not,and I will tell you that the City's website is just about the most opaque I have ever encountered.One hopes not to have to ask whether that is deliberately the case .......My efforts in that regard,in any event,were unfruitful. There is an ongoing problem at 6409 and 6153 Willow Road,regardless,that the -officer wishes to save some time -he or she can start there.My client is willing to be awitness,when (NOT if)the occasion arises.He continues to be a willing participant,andreadytohelpinanyway.What we need now,is for Council to provide a strong resolution/instruction to its by-Page 799 of 842 Page 3 law enforcement officials to deal with this —AND -for those by-law enforcement officials to report to the complainant (through this office,so we can make sure that matters are explained properly)on the results. This is NOT a complicated matter —the by-laws prohibit the very activity which my client has observed.He will be a witness,if that is needed.How much more straightfon/vard could it be?! I can be reached at the telephone number on my letterhead,or at the numbers with accompany this letter and its covering email. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours very truly, ,t I .)3 ’_ K /K.\/.\,,___m ,I ‘ c.c.David White Page 800 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo To:Carey Campbell Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-Follow up to garbage and rats On Apr 4, 2022, at 2:14 PM, linus hand < > wrote: Good afternoon Wayne. The first two pictures are at a multi dwelling unit on Second Avenue. As you can see they have a shed built specifically for the tenets garbage. The pictures following those..are of the house I had brought to your attention a couple of weeks ago. These pictures were taken this morning...there will not be garbage pick up at this house for another 12 days..you can only imagine how it will look by then. What I would like to see is something brought up in council to have a city bylaw that would require land lords to have to provide enclosed units..such as a shed to house the garbage Please let me know what steps are required to bring such a thing to council I'll look forward to your reply Cheers Linus CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. -- Linus Hand Linus Hand Productions Page 801 of 842 4605 QUEEN STREET NIAGARA, ON L2E 2L7 P. 905-356-5444 / DOWNTOWNNIAGARAFALLS.COM April 29th, 2022 Mayor and City Council City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6X5 To Whom This Will Concern, As a Board of Management for Council, a BIA’s role is to provide Council with an “ears to the ground” approach, as to better understand what both residents and BIA members are doing or saying. The Downtown Niagara Falls Board of Management takes this role seriously and has been collecting feedback from both members of the BIA catchment and residents of the community over the past two years. The BIA is excited for Council’s commitment to our Downtown and to assist both City Staff and Council, we have complied a list of challenges identified within Downtown and provided recommendations or best practices. 1. Vacancy Tax: Introduced in Vancouver for residential areas in 2017, the program helps return empty and under-utilized properties to the market as long-term rental homes for people who live and work in the City. Similar to the City of Vancouver, the BIA is proposing commercial property owners be required to submit a declaration each year to which will determine if their property is subject to the Vacancy Tax and would be implemented by the City of Niagara Falls. The tax would be reallocated to Downtown projects that enhance and revitalize the core. The BIA recommends that the City investigate and implement a vacancy tax for the 2023 fiscal year. 2. Commercial storefronts leased or utilized as storage: Downtown has numerous properties currently leased or solely used for storage. To visitors and residents, these properties appear to be forgotten or derelict, contributing to the perception that Downtown is "run-down" and has high vacancy rates. To combat and overcome this negative stigma, the BIA recommends a bylaw be introduced to prohibit the use of these prime economic generating spaces as storage. 3. Commercial Storefront Windows: Downtown has several storefront windows that have either been covered by plywood, old newspapers, or blacked-out windows. The BIA is recommending a bylaw to ensure property standards ensuring that all properties within the catchment contribute to a welcoming and safe environment for residents and visitors. Page 802 of 842 4605 QUEEN STREET NIAGARA, ON L2E 2L7 P. 905-356-5444 / DOWNTOWNNIAGARAFALLS.COM If a bylaw exists on record, we ask that more vigorous enforcement be assigned to ensure the current properties with these challenges are notified of potential violations. Boarded- up windows contribute to the perception of an unsafe street or area, creating negative connotations towards Downtown, which stunts future economic development. 4. Victoria Avenue Streetscape Prioritization: The BIA is aware that the City of Niagara Falls plans to fix underground infrastructure and above-ground streetscaping along Victoria Avenue; however, the BIA hopes these projects are expedited to the front of the queue. Typical comments from BIA survey's (both residential and business surveys) note that Victoria from the 420 Highway to Bridge Street is dark in the evening, uneven, often floods, and is not visually appealing, resulting in visitors and residents avoiding this primary entrance to the Downtown. The BIA is seeking prioritization of this streetscaping project would assist more than 180 small and medium-sized businesses starting in 2023. 5. Canada Day and Santa Claus Parade: The BIA is aware that Recreation and Culture staff have expressed support in transitioning these civic pride events to the new Exchange on Ferry Street. These events are drivers of both foot and vehicle traffic to Downtown and continue to be our top-rated events amongst members and residents via the annual BIA survey. The BIA has partnered with the City to deliver these events and even sponsored with levy money for multiple years; we would like to ensure its permanency in the core of our community and near City Hall. We recommend that the City Council vote to permanently keep Canada Day and Santa Claus Parade downtown. 6. Restriction of payday loans and rent-to-own businesses within BIA catchment: Payday loans offer quick cash but demand interest and fees greater than other loan types, especially if not repaid quickly — perhaps six to seven times the cost of an equivalent amount from a credit card cash advance or line of credit. Studies indicate that rates of crime, poverty and even drug use are significantly higher in areas surrounding payday loans and rent-to-own businesses, with Downtown and main streets being prime locations due to decreased rental prices and proximity to low-income renters in apartment units. The BIA recommends a bylaw be passed restricting these businesses from operations within and surrounding the BIA catchments. 7. Downtown Street Furniture and Planter Replacement: The garbage cans, planters, and benches Downtown are either broken, faded, or neglected, requiring maintenance or replacement. The BIA recommends these items be replaced in 2022/2023. 8. Redevelopment of Parkette on Valley and Queen: The Parkette between Valley Way and Queen Street is a vacant grass area that tends to attract drug use at night, crime, and "tent cities". The parkette is located at the entrance to Downtown from Victoria Avenue. It is visible to traffic coming from multiple directions and offers no lighting during the evening. Page 803 of 842 4605 QUEEN STREET NIAGARA, ON L2E 2L7 P. 905-356-5444 / DOWNTOWNNIAGARAFALLS.COM The BIA recommends that this area be transformed to maximize potential, increase lighting, and re-create this underutilized and essential piece of Downtown. Ideas include a mini-event space with a small amphitheater as electrical power is plentiful in the parkette, large garden beds, a community garden, or a playground. The BIA is open to all suggestions and is seeking council support to prioritize in 2023/2024. 9. Implementation of Appeal Provision: The City of Toronto implemented an appeal provision for BIAs intending to protect the cash flows and revenues required by the BIAs to meet its operating obligations in the future, rather than the BIAs directly compensating the City for assessment appeal reductions. The appeal provision provides a contingency used to offset appeal reductions. A set percentage amount for the Provision for Assessment Appeal Reductions and Write-offs is collected above and beyond the BIA budget, capped at a set amount, protecting the BIA from appeal repayments that would otherwise cripple BIA operations. The collected amount would be maintained by the City, ensuring future Board's maintained adequate reserves for appeals not yet accounted for. We recommend that the City create the Appeal Provision and implement it for the 2023 fiscal year. 10. River Road Signage: The Board hopes to engage the City in a joint application for Regional funding to replace the signage on River Road with an updated and modern look that reflects our current branding. The Board has retained Signature Signs in Niagara Falls to create potential bid submissions and is seeking City Council action to make this item a priority project in 2022/2023. 11. Entry Signage Victoria Avenue: The BIA wants to install additional entry signage and guiding signage to direct tourism and visitors to Queen Street from the 420 Victoria Avenue Exit. Again, we are seeking that this becomes a priority project in 2022/2023. 12. Erie Avenue Derelict Buildings near Go Station: Each weekend, the GO Station witnesses line-ups of tourists visiting our great City. However, tourists remain hesitant to travel one street over to Queen Street because of the facade of the buildings along Erie Avenue from Bridge Street to Queen Street, which includes the property on the corner of Queen and Erie. Some of these buildings have been abandoned for years resulting in unsafe conditions with an uninviting welcome to our community's Downtown core. Studies have shown that abandoned buildings create a desolate atmosphere leading to higher crime incidents, vandalism, and drug use. Expropriation, destruction, or forced property standards on these buildings would benefit the entirety of Queen Street, drawing more tourists. The BIA recommends that Council take drastic measures to demolish or force maintenance on these chronically vacant properties. 13. Welcoming Streets initiative: At the 2022 OBIAA conference on Monday, April 25th, Page 804 of 842 4605 QUEEN STREET NIAGARA, ON L2E 2L7 P. 905-356-5444 / DOWNTOWNNIAGARAFALLS.COM 2022, the Mayor, BIA Board, and BIA Staff were present for Downtown Belleville's award for their Welcoming Streets initiative. The project saw a Peer Outreach Worker that worked to support business owners by responding to situations that did not require the help of police. In addition, the Worker engages with vulnerable individuals to ensure they are connected with the services they need. Expected outcomes included Business owners feeling supported and having access to the information/training they need; vulnerable individuals feeling supported and linked with the services they need, and the downtown core being safe and inclusive for all community members, which helps to increase the overall reputation and perception of the Downtown. The BIA recommends that funding is set aside in the City budget for the BIA to operate the program in future years or that the City lobby the Regional government for funding. We are profoundly proud of the work Council and the BIA has accomplished these past two years, but we’re even more excited to take these next steps to revitalize the core of our City! Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you on these revitalization projects. Sincerely, The Board of Management for Downtown Niagara Falls Page 805 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:]-comment for may 10th council meeting From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 8:24 PM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-comment for may 10th council meeting 12.5. Correspondence from Downtown BIA Attached is a letter with multiple requests from the Downtown BIA. City of Niagara Falls - BIA Priority Areas[6] The DBIA has submitted several request and these are my comment to this letter. 1. Vacancy tax. Does the DBIA really have to go all the way across the country to use Vancouver, a city that has no comparison to Niagara Falls to justify this request. Produce something local, something that has relevance to the local community, what's next are you going to be sighting other countries policy next. I think the DBIA is going way out of its mandate set forth in the by-law that created the bia and is the guiding rules for its function. You are expanding beyond your mandate and are doing so at the expense of your members levy. 2. Commercial storefronts leased or utilized as storage: 3. Commercial Storefront Windows: Is the DBIA now trying to write planning and building code by-laws? Do they not know that there is a zoning by-law under appeal covering the downtown core, that includes queen St. as well, they had there chance to speak up at the public meetings, have them take on party status and talk to the OLT to fix these issues, that is what the are asking if they don’t know it, there saying the by-law the city just passed is flawed and they want to change it again, well it has not even been finalized. They should research there requests before they write to council. If the city cant even complete a major zoning by-law, what chance do you think they are going to change by- laws because a BIA thinks they know planning laws. 5. Canada Day and Santa Claus Parade: Niagara Falls is famous around the world, we are missing a wonderful opportunity for international awareness as well as in all of Canada. These major events should be moved to Clifton hill/Main St. area. These are the areas that have tourists and events like this might get televised if tens of thousands of people were lined up along the streets as could be possible in those areas, because they have those kind of numbers when the Page 806 of 842 2 tourists are around. Who wants see a parade end at a social assistance/business distr ict area like downtown. It would benefit all of the greater Niagara Region, instead we channel these opportunities to bring some locals to a downtown core, this is selfish of the DBIA, they are robing the entire City of Niagara Falls from the maximizing benefit these event could produce. What involves thousands of dollars could be millions in the right location, is that not what Niagara Falls wants, recognition on a grand scale, well your not going to get by driving along downtown streets, but there is a chance if these events take place where crowds are already established, the city as a whole and tax payers are losing millions of potental revenue every time we try to assist some insignificant BIA representing a few business in one area in Niagara Falls, These events could be like New York time square if properly promoted, The famous Niagara Falls parade that starts in the heart of the tourist area and ends at the falls, Televised and watch by millions. Such a waste to see it in the core. We lost the festival of lights, replace it with the Canada days parade, televised from a beautiful park and ending at the most iconic location in the City, Niagara Falls. This City thinks so small. The core cannot complete for tourism because every single new development is newer, better designed and modern looking, they are literally planned better. The downtown is downtown, business, the parades and event as are celebrations and should be held in area that are designed for such, Clifton hill, Lundy's land even Niagara parks by the falls. The DBIA should just focus on getting business to the core not tourists because they will never, never be able to compete with the areas that have been design to accommodate tourist. The DBIA is hurting the economy of Niagara Falls by trying to be make the downtown something its not and our council is supporting this travesty. 6. Restriction of payday loans and rent-to-own businesses within BIA catchment : What's next cannabis stores, how about we ban businesses like project share f rom the area also, how about government services that assist the homeless or sexually assaulted victims. Just what is this BIA thinking they have the right to do, an organization that is designed to promote businesses suggesting this council ban businesses, these businesses have every right to equal opportunity. The command thinking of this organization needs to be thoroughly looked into. There is something seriously wrong in that BIA. Someone needs to be fired. 7. Downtown Street Furniture and Planter Replacement : This is your job BIA, that's what your members are paying the levy for, do it yourselves. You cant even do this and your asking to ban business. 8. Redevelopment of Parkette on Valley and Queen: Is the BIA going to put cameras there? This is what the BIA should be doing, not banning business, or hosting parades. Stick to what your mandated to do. 9. Implementation of Appeal Provision: Wow, DBIA wants to run our little BIA like a Toronto BIA, how many employees does this BIA have, one? Perhaps the person making these suggests should leave and work in Toronto, this is Niagara Falls last I was aware of. Page 807 of 842 3 10. River Road Signage: Is the DBIA not aware that a major development is planned for that area, hundreds of million of dollars, maybe wait until the big boys do their thing and not waste your members hard earned money. 11. Entry Signage Victoria Avenue: This could also be the start to expand the DBIA to the 420, why not ask council to pass a by-law for that along with all your other ones. 12. Erie Avenue Derelict Buildings near Go Station I already made council do that. Be original and don’t take someone's else's initiative. I had to step up because no one, even the DBIA was doing their jobs. On a side note, wonder when this city is going to have the arena across from the Post Food building fixed also, it has a gigantic hole in its roof and last I saw a broken plate glass display widow at the sidewalk that could cut a child's arm off. What is happening to this city? It is discerning the direction this BIA is taking, They are making by-law creation demands, trying to take credit for my own work in revealing the state of the buildings around Erie avenue and maybe they will try to take the credit for getting them cleaned up. They have unresolved FOI appeals and code of conduct complaints and Human Rights complaints against them. They are trying to make policy using mega cities like Vancouver and Toronto as comparisons, if the staff and board of his BIA wants to transform our downtown into a place like those cities then they should leave and move to those cities and join its BIA and let Niagara Falls be its own identity. Joedy Burdett Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St. Do not redact this letter Page 808 of 842 4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 809 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-Fw: comment for may 10th council meeting second letter From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:33 PM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Fw: comment for may 10th council meeting second letter From: Niagara Tinting Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2022 8:24 PM To: Bill Matson Subject: comment for may 10th council meeting 12.5. Correspondence from Downtown BIA Attached is a letter with multiple requests from the Downtown BIA. City of Niagara Falls - BIA Priority Areas[6] The DBIA has submitted several request and these are my comment to this letter. I almost forgot to mention in my last comments letter, This BIA is asking a lot of things well beyond there mandate, this is happening even as their chair of the governance committed is subjected to a code of conduit complaint and is making statements that he doesn't care if he gets elected. This is an organization that DOES NOT EVEN KNOW HOW MANY MEMBERS IT HAS AND WHO THEY ARE OR HOW TO CONTACT THEM! What kind of membership based organization does not have information as to who its members are. I’M NOT KIDDING FOLKS, I can say this with fact because I have asked the BIA through a Freedom of Information request and Amanda McDonald is about to go to an arbitrary hearing because she states she has no business identity information to provide. Also by way of FOI request it was revealed that this BIA has failed to provide the legally required annual reports to the IPC. This appears to violate the City by-law that states the BIA has to keep proper records and follows all applicable laws. What is wrong with this organization. This council and its members better start taking a closer look at this organization before listening to what there talking about. I have personally sat in on some of these meeting and board members don’t even know who is the public and who are members. Page 810 of 842 2 Again, congratulations on that award of yours, you may want to dedicate some future time to sorting out your own house first before asking others to make by-laws for you. No wonder members want to dissolve this BIA. I have been in business for nearly 30 years and if my employees acted this way they would not be for long. Joedy Burdett Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St. Do not redact this letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 811 of 842 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:-Fw: comment for may 10th council meeting another letter From: Niagara Tinting <niagaratinting@niagaratinting.com> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 8:32 AM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Fw: comment for may 10th council meeting another letter From: Niagara Tinting Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2022 8:24 PM To: Bill Matson Subject: comment for may 10th council meeting 12.5. Correspondence from Downtown BIA Attached is a letter with multiple requests from the Downtown BIA. City of Niagara Falls - BIA Priority Areas[6] The DBIA has submitted several request and these are my comment to this letter. 2. Commercial storefronts leased or utilized as storage: 3. Commercial Storefront Windows: 6. Restriction of payday loans and rent-to-own businesses within BIA catchment: One last comments concerning these requests. I want to personally thank the DBIA and by extension all the hundreds of downtown business for supplying additional useful information for my appeal of by-law 2021-40. I will make sure your comments reach the OLT tribunal members at the hearing, your voice will not go unheard. Just to get that straight .. That was under permitted uses - BAN PAYDAY LOANS AND RENT –TO-OWN-BUSINESS, correct? Keep up the good work and should you have any other useful information please don’t hesitate to contact me again. Joedy Burdett Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge St. Do not redact this letter Page 812 of 842 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 813 of 842 Niagara Falls City Council 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada L2E 6X5 Dear Councillors, Re: Pro-Soviet and Pro-Ruscist Symbols in Niagara Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the Russian Federation has committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, and is actively perpetrating a genocide against Ukrainians. Multiple countries, including Canada ans Lithuania, have recognized Russia’s actions in Ukraine as genocide. As I am sure Council is aware, the Soviet Union under Stalin perpetrated the man-made famine-genocide known as the Holodomor, wherein forced redistribution of food causing starvation, combined with political and religious assassinations, executions, and deportations killed between 3-10 million Ukrainians. During Russia’s current genocide against Ukrainians, we see the same tactics; forced redistribution of food, deportations, mass killings in Bucha and other cities, and even failed assassination attempts against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Across the globe, many pro-Russian people proudly flaunt the icons and symbols of both the collapsed Soviet Union, and today’s ruscist (Russian fascist) symbols—namely the “Z” icon. Ukrainian businesses are targeted and vandalized with these symbols, and people post them publicly online. These people show public support for genocide, mass murder, and the new rise of fascism. In response to this, I am calling on the Niagara Falls City Council to issue an outright and complete ban on or public display or usage of pro-Soviet and pro-ruscist symbols that are directly related to the USSR, or Russia’s ongoing invasion and genocide of Ukraine, including the icons and symbols of the Russian military. Sincerely, Josh “Yasyszcjosh” Bieuz-Yasyszczuk Page 814 of 842 VIA EMAIL Mayor Jim Diodati and Councillors City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls Ontario L2E 6X5 Dear Mayor Diodati and Councillors Re:Cross Border Travel and ArriveCan The Covid-19 pandemic has decimated cross border traffic.Even after the Covid testing requirements to enter Canada were lifted on April 1,2022,auto traffic for the month of April was down 52%at the bridges of the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and 43%at the Peace Bridge,compared to pre-pandemic April 2019.This has had a devastating impact on our toll revenues,the tourism industry and other border dependent businesses. The Government of Canada's mandatory ArriveCan app to enter Canada is a major contributing factor to depressing discretionary travel.This is due to a number of factors: 0 For travelers by air,airlines require and assist passengers in completing ArriveCan and in airports people are much easier to move than cars.ArriveCan simply works better and is more applicable at an airport than at a land port of entry. 0 ArriveCan is not known in the U.S.The result is people arriving at the border without ArriveCan and then completing it at the inspection booth or having technical difficulties (especially prevalent at borders with competing U.S.and Canadian cell towers and roaming)resulting in inordinately long processing times,sometime exceeding ten minutes.Meanwhile,compliant drivers behind such a vehicle have no place to go and are also delayed leading to lengthy border wait times.CBSAprocessing times have increased dramatically compared to pre-pandemic processing. 0 The technology discriminates against a large population of senior travelers.A January 2022 PEW Research survey found ”that 96%those ages 18 to 29 own a smartphone compared with 61% comes from Americans and with 39%of Americans over 65 not having a smartphone it willundoubtedlyhaveanegativeimpactontheirabilitytoenterCanadaandthereforeNiagaratourismrevenue.40,000 people in the Niagara Region rely on tourism to provide for theirfamilies. -,'-.'-95 47 - "*6‘ Vf§/"«I‘I M[}& .r\,;..n __ ~ — A '\’\ CROSSING PAT HS BUILDIN G FUTURES THE BRIDGE M ay 10 , 2022 Page 815 of 842 0 Even for people aware of ArriveCan,the requirement to use the app for every crossin g is a disincentive to discretionary travel.Unlike air travel,the nature of this bi— nation al com muni tyisbeingabletocrossfrequentlytovisitfriendsorfamily,for dinner,a show,a tour,a baseball game,shopping,beach,etc without going through the process and in co nv en ie nc e of having to file with ArriveCan each and every time.People just won't bother to theborder for discretionary travel as they have enjoyed for decades. 0 CBSA/GovernmentofCanada will at some point declare success and say that a perce ntageoftravelersareusingArriveCan.That will not account for the half of the popul ation thathas decided it is no longer worth the inconvenience and delays to cross the border.willbe devastating to the Niagara tourism industry and other border dependent busin esses . 0 While CBSAhas not provided us with the American/Canadiansplit of entrants t C a n a d a, we believe,based on our license plate observations,that it is overwhelmingly Can adia ns returni ngtoCanadaafterspendingtimeandmoneyintheU.S.,as the U.S.is much simpl er an d easierto enter with no digital app requirement. ArriveCan was developed in April 2020,to provide mandatory travel information befor e a n d afterentry to Canada including the filing of quarantine plans.As of April 25,2022 it is no longer ne ce ss ar y tofilea quarantine plan to visit Canada or for Canadians returning to Canada.Both Canada and tU.S.only allow vaccinated individuals to cross the border.The exception is Canadians who are a b le toreturnto Canada unvaccinated but at this stage that number would be very small.Accordingly,now provides very little public health benefit while depressing border traffic and the touris m e c o n o ArriveCan does have potential traffic facilitation benefits for CBSAas it relates to pre- arriva l infor matio n and for this reason it should be marketed as such and made optional at the land border . The Victoria Day and Memorial Day holidays are only couple of weeks away.This is als o ttradi tiona l start of the summer tourist season.Continuing to mandate ArriveCan will insure anoth er di sa pp oi nti ng season for traffic and tourism,not much better than the pandemic summers of 2020 a n d 20 21 . Ron Rienas General Manager Buffalo and Fort E ri e Pu bli c BridgeAuthority Kenneth CEO Niagara Brid ge Commission Y ou rs trul y,Page 816 of 842 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution May 10th, 2022 No. 6 Moved by: Seconded by: WHEREAS the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. establishes a 2-year waiting period for minor variance applications which means minor variance applications are not permitted for two years following an applicant-initiated site specific rezoning of a property; and WHEREAS the intent of the 2-year waiting period is to provide greater control to municipalities, prevent zoning provisions that Council determines to be appropriate from being reversed or altered through the minor variance process for 2 years, and to increase stability by affording municipalities the ability to implement site specific zoning by-laws; and WHEREAS notwithstanding the 2-year waiting period for minor variances, subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. provides Council the ability to permit privately- initiated applications for minor variances by passing a resolution; and WHEREAS Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. requested Council to consider passing a resolution that would permit the submission of an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment in regards to the applicant-initiated site specific By-law No. 2022-06 that was passed by Council in 2022; and, WHEREAS Council determined that the minor variance application to allow Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. to request variances to the front yard depth, interior side yard (for street townhouses only) setback, exterior side yard width setback, and maximum lot coverage as it does not undermine Council’s original intention when it passed By-law No. 2022-06; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that subject to subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. Council consents to an exemption to the 2 -year waiting period for minor variances and thereby allows Queensway Chippawa Properties Inc. to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for the development of their Plan of Subdivision that is regulated by By-law No. 2022-06. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR S:\ZONING\AMS\2022\Bylaws\Resolution AM-2018-012.docx Page 817 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022 - A by-law to set and levy the rates of taxation for City purposes, for Regional purposes, and for Education purposes for the year 2022. WHEREAS Section 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. c.25 provides that the Council of a local municipality shall pass a by-law to levy a separate tax rate on the assessment in each property class; AND WHEREAS the assessment of classes of rateable property described as residential/farm, multi residential, commercial, industrial, pipeline, farmland, managed forest and large industrial, as defined in the Assessment Act, and regulations thereto, have been determined on the basis of the aforementioned property assessment rolls; AND WHEREAS the tax ratios and the tax rate reductions for prescribed property classes for the 2022 taxation year have been set out in By-law 2022-14 of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, dated 24th day of March 2022; AND WHEREAS the tax rates and tax levies for purposes of the Regional Municipality of Niagara for the 2022 taxation year have been set out in By-law 2022-13 of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, dated 24th day of March 2022; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has adopted estimates of all sums required to be raised by it during the year 2022; AND WHEREAS the tax rates on the aforementioned property classes and property subclasses have been calculated pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, and applicable regulations in the manner set out herein; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The assessments for the City of Niagara Falls on which the sums required for the year 2022 are to be levied for the various purposes hereinafter set forth are as follows: Page 818 of 842 Assessment Category Assessment Amount General Assessment Amount Urban Service Area RESIDENTIAL/FARM 9,163,695,926 8,619,492,026 MULTI-RESIDENTIAL 325,035,589 323,173,489 NEW MULTI-RESIDENTIAL 22,100,500 22,100,500 COMMERCIAL Taxable General 11,915,000 11,915,000 Taxable Full 1,928,354,094 1,868,619,394 Excess Land 26,428,371 24,421,871 Vacant Land 140,801,000 139,375,600 New Construction 210,197,600 200,123,300 New Construction – Excess Land 7,229,100 6,097,500 Office Building 10,890,900 10,890,900 Shopping Centre 155,144,092 155,144,092 Excess Land 5,571,327 5,571,327 Parking Lot 88,783,100 88,029,100 LANDFILL Taxable Full 3,152,500 0 INDUSTRIAL Taxable Full 83,613,092 78,021,492 Excess Land 9,164,857 8,893,457 Vacant Land 29,873,700 26,521,900 New Construction 18,457,700 8,258,800 New Construction – Excess Land 1,160,700 114,500 PIPELINES Taxable Full 46,142,000 29,594,000 FARMLANDS 84,729,100 1,915,100 MANAGED FORESTS 1,946,400 0 FARMLANDS AWAITING 0 0 DEVELOPMENT 1 Page 819 of 842 2. There shall be levied and collected by taxation in the City of Niagara Falls for the year 2022 for the several purposes and in the manner hereinafter provided, the several sums and amounts following and for such purposes the several rates hereinafter mentioned are hereby imposed, namely: (a) in the whole of the City of Niagara Falls: (i) for the general purposes, including items of civic expenditure, except those hereinafter specifically mentioned, the sum of $75,348,631 which includes the amount of $8,362,513 for waste management services; (ii) for public and separate school board purposes the sum of $38,930,580; (iii) for the purpose of The Regional Municipality of Niagara the sum of $88,917,183; and (b) in Urban Service Areas 1 and 2: (i) for urban service purposes the sum of $10,168,730 3. The tax rate schedule set out in Schedule “A” is hereby adopted to be applied against the whole of the assessment for rateable property. 4. Every owner shall be taxed according to the tax rates in this by-law and such tax shall become due and payable for 2022 only, for, (a) Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessments on June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2022, and (b) Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Residential Assessments on August 31, 2022 and October 31, 2022. 5. The Treasurer is hereby authorized and required to make, prepare and certify a Tax Roll in accordance with the requirements of this By-law and other applicable law. 6. It shall be the duty of the Tax Collector to pay into the hands of the Treasurer of the City of Niagara Falls all sums of money that may be collected by him under the authority of this by-law and to make a return of his or her Roll on or before the 31st day of December 2022. 7. This by-law shall come into force and effect immediately upon passing thereof. 8. Schedule “A” attached to this By-law shall form part of this By-law. Page 820 of 842 Passed this 10th day of May, 2022 ......................................................................... .................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: May 10, 2022 Second Reading: May 10, 2022 Third Reading: May 10, 2022 Page 821 of 842 Schedule “A” CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 2022 Tax Rates Assessment General Rates Urban Service Area Urban Service Area Total Property Class Code City City Capital Levy Waste Mgmt. Region Schools Total Residential/Farm RT 0.454688% 0.005090% 0.056763% 0.603552% 0.153000% 1.273093% 0.072922% 1.346015% New Multi- Residential NT 0.454688% 0.005090% 0.056763% 0.603552% 0.153000% 1.273093% 0.072922% 1.346015% Multi-residential MT 0.895736% 0.010026% 0.111823% 1.188997% 0.153000% 2.359582% 0.143656% 2.503238% Commercial -Occupied CT/CM 0.788839% 0.008830% 0.098478% 1.047102% 0.880000% 2.823249% 0.126512% 2.949761% -Excess Land CU 0.670513% 0.007505% 0.083706% 0.890037% 0.880000% 2.531761% 0.107535% 2.639296% -Vacant Land CX 0.670513% 0.007505% 0.083706% 0.890037% 0.880000% 2.531761% 0.107535% 2.639296% Commercial Other -Occupied DT/GT/ST 0.788839% 0.008830% 0.098478% 1.047102% 0.880000% 2.823249% 0.126512% 2.949761% -Excess Land DU/SU 0.670513% 0.007505% 0.083706% 0.890037% 0.880000% 2.531761% 0.107535% 2.639296% Commercial –New Construction -Occupied XT/ZT 0.788839% 0.008830% 0.098478% 1.047102% 0.880000% 2.823249% 0.126512% 2.949761% -Excess Land XU/ZU 0.670513% 0.007505% 0.083706% 0.890037% 0.880000% 2.531761% 0.107535% 2.639296% Landfill HT 1.336902% 0.014965% 0.166898% 1.774600% 0.880000% 4.173365% 4.173365% Industrial -Occupied IT/LT 1.195830% 0.013385% 0.149287% 1.587342% 0.880000% 3.825844% 0.191784% 4.017628% -Excess Land IU/LU 1.016456% 0.011378% 0.126894% 1.349240% 0.880000% 3.383968% 0.163017% 3.546985% -Vacant Land IX 1.016456% 0.011378% 0.126894% 1.349240% 0.880000% 3.383968% 0.163017% 3.546985% Industrial – New Construction -Occupied JT/KT 1.195830% 0.013385% 0.149287% 1.587342% 0.880000% 3.825844% 0.191784% 4.017628% -Excess Land JU/KU 1.016456% 0.011378% 0.126894% 1.349240% 0.880000% 3.383968% 0.163017% 3.546985% Pipelines PT 0.773925% 0.008663% 0.096616% 1.027306% 0.880000% 2.786510% 0.124120% 2.910630% Farmland FT 0.113672% 0.001272% 0.014191% 0.150888% 0.038250% 0.318273% 0.018230% 0.336503% Managed Forests TT 0.113672% 0.001272% 0.014191% 0.150888% 0.038250% 0.318273% 0.018230% 0.336503% Farmland Awaiting Development I C1 0.341016% 0.003817% 0.042572% 0.452664% 0.114750% 0.954819% 0.054691% 1.009510% Farmland Awaiting Development II N/A Page 822 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022- A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 142 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING ACT, 1990, HEREBY ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1. The attached text constituting Amendment No. 142 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan is hereby adopted. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ....................................................... ....................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 823 of 842 OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 142 PART 1 – PREAMBLE (i) Purpose of the Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to establish new policies for cannabis production facilities regulated by the Federal Cannabis Act. (ii) Location of the Amendment The amendment applies to the entirety of the City. (iii) Details of the Amendment Changes Text Change PART 2, SECTION 8 – INDUSTRIAL is amended through additions to Policy 8.2 and Policy 8.21 PART 4, SECTION 10 – SITE PLAN CONTROL is amended through additions to Policy 10.1.3 and Policy 10.2 (iv) Basis of the Amendment Triggered by the enactment of the Cannabis Act and legalization of cannabis cultivation and production for commercial purposes, the City of Niagara Falls undertook a Study on cannabis cultivation and production as a land use. The introduction of cannabis cultivation and production as potential land uses in the City of Niagara Falls necessitates update to the Official Plan to consider permissions for this use. Provincial policy requires that any changes to the Official Plan must conform or not conflict to Provincial policies. Addressing permissions for cannabis cultivation and production of a land use does not conflict with the Provincial policies. The findings of the Cannabis Growing Facilities Land Use Review recommend ed amendments to the Official Plan to establish cannabis cultivation and production as a permitted land use in the Industrial designation. These uses are recommended to be subject to policies that the use must be indoors, be in accordance with Federal Cannabis Regulations, be separated from sensitive uses by a minimum of 500 metres and be subject to site plan control. PART 2 – BODY OF THE AMENDMENT Page 824 of 842 All of this part of the document entitled PART 2 - BODY OF THE AMENDMENT, consisting of the Text Change, constitute Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT The Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls is hereby amended as follows: 1. TEXT CHANGE PART 2, SECTION 8 – INDUSTRIAL is hereby amended by the following additions to Policy 8.2: Adding the words “the indoor production of cannabis” before the words “adult entertainment parlours”. PART 2, SECTION 8 – INDUSTRIAL is hereby amended by adding a new Policy 8.21, with the following wording: 8.21 Permitted production of cannabis shall be in accordance with the following: (i) The production of cannabis is only permitted to occur within an enclosed building with appropriate air filtration that ensures the use does not emit any odour. Production of cannabis may include the cultivation of cannabis and/or activities related to cannabis cultivation such as processing, packaging, testing, destruction, research and shipping; (ii) Outdoor cultivation is not permitted; (iii) The production of cannabis shall be in accordance with all applicable Federal Regulations, as amended from time to time; (iv) Buildings should be appropriately distanced a minimum of 500 metres away from sensitive land uses or zones where sensitive land uses are permitted, including but not limited to existing day care facilities, hospitals, places of worship, playgrounds and residential uses; and (v) Cannabis production shall be subject to site plan control, which may require the submission of studies relating to relevant matters including, but not limited to, air quality control, environment impacts, traffic and lighting, which demonstrate appropriate nuisance mitigation to the City’s satisfaction. The Site Plan Control process may require the applicant to enter into a site plan agreement. PART 4, SECTION 10 – SITE PLAN CONTROL is hereby amended by updating the wording of Policy 10.1.3 by replacing the word “and” with a comma “,” between “farm help houses” and “greenhouses” and adding the following to the end of the clause: “and cannabis cultivation and/or cannabis production.” Page 825 of 842 PART 4, SECTION 10 – SITE PLAN CONTROL is hereby amended by adding the following to Policy 10.2: 10.2.14 Security access features. 10.2.15 Air quality filtration. 10.2.16 Lighting including exterior lighting and the emission of interior light to the exterior. Page 826 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By‐Law No. 2022 ‐ A By‐law to amend By‐law No. 79‐200, as amended, to provide updated land use permissions related to the growth of cannabis for both medical and commercial purposes. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS is amended by removing the definition for “MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITY” and adding the following definitions where appropriate alphabetically, with all other definitions reordered accordingly: ““LICENCED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY” means lands, a building or greenhouse licenced by Health Canada in accordance with the applicable Federal Regulations, as amended from time to time, which is used for the cultivation, processing, packaging, testing, destruction, research and/or shipping of cannabis.” ““DESIGNATED MEDICAL GROWTH OF CANNABIS” means lands, a building or greenhouse used for the cultivation, processing or storing of cannabis for personal medical purposes on a single lot under the permission of two to four registration certificates provided by Health Canada, where one or more prescription is being grown by someone other than the person for whom the prescription is for, except a person designated to grow for another person both living in the same dwelling does not constitute designated medical growth of cannabis.” 2. SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS is amended by updating the definition for “SENSITIVE LAND USE” to remove the reference to “Medical Marijuana Facility” and replace it with “Licenced Cannabis Production Facility or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis” and to add to the end of the definition: “or zones that permit these uses” after the words “institutional uses”. 3. SECTION 4 – GENERAL PROVISIONS is amended by replacing the entirety of Section 4.35 with the following: LICENCED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND DESIGNATED MEDICAL GROWTH OF CANNABIS: a) Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities and Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis must be wholly enclosed in a building; b) Licenced Cannabis Production Facilities and Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis must be located a minimum of 500 metres from any sensitive land use ; c) Notwithstanding Subsection b), the 500 metre separation distance is not required to an existing dwelling on the same lot as the Licensed Cannabis Production Facility or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis; d) Outdoor storage or cultivation for Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis is prohibited; Page 827 of 842 e) Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities cannot be contained, either in whole or in part, within a dwelling; and f) No Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis shall emit any cannabis odour outside of a building. 4. SECTION 11.1 - PRESTIGE INDUSTRIAL ZONE (PI ZONE) is amended by adding “but excluding Licenced Cannabis Production Facilities and designated medical growth of cannabis ” after the word plants in subsection 11.1.1. j). 5. SECTION 11.2 - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (LI ZONE) is amended by adding “but excluding Licenced Cannabis Production Facilities and designated medical growth of cannabis” after the word plants in subsection 11.2.1. q). 6. SECTION 11.3 – GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE (GI ZONE) is amended by adding “Licenced cannabis production facility and designated medical growth of cannabis” to the PERMITTED USES list in Section 11.3.1. 7. SECTION 11.4 – HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE (HI ZONE) is amended by adding “Licenced cannabis production facility and designated medical growth of cannabis” to the PERMITTED USES list in Section 11.4.1. 8. Section 15.1 – DEVELOPMENT HOLDING ZONE (DH ZONE) is amended by adding “but excluding Licenced Cannabis Production Facilities and designated medical growth of cannabis” after the words “land” and “crops” in sections 15.1 e) and f) respectively. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ....................................................... ....................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 828 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By‐Law No. 2022 ‐ A By‐law to amend By‐law No. 1538 for the Township of Crowland, as amended, to provide updated land use permissions related to the growth of cannabis for both medical and commercial purposes. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS is amended by adding the following definitions where appropriate alphabetically, with all other definitions reordered accordingly: “LICENCED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY” means lands, a building or greenhouse licenced by Health Canada in accordance with the applicable Federal Regulations, as amended from time to time, which is used for the cultivation, processing, packaging, testing, destruction, research and/or shipping of cannabis. . ” “DESIGNATED MEDICAL GROWTH OF CANNABIS” means lands, a building or greenhouse used for the cultivation, processing or storing of cannabis for personal medical purposes on a single lot under the permission of two to four registration certificates provided by Health Canada, where one or more prescription is being grown by someone other than the person for whom the prescription is for, except a person designated to grow for another person both living in the same dwelling does not constitute designated medical growth of cannabis.” “SENSITIVE LAND USE” means any land use that may be adversely affected by the proximity of a Licenced Cannabis Production Facilities or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis including, without limiting, the generality of the foregoing, residential uses, campgrounds, child care facilities, playgrounds, schools, parks and Institutional uses and zones that permit these uses. 2. SECTION 5 – GENERAL PROVISIONS TO ALL DISTRICTS is amended by the addition of the following new section: LICENCED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND DESIGNATED MEDICAL GROWTH OF CANNABIS: a) Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities and Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis must be wholly enclosed in a building; b) Licenced Cannabis Production Facilities and Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis must be located a minimum of 500 metres from any sensitive land use; c) Notwithstanding Subsection b), the 500 metre separation distance is not required to an existing dwelling on the same lot as the Licensed Cannabis Production Facility or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis; Page 829 of 842 d) Outdoor storage or cultivation for Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis is prohibited; e) Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities cannot be contained, either in whole or in part, within a dwelling; f) No Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis shall emit any cannabis odour outside of a building; and 3. SECTION 20 – YARD STORAGE AND HEAVY MANUFACTURING DISTRICT is amended by adding “Licenced cannabis production facility and designated medical growth of cannabis” to SECTION 20.1.4 USES PERMITTED. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ....................................................... ....................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 830 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By‐Law No. 2022 ‐ A By‐law to amend By‐law No. 395 (1996) for Willoughby Township, to provide updated land use permissions related to the growth of cannabis for both medical and commercial purposes. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. SECTION III A PROVISIONS FOR ALL ZONES is amended by the addition of the following new section: Licenced cannabis production facilities and designated medical growth of cannabis – The following shall apply to cannabis cultivation and production where permitted: a) Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities and Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis must be wholly enclosed in a building; b) Licenced Cannabis Production Facilities and Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis must be located a minimum of 500 metres from any sensitive land use; c) Notwithstanding Subsection b), the 500 metre separation distance is not required to an existing dwelling on the same lot as the Licensed Cannabis Production Facility or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis; d) Outdoor storage or cultivation for Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis is prohibited; e) Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities cannot be contained, either in whole or in part, within a dwelling; and f) No Licensed Cannabis Production Facilities or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis shall emit any cannabis odour outside of a building. 2. SECTION III B – DEFINITIONS is amended by adding the following definitions where appropriate alphabetically, with all other definitions reordered accordingly: “LICENCED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY” means lands, a building or greenhouse licenced by Health Canada in accordance with the applicable Federal Regulations, as amended from time to time, which is used for the cultivation, processing, packaging, testing, destruction, research and/or shipping of cannabis.. ” “DESIGNATED MEDICAL GROWTH OF CANNABIS” means lands, a building or greenhouse used for the cultivation, processing or storing of cannabis for personal medical purposes on a single lot under the permission of two to four registration certificates provided by Health Canada, where one or more prescriptions is being grown by someone other than the person for whom the prescription is for, except a person designated to grow for another person both living in the same dwelling does not constitute designated medical growth of cannabis.” Page 831 of 842 “SENSITIVE LAND USE” means any land use that may be adversely affected by the proximity of a Licenced Cannabis Production Facilities or Designated Medical Growth of Cannabis including, without limiting, the generality of the foregoing, residential uses, campgrounds, child care facilities, playgrounds, schools, parks and Institutional uses and zones that permit these uses. 3. SECTION X – INDUSTRIAL is amended by adding “including licenced cannabis production facility and designated medical growth of cannabis” after the words “products establishments” and before the words “which do not emit obnoxious sound, odour, dust, fumes, vibration or smoke and which are not hazardous to the surrounding area”. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ....................................................... ....................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 832 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By‐Law No. 2022 ‐ A By‐law to amend By‐law No. 70-69 for the former Township of Humberstone now in the City of Niagara Falls, as amended, to provide updated land use permissions related to the growth of cannabis for both medical and commercial purposes. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section 10 is added to the by-law to include the following definitions. LICENCED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY” means lands, a building or greenhouse licenced by Health Canada in accordance with the applicable Federal Regulations, as amended from time to time, which is used for the cultivation, processing, packaging, testing, destruction, research and/or shipping of cannabis. Any licenced cannabis production facility within a greenhouse is subject to the requirements that apply to licenced cannabis production facilities.” “DESIGNATED MEDICAL GROWTH OF CANNABIS” means lands, a building or greenhouse used for the cultivation, processing or storing of cannabis for personal medical purposes on a single lot under the permission of two to four registration certificates provided by Health Canada, where one or more prescription is being grown by someone other than the person for whom the prescription is for, except a person designated to grow for another person both living in the same dwelling does not constitute designated medical growth of cannabis.” Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ....................................................... ....................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 833 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022- Being a by-law to amend Site Plan Control By-law No. 2011-113. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING ACT, 1990, HEREBY ENACT AS FOLLOWS: The Site Plan Control By-law No. 2011-113 of the City of Niagara Falls is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 1 is amended by adding the following definitions after the definition for “development”: ““licensed cannabis production facility” means lands, a building or greenhouse licenced by Health Canada in accordance with the applicable Federal Regulations, as amended from time to time, which is used for the cultivation, processing, packaging, testing, destruction, research and/or shipping of cannabis.” ““designated medical growth of cannabis” means lands, a building or greenhouse used for the cultivation, processing or storing of cannabis for personal medical purposes on a single lot under the permission of two to four registration certificates provided by Health Canada, where one or more prescriptions are designated to be grown by someone other than the person for whom the prescription is for, except a person designated to grow for another person both living in the same dwelling does not constitute designated medical growth of cannabis.” 2. Section 3(f) is amended by adding “and cannabis production facilities and designated medical growth of cannabis” after “save and except greenhouses greater than 2000 square metres”. 3. New Section 9 is added as follows, with the subsequent sections renumbered as needed: “At the discretion of the Director of Planning, Building and Development, or designate, studies may be requested to accompany a site plan application, including, but not limited to: air quality, lighting, traffic.” Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ....................................................... ....................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 834 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022 - A by-law to designate Lots 40, 41, & 49-53 (inclusive), Registered Plan 59M-491, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-004). WHEREAS subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides, in part, that the council of a local municipality may by by-law designate lands that would otherwise be subject to part-lot control, not be subject to such part-lot control; AND WHEREAS such by-laws are required under subsection 50(7.1) of the Planning Act to be approved by the appropriate approval authority, that being the Regional Municipality of Niagara as per subsection 51(5) of the Planning Act, subsequently delegated to the City of Niagara Falls by Regional Municipality of Niagara By-law No. 8819-97; AND WHEREAS the said lands are zoned by By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2020-014 to permit semi-detached and on-street townhouse dwellings; AND WHEREAS the owner of the said lands proposes to divide Lots 40, 41, and 49-53 into 4 parts for 2 semi-detached dwellings per block, to be sold separately; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it expedient to designate that the said lands not be subject to part-lot control. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, not apply to Lots 40, 41, & 49-53 (inclusive), Registered Plan 59M-491, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. 2. This by-law shall remain in full force and effect for two years from the date of passage of this by-law, after which time this by-law shall expire and be deemed to be repealed and of no effect. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ........................................................... ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR S:\PART LOT CONTROL\2022\PLC-2022-004 - GRIFFON ST\By-law - PLC-2022-004 - DRAFT.docx Page 835 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022 - A by-law to designate Block 101, Registered Plan 59M-484, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-005). WHEREAS subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides, in part, that the council of a local municipality may by by-law designate lands that would otherwise be subject to part-lot control, not be subject to such part-lot control; AND WHEREAS such by-laws are required under subsection 50(7.1) of the Planning Act to be approved by the appropriate approval authority, that being the Regional Municipality of Niagara as per subsection 51(5) of the Planning Act, subsequently delegated to the City of Niagara Falls by Regional Municipality of Niagara By-law No. 8819-97; AND WHEREAS the said lands are zoned by By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2019-003 to permit on-street townhouse dwellings; AND WHEREAS the owner of the said lands proposes to divide Block 101 into 6 parcels for 6 on-street townhouse units, to be sold separately; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it expedient to designate that the said lands not be subject to part-lot control. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, not apply to Block 101, Registered Plan 59M-484, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. 2. This by-law shall remain in full force and effect for two years from the date of passage of this by-law, after which time this by-law shall expire and be deemed to be repealed and of no effect. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ........................................................... ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR S:\PART LOT CONTROL\2022\PLC-2022-005 - FORESTVIEW ESTATES (BLOCK 101, Matteo Drive)\By-law - PLC-2022-005.docx Page 836 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022 - A by-law to designate Block 106, Registered Plan 59M-484, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-006). WHEREAS subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides, in part, that the council of a local municipality may by by-law designate lands that would otherwise be subject to part-lot control, not be subject to such part-lot control; AND WHEREAS such by-laws are required under subsection 50(7.1) of the Planning Act to be approved by the appropriate approval authority, that being the Regional Municipality of Niagara as per subsection 51(5) of the Planning Act, subsequently delegated to the City of Niagara Falls by Regional Municipality of Niagara By-law No. 8819-97; AND WHEREAS the said lands are zoned by By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2019-003 to permit on-street townhouse dwellings; AND WHEREAS the owner of the said lands proposes to divide Block 106 into 6 parcels for 5 on-street townhouse units, to be sold separately; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it expedient to designate that the said lands not be subject to part-lot control. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, not apply to Block 106, Registered Plan 59M-484, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. 2. This by-law shall remain in full force and effect for two years from the date of passage of this by-law, after which time this by-law shall expire and be deemed to be repealed and of no effect. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ........................................................... ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR S:\PART LOT CONTROL\2022\PLC-2022-006 - FORESTVIEW ESTATES (BLOCK 106)\By-law - PLC-2022-006.docx Page 837 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022 - A by-law to designate Blocks 109, 110, & 111, Registered Plan 59M-484, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-007). WHEREAS subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides, in part, that the council of a local municipality may by by-law designate lands that would otherwise be subject to part-lot control, not be subject to such part-lot control; AND WHEREAS such by-laws are required under subsection 50(7.1) of the Planning Act to be approved by the appropriate approval authority, that being the Regional Municipality of Niagara as per subsection 51(5) of the Planning Act, subsequently delegated to the City of Niagara Falls by Regional Municipality of Niagara By-law No. 8819-97; AND WHEREAS the said lands are zoned by By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2019-003 to permit on-street townhouse dwellings; AND WHEREAS the owner of the said lands proposes to divide Block 109 into 5 parcels for 5 on-street townhouse units, Block 110 into 5 parcels for 5 on-street townhouse units, and Block 111 into 6 parcels for 6 on-street townhouse units, to be sold separately; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it expedient to designate that the said lands not be subject to part-lot control. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, not apply to Blocks 109, 110, & 111, Registered Plan 59M-484, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. 2. This by-law shall remain in full force and effect for two years from the date of passage of this by-law, after which time this by-law shall expire and be deemed to be repealed and of no effect. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ........................................................... ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR S:\PART LOT CONTROL\2022\PLC-2022-007 - FORESTVIEW ESTATES (BLOCKS 109, 110 & 111)\By-law - PLC-2022-007.docx Page 838 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022 - A by-law to designate Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, & 58, Registered Plan 59M-491, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2022-008). WHEREAS subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides, in part, that the council of a local municipality may by by-law designate lands that would otherwise be subject to part-lot control, not be subject to such part-lot control; AND WHEREAS such by-laws are required under subsection 50(7.1) of the Planning Act to be approved by the appropriate approval authority, that being the Regional Municipality of Niagara as per subsection 51(5) of the Planning Act, subsequently delegated to the City of Niagara Falls by Regional Municipality of Niagara By-law No. 8819-97; AND WHEREAS the said lands are zoned by By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2020-014 to permit semi-detached dwellings; AND WHEREAS the owner of the said lands proposes to adjust the boundary line between Lots 19 and 20 by 0.27 metres, adjust the boundary line between Lots 22 & 23 by 0.2 metres, divide Lot 19 into 2 parts for 2 semi-detached dwelling units, divide Lot 22 into 2 parts for 2 semi-detached dwelling units, divide Lot 57 into 2 parts for 2 semi- detached dwelling units, and divide Lot 58 into 2 parcels for 2 semi-detached dwelling units, to be sold separately; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it expedient to designate that the said lands not be subject to part-lot control. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, not apply to Lots 19, 20, 22, 23, 57 and 58, Registered Plan 59M-491, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. 2. This by-law shall remain in full force and effect for two years from the date of passage of this by-law, after which time this by-law shall expire and be deemed to be repealed and of no effect. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. ........................................................... ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR S:\PART LOT CONTROL\2022\PLC-2022-008 - LYONS CREEK PHASE 5 (BLOCKS 19, 20, 22, 23, 57, 58)\By-law - PLC-2022-008.docx Page 839 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . By-law No. 2002-081 is amended by deleting Schedule “B” and that Schedule “B” attached hereto shall be inserted in lieu thereof. 2. That by-law 2022-34 be hereby repealed. Read a first, second, third time and passed. Signed and sealed in open Council on this 10th day of May, 2022. ............................................................... ........................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 840 of 842 SCHEDULE “B” 1. Municipal By-law Enforcement Officers: Paul Brown Jonathan Cook Robert Davis Sandro Elia Mansour Elmujamer Doug Evans Mike Formica John Grubich Emily Ludiciani Gurlovepreet Rai Philip Rudachuk Bart Skiba Brian Sparks Gerald Spencer Heather Stones Nicholas Turkovich Salvatore Valeo Patrick Vernon In an effort to assist with enforcing emergency orders, a ministerial designation under the Provincial Offences Act was made to authorize the following personnel to enforce the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. for Park and Public Facilities Enforcement;  Ron Burley  Scott Jamieson  Troy McConnery  Carrie Luciow  Jeff Thompson  Jason Pirosko for Transit hubs / facilities and for all non-essential travel onboard buses;  Chris Russell  Wayne Hildebrandt  Pankaj Sachdeva  Melissa Lea  Jerry Latondress  Joe Corradi Page 841 of 842 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2022 - A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 10th day of May, 2022. WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient that the actions and proceedings of Council as herein set forth be adopted, ratified and confirmed by by-law. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The actions of the Council at its meeting held on the 10th day of May, 2022 including all motions, resolutions and other actions taken by the Council at its said meeting, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if they were expressly embodied in this by-law, except where the prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board or other authority is by law required or any action required by law to be taken by resolution. 2. Where no individual by-law has been or is passed with respect to the taking of any action authorized in or with respect to the exercise of any powers by the Council, then this by-law shall be deemed for all purposes to be the by-law required for approving, authorizing and taking of any action authorized therein or thereby, or required for the exercise of any powers thereon by the Council. 3. The Mayor and the proper officers of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said actions of the Council or to obtain approvals where required, and, except where otherwise provided, the Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents arising therefrom and necessary on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and t o affix thereto the corporate seal of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. Read a first, second, third time and passed. Signed and sealed in open Council this 10th day of May, 2022. .............................................................. ............................................................. BILL MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 842 of 842