Loading...
2009/09/28CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA EIGHTH MEETING Monday, September 28, 2009 Committee Room #2 - 4:00 p.m. 1. Minutes of the September 14, 2009 meeting 2. Reports/Deuutations Staff Contact a) CD-2009-12 DeanIorFda Green Oaks Mobile Home Park The following are scheduled to speak: Nicho/as Bader, Campbe//Partners Tom Richardson, Su//ivan Mahoney Mar/een Nee/in, Green Oaks Mobi/e Home Park Bev Morrissette, Green Oaks Mobi/e Home Park b) CPS-2009-11 Ken Burden 6592 Dunn Street Disposition of Property c) F-2009-46 Todd Harrison 2008 Consolidated Financial Statements Mark Pa/umbi, Crawford, Smith & Swa//aw d) F-2009-45 Todd Harrison Operating Results as of August 31, 2009 e) CPS-2009-09 Ken Burden Water/Wastewater Operations Long Range Financial Plan f) FS-2009-07 Lee Smith Radio System 3. New Business 4. Adjournment ,: Nrajgara MINUTES OF CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE Seventh Meeting, Monday, September 14, 2009, Committee Room 2, 5:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Ted Salci, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair; Councillors Jim Diodati, Shirley Fisher, Vince Kerrio, Bart Maves, Wayne Thomson, Janice Wing and Carolynn loannoni STAFF: Ken Todd, Ed Dujlovic, Ken Burden, Dean lorfida, Ken Beaman, Bob Bolibruck, Todd Harrison, Karl Dren, Phil Ross, Serge Felicetti, Trent Dark and Lisa Wall. GUEST: Nicholas Bader, Campbell Partners; Thomas Richardson, Sullivan Mahoney; Brian Topolinsky, Beverley Morrissette, Bonnie Vankesteren, Mary Destefano, Gordon Packwood, Marshall & Peggy Stewart, James McCutcheon, Bev Corlis, Chris Palmer, Margaret Barnes, AI Borris, Jerry McPhail, Derek Watson, Paul & Kari Hawlitzky, Marleen Neelin, Shirley Bedell -residents of Green Oaks Mobile Home Park. PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review MINUTES: MOVED by Councillor Fisher, seconded by Mayor Salci that the minutes of the July 20, 2009 meeting be adopted as recorded. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council September 14, 2009. 2. REPORTS: L-2009-43 Green Oakes Mobile Home Park MOVED by Councillor Diodati, seconded by Mayor Salci that the report be deferred to the next Corporate Services Committee meeting and; that staff report back with regard to the People Need Housing document. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council September 14, 2009. -2- L-2009-39 City Sale of Auction Lands MOVED by Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Kerrio that Council receive the report for information purposes. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council September 14, 2009. L-2009-36 McLeod Road Cost Sharing Agreement MOVED by Mayor Salci, seconded by Councillor loannoni that the report be deferred to the Community Services Committee agenda. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council September 14, 2009. HR-2009-05 Corporate Pandemic Plan MOVED by Councillor loannoni, seconded by Councillor Diodati that Council receive the information and approvethe policies,400.39 Humane Resources Practices During a Pandemic/Emergency and 400.40 Working From Home During a Pandemic, along with the Corporate Business Continuity/Pandemic Plan. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council September 14, 2009. 3. NEW BUSINESS: MOVED by Councillor loannoni, seconded by Councillor Wing that staff report back on the investigations into reassessing of Marineland. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council September 14, 2009. 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Niagara,Falls CD-2009-12 September 28, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Clerks SUBJECT: CD-2009-12 Green Oaks Mobile Home Park DATION That the City decline to enact a by-law pursuant to section 99.1 of the Municipal Act, to specifically deal with the Green Oaks Mobile Home Park situation; but That staff continue to investigate the possibility of a by-law related to conversion applications. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The enactment of a by-law pursuant to section 99.1 of the Municipal Act, to specifically deal with the Green Oaks Mobile Home Park situation, is inappropriate for the reasons highlighted in this report and past reports. In addition, the submission by the lawyer for some of the Green Oaks residents does not call for the prohibition of demolition of the mobile home park. Clearly, the municipality can pass a by-law under 99.1 but such a by-law should be applicable throughout the municipality. There may be a value in enacting a by-law under the section that may require conditions for conversions and demolition but staffwould need to do a more thorough analysis and Council should direct whether such an exercise is a priority. BACKGROUND The background on the circumstances surrounding this report is familiar to Council. Council is reminded of the specific motions emanating from past reports: That Council defer any decision on considering a by-law under section 99.1 of the Municipal Act to allow staff to do further research and allow the solicitor for the residents to prepare a submission; and That staff be directed to assist parties to investigate alternative solutions. (July 20) That the report be deferred to the next Corporate Services Committee meeting and that staff report back with regard to the People Need Housing document. (September 14) September 28, 2009 - 2 - CD-2009-12 ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The Green Oaks Mobile Home Park situation has been a difficult one, fraught with emotion. Council and staff are certainly sympathetic to the plight of the Green Oaks residents, who will have to look for new living accommodations and, in most cases, will be unable to salvage their mobile homes. On the other hand, one has to recognize the right of a property owner to determine the use of his or her property within the legislative regimes that exist. As indicated in the past reports, there is no evidence that the owner has not proceeded in compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. For the residents of Green Oaks, section 99.1 of the MunicipalActwas seen as a possible panacea to their eviction from the mobile park home. The recent submission by counsel for a number of the Green Oaks residents, however, does not even expect a possible City by-law under the section to "save" the plight of the residents: "The residents are not asking for a prohibition of the demolition of their units at Green Oaks." Counsel for the residents is asking for, "Council to have staff undertake the study for, development of and passing of a by-law regulating the conversion or demolition of residential rental properties pursuantto subsection 99.1 of the MunicipalAct." The request is reasonable, although staff would suggest that the passing of such a by-law should not be a fait accompli but a decision of Council based on a future recommendation report of Planning staff and a public process engaging landlords in the community. Counsel for the residents, in his submission, emphasizes the section's authority to regulate demolition or conversions. He suggests that reporting requirements or additional landlord assistance might be the type of requirements contained in a section 99.1 by-law, although staff would caution that a municipality does not have the power to impose a condition on any permit which requires one person to compensate another. Counsel points out that the Toronto by-law does not prohibit demolitions and conversions but requires conditions such as notification of provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006., the possibility for tenants to move into rental units that have replaced demolished units and cost impacts under condo conversions. A section 99.1 by-law has no application in condominium conversions in which the intent of the applicant is to maintain the property as rental accommodation. A section 99.1 by-law applies when residential rental accommodation is converted to something other than residential rental accommodation. A rented condo unit remains residential rental accommodation. The only difference is that the landlord owns a unit instead of a building. A section 99.1 by-law will not apply to a condominium conversion in which the proponent intends to continue to rent the units. A section 99.1 by-law applies only to situations in which the number of available residential rental units is reduced. When a conversion is undertaken that does not reduce the number of available residential rental units, any conditions that council would want to apply would come from the Planning Act and the Condominium Act 1998. The solicitor reportsthatthecondominiumconversionsthatcome to Council would not be affected by such a by-law. It is worth staff exploring the possibility of such conditions or regulations but the enactment of a possible section 99.1 by-law should not be rushed into or enacted to retrospectively deal with an individual scenario. September 28, 2009 - 3 - CD-2009-12 The past Legal reports clearly outline why such a by-law should not be enacted to effectively prohibit the elimination of the mobile home park: The correspondence from the solicitors for Marineland of Canada lnc. raises the issue of the retrospective application of a section 99.1 by-law to the Green Oaks Mobile Home Park. Generally speaking, there is a presumpfion against any law having retrospective effect. Stated another way, the law presumes that the legislature (in this case, the City Council) does not intend to take away existing rights. There is no question that a court considering a challenge to a section 99.1 by-law enacted in the immediate circumstances would carefully examine the by-law and rationale for the by-law. The Courts are not sympathetic to municipal councils that appear to rush into legislative decisions without the benefit of any reflection, study orconsultation with the persons likely to be affected by a by-law.. Further, the law does not permit a by-law thaf is, or appears to be, targeted at a certain individual. A by-law of this type cannot be enacted solely to prohibit one land owner from converting his property from a residential tenancy to some other use. The by-law would have to affect a!I or at least a large number of residential landlords. Staff has not had an opportunity to do a full analysis of The People Needing Housing Report prepared for the Region of Niagara by Social Housing Strategists, whetherthe 2004 report is still applicable or whether it was adopted and is currently being followed by the Region. Such analysis should be done in a thoughtful and thorough manner. An analysis will have to be done and statistics compiled on the adequacy of the residential tenancy market, the number of demolitions, which appear to be negligible on first glance, the effect of condominium conversions on availability of rental stock and the construction of new residential housing, such as the recent Dunn Street application approved by Council. The People Needing Housing Report does call for the preservation of existing affordable rental stock; however, is the preservation of a mobile home park necessarily what was intended by this statement or in the greater public interest? It would seem that one's decision to live in a mobile home park is a lifestyle choice. Would those seeking rental accommodations, such as an apartment, be likely to purchase a mobile home as an alternative? As indicated in past reports, although a mobile home park fits the definition of a residential complex, Toronto's section 99.1 by-law is not applicable to mobile home parks and Ottawa is undecided whether to pass such a by-law and include mobile home parks. As indicated, staff is certainly sympathetic to the residents; however, their issues are between them and their landlord. The forum for such issues is the Landlord and Tenant Board. Also, many of the residents are represented by counsel and through consultation with their solicitor will determine what legal course of action to take. FINANCIAUSTAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Some estimates have been previously reported and questioned. If Council wants staff to continue to review a possible section 99.1 by-law, a more thorough report on cost implications should be brought forward. September 28, 2009 - 4 - CD-2009-12 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Report L-2009-33. 2. Council Report L-2009-43. 3. Submission by Nicholas C. Bader dated September 14, 2009 Recommended by: De n lorfida, Ci lerk Approved by: K. E. Respectfully submitted: Director, Corporate Services Administrative Officer DIlKB Attachments L-2ao9-43 Niagaraf~iills September 14, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Legal Services The recommendatiQn(si contained in this repartwere SUBJECT: L-2009-43 ainendedf,ysommitxee and Green Oaks Mcbile Home Park ratified gyGity Gxruncil Our File No. 2009-142 RECOMMENDATION That Council decline toenact a by-law pursuant to section 99.1 of the Municipal Acf, 2001. That the report be deferred to the next Corp. Services meeting and; that staff report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY back with regard to the People Need Housing document,t. A by-law of this type cannot be enacted solely to prohibit one land owner from converting his property from a residential tenancy to some other use. The by-law would have to affect all or at least a large number of residential landlords. There is no evidence that the by-law would increase the number of available affordable residential units. The available evidence indicates that the residential rental property market in Niagara Falls is healthy. BACKGROUND The occupants of the Green Oaks Mobile Home Park have invited the City to enact a by- law so that they will not have to litigate with the owner of the trailer park. The by-law will be contested by the owner of the trailer park. The City will have to bear the cost of upholding the by-law. Further background is set out in the attached Report L-2D09-33. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The cost of defending the by-law is likely to exceed $50,000.00. This figure represents the estimated cost of retaining legal counsel and does not include an allowance for retaining consultants to develop the evidence to be led in support of the by-law. Retaining a consultant to develop the evidence to support the by-law is the best course of action for Council to take in order to prepare the best possible case to defend the by-law. The consultant would be required to develop a theory to support intervention in the residential tenancies market that will break new ground. Currently, the situation is that Council has received a number of reports indicating that the City of Niagara Falls enjoys a residential vacancy rate of more than 3 percent. The CMHC has, for many years, advised that a 3 percent vacancy rate in the residential tenancy market indicates a healthy residential tenancy market. Niagara Falls will have to develop evidence to refute this long standing advice. Sepfsmber 14, 2009 - 2 - L-2009-43 Niagara Falis will also have to develop evidence to address the fact that a residential rental project has recently been approved at Dunn Street. It is difficult to demonstrate that there needs to be a freeze on the conversion or demclition of residential housing when new construction is being undertaken. The fac#that a number ofconversions of rental apartments to condominiums have recently occurred, cannot be relied upon as evidence of a decline in the supply of residential apartments without further analysis. It is known to Council and Staff that a number of the converted buildings continue to be used as rental accommodation. FINANCIAUSTAFFINGlLEGAL IMPLICATIONS At least $50,000.00 should be budgeted for the defence of the by-law, if Council chooses to pass such a by-law. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Letters from lawyers. Report L-2009-33 and related minutes. Recommended by: Ken Beaman, City Solicitor Approved by: ~- K. E. urdenJ~ _~ x~ecut~~ive Director, Corporate Services Respectfully submitted: ~~~W~r'iF'(F'v` Ke Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Ke Attachment _ _ T2009 can loch a - RE: Se ion of t e unrcr I Ac - a e From: "Nicholas C. Bader"' <ncb~campballlawyers.net> To: "'Dean lortida'" <dio~ida~niagarefalis.ca> Date: 9/8/2009 10:31 AM Subject: RE: Section 99.1 of the Municipal Act CC: "'Ken Beaman"' <kbeaman{~niagarafalls.ca> Mr. lorfida, Please confirm that! am scheduled to make the follow up presentation to Council on September 14, 2009. Regards, Nick Nicholas C. Bader Partner Campbell Partners LLP 2824 Dunwin Drive, Suite 1 Mississauga, Ontario L5L3T5 (905} 828-2247 tel (905} 828-4311 fax ncb~campbelllawyers. net This email may contain privileged, private or copyrighted information. Any unauthorized use is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender and destroy the email immediately, ---Original Message- From: Dean lorfida [mailto:diorfida(~niagarafalls.ca] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:13 PM To: ncb@campbelllawyers.net Cc: Ken Beaman Subject: Re: Section 99.1 of the Municipal Act Thanks for the prompt reply. I look forward to the corcespandence. Dean --Original Message-- From: "Nicholas C. Bader' <ncb~campbelllawyers.net> To: <ncb@campbelllawyers.net> To: Dean lorfida <diorfida~niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Ken Beaman <kbeaman{c~niagarafalls.ca> Sent: 8/2112009 12:20:00 PM Subject: RE: Section 99.1 of the Municipal Act Dear Mr. lorfida, 9/8 can o i a - :Sedan - o e unai Ac Pa e 2 My client is reviewing correspondence which I intend io send out today Thanks, Nick -----Original Message- From: Dean lofida [mailto:diorfidas~niagarafalls.caJ Sent: Friday, August 21, 200911:31 AM To: ncb(r~.campbelllawyers.nef Cc: Ken Beaman Subject: Section 99.1 of the Municipal Act Mr. Bader. I am Just following up regaMing the matter that was before Niagara Falls City Council last month. As the excerpt of the July 2Dth Council minutes state, a defercal occurced to allow, amongst other actions, you to prepare a submission. Can you provide me an update, from your perspective. Thanks Dean Dean lofida, City Clerk Nlagare Falls 905-356-7521, Ext. 4271 905-356-9083 (Fax) L-2009-33 Application of Section 98.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 Our File No. 2009-142 That Council defer any dec~ion on considering a by-law under s. 99.1 of the Municipal Act to allow staff to do further research and allow the solicitor for the residents to prepare a submission; and That staff be directed to assist.parties to investigate alternatives. Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version ofvirus signature database 4356(20090821) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http:llwww.eset.com Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4358 (20090821) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. Campbell Partners>F,,VP Barristers, SoHcitora andNatariea LAUGHI,IN J. CAMPBELL LL,B. NICHOLAS C. BADER LL.B. PATRtCIA RO[iRiGUEZ-MCNEII.L LL.B. COLD] C.G. PYE LLB. 1.2623 Duawia 13rire Mississauga, ON ISL 3T5 Tel: 905-826-27A7 Pax: 905628-031 ] August 21, 2009 VIA EMAIL TO kbeaman@niagarafalls.ca Ken Beaman City Solicitor 4310 Queen St. P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 VIA EMAIL TO tarichardson@sullivan-mahoney.com Thomas A. Richardson Sullivan Mahoney LLP Barristers & Solicitors 40 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1360 St. Catherines, Ontario L2R 6Z2 1Jeaz Sirs: Re: Green Oaks Mobile Home Park {the "Park' ncb~camvbellJawvers.net I am writing in respect of Mr. Richardson's letter dated August 13, 2009. It is unfortunate but not entirely unexpected that Marineland of Canada Inc. ("MarineIand") has decided to take withdraw frnm good faith negotiations. Mr. Richardson has provided, on behalf of Marineland, its position with respect to the Restdentiai Tenancies Act, 2006 (Ontario). Our position is contrary and also supported by the law. We have stated that the $3,000.00 in compensation is a statutory minimum. Further, the representations made by Mr. Hofer (directly to some of the residents in the pazk) and lack of maintenance in the park give rise to a number of causes of action against Marineland and against Mr. Holer personally. In the event that City Council declines to exercise its statutory poweas under section 99.1 of the Municipal Act, the residents of the Park will have no choice but to proceed to court. We aze entirely unconcerned about the threat of a counterclaim. Mazineland and Mr. Hofer can 'be sure that the plaintiffs involved in any court action will have all of their rent and property tax paid to date. In response to Marineland's assertions that the tenants have failed to pay rent, we reiterate that the previously communicated maintenance issues which have not been resolved in the Park: (1) Abandoned properties are slowly falling apart, allowing pests and wild animals to nest in the mobile homes (along with overgrown vegetation and weeds); (2} Trees have encroached on many of the hydro lines throughout the park; (3) Lack of water pressure in 3 of 4 water lines (residents complain that it is almost impossible to have a shower at certain times of the day); (4) Sewage is leaking onto the pazk property from damaged sewer lines under the park, this results in a foul smell at some of the units; (5} Fire extinguishers azound the park are infested with bees' nests; (6) Drainage is a problem in the park as the main drain in the centre of the park is unable to accommodate large amounts of rain water, resulting in flooding to several trailers during hazsh rain storms; and (7) Pothole repair is not done quickly after rainfalls, making driving in and out of the park a challenge for some residents. Finally, as agreed at Ci#y Counci] meeting on Iuly 20a', 2009 our office is to provide further submissions on a Section 99.1 by-law. 1rJe had deferred any submissions to allow the parties to engage in an informal mediation process with the assistance of Mr. Beaman. In his letter, Mr. Richardson makes Marineland's position clear in this regazd. As such we are requesting an indulgence until September 14, 2009 to accommodate the writer's schedule and to allow further time to prepares m~ss~ons. a anticipate being able to provide advance copies of any documentation we intend to present on September 14, 2009 to Mr. Richazdson and the City Council for consideration. Please advise if September 14, 2009 is agreeable to both of you. Yours very truly, CAMPBELL PARTNERS LLP Per: /~ NICHOLAS C. BARER NCBIrs (.bmp) cc. Brian Topolinsky jtopper@iaw.on.ca] ' ~ 4' i9 i ~ if ~ ' 1 ~ r egg ~ ' 'ld99 ` ,, ~ I''~ i , ^ ~ August 13, 2004 Pferse~replyloSY. CaihorlmsgfJ7ce Via B-ma8 to kbeaman(u1~tAOarafalls ca Mr. Kenneth L. Beaman, City Solicitor ' City ofNiagara Falls City Hall 4310 Queen Street N[agara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Vla E-mail to nchra'tcamnbelilawversuet Mr. Nicholas C. Bader Campbell Partners LLP Banisters, Solicitors and Notaries 2624 Dunwin Drive, Suite i Mississauga, ON I,SL 3T5 Dear Mr. Beaman and Mr, Bade:: Ito: Marineland of Canada Inc. Closure of Green Oaka Mobile Home Parlr Our• FIle No. 71335 Further to our meeting on August 5, 2009, we have now discussed the positions of your respective clients with our diettt, Marinaland of Canada lna. ("Marineland"). Martnoiand has indicated to us that it wil[ not offer any compensation to the tenants of Green Oaks Mobile Home Park ("Green Oaks"} other than the $3,000.00 compensation that is payable to each Tenant in accordance with the ResfclentiaT Tenancies .Ict, 2006 (Ontario). As you know, Marine[and's position is that It has acted in accordance with the requirements set out in the Resliienfkrl Tenancies Acl, 2006 (Ontario) with 1•espect to the closure of Green Oaks, and any attempt by the tenants of Green Oaks rn• the City of Niagara Fails to impose a responsibility on Marineland to provide lotiv income housing or tc provide addlticnal compensation to the tenants of Green Oaks is unreasonable, unfair and not supported by taw. With respect to the legal action threatened by the tenants of Green Oaks in an attempt to delay the closure ofGrecn Oaks, Marineland wants to make it clear to Mr, Bader's clients that ifsuch an action is commenced, Marineland will counterclaim against dte Green Oaks tenants for all damages and losses sustained by Marineland relating to the delay in the conversion of the Green Oaks property to the uses intended by Marineland, for the payment of ail arrears of property taxes owing by the Green Oaks tenants, and for all of Marinoland's legal fees on a solicitor and client basis. 40Qaeen 8Ucs4 P.O. BsMt 1360, St. Cadsedaex Onlado L2R 6L2 rdephone:90Sfi88~6655, FaasimBa 905688,SBW 4781 Podnga Read. NAieasn PaRa, Onlado Lra 6BI TclcpNena 9 053 5 7-05 6 0, FacsisuBse 905357-0SOF N'gYaai)'a119110hp1eY.GW1 VF. Murotaai, Q.C. P.B. Bedmd TA. Rkhasds9n P,M.9lmehnu W.B. AteKate B. Delhi DA QsuaR JJN.Ouda R.B. CuRRou JJt. Bush PA. MehonaY 0.A. MnMaHld . MJ. Bouasd O.W MdSiun 3J. Prcmi C. UAuBeb R. Vm~a T. Wdl KA.9od; . Al.7rasps M.F. Adana L;K,Pmsons C.L Baba J.P. Maloney SR.WeFIe e[Cwsssl(Cawnusclal LanrJ; M.A Kd1ud: Page 2 Fnrthermot~, due to the ciroumstances facing the Oreen Oaks tenants, up until how Marineland has acted in good fhith and has noE actively pursued evlation due to non-payment of rent. However, given the level of resistance beL~g exhibited by the Green Oaks tenants, Martneland now has !}o choice but to vigorously pmgrw, through the Landioxd and Tenant Woaid, the irnmediata eviction of all Green Oaks tenants who a~ro in arrears of rent. Attached for your reference is a copy of a spreadsheet effective as of August 8, 2409, which shows the amount of property tax and rent anroars owing by each of Mr. Bader's clients. As you will see, Mr. Wader's clients' property tax an'eals total $8,8&0.61, and their rent anears fatal $30,038.54 as of August 8, 2009, Only a few of Mr. Wader's clients are not in arrears of teat at the present time, it is interesting to Hate that Mr. Bader's clients, most of whom are in arrears, ale the same individuals that are elslming that Marineland is acting unfairly and in violation of the law. In reality, it is Mr. Bader's clients who are b!•eaching their contractual and legal obligations. W1th respect to the possibility that the City of Niagara Fails may pass a by-law pursuant to Section 99.1 of the Munlcfpal Act, 2001 {OMario}, we will ba very interested in Hto language that is used in s!!ch a by-taw. [f the City of Niaga~•a Falls intends to pass such a by-law, than we will ensure that rental residential property owners in Niagara Falls are made aware that such a by-law is being considered. fn addition, Marineland will not hesitate to bring the appropriate legal action against the City of Niagara Falls if such a by-law is passed. We trust that this correspondence snakes our client's position clear. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the content of this letter. Yours verytruly, SULi,IVAPI, iY1A1>lONEY LLP Par: ~~~~ ~m FSOCto${a'e 17wmas A. Richardson CO-M8. `ttBCr SteWalt, M~atnelaad of Canada lnc. duty 20, 2op8 .~. Niagara;~cl~'s C :i M1h h 3.i .~ Councillor Victor Pietrangeb and Members of the Corporate Services Commtttee City of Niagara FaNs, Ontario till@rflbErS: L-2Qd9.33 Thn rocomme~Matlon(sl co~ln etl in thls report yrera ainentledhycoifuNkee one ~aNflsd dy Cky Council Ra: ~-za09-33 Appticaticn at'sec~an 99.1 of the ~luntcfpaf Add 2$~1 thtr File:N~r. 2Qt39=14Y R6CQ MF3A'PlflN: That Lb dine to ena~,Lw pursuant t2i sec~twn 99:1 of thud r~nki~r&1 Act,. 2001. Tha# Courrcii defer any decision on cansldering a by-law under s. 99.1 of the Municipef Act to allow amH to do further researoh alht altaw the selicitar far the residerrts to prepare a submission; and That staff be directed to assist parties to investigats alternative solutions. On Jung $, 2009 Counoii resoMr®d-that: ORDERED on the matiorr of Councillor 1Ning, seconded by Councillor loannon(that Staff pnspare report back on the applicability of section 99.1 of the ~ifunfcipal Act In the Green Oakes Mobile Homo situa#ion and that Staff oomsult with the owner. Section 99.t afthe Murrlc/pal Act, 2009 provides as follows: 99.1(1} Demotitlon and aarrverslon of residenttal rental properties A local munitdpality may prohibit and regufafa the demolition of residential rerftai praparfies and may prohibit and regulafe the esrnv~sion of residentiaE rental properties.ti3 a:pu:pose other than the purpose of a residential rental property, 99,1(2} Sam9 - The power to pass a 6y-law respecting a matter descritaed in subaectian (t) includes the power, (a} to prohibif the demolition of resfdeMiafrerifal properties without a permit; (b} to prohibit the conversion of residential rental properties to a purpose other than the purpose of a resldentisi rental property wthout a permit; and (c} to Impose oonditio a ~=sa iequiremant of obtaining a pernaR. ff!nrkTngTo~elfberto~ervetlrtrComrrturel~y ~ o~*~servreearraparrmelx - LegalBervfaes July 20, 2D09 - 2 - L-2009.33 99.1(3} Restriction The municipalty cannot prohibit or regulate the demolition orconversion of a residential rental property that contains less than six dwetling units. 99.1(4) Effect of building cod®, etc. Despite section 35 of the Building Code Act,1892, in the event that the Building Code Act, 1992 or a regulation made under that Act and a by-law prohibiting or regulating the demolition or conversion of a residential rental property treat the same subject matter in different ways, that Act or the regulation under that Act prevails and the by-law is inoperative to the extent that the Act or regulation and the by-taw treat the same subject matter. 99.1{5) Same If a permit to demolish a residential rental property is issued under this section, no permit is required under section 8 of the Building Code Act, 1992 to demolish the property. 99.1(8) Report The municipality shall report statistics and other information concerning the demolition and conversion of residential rental properties to the Minister and shall do so at the times and in the form and manner specified by the Minister. 2008, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 40 Analysis: The intent of the section Is to provide municipalities with the legislative authority to regulate and prohibitthe demolition of residential buildings. The origins of the section can be traced back to the affordable housing policies ofthe provincial governments of the late 1980's and early 1990's that were embodied in the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1986, S.O. 1986, c.26. These policies required tha# property owners seeking to demolish or convert rental properties to other uses ware required to obtain the approval of the municipality prior to doing so. In 1997, the provincial government elected to change its policies and replaced ~e Renfa/ Housing Protection Act,1986with the Tenant Protection Act,1997, S.O. 1997, c.24. The new Act altered the emphasis of provincial regulation in this area. The emphasis shifted from preservation of buildings to the rights of tenants. Some larger municipalities, particularly the City of Toronto, wanted to maintain an emphasis on building preservation. They responded to the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1988 by enacting Official Plan policies that imposed on building owners a regime of regulation that was virtually identical to the one created by the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1986. July 20, 2009 -3 - L-2009-33 The City of Toronto's authority to enact such Official Ptan policies was challenged before the Courts. The City of Toronto prevailed. There then ensued a large numberof lengthy Ontario Municipal Board cases involving efforts to convert or demolish rental buildings. This was not a desirable state of affairs, not only because of the number, length aril complexity of the cases, but also because an Official Plan is meant to be a statement of policy, not an instrument of regulation. By-laws are meant to regulate. Section 99.1 of the Municipal Acf, 2001 restores to municipalities the power to regulate rental housing conversion by by-law. Of course, the by-law must still be supported by appropriate Official Plan policies in accordance with the requirements of section 24 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. It is the opinion of Legal Services that section 99.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 could be used to regulate the demolition and conversion of the trailer parks. The Tenant Protection Act, 2008, which replaced the Tenant Protection Acf, 1997, applies to "residential units In residential complexes". "Residential units" can include a site for a mobile home. "Residential complex" can include a "mobile home park." It would appearthat Green Oaks Trailer Park is a MobNe Homs Park. As the purpose of section 99.1 is to preserve residential rental properties, It would follow that the words "residential rental properties" as they appear in that section should be read as synonymous with the words "residential complex" as khey appear in the Residen8al Tenancies Act, 2006. Every "residentia! complex" is a "residential rental property". As a mobile home park fs a residential complex, it would follow that a mobile home park is a residential rental property. It follows that a mobile home park, such as the Green Oaks Trader Park, could be made subject to a by-law enacted pursuant to section 99.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001. In addition, the actions of Marineland of Canada Inc., when dealing with the occupants of Green Oaks are consistent with the actions of a residential landlord serving notice of termination upon residential tenants. Having said that, Legal Services submits the following observations: Staff has canvassed approximately 30 municipalities and have been advised that only the City of Toronto has enacted a section 99.1 by-law. That by-law does not apply to mobile home parks. Ottawa has been considering enacting a section 99.1 by-law forover a year. That City Is undecided on whetherto proceed with such a by-law and as to whether or not the by-law would apply to mobile home parks. The Ceurts are not sympathetic to municipal Councils that appear to rush into legislative decisions without the benefit of any reflection, study or consultation with the persons likely to be affected by a by-law. It is, therefore, recommended that Council be cautious In exercising legislative authority in this area without having the benefit of analysis of the likely impact of the by-law upon the citizens of the municipality. Further, the law does not permit a by-law that is, or appears to be, targeted at a certain individual. A by-law must be of universal application and apply equally to all persons of the same circumstance. Therefore, it is recommended that if Council chooses to enact a by- law, the by-law apply to all residential rental properties of six or more units. The by-law should also include specific criteria to guide Staff and Council In the July 20, 2009 -4 - L-2009-33 administration of each application. An allocation of funding and resources, Loge#her with a comprehensive administrative plan would demonstrate the good faith of the Council in its exercise of Its powers as set out in section 99.1. Staff estimates the cost of such a study to be at least $75,000.00. The by-law would also require that Council set up an administrative regime in order to comply with the requirements of subsection 99.1(6). It is recommended that Council be provided with an estimate of the cost of this regime before the by-law is passed. As instructed, Staff have met with representatives ofthe owners of the Green Oaks Mobile Home Park, Marineland of Canada Inc. The information provided by the owner a# that meeting is set out in the attached correspondence from the sclicitors for Marineland of Canada Inc. Staff has ne information that would indicate that Marineland of Canada Inc. has not complied with the requirements of the Residential TenanclesAct, 2008. However, in any event, Staff would recommend that issues between landlord and tenant should be left to The Landlord and Tenant Board. The Landlord and Tenant Board is a tribunal specifically created to hear and resolve disputes between landlords and tenants. The comespondence from the solicitors for Marineland of Canada Inc. raises the Issue of the retrospective application of a section 99.1 by-law to the Green Oaks Mobile Home Park. Generally speaking, there is a presumption against any law having retrospective effect. Stated another way, the law presumes that the leglsla#ure (in this case, the City Council) does not intend to take away existing rights. There is no question that a court considering a challenge to a section 99.1 by-law enacted in the immediate circumsiances would carefully examine the by-law and rationale for the by-law. The onus would be on the Cityto demonstrate that Council intended the by-lawto apply to a situation in which notices to terminate the tenancy had already been served. The Clty would also be called upon to prove that the Ontarla Legislature Intended to grant the powertoCouncil toenact a by-law that achieved this intent. Legal Services submits that the second of these issues will present a significant challenge. Summary: In summarythen, while section 99.1 of the MunlclpalAct, 2001 on its face sets out a power with which Council might enact a by-law that prevents the closure of the Green Oaks Mobile Home Park, the rules of common law governing the exercise of such a power are such that Council should either decline to exercise the power, as recommended by Staff or, should Council wish to proceed with a section 99.1 by-law, that Staff be instructed to carry out a City wide study of this Issue. Recommended by: Ken Beaman, City Solicitor Approved by: ~~ K. E. urden,/E~xe/c~utiv(e Director of Corporate Services Respectfully submitted: ~' ~ r' `" Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Attachment -10- Jury 20, 2ooa Colrndl Minutes 2. That CouneiEapprovetheAgreemerdofPurohaseandSale(the"Agreement")from Dance! Stephen Hudson (the"Purohaser'} attached to this Report as Attachment "2", and thatthe Mayorand Clerk he authorized to executetite Agreement and the Clerk be authorized !o affoc the corporate seal thereto. ORDERED onthemofion ofCounclllor loannoni, seconded 6yCounclllorKemiothat the report he approved as recommended. •+.wwx RATIFICATION OF CORPO dT rxvrra COMMIFTE A TIONS ORDERED ort the motien of Councillor Pietrangelo, seconded by Councillor Diodati that the actions taken in Corporate Services Committee, on July 20, 2009 be approved. Carried Unanimously 1. That the minutes ofthe April B, 2009 meeting be adopted as recorded. 2. That the City adhere to its Swimming Pool Fence By-law and thereby deny the request for an exemption tc the by-law. 3. That the Best Efforts Agreement between the City and Andrezj Kapinski be pulled from the by-law section of the Coundl agenda. 4. L-2009-33 Application of Section 99.1 of the Munidpal Act, 2001 Cur File No. 2009-142 That Coundl defer any dedaion on considering a 6y-law under s. 99.1 of the Municipal Ac[ to allow staff to do further research and allow the solicitor for the residents to prepare a submission; and That staff be directed to ass~f parties to investigate alternative solutions. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor loannoni, seconded byCouncillorKerrathat the meeting go past 11:00 p.m. with Councillor Thomson opposed. Motion Carried ..».. CAO-2009-01 - Process Related m the Early Retirement Incentive Option The report recommends: 1 • That staff strengthens fn Camera procedures arxt ensures a detailed reporting of what transpires for arty closed meeting session. 2, That in theabsence ofthe City Clerk, due to Personnel matters, proper procedures be put in place to provide compliance with the Municipal Ad, 3. That any similar eddy retirement program under consideration in the future be presented to Council outlining, in delall, the program crkeria. 4. That staff liaisons on Council advisory committees be reminded of their responsibility to brln g forward iha committee's recommendations for Council consideration, especially'rf these recommendations are substantive in nature. 5. That future Human Resources-related matters are dean with by the Corporate Services Committee. 8. That the Human Resources Committee continue to act an an Ad Hoc" basis for special assignments, such as CAO performance review. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Kenlo, seconded by Councillor loannoni that recommendations 1-8 be approved and that the HR CommiNee be disbanded wkh all staff related matters directed to the-Corporate Serves Committee. Canted UnanimausN _t 5 .~ i ~l PRESENTATION OF THE RESIDENTS OF GREEN OAKS MOBILE HOME ~ PARK . NIAGARA FALLS CTTY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 ~l i 5:00 P:M. 1 CAMPBELL PARTNERS LLP Barristers, Solicitors and Notaries s 2624 Dunwin Drive 3 Suite 1 Mississauga, Ontario LSL 3T5 i P Nicholas C. Bader ncb@campbelllawyers.net i Tel. 905-828-2247 Fax 905-828-431t al 11 Residents of Green Oaks Mobile Home Park Presentation to Council (City of Niagara Falls) September 14, 2009 iJ i~ Background 5:00 PM On February 23, 2009 the residents of the Green Oaks Mobile Home Park ("Green Oaks") situated in the City of Niagara Falls (the "City") received notices of termination of tenancies for conversion, demolition or repair (the "Notices") from Marineland of Canada Inc. (the "Landlord"). The Notices provide for a termination date of August 31, 2010 and an offer of $3,000.00 payable by the Landlord should a resident vacate Green Oaks and remove their trailer. The Landlord has stated that the lands are required for maintenance buildings to support the continued expansion of the theme park, situated near Green l Oaks. '" The residents of Green Oaks come from varied socio-economic backgrounds, with several residents requiring social assistance because of physical disabilities and others that are surviving on retirement pensions. Many of the residents would fall under or slightly above the poverty line for Ontario, Canada. This makes it difficult for many of the residents to find alternate living arrangements especially where it will cost anywhere between $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 to unhook each individual mobile home from gas, electricity, and water utilities and transport the mobile home (assuming it can be transported). Residents Request Assistance of Council On June 8, 2009 Council resolved to require staff to report back on the applicability of section 99.1 of the Municipo! Ad and Council's power under the section as it relates to Green Oaks. The staff report recommended that Council decline to enact a by-law pursuant to section 99.1, which was amended to allow staff to do more research, provide additional time for counsel for the residents of Green Oaks to prepare written submissions, and assist in the investigation of alternative solutions between the residents and the Landlord. l A meeting was held among the solicitor for the City (Mr. Beaman), counsel to the Landlord (Mr. Richardson) and counsel for the residents (Mr. Bader). Shortly after the meeting was held, Mr. Richardson wrote to the parties and advised that- his client, the Landlord, has decided to decline any further negotiations and rely on the Notices provided to the residents of Green Oaks, which they helieve to be issued in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Further advice contained in a report from Legal Services for the City recommends that this Council decline to enact a by-law pursuant to section 99.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001. Preservation of Rental Supply falls to Municipalities Prior legislation governing rental properties (Rental Housing Protection Act, 1986 "RHPA") required satisfaction of the following criteria for approval of an application to demolish a rental property: (a) that the building is structurally unsound, (b) provision of alternate rental accommodation; and (c) the supply of affordable housing in the municipality not to be adversely affected. The Tenons Protection Ad, 1997 "TPA") repealed and replaced the RHPA and provided a package of "rights" for renters faced with eviction because of demolition including notice, compensation, security of tenure, and rights of first refusal. The amalgamated City of Toronto imposed restrictions on the conversion or demolition of rental properties through its official plan amendment in 1997. The official plan amendment was challenged at the OMB and eventually the Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that "the TPA is silent on the subject of whether a municipality may, through its planning process, introduce its own regulations or controls in [the area of demolition or conversion of rental properties and]...as a simple matter of statutory interpretation, we see nothing in the TPA that precludes the city from...restricting the conversion or demolition of rental properties.' This decision was codified by the amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 which in turn provided for subsection 99.1, which is the subject of our discussion. Subsection 99.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that municipalities may regulate the demolition of residential rental properties.2 The residents maintain that Council has authority to enact a section 99.1 by-law which may "regulate" (the residents are not asking for the prohibition of the demolition of their units at Green Oaks) the demolition or conversion of residential rental properties. Regulation could take the form of establishing reporting requirements for the demolition of rental properties and possibly 'Toronto (City) v. Goldlist Properties Inc., [2003] O.J. No. 3931(C.A.) [QL] at para. 6Z. ' Municipal Act 2001, 5.0. 2001, c. 25. requiring a landlord to provide assistance that goes above and beyond what is required under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Why Enact (or Consider) a Section 99.1 By-Law? The recommendations to Council by Legal Services indicate that there is a "healthy" rental market hovering around 3%. We assume that this figure does not include subsidized housing, where many of the Green Oaks residents would need to relocate to because of their fixed disability and pension incomes. In 2009, Niagara reported having a large number of applicants on the waiting list for subsidized housing with a five year wait for applicants a Further, a 2004 study conducted by SHS Inc. for the Niagara Region Housing Authority reported that '"fhe Demand and Supply Analysis pointed out that there has been some demolition and conversion activity [in Niagara] which has eliminated some existing affordable rental housing. Given the significant need for such accommodation in Niagara, the preservation of existing affordable rental stock is as important as building new supply [emphasis added]." s Council has already heard first hand from several residents of Green Oaks about the impact that the demolition of the park will have on them. The Province has provided Council with the ability to regulate the demolition or conversion of rental housing in the City and it should do so for the following reasons: (1] Subsection 99.1(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that the. municipality shall "report statistics and other information concerning the demolition and conversion of residential rental properties to the Minister.. ". This appears to be a positive requirement imposed by the Act which is independent of whether or not regulations or prohibitions are in place. By having regulations in place, the City will be able to better track-and monitor the reduction (or increase) in supply of residential rental stock. a S.O. 2006, c. 17. ° ONPHA's 2009 Report on Waiting tlst Statistics for Ontarla, Ontario Non-profit Housing Association (June 2009) at:htto://www.onoha.on.ca/AM/Temolate.cfm?Section=Waiting Lists 2009&Temolate=/CM/ContentUisolav cf m&ContentlD=5496: "The average wait for a single person is 5 years or more in Peel, Brantford, Cochrane, Halton, Hamilton, Hastings, Huron, Kenora, Kingston, Lambton, Niagara, Dufferin, Norfolk, Northumberland, Parry Sound, Waterloo, Wellington, Peterborough and Windsor." s "People Needing Housing: A Collaborative Housing Strategy for the Niagara Region" Summary Document (October 2004), SHS Inc. for Niagara Regional Housing Authority. {F ~l (2) Regulating the demolition of residential rental properties will reduce the strain on social services and subsidized housing by requiring landlords to provide safeguards to help displaced ~ individuals. (3) Subsection 99.1 of the Act can be used to require a landlord to conduct a study on the impact that the demolition or conversion of a rental property will have on the municipal supply, as was (~ contemplated in the RHPA. It is within Council's power (and legal services for the City does not dispute this) to pass a section 99.1 ( by-law. It is the concerns about cost and anticipated litigation which have fueled the recommendation not to enact a section 99.1 by-law. The residents of Green Oaks respond as follows to the various concerns raised by Legal Services and allegations by the Landlord: (1) Many of the residents have not paid their rent e • The Landlord knows that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss rent disputes, which having no bearing on this Council's powers to enact a by-law under subsection 99.1. Raising these issues before Council is an obvious attempt to prejudice Council. The residents are willing and able to deal with these issues if the Landlord chooses to raise them in the t .appropriate forum. (2) The Landlord has complied in all respects with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006: • This is incorrect at law. The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 is permissive and 1.5 years of notice is not nearly long enough for residents that have called Green Oaks home for over 25 years where the act clearly states that notice shall be "at IeasY' one year. (3) Any by-law passed under subsection 99.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 will be challenged by the Landlord in Court': • The City and Council clearly and unequivocally has authority to regulate the demolition or conversion of residential rental properties. All by-laws passed are subject to review upon application to the OMB or Court by an interested party. The Landlord's threat of litigation is an attempt to intimidate Council. Does Council want to be seen as unwilling to take proper action in the public interest under threat of defending itself? (4) A consultant should be hired to develop evidence to be led to support the proposed by-law. • The City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment which imposes restrictions on the demolition or conversion of rental properties has been upheld by the Court of Appeal in Ontario. One would not have to look too far to craft a by-law which follows Toronto's lead. This is not "new ground". Please refer to the attached City of Toronto Rental Housing Demolition and e Briefing by Mr. Richardson to Council, Letter from Mr. Richardson to Mr. Beaman and Mr. Bader, August 13, 2009. 'Ibid. Conversion Application and corresponding by-law a A condition of application approval may include a replacement rental property in Toronto. The residents also question whether a "consultant' is required when City staff could be used to research and draft a report in c support of a section 99.1 by-law. (5) It will be difficult to develop evidence that there needs to be a "freeze" on the conversion or demolition of residential housing. • The residents are not asking fora "freeze" they are asking that Council enact a by-law which will, like the City of Toronto by-law, impose reasonable conditions on the demolition of residential rental properties. (6) The Landlord is confident that the property is already zoned for the intended use. • This issue was addressed by a city planner who indicated that a re-zoning application would ij likely be required for the Landlord to use the lands for maintenance buildings. io REQUESTED ACTION Council have staff undertake the study for, development of and passing of a by-law regulating the conversion or demolition of residential rental properties pursuant to subsection 99.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001. I `l a Municipal Code Chapter 667, Residential Rental Property Demolition and Conversion Control (City of Toronto): conditions that may be imposed on the approval of the application may include: Conditions with respell to the impact on the supply of rental housing or tenants, for example: (1) A requirement that the owner of the residential rental property notify any tenants, who reside in rental units affected by the changes permitted under the ' ~ approval, of the relevant provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1006. (2) In the case of a demolition, requirements to replace the rental units with rental units at similar rents, and for tenant relocation and other assistance, including the right to return to the replacement rental housing. (3) In the case of a conversion to a " j condominium, requirements relating to the cost impacts on tenants. i ~~ i [l Chapter 667 RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL i~ ARTICLE I General (~ § 667-1. Definitions. [, § 667-2. Application. ~~ § 667-3. Demolition prohibited. § 667-4. Conversion prohibited. (~ § 667-5. Eaemptlons. § 667-6. Harassment of tenant. [~ t ARTICLE II Application § 667-7. Application for approval. § 667-&. Fees and charges. § 667-9. Related application; notice of prohibition. § 667-10. Withdrawal of application. § 667-11. Notice of application. ARTICLE III Approval of Application § 667-12. Approval by Chief Planner under delegated authority. § 667-13. Referral to Council by Chief Planner; condominium conversion. § 667-14. Approval by Council. § 667-15. Conditions. § 667-16. Final approval and section 111 permit. § 667-17. Application for revision to conditions. §667-18. Revocation; deemed revocation. ARTICLE IV Miscellaneous § 667-19.Offences. § 667-20. Penalty. § 667-21. Special penalty re monetary benefit. § 667-22. Transition. [HISTORY: Adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto 2007-07-19 by By-law No.885-2007.1 Amendments noted where applicable.] 1 Editors Note: Th1s hy-law was passed under We authority of secdm 111 of the City afTaroMO Act, 1006, S.O.2006, c. 11. 667-1 2007 - 07 -19 i T~ d TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIALAND RENTAL PROPERTY § 667-1 DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL GENERAL REFERENCES Bullding caostrmtion and demoatlon-See Ch. 363. Fees sad charges -See Ch. 441. Devebpmen[ of land- See Ch. 415. AdministraNoo of fees and charges -See Ch.442. ARTICLE I General § 667-1. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: CHIEF PLANNER -The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. CO-OWNERSHIP: A. An equity co-operative or other co-ownership form of housing where the residential property is: (1) Ultimately owned or leased or otherwise held, directly or indirectly, by more than one person where any such person, or a person claiming under such person, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a dwelling unit in the residential property; (2) For greater certainty and without restricting the generality of Subsection A(1): (a) Owned or leased or otherwise held in tmst or owned or leased or otherwise held by a partnership or limited partnership as partnership property, where any trustee, beneficiary, partner, general partner or limited partner, or other person claiming under such trustee, beneficiary, partner, general partner or limited partner, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a dwelling unit in the residential properly; or (b) Ultimately owned or leased or otherwise held, directly or indirectly, by a corporation having more than one shareholder or member, where any such shareholder or member, or a person claiming under such shareholder or member, by reason of the ownership of shares in or being a member of the corporation, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the residential property. B. Does not include: (1) A condominium. (2) A residential building that is organized as a life lease project. 667-2 2007.07 -19 i TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIALAND RENTAL PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL § 667-1 (3) Anon-profit housing co-operative under the Co-operative Corporations Act.2 DEMOLITION -The demolition of all or part of a building and includes interior renovations or alterations that will result in a change to the number of: A. Dwelling units; or B. Dwelling units by bedroom type. DWELLING UNIT - Aself-contained set of rooms located in a building or structure that: ', ~ A. Is operated as a single housekeeping unit, used or intended to be used as tl residential premises for one or more persons; and B. Contains kitchen and bathroom facilities that are intended for the use of the ~~ unit only. GUIDELINES -Guidelines for applications for demolition or conversion ~~ approval under this chapter. i LIFE LEASE PROJECT - A life lease project as described in paragraph 1 of ~ ~ subsection 3(1} of Ontario Regulation 282/98, under the AssessmentAct.3 ~ PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -The preliminary planning approval of an application under this chapter by the Chief Planner as described in § 667-16B. RELATED APPLICATION: 1 A. An application that provides for the demolition of residential rental property or the conversion of residential rental property to a purpose other than the purpose of a residential rental property, expressly or by necessary. implication. ~ B. For greater certainty, Subsection A includes, but is not limited to, an ~ application for the following: (1) A permit under section 8 or 10 of the Building Code Act, 1992.° (2) A demolition permit under section 33 of the Planning Acts ~~ i 2 Edi[or'c Note: See 85.0.1990, a C35. 3 F.d1[or's Note: See RS.O. 199Q, c. A.31. 4 Editor's Note: See 5.0.1992, c.23. tt r. 5 Edttor's Note: See RS.O. 1990, a P.t3. 667-3 2007 - 07 -19 TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY § 667-1 DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL (3) A consent or permit to alter part of a property or to demolish or remove a building or structure under section 33, 34, 34.5 or 42 of the Ontario HeritageAct.6 (4) Approval or registration of a description for a proposed condominium or exemption from approval for a condominium, under section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998. (5) An amendment to khe Official Plan under section 22 of the Planning Acts (6) A zoning by-law amendment under section 34 of the PlanningAct.9 (7) A minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act.10 (8) Approval of plans and drawings under subsection 114(5) of the Ciry of Toronto Act, 200611 or subsection 41(4) of the PlanningAct.12 (9) Approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act.t3 (10) A consent under section 53 of the PlanningAct.la C. Despite Subsection B(6), Subsection A does not include a City initiated general zoning by-law amendment to implement area land use studies and other general policies (for example, to implement the designation of a redevelopment or growth area of the City), except for any site specific exemptions or other site specific provisions at the request of a land owner. RELATED GROUP OF BUILDINGS: A. Buildings that are under the same ownership and on the same parcel of land as defined in section 46 of the PlanningActrs; or B. Buildings that form part of the same application under this chapter or under a related application. 6 Editor's Note: See RS.O. 1990, c. 0.18. ~ Editor's Note: See S.0.1998, c. 19. 8 Edi[or's Note: See RS.O.1990, G P.13. 9 Editor's Nate: See RS.O. 1990, c. P.13. 10 Editor's Note: Bee RS.O. 199°, c. P.13. i 1 Editor's Note: See 5.0.2006, G ll. 1 Z Editor's Note: See RS.O. 1990, c. P.13. i 3 Editar's Note: See RS.O. 1990, c. P.13. 1a Editor's Note: See RS.O.1990, r. P.13. IS Editor's Note: See RS.O. 1990, G P.I3. 667-4 2007 - 07 -19 TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL § 667-2 RENTAL UNIT: A. A dwelling unit used, or intended for use, for residential rental purposes, including: (1) A dwelling unit that has been used for residential rental purposes and is vacant. (2) A dwelling unit in a co-ownership that is or was last used for residenfial rental purposes. B. Does not include a dwelling unit that is: (1) In a condominium registered under section 2 of the Condominium Act, 199816 or a predecessor of that section. ~~ (2) In a building organized as a life lease project and the right to occupy the dwelling unit is based on a life lease interest.. RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY - A building or related group of buildings (~ containing one or more rental units, and includes all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents. 1. SECTION 111 PERMIT -The permit issued by the Chief Planner or Chief ~ Building Official after the fmal approval of an application under this chapter by the City as described in § 667-16. .1 § 667-2. Application. r ~ A. This chapter does not apply to a residential rental property that: ( (1) Contains less than six dwelling units; I (2) Is a condominium governed by the Condominium Act, 1998(7; or ~~ (3) Is organized as a life lease project. B. Except as provided in Subsection C, this chapter does not apply with respect to living accommodation described in section 5 (Exemptions from Act) of the ~ Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.16 C. This chapter applies to living accommodation (a member unit of a non-profit housing co-operative) as described in clause 5(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. .~ i t 6 Editor's Note: Sa 5.0.1996, r. 19. 17 Editor's Na[e: See 3.0.1998, c. l9. ~ 6 Editor's Note: See 5.0.2006, c. 17. •~ 667-5 2007-o7-t9 L 1~ TORONTO MiJNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY § 667-3 DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL § 667-3. Demolition prohibited. No person .shall demolish, or cause to be demolished, the whole or any part of a residential rental property unless the person has received a section 111 permit for the demolition of the residential rental property and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the section 111 pcmut and any preliminary approval. § 667-4. Conversion prohibited. A. No person shall convert a residential rental property, or cause a residential rental tJ property to be converted, to a purpose other than the purpose of a residential rental property unless the person has received a section 111 permit for the conversion of , the residential rental property and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the section 111 permit and any preliminary approval. B. For greater certainty and without limiting Subsection A, conversion of a residential rental property to a purpose other than a residential rental property includes: (1) Conversion as a result of a consent to sever land under section 53 of the Planning Act.19 (2) Conversion to: (a) Anon-residential use. (b) Living accommodation other than dwelling units. (c) A co-ownership, a condominium or a building organized as a life lease project. (d) Freehold or other forms of ownership of dwelling units. C. Conversion to co-ownership. (1) For the purposes of this section, the conversion from residential rental property to a co-ownership occurs: (a) When the first lease or sale of an interest in residential rental property or of a share in a corporation owning or leasing any interest in residential i rental properly takes place that carries with it the right to occupy a specific unit in the residential rental property; or i ~ (b) When a residential rental property is transferred or leased to a corporation of the type mentioned in Subsection A(2)(b) of the definition of "co-ownership" in § 667-1. i9 Editor's Noh: See R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. 667-6 2007 - 07 -19 TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY ~j DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL § 667-5 [~ (2) For the purposes of this subsection, where a lease or sale of a share or interest takes place, the lease or sale shall be deemed to have occurred on the day the agreement to enter into the lease or the agreement for sale was entered into. (3) For the purposes of this subsection, "lease or sale" means any arrangement or transaction that has the effect of transferring an interest in a co-ownership or in a corporation owning or leasing any interest in a co-ownership. ~~ § 667-5. Exemptions. A. Sections 667-3 and 667-4 do not apply if only a part of a residential rental property ~~ is proposed for demolition or conversion and that part does not contain any part of a dwelling unit. B. Section 667-4 does not apply if a residential rental property is subject to an ~ application for a consent to sever under section 53 of the Planning Act10 and if after the proposed conveyance: {' (i) Each parcel of land resulting from the severance will have six or more rental units; or (2) One or more parcels of land resulting from the severance will have six or more rental units and all the other parcels of land at the time of the application ~ contained no dwelling units. J § 667-6. Harassment of tenant. No owner of residential rental property or person acting on the owner's behalf shall interfere with a tenant's reasonable enjoyment of a rental unit in the residential rental property with the intent of discouraging the participation of the tenant in the application or approval process described in Articles II and III or with the intent of otherwise ~ ~ facilitating the obtaining of the approval of Council or the Chief Planner on an t application made under this chapter. ARTICLE II Application § 667-7. Application for approval ~, A. A person who wishes to demolish or convert residential rental property shall submit an application for approval in writing on a form prescribed by the Chief Planner, and shall supply any additional information relating to the application as required by the Chief Planner. 20 Editor's Note: See RS.O. (990, c. P.13. 667-7 zao7 - 07 - t9 e~ TORONTO MiJNICIPAL CODE aJ RESIDENTIALAND RENTAL PROPERTY § 667-8 DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL ~~ B. The information provided under Subsection A shall be in a form approved by the Chief Planner, and the Chief Planner may require that a person, who in the opinion of the Chief Planner is qualified to do so, provide or verify the information to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner. C. No person shall knowingly furnish false or misleading information in any application under this chapter. § 667-8. Fees and charges. A. The processing fee for the application for approval set out in Schedule 16 of Appendix C of Chapter 441, Fees and Charges, shall be paid at the time the application is submitted to the City. B. If section 8 or 10 of the Building Code Act, 199221 apply to the proposed demolition or conversion, the applicant must also pay the fees required under § 363-6, Article I, Building Permits, of Chapter 363, Building Construction and Demolition, at the times specified in the article, despite Subsection A and the issuance of a pernut under this chapter instead of under section 8 of the Building Code Act, 1992 [as permitted by subsection 111(5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006zz~ § 667-9. Related application; notice of prohibition. ' J i A. If a person makes a related application, as described in Subsection B of the definition of "related application" in § 667-1, the person shall also file an application under this chapter without delay. B. If a related application is made with respect to a residential rental property for ,~ which approval is required under this chapter, the applicant shall provide written notice to the applicable approval authority and, in the case of an appeal or referral, ~ to the Ontario Municipal Board or court. , l C. The notice required under Subsection B shall include a statement that the t1 demolition or conversion is not permitted unless a section 111 permit has been given for the demolition or conversion under Chapter 667, Residential Rental fij Property Demolition or Conversion Control, of The City of Toronto Municipal Code. D. The notice required under Subsection B shall be filed at the time the application is ' 1 filed with the approving authority or the referral or appeal is filed with the Ontario i Municipal Board or the court. ~~ 2 i Edior's Nou: See S.O. 1992, c. 23. 22 Editor's Nate: See 5.0.2006, a 1t. '- ~ -,... e 667-8 2007 - 07 -19 ` TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY ~ DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL § 667-10 E. If this chapter applies to a related application under § 667-22, the notice shall be filed with the approval authority, Ontario Municipal Board or court, without delay. § 667-10. Withdrawal of application. If the application is withdrawn before the Chief Planner or Council makes a decision, no further application under this chapter to approve the demolition or conversion of the residential rental property may be made within two yeazs after the withdrawal, unless Council gives its consent. ~~ § 667-11. Notice of application. A. The applicant shall provide notice of the application to the tenants of the residential rental property to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner, and within 14 days after the Chief Planner has advised that the application is complete or within such other time period as determined by the Chief Planner. B. If the approval of the application is delegated to the Chief Planner under § 667-12, the notice under Subsection A shall include a statement on the City's policy where there are less than six rental units and relevant information on the application of the ResidentdalTenanciesAct, 2006. r ~~ ARTICLE III Approval of Application § 667-12. Approval by Chief Planner under delegated authority. i A. The Chief Planner is authorized to approve an application to demolish all or a part * of a residential rental property or to convert a residential rental property to a ~ ~ purpose other than the purpose of a residential rental property: (1) If the residential rental property at the time of the application has six or more 1 ~ dwelling units, but less than six rental units. t (2) If the residential rental property at the time of the application has six or more rental units, and: (a) The combined number of existing rental units affected by the proposed demolition or conversion and any previous demolition or conversion c ~ activities within the preceding five-yeaz period is less than six; and i (b) The proposed demolition or conversion will not reduce the number of rental units to less than six. 1 23 Editor's Note: See 5.0.2006, G 17. al 667-9 2007 - 07 -19 ,l a~ a1 TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE al RESIDENTIALAND RENTAL PROPERTY § 667-12 DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL s B: For the purposes of Subsection A, the "five-year period" is calculated as follows: (1) The five year period is the period of five years preceding the date of an application. (2) For the purposes of Subsection B(1), the date of an application is deemed to be the earlier of: (a) The date an application for approval of a demolition or conversion under this chapter has been filed with the Chief Planner and is considered complete for the purposes of the application, as determined by the Chief Planner, and (b) The date a related application has been made or, if applicable, accepted as complete by the applicable approving authority. ~~ C. The Chief Planner shall consider the application not earlier than 14 days after the notice has been given to the tenants under § 667-1 L D. The Chief Planner may impose conditions to the approval that relate to the following matters: (1) A requirement that the owner of the residential rental property notify any tenants, who reside in the rental units affected by the changes pemutted under the a~~7roval, of the relevant provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. (2) A requirement that the notification required under Subsection D(1) be given in a form and at a time satisfactory to the Chief Planner. (3) A requirement that a condition to the approval shall be secured by an agreement with the City, that the agreement may include restrictions on the transfer, charge or other dealings with the lands unless the transferee, chargee or other party enters into a direct agreement with the City to assume all obligations of the original owner, and that all restrictions and agreements shall be to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and City Solicitor. (4) A requirement that the applicant and successive owners of the residential rental property shall provide information from time to time sufficient to provide verification that the terms of the agreement are being met. (5) The lapsing of the approval by the Chief Planner in accordance with any guidelines. E. Where the provisions of this section have been met, the Chief Planner shall issue a section 111 permit or give preliminary approval for the application under § 667-16. 24 Editor's Note: See 50.2006, c. 17. 667-10 2007 - 07 -19 ,l TORONTO MUI~IICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL § 667-13 § 667-13. Referral to Council by Ghief Planner; condominium conversion. A. Despite § 667-12A, the Chief Planner may refer an application to a community council or the appropriate standing committee, for Council's approval as set out in § 667-14, if, in the Chief Planner's opinion, the application should be considered by the community council or Council with a related application, or that the application has implications for more than one community council area or is of City wide interest. B. Despite § 667-12A, a councillor for a ward in which the residential rental properly is located may, in writing, request the Chief Planner to submit an application for conversion to condominium to a community council or the appropriate standing committee, for Council's approval as set out in § 667-14. § 667-14. Approval by Council A. If the approval of an application is not delegated to the Chief Planner under § 667- 12, the Chief Planner shall submit a report respecting the application to the ~~ community council in which the residential rental property is located or the appropriate standing committee if the residential rental property is located in the geographic area of more than one community council. ~l B. Before submitting the report required under Subsection A, City Planning division ` staff shall hold a community consultation meeting to review the impact of the proposal on the tenants of the residential rental property and matters under section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. C. The City Clerk shall provide notice of the community council or standing j committee meeting, at which the report will be considered, to the following: p (1) The tenants of the residential rental property; (2) Every owner of land within 120 metres of the subject residential rental property, and sections 6(3), (4) and (5) of Ontario Regulation 545/06 under the PlanningAct26 apply with necessary modification; (3) To any other party who has given the City Clerk a written request for the notice of the community council or standing committee meeting; and (4) Where no related application has been made under the Planning Act, to other occupants within 120 metres of the subject residential rental property as detemrined by the Chief Planner. 25 Editor's Note: See S.O.2006, G 11. 26 Editor's Noce: See lLS.0. 1990, c. Pd3. 667-11 2007 - 07 -19 TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY § 667-15 DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL D. The community council or standing committee shall recommend to Council whether to refuse or approve the application, including any conditions. E. If the residential rental property is located in the geographic area of more than one community council, notice of the report will be given to the councillor of any ward in which the residential rental property is located. F. Council may refuse the application or approve the application, and may impose conditions on the approval and authorize the Chief Building Official or Chief Planner to issue a section 111 permit under § 667-16. § 667-15. Conditions. it Without limiting the generality of § 667-14F, the conditions that may be imposed on the &~ approval of the application may include: 71 A. Conditions with respect to the impact on the supply of rental housing or tenants, for ~j example: (1) A requirement that the owner of the residential rental property notify any tenants, who reside in rental units affected by the changes permitted under the approval, of the relevant provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.27 (2) In the case of a demolition, requirements to replace the rental units with rental j units at similaz rents, and for tenant relocation and other assistance, including the right to return to the replacement rental housing. a, (3) In the case of a conversion to a condominium,. requirements relating to the ~ ~ cost impacts on tenants. B: Conditions with respect to the applicant's entitlement to claim or act under any of the following until the conditions imposed have been satisfied or secured by an agreement registered on title to each property to which the agreement relates, to the t , satisfaction of the Chief Planner: (1) A permit under subsection 8(1) or section 10 of the Building Cade Act, 19922e for construction, demolition or conversion of a building. (2) A demolition permit under section 33 of the PlanningAct.z9 27 Editor's Nate: See SA. 2006, c. l7. 28 Editor's Note: See S.O.1992, c. 23. 29 Editar's Note: See R.S.O.1990, e. P.13. 667-12 2007-07-19 TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL § 667-16 (3) A consent or permit to alter part of a property or to demolish or remove a F~ building or structure under section 34, 34.5 or 42 of the Ontario Heritage t( ACt.30 (4) Approval or registration of a descripfion for a proposed condominium under (~ section 51 of the Planning Act, or an exemption from approval for a (~ condominium, under section 9 the Condominium Act, 1998.31 (5) A consent under section 53 of the PdanningAct, except for provisional consent that is conditional on receiving a section 111 permit under this chapter. C. A requirement that other conditions to the approval shall be secured by an agreement with the City, that the agreement may include restrictions on the transfer, charge or other dealings with the lands unless the transferee, chargee or other party enters into a direct agreement with the City to assume all obligations of the original owner, and that all restrictions and agreements shall be to the satisfaction of the 1 Chief Planner and City Solicitor. D. A requirement that the applicant and successive owners of the residential rental f ~ property shall provide information from time to time sufficient to provide t verification that the terms of the agreement are being met. it E. Conditions providing for the lapsing of the approval in accordance with any E guidelines. `~ § 667-16. Final approval and section 111 permit. ` If Council or the Chief Planner under § 667-12 approves an application under this ~ ~ chapter, and unless Council provides otherwise: e A. Except as provided in Subsection B, the Chief Planner is authorized to issue a section 111 permit for the conversion after all the conditions to Council's approval under § 667-14F or imposed by the Chief Planner under § 667-12D have been satisfied or secured to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner. B. In the case of a demolition application or a conversion application that is also ~ subject to section 8 or 10 of the Building Code Act, 199232: (1) The Chief Planner is authorized to give preliminary approval to the application after all the conditions to Council's approval under § 667-14F or i imposed by the Chief Planner under § 667-12D have been satisfied or secured to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner. T ~ Editor's Nate: See R.s.0. 1990, c.0.18. 3 i Editor's Note: sce 5.0.1998, c. 19. J2 Editor's Note: See 50.1992, c. 23. 667-13 2007-07-19 ~1 i TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY § 667-17 DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL (2) After the Chief Planner has given preliminary approval under Subsection B(1), the Chief Building Official is authorized to issue a section 111 permit for the demolition or conversion. § 667-17. Application for revision to conditions. A. If the owner of a residential rental property applies for revisions to the conditions of approval, the Chief Planner may treat the request as a new application under this chapter or may otherwise require the owner to comply with the notice and meeting requirements of this chapter. B. The community council or standing committee will consider and make recommendations to Council on the proposed revisions only after a report has been submitted to the community council or standing committee by the Chief Planner. § 667-18. Revocation; deemed revocation. A. If a section 111 permit was issued under § 667-16B, the Chief Building Official may revoke the section 111 pemut and in all other cases, Council, or, if an application was approved by the Chief Planner under § 667-12, the Chief Planner may revoke a section 111 permit if: (1) The section 111 permit was issued or any preliminary approval was given, on mistaken, false or incorrect information; (2) The conditions to the section 111 permit or any preliminary approval are not complied with; or (3) The owner of the residential rental property or other holder of a section 111 permit or preliminary approval has contravened this chapter. B. Where a demolition permit has been issued under this chapter and the building permit for the new construction is revoked under the Building Code Act, 1992,33 the demolition permit under this chapter shall be deemed to be revoked and this chapter shall apply to any subsequent application for a demolition permit in respect of the residential rental property for which the original demolition permit was issued as if the original application had not been made and the original building permit had not been issued. C. Subsection B does not apply if the residential rental property has been demolished under a section 111 permit issued under this chapter before the revocation of the building permit for the new construction. 33 Editor's Nate: See S.O.1992, c. 23. 667-14 2007 - 07 -19 J t :; TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND CONVERSION CONTROL § 667-19 ARTICLE N Miscellaneous § 667-19.Offences. A. Every person who contravenes a provision of this chapter is guilty of an offence. B. Every duector or officer of a corporation who knowingly concurs in a contravention of this chapter by the corporation is guilty of an offence. C. Every person who fails to comply with a term or condition of a preliminary approval or section 1 I 1 permit under this chapter is guilty of an offence. D. Every person who contravenes an order under subsection 384(1) or 385(1) of the City of Toronio Act, 2006,34 is guilty of an offence. § 667-20. Penalty. Every person convicted of an offence under this chapter is liable to a maximum fine of not more than $100,000. § 667-21. Special penalty re monetary benefit. A. The court that convicts a person of an offence under this chapter, in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court, may increase a fine imposed upon the person by an amount equal to the amount of the monetary benefit acquired by or that accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence, despite § 667-20 and any maximum fine elsewhere provided. B. For the purposes of Subsection A, "monetary benefit" includes any economic advantage or gain from contravening this chapter. § 667-22. TYansition. The chapter applies, with necessary modifications, to a proposal for demolition or conversion of residential rental property in any related application made on or after January 1, 2007, subject to the following exceptions: A. If a determination has already been made by the applicable approving authority before July 19, 2007; or 34 Editor's Note: See 5.0.2006, c. ll. 667-15 zoos-o7-t9 TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE RESIDENTIAL AND RENTAL PROPERTY § 667-22 DEMOLTTION AND CONVERSION CONTROL B. In the case of applications under section 8 of the Building Code Act, 1992,35 for interior renovations as described in the definition of "demolition" in § 667-1, the chapter applies to any application made after July 19, 2007. 35 FAltor's Note: See S.O. t992, c. 23. 667-16 2007 - 07 - 19 it ~TORONfOCityPlanning Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application Tororrto and East York ^ North York ^ Scarborough ^ Etobicoke York Taranto City Hall North York Civic Centre Scarborough Civic Centre 2 Civic Centre Coun 1600ueen Street West 5100 Yonge Street 150 Borough Ddve iaronta, Ontario Toronto, Ornarie M5H 2N2 Toronto, Ontario M2N 5W Tommo, Ontario M1P4N7 M9C 5A3 416-392-7539 418395-7000 41fi-396-752fi 416-394-9602 Proposal for Residential Rental Property ("rental housing') Demolition and Conversion (Municipal Code Chapter 667) )please check applicable box) ^ Demolition !including Interior Renovations or Akerationsl ^ Conversion to Freehold fhvnership ^ Conversion to Condominium ^ Consent ^ Conversion to Co•ownership/Life•Lease Submission Requirements (see pages 6-71 • A completed Declaration of Use and Screening Form • A completed Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application • All other required items for submission as outlined an pages 6-7 Before submitting your application, please contact: • Community Policy Unit in City Planning at 416-392-7663 toschedule apre-applicatioaconsultation meeting • the applicable district Planning Consultant, Customer Service far further information about application requirements. 1.3 Address of subject land (Street Number/Name) - Describe location (closest major intersection, what side of street land is located!: Legal description: Present use of subject land: I Proposed use of subject land: Registered Owner of subject land (as itappears an Oead/Gansfer) Business E-mail Business Address I City I Postal Cade Business Telephone (area code+number): Business Fax !area code+numbeq: Applicant name !info!!) I BusinessE-mail Applicantis: ^Dwner ^Lawyer ^Archite6t ^Agent ^Contractor ^Dther: Business Address I City Postal Code Business Telephone (area code+numberl: Business Fax (area code+number): This secUOnfor Office Use 0niy ': ar ( 3 - ~ Date Beceiverk '' - f Rte NtL ~ Pmlegf ldeanfier; p Z C-nnaSeinr,~Cddtra.- ~~ ' ~ `' ~ s ' NFarf~ .e ~ :. + i ~ '.. - x. .. -T Staff (~5jrtaok'- _ ~ ~ 4 ~' , t~irNlE Na ~ k page ~I ~ToRONfOCity Panning .Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application Project Information Number of existing dwelling units: Number of rental units: Existing: Proposed: Number of rental units by bedrocm type: Existing Proposed Bachelor Bachelor 1 bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom 4 6edroam Other Other Are all exisfing rental units affected bythe proposal? ^Yes ^No If no, how many existing units will be directly affected? Bachelor 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Other Have there been previous demolition or conversion activities on the subject land within the last 5 years? ^Yes ^ No If yes, how many previously existing rental units were affected? Does this proposal also involve constructing an addition to the 6uildingjs)? ^Yes ^ No If yes, will the new addition contain rental units? ^Yes ^ No Are you also applying or have applied for a Related Applicatienfs) as defined in Chapter 667 of the Municipal Code: (please check all applicable boxes) Type File No. ^ Building Permitjanddemolitionpermit) ^ Ontario Heritage Act Approval ^ Draft Plan of Condominium ^ Official Plan Amendment ^ ZoningBy-IawAmendment ^ Site Plan Contra) ^ Draft Plan of Subdivision ^ Minor Variance ^ Consent ^ Other, specify os~~i retnren2ms page 2 of 7 ~TORONtOCityPlanning Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application Data Summary for Total Number of Existing Rental Units by Rent Category, 2009 UnitType Number of Affordable Units 2009 Rent Limits For Affordable Units * ($) Number of Mid-Range Units 2009 Rent Limits For Mid-Range Unit * ($) Number of High-End Units Total Units (#) Bachelor $ 767 $1,150 1 Bedroom $ 929 $1,393 2 Bedroom $1,104 $1,655 3 Bedroom $1,292 $1,937 2-bed townhouse $1,078 $1,616 3-bed townhouse $1,304 $1,955 4+-bed townhouse $1,417 $2,125 Other Total • Affordable Rent Limits are CMHC (Octaher 2009) average market rents, Mid-Range Limits are above the affordahle rents and below 1.5 X CMHC average rents. Do the above rerrts include utility charges for heat, hydro and water? ^ Yes ^ No H no, which utilities are not included? Are parking or TV service fees included in the rent? ^ Yes ^ No H yes, please specify: If the proposal will directly affect only a portion of the existing rental units in the rental property, please also fill out a second data summary sheet far just the affected rental units. asasr Fen~rcaze page i~ ~TORONtOCityPlanning Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application enter amoum below 10 10 IJ i~ Fee Calculation - Effacttve January 7, 2009 Fees are based an the existing number of units directly affected by demolition ar conversion Demolition A) Base fee $5,353.51 + (Per Unit Fee x No. of Units = B) Unit Amount) (A+el Enter Fee& ~ Base Fee+ ~ Amounts + 1$214.14 x = $ i UnitAmaunt =$ Demolition -Delegated Approval C) Base Fee $1,070.70 + (Per Unit Fee x No. of Units = D) UnitAmoum l IC+D) Enter fee & ~ Base Fee+ ~ Amounts + ($53.54 x = $ I UnitAmoum = $ Conversion to Condominium* E18ase Fee $3,212.11 + (Per Unit Fee x No. of Units = FI Unit Amount) Enter Fee & ~ Base ea+ ~ Amounts + ($53.54 x = $ 1 Unit Amount _ $ Conversion to Condominium -Delegated Approval 070.70 GlBaseFee$1 + (Per Unit Fee x' No. of Units = H)UnitAmountl IG+Hi , Enter Fee & ~ Base Fee+ ~ AmOUntS + ($53.54 x = $ I Unit Amcunt _ $ Conversion to Freehald* 212.11 I) Base Fee $3 + (Per Unit Fee x No. of Units = J) Unit Amount) (I+J) , Enter Fee & ~ Base Fee+ ~ Amounts + ($53.54 x = $ I UnitAmcum = $ Conversion to Freehold -Delegated Approval K) Base Fee $1,070.70 + (Per Unit Fee x Na. of Units = LI Unit Amount) IK+LI Enter Fee & ~ Base Fee+ ~ Amounts + ($53.54 x - _ $ I UnitAmcunt = $ OtherConsents* MlBaseFee$3,272.11 + (Per UnitFee x No. of Units = N)UnhAmoum) IM+NI Enter Fee & ~ Base Fee+ ~ Amounts + ($53.54 x = $ I UnitAmaunt = $ Other Consents -Delegated Approval OI Base Fee $1,070.70 + (Per Unit Fee x Nc. of Units = PI Unit Amoum) (0 + PI Enter Fee & ~ Base Fee+ ~ Amounts + ($53.54 x ~ _ $ I UnitAmoum =$ Conversion to co-ownership or I'de lease 01 Base Fee$12,848.43 + (Per Unit Fee x No. of Units = R) UnitAmount 1 10+AI Emer Fee & ~ Base Fee + ~ Amounts + ($53.54 x = $ I Unit Amount = $ Conversion to co-ownership or 1rfe lease -Delegated SI Base Fee $1,070.70 + (Per Unit Fee x No. of Units = T) Unit Amount) IS+Ti Enter Fee & ~ Base Fee+ ~ Amounts + I $53.54 x = $ M UnitAmcunt = $ "Fee exemption fmm Chapter 667 fee if a related application for an OPA is required along with a Aemal Housing Demolition and Conversion Application, as defined in Chapter fi67 of the Municipal Cade. The Official Plan amerldmenC application fee is required at Me time of the flemal Hausirg Demolition and Conversion Application if that fee has not already been paid. The above fees, due at the time of initial application, include the 7.5% sumharge for legal services. Total Fee - _ $ As set out in §§441-4 and 442-BD of Chapters 441 and 442 of the Municipal Code, fees are adjusted every January lstta mflect the applicable annual wage adjustmem increase, and when that increase is cwt known by January 1st, the irdlation rate of the previous Consumer Pdca Indexforthe previous year. The fallowing surcharges also apply as set out in §442-9 of Chapter 442, but will not be cal )acted until later in the planning process. • A surcharge to cover the CiryClerk's direct casts of providing public notices required ro process planning applicaticns Ilevied at the time of the notice). • A surcharge to cover facility rental and translation and sign language services tc process planning applications (levied at the time of the meeting) Under Chapter 067, the applicant is required to give notice of the application to the tenants of the residential rental property, at their own expense. ssast rebaary zama page 4 of 7 (~ToRONfOCityPianning Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application Authorization of Agent I/We authorize (please print) (Please prior) to act as agent and sign the application form to the Ciry of Toronro on my/our behalf for the lands known as Name of land owner Signature Date (please print) Name of land owner Signature Date (please prints Signature of Signing Officer(s) of Corporation Signature of Signing Officer(s) of Corpoation Coryarate seallsl,'rf applicable Declaration of the Land Owner I/We de selemnlydeclare that 1. As of the date of this application, I am the registered ownerof the lands descdbed in the application. I have examined the contents of the application, certifythat the irrfermation submitted with it is accurate and concurwith the submission of the application. 2. I acknowledge that the information provided in the Declaration of Use and Screening Form is an integral part of this application and have attached the completed and signed Declaration of Use and Screening Farm to this application. 3. I acknowledge that it is an offence ro demolish or convert residemial remal property'dthe proposed work is subjectte Chapter 667 of the Municipal Cade. 4. Enclosed is the required fee, which I certify is accurate, and supporting documentation required forthe application. I agree to pay anyfurther costs which maybe determined as this application is reviewed. Name of land owner Signature Date (please priori Name of land owner Signature Date (please print) Applicants Signature Signature of owner/agent Date The personal information on thisferm is collected underthe authoriryof the City of Terenm Act, 2066, section 111 and Chapter667 of the Municipal Code. This indormation is used to evaluate your application and far aggregate statistical reporting. Questions about this collection can be directed to the Manager, Customer Services, Toronto Building at one of the addresses indicated on tap of page 1 of this application. 0951 Febnwrv Y009 ~TOnoeroCityPlanning Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application (~ Information and Instructions for Applications to Demolish or Convert Rental Housing (~ Application Purpose The City of Toronto has a by-law regulating rental housing demolition and cornersion -Municipal Cade Chapter 667, Residential Rental Property Demolition and Cornersion Control. It requires the owner of residential rental property ("rental housing") considering a demolition or conversion, that is subject to the provisions of the by-law, to obtain a permit from the City of Toronto. This permit is in addition to any other permits or approvals as required underthe Building Code Act,1992, the Planning Act, the City of Toronto Act, 2006 or other Ciry of Toronto by-law. A proposal is subject to the by-law iF it involves 6 or more existing dwelling unks, any of which are rental units, and the proposal is to: • Demolish all or part of a building, including intericrrenovations/alterations when it results in a change to the number or bedroom type of existing rerrcal units. • Convert from existing rental hcusing use to non-rental purposes, for example, changing tonon-residential such as offices; changing seff- n contained rental dwelling units tc something else such as a care home with central services ortc individual rooms; changing the rental status ILII of the housing to freehold ownership, condominium, co-ownership or life lease farms of ownership; severing a rental property such that the number of rental units remaining on any severed or retained paroel drops below 6 units. (~ A proposal does not require a permk under the by-law if it involves: i 5 or fewer existing dwelling units, orthat involves 6 or more existing dwelling units but none are rental units • Properties that are condominium-mgistered er life-lease properties f ~ • Demolition activity on a rental property where the portion affected contains no residential units, for example, demolishing retail space or ancillary space such as underground parking, indoor amenity or property managementfacilities • Additions to a rerdal propertythat do not directly affect existing units ,~ Severing rental properties where each severed parcel contains 6 or more rental units orwhere a severed parcel contained no existing dwelling units for a more complete understanding of the 6y-law and for when a permit is required, please consult Chapter 667 of the Municipal Code available on-line at www.toromo.ca/legdocs/municode/index, or contact the Community Policy Unit in City Planning at 416-392-7863. Pre-Application Consukation If your proposal has met the criteria in the Declaration of Use and Screening Form for passible application of the City's by-law on Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion, contact the Community Policy Unit in City Planning at 416-392-7863 taschedule apro-application consultation meeting. How to Apply Submit a completed "Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application" M/ mail or in person directly to the applicable district Customer Service Office as indicated on page 1 of the Application form, and attach all requirod submissions. If an approval is obtained, and if your proposal requires a permit under Section B or 10 of the Building Code Act,1992, a separate application must be made to Toronto Building. If you have applied or intend to apply for a related planning application, submit bath the planning application and Rental Housing Demelition and Conversien Application at the same time so that they are reviewed concurrently. Submission Requirements A Rental Housing Demolition and Cdrnersion Application will not be considered complete unless the following items are provided, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner: 1 1. A completed Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application including the Declaration of Use and Screening Form. 11 2. Full fees. (Fees are based on the existing number of units directly affected by the demolition or conversion.] 3. A Housing Issues Report, including, but not limited to: a. Descdption of the proposal as it relates to the City s relevant Dfficial Plan housing policies and Chapter 667 of the Municipal Cade b. Data on the pfposed housing units, including tenure status for all retained or proposed units, and the number and unit type of proposed converted or new units as~sr ran~•rvsaos ~ToROMOCityPianning Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application c. Description of any related applications as defined in Chapter 6671for example, applications such as far rezoning, a consent to sever, or demolitionl, phasing issues and contextual considerations for the proposal d. Analysis and opinion of the proposal in light of the above noted descriptions, including issues of impact on existing tenants and the supply R of rental housing Illl e. Completed Data Summary sheet (page 3) indicating the total number of existing rerrtal units by rent category. If the proposal affects only a portion of the existing rental units, then a second data sheet should also be completed providing the same information but for only the affected rental units. If there's a related planning application and a housing issues report is required to satisfy the planning application requirements, a single report may be (~ submitted as long as all requirements far both applications are included. i p 4. 5 copies of: a Survey, Draft Reference Plan, Context Plan, Concept Site and Landscape Rlan, and Floor Plans. lJ Additional Requirements 1. If the proposal is for Demolition of Existing Rental Housing, also provide: a. for the rental units proposed for demolition, the number of vacant units (dates vacated) and number of units used for purposes other than rental housing b. A list containing the suite numbers and mailing addresses of each rental unit c. A proposal for the replacement of the demolished rental units, with information comparing the proposed units and the existing rental units to be demolished r~ d. A Tenant Assistance and Relocation plan to assist the affected tenants Il 2. If the proposal is for Demolition of Existing Social Housing (as defined in the Toronto Official Plan, also provide: a. The same information as required above for the demolition of existing rental housing, as modified below: The summary of data on the units and rents for the existing housing should also indicate the number of rent-geared-to-income (flGl) subsidies by unit type, and market rents by unit type forthe remainder of the existing units proposed for demolition r 3. If the proposal is for Conversion to Condominium, also provide: a. For the rental units proposed for conversion, the number of vacant units (dates vacated) and number of units currently used for purposes otherthan rental heusing b. A list containing the suite numbers and mailing addresses of each rental unit c. Indication of the nature of any renovations, improvements, repairs orchanges to the building undertaken in conjunction with the condominium conversion f 1 4. If the proposal is for Conversion to non-residential ornon-rental purposes, other than to condominium, also provide: L J a. Forthe rental units proposed for conversion, the number of vacant units (dates vacated) and number of units currently used for purposes otherthan rerrtal housing b. A list comaining the suite numbers and mailing addresses of each rental unit c. If residertial use is to be maintained and existing tenants are able to remain, indication of the nature of any renovations, improvements, repairs or changes to the building undertaken in conjunction with the conversion 5. If the proposal is for a Consent under section 53 of the Planning Act: a. A copy of the information suhmitted with the application far consent on the lots to be retained and conveyed, with additional information that clearly identifies the number and bedroom type of existing rental units and any other existing dwelling units for each proposed parcel of land Nate: Nat all of the above requirements will apply to a proposal. The pre-application consultation meeting will determine which of these must be provided with the initial submission to consider the application complete. Additional information requirements may also be identified during the review process. iJ I~ ~ 0l95i fehruary~l09 i~ page 7 of 7 _. _.. -- (9/23/2009) Dean lor(ida -Green Oaks. Response _..__... __ _ . Page 1 ; From: "Kathy @ Home" <kaup@sympatico.ca> To: <diortida@niagarafalls.ca> Date: 9/18/2009 11:26 PM Subject: Green Oaks Response Dear Mayor Salci and Members of Council, I wish to show my support for the people that are living at the Green Oaks mobile home park. I believe that the city of Niagara Falls should fight for the rights of it's citizens. These people are losing their homes. If we do not fight for their right to keep them or to be reasonably compensated then tell me what is worth fighting for? If someone suddenly decided that your home can no longer stay where it is how would you feel? They have lived here the majority of their lives without having to worry that suddenly someone is going to come along and take it from them. It would not be something that anyone would anticipate and it would not be something that you would be prepared for no matter how much notice is given. They have invested their lives in their homes, as we all have, and to suddenly have to fear that this will all be gone is not right. I do believe that the city should fight for it's citizens. Is that not what a city government is for? We are all members of this community enjoying it's privileges, paying our taxes and contributing back. We need to stand up for the rights of our citizens and not let money be the driving force that makes the decision right. The right decision is more ethical than that. The right decision is to not allow money to speak louder than the rights of others to enjoy their homes and live in a safe environment without the fear of having that all taken away. We need to help these people because it is just not right, think of how this affects you not as council members but as citizens of Niagara Falls yourselves. I believe that our community is like a family, is this how you would want your grandfather, sister or cousin to be treated? Respectfully, Kathy Upper Life long Citizen Niagara Falls 1~~ ~o'~ CPS-2009-11 September 28, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Services Department SUBJECT: CPS-2009-11 6592 Dunn Street Disposition of Property RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the following actions: 1. Re-zone 6592 Dunn Street from residential to open space, 2. Lift part lot control from the subject and abutting properites, 3. Prepare a reference plan to show the portions of the property used by the abutting landowners of 6580, 6590, and 6602 Dunn Street, 4. Negotiate the sale of the property to the abutting landowners according to the reference plan, forthe appraisal value of $1,000 and for the costs of the transaction, 5. Amend the heritage designation of 6590 Dunn Street (Barclay property) with certain conditions (e.g., preservation of trees, no construction of buildings, fences, etc.), 6. Carry out any other actions to satisfy Council's intent. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City-owned 6592 Dunn Street property was declared surplus on June 8, 2009. Council directed staff to meet with the abutting landowners and to prepare a report on the various options for disposition. Three options were discussed with the abutting landowners of 6580, 6590, and 6602 Dunn Street. The three options were: 1) do nothing, 2) sell the property as a residential building lot, and 3) request Council to consider a set of actions to dispose the propertyto the three abutting landowners. The landowners and staff reached an agreement in principle on the third option, which forms the recommendation of this report. BACKGROUND In an effort to sell surplus City-owned land for the purpose of raising additional revenues, 6592 Dunn Street was identified as a residential building lot with an appraised value of $65,000. However, the lot lies directly in front of 6590 Dunn Street, the site of the Spence- Weaver House, a heritage designated residential home. The City lot is cared for by the heritage homeowners, Todd and Audrey Barclay. They petitioned the Council's Municipal Heritage Committee to preserve the use of the lot as the frontal view of their home, and to preserve the historically treed landscaping. In consideration of the Barclays petition, the Municipal Heritage Committee adopted its May 27, 2009, motion: September 28, 2009 _2_ CPS-2009-11 `That Council consider the recommendation that the lot to the north of the Spence Weaver House be re-zoned and combine the two parcels into one lot and make it available of the reassessed value for the purpose of allowing the existing use only in order fo preserve the view of the front facade and nafural heritage value of the property „ In order to dispose the property, Council approved the June 8, 2009, report L-2009-26 which recommended that 6592 Dunn Street be declared surplus and that staff meet with the abutting landowners and to prepare a report on the various options for disposition. In the subsequent June 29, 2009, report PD-2009-50, Council reiterated its commitmenfto the abutting landowners by approving the recommendation of the Municipal Heritage Committee: "(that) regarding the re-zoning and merging of lots north of the Spence Weaver House be referred to staff for discussion with Mr. & Mrs. Barclay fo be addressed in a future report as directed by City Counci! on June 8, 2009." On July 17, 2009, staff met with the three abutting landowners of 6580, 6590, and 6602 Dunn Street. Namely, Audrey Barclay (6590), Anne O'Shaughnessy, Kim and Sue Hilston (6602), and Dorcas Howe (6580) attended the meeting and discussed the three options which staff had prepared. -The owners of 6580 and 6602 Dunn Street advised that they were using a portion of the City lot as an extension to their driveways. Staff provided background information, and also advised a disposition of the property would necessitate expenditures for a site survey and land transfer costs. The attached Minutes of the meeting were circulated to the attendees. On September 23, 2009, staff met again with the three abutting landowners. Staff advised them about a change in process to a simpler method. Staff also advised that the costs could amount to $3,280 which would be the responsibility of the landowners. The landowners and staff reached an agreement in principle, which forms the recommendations of this report. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The three options for the disposition of 6592 Dunn Street are: 1) Do nothing: Council has given a directive to staffto deal with any propertythat could be considered a vacant residential building lot. Council approved report L-2009-26 which recommended that the lot be declared surplus. This option will only postpone the issue. 2) Sell the property as a residential building lot: Had this particular lot not been of heritage value to the abutting Spence/Weaver House, then the lot would have been included in the City's recent land auction. This option would require the abutting landowners to purchase the lot in orderto preserve theirexisting uses. In particular, the Dunn Street view, which is the frontal view, of the Spence/Weaver House would be blocked by a new residence erected on the lot. Therefore the Barclays would be purchasing a building lot at a prohibitive cost, since the lot could not be developed for heritage reasons. Part of this lot has also been used as driveways by the two other abutting landowners. 3) Consider a set of actions to dispose the property to the three abutting landowners: September 28, 2009 _3_ CPS-2009-11 Divide and convey the lot amongst the three abutting landowners according to a reference plan. A reference plan would be prepared to show the side portions of the lot used fordriveways by 6580 and 6602 Dunn Street, and a central portion that forms the frontage to the 6590 Dunn Street property. The conveyance would be appraised at $1,000 for the total value of the lot. The appraisal value is based on open space zoning, which means that the lot is and would remain undeveloped. If the central portion of the lot is disposed for heritage reasons at a lesser value than a residential lot, it should be re-zoned as open space to keep it in this perpetual state. The re-zoning will necessitate a public process should the present or future owner desire to develop the lot. Lifting part lot control on the subject and abutting properties would in essence merge portions of 6592 Dunn Street with the abutting properties which then could not be sold separately. Amending the heritage designation would bind future owners of the Spence/Weaver House and its merged lot to obtain permission from the City's Municipal Heritage Committee for any future changes to the land or building. Adding certain conditions forthe transferwould insure the maintenance of the heritage treed landscaping and that no stnactures would block the Dunn Street frontal view of the heritage building. FINANCIAL/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS A vacant residential building lot in this location has an appraised value of $65,000. However, the value would be significantly less due to the existing heritage value and the driveway encroachments. An appraisal value based on open space zoning, which means that the lot is not developed, would be $1,000. The costs for a new reference plan and by- law registration are estimated to be $3,280 and would be the responsibility of the landowners. The transfer and merging of the lots will increase the taxable property assessment of 6590 Dunn Street and may increase the assessments for 6580 and 6602 Dunn Street. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT One of Council's Strategic Priorities is to identify and evaluate alternative sources of revenue. Council has given a directive to staff to deal with any property that could be considered a vacant residential building lot. However, this initiative must be balanced by equally important considerations of the City's heritage assets. The importance of the heritage designated 5pencer/VNeaver House can be augmented by enriching the land and building asset through the open space re-zoning of 6592 Dunn Street. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Minutes of the July 17, 2009 meeting between staff and landowners. - Summary letter from Ridley & Associ to re: the appraisal of 6592 Dunn Street. Recommended by: Ken en, a utive Director, Corporate Services Respectfully submitted: ~a( Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer KEB MINUTES July 17, 2009 6592 Dunn Street Attending: Mrs. Audrey Barclay - 6590 Dunn Street Anne O'Shaughnessy - 6602 Dunn Street Kim & Sue Hiltson - 6602 Dunn Street Mrs. Dorcas Howe - 6580 Dunn Street Staff: Ken Burden, Alex Herlovitch, Marianne Tikky -Steno Ken Burden distributed the following information: Copies of Registered Plan NS-25, Auxiliary Locate Sheet and focussed version of NS-25 were handed out to provide visual cues as the discussion progressed. A hydro right-of-way runs across parts of lots 14 (6602 Dunn St.) & 15 (6592 Dunn St. -City Lot). The Auxiliary Locate Sheet shows the gas utility that runs through Lot 15. Report PD-2009-50 and minutes of the June 8, 2009 Council meeting was handed out to showing the following motion; L-2009-26 -Declare Surplus - 6592 Dunn Street ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wing, seconded by Councillor Kerrio that the property be declared surplus and that staff work with the Barclays and prepare a report on the various options. On June 29, 2009, report PD-2009-50 -Matter arising from Municipal Heritage Committee was presented to the Community Services Committee. Councillors Wing and Fisher made the following motion; That Council consider the following recommendations concerning matters arising from the Municipal Heritage Committee: the recommendation of the Municipal Heritage Committee regarding the re- zoning and merging of lots north of the Spence Weaver House be referred to staff for discussion with Mr. & Mrs. Barclay to be addressed in a future report as directed by City Council on June 8, 2009; 2. the restoration of the stone stair railings be re-tendered in accordance with the specifications of the Municipal Heritage Committee; and 3. that Council endorse the recommendation of the Municipal Heritage Committee concerning the replacement of the verandah floor at 2992 St. Paul Avenue. Ken Burden presented three options; Do nothing. The problem with this approach is that Council has given a directive to staff to deal with any property that could be considered a vacant residential building lot. Had this lot not been a heritage value to the Barclay house it would have been included in the Auction held on Saturday, July 11'h. This option will only postpone the issue. 2. Sell the Land. Sell at appraised values to the abutting land owners. There are two appraisals on the land. The 2008 appraisal looked at the property in two ways; a) Vacant Residential Building Lot which gave the land a high appraisal value of $65,000. b) Open Space, which means the land is frozen and stays as is, appraisal value of $1,000. 3. Re-zone the Land as Open Space, which means the land is not developable. If the land is sold at a lesser value than a residential lot, it must be zoned to keep it in this perpetual state. Advantage of re-zoning the land it must go through a public process if anyone wishes to change the land. Should the current owners around the property move away, a new owner could not develop the land without notice going to neighbouring properties to have their voice. As further assurance that the lot not be developed in the future, Deem the lot not to be part of Leawood Estates. Under the Planning Act once a lot is created it is always a lot because it is created as a legal entity. The way to change this if for Council to pass a by-law by designating lots 15 & 18 not be part of the Leawood Estates subdivision. This would in essence merge lots 15 & 18 into one which cannot be sold separately. Certain other terms and conditions would be attached to Option 3; 1) Amendment to the Heritage Designation to include Lot 18 which would reinforce the heritage designation on the land. This would bind the heritage designation over the land and home for future owners. This would require any changes to the land or building would have to pass through the Heritage Committee. 2) Conditions would apply if the property is conveyed to the Barclays. Examples would be that trees are to be maintained, no structures blocking the view of the Spence/Weaver homestead. a) The property assessment would increase as the lot size would increase. MPAC would assess based on the current resale values. b) Additional costs, such astitletransfer,surveycosts,any advertising costs, tax increases, etc. Ken Burden will investigate and advise what additional costs would be incurred should the Barclays wish to purchase the property. 3) The abutting property owners 6602 &6580 Dunn Street are using a portion of the City lot for parking. Options: 1) sever a portion of the property and have the land affixed to the properties using it. Cost incurred for severance should be minimal. Mrs. Howe questioned if squatter's rights apply as the driveways have been in use since the mid 1970's. Ken Burden will investigate and advise if squatter's rights apply. 2) Barclays could allow the existing homeowners to use the land. This solution could become problematic if the current owners sell their homes and the neighbours have a dispute. Ken Burden summarized the understanding agreed in principle today that; a reference plan be prepared to show the lands used for the driveways at Dunn Street and a central part to be conveyed to the abutting land owners; 2. the land be re-zoned as Open Space; 3. the land be deemed not be a lot in a plan of subdivision; 4. the heritage designation be extended to include that portion of lot 15 added to the Barclay property; 5. that certain conditions be attached to the transfer of lands (e.g., preservation of trees). It is on this basis that Mr. Burden will proceed to the next steps. Next Steps Ken Burden to investigate the outstanding issues and draft a letter to each homeowner outlining today's discussion and what was agreed to in principle. 2. Re-zoning will take approximately 3 - 4 months to change Lot 15 from Residential to Open Space zoning. 3. The lot severances can be done through the Reference Plan and designating that portion of land used for driveways to the abutting landowners. 4. Gas Service which lies on City Lot 15 next to Lot 16, would necessitate an easement once the driveway portion is transferred to Lot 16. MINUTES July 17, 2009 6592 Dunn Street Attending: Audrey Barclay Staff: Ken Burden, Marianne Tikky -Steno Ken Burden met with Mrs. Barclay separatelyto discuss increases to property assessment and taxes should the Barclays purchase Lot 15 known as 6592 Dunn Street. The following; Assessment: January 1, 2008 CVA $204,000 2009 Phase In Assessment $182,250 2009 Taxes @ 1.497779% $2,729.71 Revised Assessment: By adding City Property to Barclay Property January 1, 2008 CVA $207,000 (estimate) 2009 Phase-In Assessment $184,730 2009 Taxes @ 1.497779% $2,769.84 Further Revision to Assessment: By making property frontage on Dunn Street January 1, 2008 CVA $214,000 (estimate) 2009 Phase-In Assessment $191,180 2009 Taxes @ 1.497779% $2,863.51 RiDLEY & ASSOCIATES APPRAISAL SERVICES LIMITED Tune 4; 2008 City ofNiagara Falls Corporate Services Department, Legal Services 4310 Queen Street P. O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Attention: 1~iL'.Tiit~C.~3ttl~riF ~r5tii'~a'~i'9"t)t:t't~+ Dear Ms Danks: Re: APPRAISAL.RR.E'f~~~'' .~-. ~._ 6592 Dunn Street Niagara Falls, Ontfatio Your File No.:206$-i 13 As requested, I have completed a Sh~'k~d~4 Appratsei rt, which is intended to comply with the reporting requirenT,ett~~ ~ #ht~th un~~~ "1~3tf standards Rules 'of Canadian Uniform Standards of Pr~fesSiir}t~i.;ppraisal'i'Y~et for a Short Appraisal Re•t. As such, it does lam .I~i't Riscussions of the ~t%t, reasoittt~~, analyses that were used in the appf~ipai " ; to develop the appraiser's estimate of market value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use as stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for any unauthorized use of this report. As of the ET~FEC"1'IVE DATE of May 16, 2008, it is my opinion that the EST[MATED MARKET VALUE of the S[1'II~L ~...:~.TY was: ;s SIXTY FIVE TI~.~°° x,$1.00) DOLLARS ~~t~n~r~ta ~_ ONE TH~`#~I~AT4i)'j$isil~l;!.QiI; LLARS Respectfully submitted RIDLEY & ASSOCIATES Ai'PYiAfI+'t1`I.. SL~?I~I~S Li1~1I1'Rfl Pef''David A. `. y B. Comm. AAG`4 Senior Appraiser ONTARfO L2R /~ Niagar- F-2009-46 September 28, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Finance SUBJECT: F-2009-46 2008 Consolidated Financial Statements RECOMMENDATION For the information of the Corporate Services Committee EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City's auditors, Crawford, Smith & Swallow have completed the audit of the financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2008. This report is the presentation of those statements for Council's review and endorsement. The firm's audit partner will provide an overview of the Financial Statements for Council. BACKGROUND The City of Niagara Falls is required to have an annual audit conducted by a qualified accounting firm to meet its obligations legislatively and forthe banking covenants. The City has engaged Crawford, Smith & Swallow to perform the audit and they have issued an opinion on the financial statements. In addition to the statements, the auditors have reviewed the City's Financial Information Return (FIR) submission to the Province of Ontario, LIST OF ATTACHMENTS The audited Financial Statements for the year ended Decey~ber 31, 2008 are attached. Recommended by: Todd Harri~bn, Directo>~f FinanciTServices Approved by: ~~.-/~GZ~'-~P ~~- K. E. Burden, Executive Director, Corporate Services Respectfully submitted: a, Ken Todd, Chief ministrative Officer TH/Iw (j"~ Crawford smith swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2008 Crawford smlth~, SWaIIOW CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2008 Table of Contents Page Auditors' Report 1 Consolidated Statement of Financial Position 2 Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities 3 Consolidated Statement of Changes in Financial Position 4 Consolidated Schedule of Operating Fund Activities 5 Consolidated Schedule of Capital Fund Activities 6 Consolidated Schedule of Reserves and Reserve Funds 7 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 8 - 25 Schedule of Segmented Reporting 26 - 27 Auditors' Report -Trust Funds 28 Statement of Financial Position -Trust Funds 29 Statement of Financial Activities and Changes in Fund Balances -Trust Funds 30 Notes to Financial Statements -Trust Funds 31 - 32 Crawford, Smith antl Swallow f Charleretl Accountants LLP Craw ord 4741 Oueen Sireel ~~/~ C~~r 17 /7 / a[ ~ Niagara Falls, Ontario I.7L1~l.ll ~`~ ll Telephone (905) 3584200 swa ow Telecopier ~905~356-3410 Oflice3 in: Niagara Fells, Ontario St. Catharines, Ontario Fort Erie, Ontario Niagara-on-the-Lake, Onlaric Port Colborne, Ontario AUDITORS' REPORT To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario We have audited the consolidated statement of financial position of Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario as at December 31, 2008 and the consolidated statements of financial activities and changes in fmancial position for the year then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the city's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the fmancial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the city as at December 31, 2008 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. ," ~ ~~^ Niagara Falls, Ontario July 30, 2009 CRAWFORD, SMITH AND SWALLOW CIIARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP LICENSED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION December 31, 2008 21108 2007 $ $ Financial Assets -note 9 Cash -note 3 52,516;684 ; ,! 49,415,634 Investments -note 4 24,570,`818 23,313,569 Taxes receivable -note 5 1'i<,~84,1-~~ ! 15,599,454 Accounts receivable -notes 6 4~~2,5~5': ' 5,948,624 User charges. receivable i2,7~~,~9~ _~; 9,241,005 Long-term receivables 4~6,~ ~; 495,041 Note receivable -note 7 230QQ,C~09. 22,000,000 Long-term investment -note 7 ~;74a~,7 _ 44,223,209 Long-term investment -note 8 1~06~~ ..-j 896,576 x IIS`~~_y 171,133,112 Contingent Liabilities -note 19 Liabilities Temporary loan -note 9 ~~~t~ <` Accounts payable and accrued liabilities ;~F~S~-~,. 23,451,145 Deferred revenue -obligatory reserve funds - ~~~ ~ ~s, _:_ note 10 1~9~ _'-; 15,691,926 Deferred revenue ~_ ~ ~ 543,821 Other current liabilities ~ ~1<~ ~ 1,401,638 Post-employment benefits -note 11 ,~~IEF~~ ~'= 20,595,283 Net long-term liabilities -note 12 _`' ~ 32,906,852 ~` 94,590,665 Net Financial Assets 130 - ~ 76,542,447 Non Financial Assets _ __ __,-_~~ .._ Net Assets k~~~01~2 a, 77,294,572 Municipal Position Operating fund -note 13(a) 4994~~7~9 5,216,849 Capital fund -note 13(b) ~8965,~~ = 7,288,099 Reserves and reserve funds -note 13(c) 74,33;063 51,171,974 Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation net equity-note 13(d) 87;741,967-'= 66,223,209 Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Inc. net equity-note 13(e) 1;464,1"~5 . 896,576 156,-197,994 `: ? 130,796,707 Amounts to be recovered (52;131,902)-': (53,502,135) 1'04;0&6,092 ! 77,294,572 See accompanying notes 2 crawfortl smith ~, swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES for the year ended December 31, 2008 Revenues Taxation -note 5 User fees and charges Government of Canada grants Province of Ontario grants Other municipal grants Provincial Offences Act Interest and penalties Investment income Casino and gaming revenues Change in Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation net equity -note 7 Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Inc. net income -note 8 Contributions from Obligatory Reserve Funds Proceeds on disposal of property 2008 2007 $ $ 58~~4,03$.:' 57,060,923 4~13h,#14:- ! 44,378,605 i x,536 ;. 2,207 27;274,1 26,751,018 ~23~7~,~43 i 15,591,445 ~~=~~2,-~~':~ 249,500 ~~3~~10~~ 2,237,786 ~~~ 3,284,045 2.;008`:;; 2,600,000 2,690,404 896,576 11,553,825 396,611 1~'.: ^ ~~ 173,270,737 Expenditures ,~,,~- F`.JT' .+~ g 5~'~ _j ~ ~ General government , , „ 1~~ ~ 14,226,221 Protection to persons and property 16,976,253 Transportation services ~f 31,541,776 Environmental services f~.„ ; -,; 45,497,273 Health services 1,959,417 Social and family services ~-~ ~ ~ _{ 456,479 Recreation and cultural services ~ ~~7""' 18,006,801 1 ~~~3~~e,,~~= ' 133,599,540 Net Revenues 2~~~73~ -- 39,671,197 Add: Long-term debt issued 2,820,000 Add: Post-employment benefits 1;444,08 " 1,253,075 Less: Long-term debt repaid (2;814,31)'; (2,470,798) Increase (decrease) in amounts to be recovered {1;37-0,233);' 1,602,277 Change in Fund Balances Try,#Ili,7 41,273,474 See accompanying notes 3 Crawford smith (~. swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the year ended December 31, 2008 2Q08 - 2007 S $ Operations Net revenues 26,771,52t) 39,671,197 Sources (Uses) Change in investments (1?257j9) (651,263) Change in taxes receivable (1781x~8~" (2,029,804) Change in accounts receivable ~~6~~i~2~=- (1,910,917) Change in user charges receivable 0,-533;7~8~s 2,267,315 Change in long-term receivables r 3~,~62~1°;_;. 104,831 Change in inventories and prepaid expenses (1~Q7,3,~,~~',- 141,270 Change in temporary loans 3'8,3 - _ Change in accounts payable and accrued liabilities {~~-6~~)~ ; (4,948,865) Change in deferred revenue -obligatory , i reserve funds ~~~(~t)`:: (6,449,935) Change in deferred revenue (~,~ _,: 238,078 Change in other current liabilities (~t}~,~8~~, (391,852) Change inpost-employment benefits 1~~8~'. 1,253,075 '~,-1_~S ~_', (12,378,067) Change in Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation net equity (~~,`~~~ . (2,690,404) Net income of Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Inc. ~'t~~,! (896,576) Net increase in cash from o erations p ~ '~ ~~~~ k' 23,706,150 N3nancing = bong-term debt issued 2,820,000 bong-term debt repaid f2s34~1)~ (2,470,798) Net increase (decrease) in cash from fmancing (2~3I~F', 349,202 Increase in Cash Position 3=101 y6~? r 24,055,352 Cash Position, Beginning of Year 494~3,(~4. <' 25,360,282 Cash Position, End of Year 52h~1~i,6Sd = 49,415,634 See accompanying notes 4 crawl1orrl smith C~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE OF OPERATING FUND ACTIVITIES for the year ended December 31, 2008 Budget 2008 2007 $ $ $ Revenues Taxation -note 5 57,005,587 58y244,03$ ' ' 57,060,923 User fees and charges 44,398,215 46;136,414 ' ' 44,378,605 Government of Canada grants 4,53fi, 2,207 Province of Ontario grants 3,281,500 813~tI,630 _ ' 3,487,199 Provincial Offences Act 151,130 242,2~~ : ' 249,500 Interest and penalties 2,235,000 2;354,1D1_ `1 2,237,786 Investment income 2,434,000 1,905,250 1 I 2,136,511 Casino and gaming revenues 3,000,000 2;600,0(,1 , ; 2,600,000 Proceeds on disposal of property 1?611,670 4 396,611 Other 1628107 17U6,9`7•~;- 5,320202 114,133,539 122;~3'9,8~0'= 117,869,544 Expenditures General government 13,461,717 1-~91~,8~~,- 13,172,655 Protection to persons and property 15,387,055 1,8;1?~l,l~~; 16,218,506 Transportation services 24,657,275 24g22,~97~y, 22,970,233 Environmental services 27,609,505 26;325,-1~~~: 25,470,551 Health services 1,850,811 1943,x.` 1,920,397 Social and family services `<483,092~ 456,479 Recreation and cultural services 13,911,811 13;016,81_;' 13,361,342 Planning and development 6,014,126 58'4T,~4~. 4,865,977 102,892,300 103SS`~,35~ -.; 98,436,140 Net Revenues 11,2A1,239 i9~06,491 _' 19,433,404 Financing and Transfers bong-term debt repaid (2,814,018) (2814,321e)''; (2,470,798) Post-employment benefits 1;444,088;`.; 1,253,075 Transfers to reserves and reserve funds (4$5,11ft~ .' (3,778,837) Transfers to capital fund (8,427,221) (13;773,202~~` (14,362,115) Net financing and transfers (11,241,239) (19;628,551):' (19,358,675) Change in Operating Fund (222,060'"-: 74,729 Operating Fund, Beginning of Year 5,216,849 5,216,849 ;-. 5,142,120 Operating Fund, End of Year 5,216,849 4,994,`789;! 5,216,849 See accompanying notes 5 Crawford smith ~& swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL FUND ACTIVITIES for the year ended December 31, 2008 2008 ' 2007 $ $ Revenues Province of Ontario 1,143,$71 ' ' 23,263,819 Other municipal grants 2,273,241 ; 15,591,445 Other 82,590 23;41'7,112:: 38,937,854 Expenditures General government Protection to persons and property Transportation services Environmental services Health services Recreation and cultural services Plannine and develonment 1,053,566 757,747 8,571,543 20,026,722 39,020 4,645,459 4~~~~)~~.v' 35,163,400 Net Revenues (Expenditures) ~ ~ 3,774,454 Financing and Transfers ~' ~ ~~ Long-term debt issued ~~ ` 2,820,000 Transfers from operating fund ~~ 14,362,115 Transfers to reserves and reserve funds ~' ~ ~ 5,527,922 Net financing and transfers _ 11,654,193 Change in Capital Fund 3~`TF - 15,428,647 Capital Fund, Beginning of Year 7 `, (8,140,548) Capital Fund, End of Year y:- ~ 7,288,099 See accompanying notes 6 crawlom' smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE OF RESERVES AND RESERVE FUNDS for the year ended December 31, 2008 -2908 2007 ~ $ Revenues Contributions from Obligatory Reserve Funds 5;487,910 11,553,825 Investment income 1~i3~,530 1,147,534 Other , ; , _ 175,000 12,876,359 Financing and Transfers Transfers from capital fund 11~8Sx~~3 5,527,922 Transfers from operating fund :=:4~~~;~~- - 3,778,837 Net financing and transfers ~~>~7ti,'381 - 9,306,759 Change in Reserves and Reserve Funds ~1.931~~2~'"~. 22,183,118 Reserves and Reserve Funds, Beginning ~. of Year 54~`I7al~~al ` 2R.9RR_RSF, Reserves and Reserve Funds, End of Year 7~~~3;b~i~ 51,171,974 See accompanying notes 7 crawlord smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 1. Significant Accounting Policies The consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario (the "Municipality") are the representations of management prepared in accordance with local government accounting standards established by the Public Sector Accounting Board ("PSAB") of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants with the exception of providing budget figures (note 18). (a) Basis of consolidation (i) These consolidated financial statements reflect the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures of the operating fund, capital fund, reserves and reserve funds and include the activities of all committees of council and the following boards, municipal enterprises and utilities which are under the control of council: Library Board Waterworks Operation Clifton Hill Business Improvement Area Downtown Board of Management Fallsview Business Improvement Area Lundy's Lane Business Improvement Area Main & Ferry Business Improvement Area Victoria & Centre Business Improvement Area Board of Museums Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Inc. All inter-fund assets and liabilities and sources of financing and expenditures have been eliminated with the exception of loans or advances between reserve funds and any other fund of the Municipality and the resulting interest income and expenditures. The Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation ("NFHHC") and Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Inc. ("NCCCI") are accounted for on a modified equity basis, consistent with the accounting treatment for government business enterprises. Under the modified equity basis, the business enterprise's accounting principles are not adjusted to conform with those of the Municipality, and inter- organizational transactions and balances are not eliminated. The Municipality recognizes its equity interest in the annual income or loss of NFHHC and NCCCI in its "Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities" with a corresponding increase or decrease in its investment asset account. Any dividends that the Municipality may receive from NFHHC and NCCCI will be reflected as reductions in the investment asset account. 8 crawlord smith ~& swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 1. Significant Accounting Policies -continued (ii) Partial-consolidated entity The following joint local board is proportionately consolidated. See note 17. Niagara District Airport Commission (iii) Accounting for Region and School Board transactions The taxation, other revenues, expenditures, assets and liabilities with respect to the operations of the school boards and the Region of Niagara are not reflected in the municipal fund balances of these consolidated financial statements. (iv) Trust funds Trust funds and their related operations administered by the Municipality are not consolidated, but are reported separately on the "Trust Funds Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Financial Activities and Changes in Fund Balances". (b) Basis of accounting (i) Revenues and expenditures are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. (ii) The accrual basis of accounting recognizes revenues as they become available and measurable; expenditures are recognized as they are incurred and measurable as a result of receipt of goods or services and the creation of a legal obligation to pay. (iii) Inventories Inventories are valued at average cost. (iv) Capital assets Capital assets are recorded as an expenditure on the "Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities" in the year of acquisition. (v) Deferred revenue Funds received for specific purposes are accounted for as deferred revenue until the Municipality discharges the obligation which led to the receipt of the funds. (vi) Investment income Investment income earned on current surplus funds, capital funds, reserves and reserve funds (other than obligatory reserve funds) are recorded as revenue in the period earned. Investment income earned on obligatory reserve funds are recorded directly to each fund balance. (vii) Amounts to be recovered The balance referred to as "Amounts to be recovered", includes balances for post- employmentbenefits and net long-term liabilities. 9 crawlom' smith ~. swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 1. Significant Accounting Policies -continued (viii) Use of estimates The preparation of the fmancial statements in conformity with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. 2. Operations of School Boards and the Region of Niagara Further to note 1(a)(iii), the taxation, other revenues, expenditures and overlevies of the school boards and the Region of Niagara are comprised of the following: School Boards Region ~',~Q'G$ ° . ~ '~ 2007 ~ . 2008 2007 $ ~_ :::$ $ Taxation and user ~ ~- charges ~, '~~~ 44,961,961 ~t~~1rf0;4~k ; 65,658,539 Payments-in-lieu of taxes ,~'~~~_', 24,492 `1StiY~6~fl_; 7,486,985 Amounts received or ,~.-~~. receivable '' 44,986,453 ~1~62,4$?4- 73,145,524 Requisitions ~4~° 44,986,453 7(~~Q;i~ 73,145,524 Overlevies (Underlevies) ,~ ~,~,~_ at the end ofyear = _ ~ " 3. Cash This represents cash and short term investments from both the operating fund and the reserve funds (including those funds set aside in deferred revenue): _: - 2Qf#8. 2007 Operating Fund $;656,2-86' 16,231,204 Reserve Funds 40,39$' - 33,184,430 ~Z~1b,(i~4' 49,415,634 4. Investments Total investments amounting to $ 24,570,818 ($ 23,313,569 - 2007) are recorded on the "Consolidated Statement of Financial Position" at the lower of cost or market. The market value as at December 31, 2008. is $ 25,646,105 ($ 23,313,569 - 2007). 10 clawforrl smith Cdr, swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 5. Tax Receivables and Revenues Property tax billings are prepared by the Municipality based on an assessment roll prepared by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC"). The property tax receivables and tax revenue of the Municipality are subject to measurement uncertainty as a significant number of appeals submitted by ratepayers have yet to be heard. The Municipality has established an allowance for doubtful accounts in the amount of $ 920,000 ($ 920,000 - 2007). The Province of Ontario instituted a mandatory capping program through the provisions of Bi1179, which limited assessment related increases to 10% in 1998, and an additional 5% in each of 1999 and 2000. Multi-residential, commercial and industrial property owners experiencing decreases were also capped at appropriate levels to fund the phasing-in of increases. The Province has enacted Bill 140, which serves to extend the capping provisions of Bill 79 indefinitely. The new legislation will limit assessment related increases in property tax bills to 5%. 6. Interfund Receivables (Payables) As a means of financing certain activities, funds are borrowed by the operating fund from several reserve funds. Both financing and repayments are reflected as interfund transfers and therefore are eliminated from the "Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities" Likewise interfund receivable and payable balances are not reflected on the "Consolidated Statement of Financial Position". The interfund receivable and payable balance as at December 31, 2008 was ($ 877,389) (($ 1,148,004) - 2007). 11 crawforri smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 7. Investment in Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation 2008 2007 ~. $ Statement of Financial Position Current assets q~~37;433 35,051,247 Capital assets 11~70z~Qf =: 62,250,095 Other assets ~g6,`$~2 663,517 Total Assets 1~~~4 97,964,859 Current liabilities 4Iy~~A~-~, 21,855,320 Other liabilities ~2" 4,862,556 Note payable ~ i 22,000,000 Long-term debt ~, ~ = ' 5,023,774 Non-controlling interest -see below ~ Total Liabilities and Other A 5 ~' i 53,741 650 ~~ ~ ; , Net Assets , , ~~ ~~ = = 44,223,209 Statement of Financial Activities ~= ,~.~ Revenues ~ ~'~ 87,017,712 Operating expenses 84,327,308 Net income before non-controlling interest 2,690,404 Non-controlling interest -see below ~- Net income ~~~ 2,690,404 Change in accounting policy -see below -E s.. ~ - f<,1 ,e. Contributed surplus -see below ~~ ~ < Change in NFHHC Net Equity 1~,~•- - 2,690,404 On January 1, 2008, Niagaa Falls Hydro Inc. ("NFHI") acquired Peninsula West Utilities Limited ("PWUL") by way of amalgamation pursuant to a Merger Agreement dated December 19, 2007 and continued on as Niagara Peninsula Energy Ino. ("NPEI"). Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation received 74.50% of the issued and outstanding common shazes of NPEI. Effective January 1, 2008, NPEI adopted the CICA Handbook Section 3465 -Income Taxes in order to account for future payments in lieu of corporate income taxes. The excess of the fair value of the common shares issued to Peninsula West Power Inc. over the carrying value of PWUL's net assets immediately prior to the merger has been recorded as contributed surplus on the balance sheet of NPEI. 12 crawiomt smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 8. Investment in Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Inc. •...200:8 2007 $ $ Statement of Financial Position Current assets 977,405 >' 959,920 Capital assets 1 X8;65 Total Assets 1,J 16,055 959,920 Cunent liabilities -~ ~1, - 63 344 Net Assets 1?~,155 896,576 Statement of Financial Activities Revenues ~a1~7,`~50' 1,400,000 Operating expenses .50,181- ! 503,424 Net Income °l~{i{F,~79 896,576 The Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Ina (the "Centre") was incorporated in January, 2006 under the laws of the Province of Ontario. The Centre is owned 100% by the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Fallsview Business Improvement Area. The Centre was organized to obtain financing for a convention and civic centre facility to be owned by the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario. The Centre will operate the facility on anon-profit basis with any potential operating shortfalls or future capital requirements covered by a $ 17,000,000 fund established primarily by the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Fallsview Business Improvement Area, as well as the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Victoria/Centre Business Improvement Area, the Niagara Parks Commission and the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission. To date, the Centre has not earned significant operating revenues and is considered in the development stage. 13 ci ~wlort~ smith ~. swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 8. Investment in Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Inc. -continued The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Fallsview Business Improvement Area is committed to funding the Centre $ 15,000,000, the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Victoria/Centre Business Improvement Area is committed to funding the Centre $1,500,000, the Niagara Parks Commission is committed to funding the Centre $ 375,000 and the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission is committed to funding the Centre $ 125,000. All amounts are payable over the next fifteen years. The construction of the Centre is expected to cost approximately $ 84,600,000. This is to be funded through grants to be received from various sources. $ 35,000,000 has been committed by the Federal Government, of which NIL has been received as at December 31, 2008. $ 35,000,000 has been committed by the Provincial of Ontario, of which $ 35,000,000 has been received by the Municipality as at December 31, 2008 and $ 14,600,000 has been received by the Municipality from Fallsview Management Corporation as at December 31, 2008. 9. Credit Facilities The Municipality has an authorized operating loan due on demand of $ 21,000,000 ("Facility #1 ") bearing interest at prime less 0.7% to assist with general operating requirements and to finance current expenditures. An authorized revolving term loan due on demand of $ 29,500,000 ("Facility #2") bearing interest at prime less 0.25% to assist in financing construction of a new four pad arena complex. An authorized revolving term loan due on demand of $ 1,000,000 ("Facility #3") bearing interest at prime less 0.25% to assist in financing the Community Improvement Program. As at December 31, 2008, $ 6,000,000 has been drawn on Facility #2 and NIL has been drawn upon for Facilities #1 and #3. All credit facilities are secured by a borrowing by-law/resolution(s) containing a pledge of revenues and a general security agreement. 10. Deferred Revenue -Obligatory Reserve Funds The following balances are reflected as deferred revenue -obligatory reserve funds as provincial legislation restricts how these funds maybe used and under certain circumstances these funds may be refunded. `_'008 2007 ~~ i $ 2%Parklanddedication ir130,5Y~'~~~ 981,016 Public purpose ~ft14~8~~,: ' 947,194 Federal gas tax rebate -transit 7Sk0s'~D6 - ' 371,413 Provincial gas tax rebate -transit x;112,263 -' 1,436,879 Discounted development charges 3,2,1fi'7 3,081,606 Non-discounted development charges 7,11,591 8,873,818 1-55'~11,11~ 15,691,926 14 crawloirl smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 11. Post-Employment Benefits 2fl08 _ 2007 $ __ $ Post-employment benefits 14;31)4>08A'-' 12,940,034 Accumulated sick leave 3,7~~,~1~1 . 3,620,850 WSIB - Schedule II future liability 2~f~8;~~z~ , ' 2,969,288 Vacation pay ~~= 1,065,111 22,,-08~,~~1 •- ! 20,595,283 Post-Employment Benefits and Accumulated Sick Leave The Municipality pays certain medical, dental and life insurance benefits on behalf of its retired employees. The Municipality recognizes these post-retirement costs in the period in which the employees rendered the services. As a result of actuarial valuations on post-employment benefits, it was determined that actuarial losses of $ 3,250,481 existed. These amounts are being amortized over the expected average remaining service lives of several employee groups. The unamortized value is $ 2,924,613. The actual obligation is $ 17,228,693. Under the Municipality's sick leave benefit plan, unused sick leave can accumulate and employees may become entitled to a cash payment when they leave the Municipality's employment. As a result of actuarial valuations on the accumulated sick leave liability, it was determined that actuarial gain of $ 47,814 existed. These amounts are being amortized over the expected average remaining service lives of several employee groups. The unamortized value is $ 42,935. The actual obligation is $ 3,749,279. A reserve fund has been established for the accumulated sick leave liability. The balance as at December 31, 2008 is $ 1,125,815 ($ 1,073,533 - 2007). The liabilities for post-employment benefits and accumulated sick leave as reflected in these consolidated financial statements have been determined on an actuarial basis using a discount rate of 5.25%. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board - Schedule II Future Liability The Municipality has elected to be treated as a Schedule II employer and as such, is required to remit payments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB") to fund disability payments. The liability as reflected in these consolidated financial statements has been determined on an actuarial basis using a discount rate of 5.25%. As a result of an actuarial valuation on the WSIB - Schedule II liability, it was determined that an actuarial loss of $ 1,160,483 existed. This amount is being amortized over the expected average remaining service lives of several employee groups. The unamortized value is $ 1,044,435. The actual obligation is $ 3,673,393. A reserve fund has been established for this liability. The balance as at December 31, 2008 is $ 180,118 ($ 636,039 - 2007). The next valuation for all benefit groups is for the year ending December 31, 2008. 15 crawfom' smith ~, swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 11. Post-Employment Benefits -continued Vacation Pay As at December 31, 2008, employees of the Municipality have accumulated vacation pay credits in the amount of $ 1,314,119 ($ 1,065,111 - 2007). Any unused credits may be carried forward to future years. Pension Agreements The Municipality makes contributions to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System ("OMERS"), which is amulti-employer plan, on behalf of its staff. The plan is a defined benefit plan which specifies the amount of the retirement benefit to be received by the employees based on the length of service and rates of pay. The amount contributed to OMERS for 2008 was $ 2,687,747 ($ 2,326,684 - 2007) for current services. 12. Net Long-Term Liabilities (a) The balance of net long-term liabilities reported on the "Consolidated Statement of Financial Position" is made up as follows: -~~( 2007 ~ $ Total long-term liabilities incurred by the Municipality including those incurred on behalf - ofschool boards, other municipalities and ~ }"_ municipal enterprises and outstanding during the vear is _-lit-~~~ -:-, 32.906.852 Net long-term liabilities, end of year _4 ` ' 32,906,852 (b) Of the net long-term liabilities reported in (a) of this note, $ 15,245,035 in principal payments are payable from 2009 to 2013 and $ 14,847,496 from 2014 to 2027. (c) The long-term liabilities in (a) issued in the name of the municipality have received approval of the Ontario Municipal Board for those approved on or before December 31, 1992. Those approved after January 1, 1993 have been approved by by-law. The annual principal and interest payments required to service these liabilities are within the annual debt repayment limit prescribed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 16 ci awford smith C~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 12. Net Long-Term Liabilities -continued (d) Total charges for the year for net long-term liabilities which are reported on the "Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities" are as follows: 200$ 2007 $" ' $ Principal 2,8~1A~~~t ; 2,470,798 Interest L:f~~7~~6z~` 1,679,119 4~,'if<! ' 4,149,917 13. Municipal Fund Balances at the End of the Year (a) Operating fund balance ~_,. ' % 2007 ~ $ For general reduction of taxation 5,~--= 531,127 For general reduction of user charges -- respectingwaterworks $$~;4'~~ { 838,910 For general reduction of user - charges respecting sewers f~3$ 2,177,892 For general use by Library Board A`~7: 73,453 For general use by the Business Improvement Areas ~~~,~~tyi 1,329,643 For general use by the Board of Museums 1 ~~ 122 281 , For general use by Airport Commission 2(~,,~~' _' 143,543 4~4, 5,216,849 17 clawlortj smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLH)ATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 13. Municipal Fund Balances at the End of the Year -continued X008 2007 $ $ (b) Capital fund balance Acquisition of capital assets to be recovered through taxation or user charges {3;2~~,~12)= ' __ (8,024,027) Acquisition of capital assets to be financed from the proceeds of long-term liabilities {14;61,&=;, (4,132,585) Acquisition of capital assets to be recovered from transfers from reserves and reserve funds {14,044„4~11~= ;` (5,876,045) Acquisition of capital assets to be financed = from proceeds of disposition of property and ~;"' billings to third parties (39~~,I`, (5,886,400) Funds available for the acquisition of capital assets ~~_"-: 31,207,156 ~~' 7,288,099 (c) Reserves and reserve fund balances ;; ~@4~. "~ 2007 ~- $ Reserves set aside by council for specific purposes: ~- Special purposes f~Q~ 14,193,870 Working capital -26~~~Q > ' 265,000 Sewage capital 1~~~~ ~ 1,266,763 Water caroital 1.7. 1.750-097 Total Reserves 19;712,1 ! 17,475,730 18 ci~wfortj smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 13. Municipal Fund Balances at the End of the Year -continued (c) Reserves and reserve fund balances -continued 2aa8 2007 ~ ~ Reserve Funds set aside by council for specific purposes: Licence agreements - 40 years 43,92 46,888 Sick leave liability 1,125~$1~ ` 1,073,533 Lundy's Lane Battlefield debt retirement 44,289; ' 56,892 WSIB - Schedule II 184,11& 636,039 Fire station #5 debt retirement 45,2'~~'? '' 62,352 Recreation trail development 6,798 ' 53,594 Capital/Operations -see note 15 fi;761,759 ' ' 6,447,419 Tree planting -developers l,~s~, 16,730 Park development 17,.16' 118,025 Sewer and water impost 1s~3~Q4~ 1,205,164 Expansion and renewal ~19~` - 209,151 Drainage ~4,'3~17~ ! 580,286 Prepaid works projects contributions 1.,x'73, 186,222 Sidewalk construction ]~B~ 84'~ , ', 272,222 Future municipal works 477 ': ' 749,258 Lot drainage '3~~344$ 150,619 Library funds r11, 793,467 Sanitary ~7~~$'~ . .... ..........- - 359,630 Sports fund . . . ~~. 4,731 Projects -special needs children )~,~ 14,881 Parking `-E~9,3~~ ` 924,371 Collins/Toby debt retirement 30,~6i _ 39,045 Heritage Week Niagara 58,003' 56,125 Coat of Arm's 2#5;;' 2,172 Lundy's Lane business improvement purposes 3b754~ 390,486 Board of Museum purposes 1&0;457 - 166,018 Niagara Tunnel Community Improvement 5$4,64' 842,916 Ontario Power Generation Agreement 113,489 Water patrol boat 31,934 28,490 Branscombe Family Grant 3,671 3,390 Convention Centre 36,463,46 18,028,258 Fire department radios debenture 65,554 64,381 Fire denartment aerial firetruck debenture 175.128 Total Reserve Funds 51:;650,825- 33,696,244 Total Reserves and Reserve Funds 71,363,1193' 51,171,974 19 Crawford smith C, Z swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 13. Municipal Fund Balances at the End of the Year -continued (d) Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation net equity 20CI8 2007 $ $ Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation net equity 897~~,96'~_ _ 66,223,209 (e) Niagara Convention and Civic Centre Inc. net equity 2Ql)$ 2007 Niagara Convention & Civic Centre Inc. net equity ly~~~;155 - 896,576 14. Trust Funds Trust funds administered by the Municipality amounting to $ 2,836,049 ($ 2,719,569 - 2007) have not been included in the "Consolidated Statement of Financial Position" nor have their operations been included in the "Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities". 15. Contractual Obligations and Commitments Capital expenditures The estimated future capital expenditures based on projects in progress at December 31, 2008 is approximately $ 99,085,000 ($ 74,999,000 - 2007) after deducting the expenditures incurred as at December 31, 2008. These projects will be financed by grants, subsidies and long-term liabilities in future years. International Railway Bridge The Municipality, as a condition of the purchase of the CN/CP Railway Corridor, has the responsibility for the costs of demolition of the International Railway Bridge by May 2012. This condition is subject to being waived if the bridge is subsequently sold to a third party or if demolition procedures have not commenced by CN/CP prior to May 2012. The Municipality has set aside a reserve fund (CapitaUOperafions) amount of $ 4,000,000 increasing each year by the amount of the Consumer Price Index for this purpose. In addition, the Municipality is committed to reimburse CN/CP the lesser of the actual maintenance costs incurred on the International Railway Bridge or $100,000 on an annual basis until May 2012. 20 Crawford smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 16. Financial Instruments Credit Risk The Municipality is exposed to credit risk on taxes receivable, user charges receivable, accounts receivable and long-term receivables from its customers. Allowances are maintained for the potential credit losses. However, because of the large number of customers, credit risk concentration is minimal. Cash Flow Risk The Municipality is exposed to the risk that the interest earned on its investments will fluctuate due to changes in market interest rates. The Municipality manages its investments based on its cash flow needs and with a view to optimizing its interest income. Interest Rate Risk The Municipality is exposed to the risk that the value of investments will fluctuate due to changes in mazket interest rates. The Municipality manages its investments based on its cash flow needs and with a view to optimizing its interest income. The balances for certain temporary loans and long-term debt bear interest at fixed rates. Consequently, the risk exposure associated with these balances is minimal. Market Risk Certain investments held by the Municipality are subject to the risk that the value will fluctuate as a result of changes in market prices, whether those changes are caused by factors specific to the individual security, its issuer, or factors affecting all securities traded in the market. Fair Value The fair value of the post-employment benefits, accumulated sick leave and WSIB - Schedule II future liability were determined using actuarial valuations based on the information presented in note 11 to the financial statements. Long-term debt is stated at face value. It is not practicable within the constraints of timeliness or cost to determine the fair value of this financial liability with sufficient reliability. The note receivable and long-tenn investment are stated at cost. It is not practicable within the constraints of timeliness or cost to determine the fair value of these financial assets with sufficient reliability. The fair values of the Municipality's other financial instruments corresponds to their carrying values due to their short-term maturity. 21 CI ~iLi~0121~ SII]I~7 ~ SWE~IIOW CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 17. Contributions to Joint Board Further to note 1 (a)(ii) the following contributions were made by the Municipality to: Niagara District Airport Commission 2007 89,696 The Municipality's share of the net assets of the Niagara District Airport Commission is approximately 32%. 18. Budget Figures The approved operating budget for 2008 is reflected on the "Consolidated Schedule of Operating Fund Activities". These numbers have not been audited but are presented for information purposes only. The budgets established for capital funds, reserves and reserve funds are on aproject-oriented basis, the costs of which maybe carried out over one or more years. As such, they aze not directly comparable with current year actual amounts and have not been reflected on their respective schedules. 19. Contingent Liabilities The Municipality has been named as one of several defendants in a legal action seeking $ 20,000,000 for loss or damage to property and lost revenue. The Municipality's maximum insurance coverage per claim at the time of the suit was $ 15,000,000. The Municipality is also being sued for aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of $ 5,000,000. There is no insurance coverage for punitive damages. The Municipality's legal counsel is unable to assess the potential liability, if any, resulting from this action. Any settlement will be reflected as a charge to operations in the yeaz incurred. The Municipality has been named as one of several defendants in a legal action seeking $ 21,200,000 for general and special damages. The Municipality's maximum insurance coverage per claim at the time of the suit was $ 20,000,000. The Municipality's legal counsel is unable to assess the potential liability, if any, resulting from this action. Any settlement will be reflected as a chazge to operations in the year incurred. No provision for possible loss has been included in these consolidated financial statements. As at December 31, 2008, the Municipality has certain other legal claims outstanding. It is management's assertion that adequate insurance coverages are in effect for the settlement of these claims, if necessary. 22 crawlorti smith C,~C, swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 20. Tangible Capital Assets Effective January 1, 2008, the Municipality adopted Accounting Guideline 7 (PSG-7) of the Public Sector Accounting Handbook of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants ("CICA") with respect to the disclosure of tangible capital assets. PSG-7 provides transitional guidance on presenting information related to tangible capital assets until Section 3150 -Tangible Capital Assets of Public Sector Accounting Handbook comes into effect on January 1, 2009. Tangible capital assets are to be initially recorded at historical cost. Cost will include all directly attributable expenditures in the acquisition, construction, development and/or betterment of the asset required to install the asset at the location. Amortization is recorded to reflect the cost, net of anticipated residual value, associated with the use of the asset in providing government services on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful life of the asset. Amortization has not been recorded as an expense within the Municipality's 2008 statement of financial activities. Gains and/or losses on the disposal of an asset will be recorded on the statement of financial activities as "Gain/Loss on Disposal of Assets". Tangible assets received as contributions are recorded at their fair market value at the date of receipt and are also recorded as revenue. The historical cost of works of art or historical treasures has not been assigned to these assets nor disclosed in the financial statements. As at the date of the fmancial statements, the Municipality is still working toward obtaining the necessary information in order to fully comply with Section 3150. The information required for the 2008 and 2009 Tangible Capital Assets will be completed and reflected in the consolidated financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2009. 23 crawforri smith ~. swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 21. Segmented Reporting The Municipality is a lower tier municipal government that provides a wide range of services to its citizens.. Segmented information has been identified based on functional classification as categorized by the Financial Information Return. These classifications are as follows: General Government The mandate of this functional area is to provide political governance, administrative executive management and those expenses and revenues which are corporate in nature and cannot be easily apportioned to other departments. Reported in this functional azea are departments such as Council, Clerks, CAO, Finance, Human Resources, Legal, Information Systems and Capital Assets. Protection Reported in this functional area are Fire and Building Services.. The mandate of Fire Services. is to provide emergency services through a range of services to protect the lives and property of the inhabitants of the Municipality. The mandate of Building Services is to inform and assist customers to ensure safe and orderly development and provide efficient delivery of building approvals, inspections and management systems. Transportation Reported in this functional area are Roads and Works and Transit Services... The mandate for Roads and Works is to provide quality road and traffic maintenance and operations to the residents and businesses of the Municipality. This area is also responsible for winter control. The mandate of the Transit is to provide a safe, reliable, convenient and efficient public transportation system within the urban area. Environment Reported in this functional azea are Sanitary, Storm and Water Systems.. The mandate is to provide a safe and reliable water resource system and is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the systems and monitoring and administering environmental programs. Health Reported in this area is Cemetery Services. The mandate is to ensure the benefit and protection of each citizen who has purchased or has an interest in internment rights within each cemetery. Recreation and Culture Reported in this functional area are Parks, Recreation and Culture. The Pazks department is responsible for the maintenance, improvement and beautification of various parks as well as the planning and construction of new pazkland and open space. The Recreation and Culture departments aze responsible for the delivery of various related programs and the provision of facilities as well as the support of groups and organizations throughout. the Municipality. 24 crawlorti smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2008 21. Segmented Reporting -continued Planning and Development The Planning department creates the policy framework and implementation tools required to shape the future of the Municipality. The Development department is responsible for ensuring that the Municipality's land development standards are achieved on all development applications. For each reported segment, revenues and expenses represent both amounts that are directly attributable to the segment and amounts that are allocated on a reasonable basis. The accounting policies .used in these segments are consistent with those followed in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements. See note 18 for a discussion on the budgeted figures provided. 25 crawlorrl smith C.& swallow b g~ B ~' w a A ~' A ~ I J 11 a b e W N b 7y ~n 7~~py~ ~~ ~n°~'e ~. ~ 5. e q~~a~~~a i w 6m ~ t~ 6 M n3n ~y ~~ ~ ~ w0. y q4 'FO r N ~p W W A~~a ? 1 ~ MANN N A ~ O~ O W W O T AOU W to V W O. W O. W b W J lA 1 b J Y M N W ~ W b W b W :O i W O~ O J b i W N A O. J A A ~bMM0, tn0 N ~' AVI VOir ~NpWp W W W A O~ A O 1 i n 1 J b W J 1 J rn~o P.-. OVA > O~ A V i M~ I N W ~ A u b O ~ J W b ~ N W O. S UO~T•rpppp• i N O~~ O W W N In I~1 A boo ~O In bNPT N to b W Vi in W O O~ J ~ O P O. J J ~ W NO. GO X10 r W VJi P W Q W O J Q~ W A lA W I J~ N ~p W M J MT~N+N lA A O ~ N to W N C O~ ~ N O W JA b . ~ O b ~ r A N w b q N lA W :. i0 ~p r r O r t n O p O N b N W A T N U b r N (A A A N N M N W W in U ~bJ ~O ~ M V w p M ~O A b lA T W b A U W a ~ ~ J A W N i N OOi Vbi N obb UNw~ Ia a b b N N J A Y U w ' P ~ .. ~ W ~O W A O. W O~ N N P O N N O N N O] 1A N i b A N b O~ ~.r tnJ N N A O W m n ~`~~`r ~R~.~ ~ ~n 7 y W W J O WN<~ ~ A W O VOi M O. O '.~ W O O W ~ M O O O J 8 r O A r ~ Pi~blpn, pN Y N G ~.U••N AA fA "nLY MO ~ ~p J W C~ O yr BCS. W 1/i N A W J a a M W b U r J O~NU ~p fAn N ~O oo-ao A ~O w ~ ~ d O ~ b W W ro ' U' W 1 ~O'O Fi O O R M ~' O O .~~ N .J YN O.~tn ~ Hn O U N J M p H Orb ~ oJO u a b Y N O oQ 7 A O O 0, O O W A N V~ U N A i O~ N O W M J b ri.+ ~ ~ ~ Vi r U U O IA M J .A. ~ A J (A U OW. A ~ a A A °w ~+ A A A b w w VNi N LA i W M A A ~ U N r O\Tr {A W qW W N O ~ H ~ N bid n O O pyH M n N.p O ~M ~. O p N A N O M ~ O pw v. °n in W NS. F»0.o ~ M [+1 9N S. ~~oo ~M~ ^J_ n N pCi M ~ O p ~~ ~x~ ~ G B R O ^~ N z O CFI~~Y W YYYV ^~ Vl N P ~L SHy P W 0 d a w 0 !r ~~ ~~ ~a ~m .i. i ui o. "~J~ o a a N N 9 °` A to ~ ~ ~°o Q0~ O A O J W A ~ b b W a m O N u O r N N u N N W W O b O N A O~ J FJ+ N N A O b W W ~G W V b U J O cyrnxo,~~~ m .a ~ ^ r~ y t35 F `~~ `~w ~ mm~~^ R ~ m ¢ y OC]CHq ~ ~ ~ ~ a c.A ~ ~ q ~ a Hw I < :' < U ~' O W to r W D\ a ;O W O r N A OiD ~p ib NN N N b W ~D W O NO~AO W U N ~ W ~ W ~ b ~ Q J J A w A N to N I n N S A ~ U N O o N J J A A U W O~ T b W ~O ~O O. J r U W A~ J W W ^O]r ~p IAU~ A t n O A MN~O (n W J W T O J A J t n 0, W b W b N A pw o0 U r W O\ P ~ J ~OO~OOw P Ain iTJ O -T1 ~O lOn~Ntwn O w .- .. ~n rn it ~~~Uo O] O W W J O O ~ W IJ A•+w p. O W W ~ J O. b N A a\ b•+inN ~ 4n P M r W W O\ W O J O~ U N J N r J O~~ N N W O~ ~O N A ~' N N W N b i0 i0 W W P~ r W W _ W ~ A b ^ O w T C. N b A a i n O P~ T T W A Ap A y ~ O ~ A N J N W O F` A N r U -~ W N r O1 J ~-+ O~ ~W i~ i-~ J W O 'J In W r A r b J~O~O~A Oa A J O w W "Wj T P w A A t n +~O W ~NOa A W N r A -~ In A u W J T~ N W r i0 U J P U O. N J A ~ W A OO~n O. -~ A J O W J O OOP A vJi b tin i ,: W n+ Jra W b O A J O N A J 3+ W b W O w W W b O\ Pi ~ N ~ bid O. yr n N x O W ~ ~ n N x yaw o ~. .Y ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ OGQ~t~S W ~ ~ N O Z aog~ W ,? ~i J F 'dS. (6 O ro ~, o a "tea d 9N~~V ss w ~,d y ~q O_ d to ~q O Y N N e` ~ N W b~ W ~' 00 O Ctl Y^ U N J Y ~ W W U :p w J A NWT O W N r'i ~ r W ~ fy ~ O O y O C W O Y to ~ Co C. J O t nn J w N O. w V ~pJ 9 N rj TOO~O.A ~2' p ~O! W W N A O d O F W J J ~+ J N W A OJ A i N P A to ~n N A J bb pWp J w YN i-{ T~ D A W O X 0 0 0 W U J O N d~ 0~ 7 ~D O to W ~~ g ny" ~ C ~~ d r~ ~ ~ L~7 o °w I[~~~ ley] M M Z N J Crawford Smith antl Swallow Charteretl Accountants LLP Crawford 4]91 Oueen Street 1'- /~~ Gym tr/7 / L 1 Niagara Falls, Ontario 1J11~Ci1 ~`NV_ ll Te ephone (9 0 51 356-420 0 swa ow Telecopier (905) 3583410 Offices in: Niagara falls, Ontario St. Catharines. Ontario Fort Erie, Ontario Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario Port Colborne. Ontario AUDITORS' REPORT -TRUST FUNDS To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario We have audited the statement of financial position of the trust funds of Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario as at December 31, 2008 and the statement of financial activities and changes in fund balances for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the city's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the trust funds of the city as at December 31, 2008 and the continuity of trust funds for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. ~,~ - ~ ~~ Niagara Falls, Ontario July 30, 2009 CRAWFORD, SMITH AND SWALLOW CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP LICENSED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 28 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION -TRUST FUNDS December 31, 2008 Ontario Home Cemetery Renewal Perpetual Total Plan Care Other $ $ $ $ Assets Cash 408,859 17,824 309,001 82,034 Investments -note 2 Federal 317,109 317,109 Provincial 707,796 707,796 _ Corporate 1,238,604 1 237 404 1 200 2,263,509 2,262,309 1,200 GST receivable 83 83 Due from (to) operating fund 162,174 162,533 (359) Loans receivable -note 3 1,424 1,424 163,681 1,424 162,616 (359) 2,836,049 19,248 2,733,926 82,875 Fund Balances 2,836,049 19,248 2,733,926 82,875 See accompanying notes 29 crawlord smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES -TRUST FUNDS for the year ended December 31, 2008 Ontario Home Cemetery Renewal Perpetual Total Plan Care Other $ $ $ $ Balance, Beginning of Year 2,719,569 18,719 2,591,362 109,488 Receipts Cemetery lot receipts 142,564 142,564 Interest 60,920 529 56,774 3,617 Land sale deposits 11,094 11,094 214,578 529 199,338 14,711 Expenditures Cemetery Care 57,133 56,774 359 Loan repayments to Province of Ontario Transfer to operating fund 40,965 40,965 98,098 56,774 41,324 Balance, End of Year 2,836,049 19,248 2,733,926 82,875 See accompanying notes 30 cl awford smith (,t3 swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -TRUST FUNDS for the yeaz ended December 31, 2008 Basis of Accounting Receipts and disbursements on the statement of continuity are reported on the cash basis of accounting, with the exception of revenue derived from cemetery lot sales due to the Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund which has been accrued at year end. 2. Investments Trust fimd investments of $ 2,263,509 ($ 2,226,359 - 2007) are recorded on the "Statement of Financial Position" at the lower of cost or market. The market value as at December 31, 2008 is $ 2,290,920 ($ 2,273,508 - 2007). 3. Ontario Home Renewal Program The Ontario Home Renewal Program was established by the Ontario Ministry of Housing in 1973 to provide grants for municipalities to make loans to assist owner occupants to repair, rehabilitate and improve their homes to local property standards. Individual loans are limited to $ 7,500 of which the maximum forgivable porkion is $ 4,000. On July 13, 1993, the Ontario Home Renewal Program was discontinued. The municipality ceased issuing new loans as of this date and is required to remit the balance of the trust account to the Ontario Ministry of Housing by March 1, 1994. Loan receivables collected in each subsequent calendar year after 1993 must be remitted to the Province by March 1st of each year. In the event of the sale or lease of the home or in the event of the homeowner ceasing to occupy the home, the balances of the repayable loans and the unearned forgivable loan immediately become due and payable by the homeowner. 4. Financial Instruments Interest Rate Risk The City's trust funds are exposed to the risk that the value of investments will fluctuate due to the changes in market interest rates. The City manages its trust fund investments based on its cash flow needs and with a view to optimizing its interest income. Market Risk Certain investments within the City's trust funds are subject to the risk that the value will fluctuate as a result of changes in mazket prices whether those changes are caused by factors specific to the individual security or its issuer or factors affecting all securities traded in the market. 31 crawloz$ smith ~ swallow CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -TRUST FUNDS for the year ended December 31, 2008 5. Other Trust Funds 208, 2007 $. $ Trust for land sales 59,02.6 85,969 Trust for Mr. Ted Salci 3,5" ' 3,203 Trust for Mr. Wayne Thomson 5-C~~~ 5,497 Trust for Ms. Janice Wing T~~. 1,624 Rigg Estate ~~- ! 500 W. L. Doran Estate 1b ; ' 1,000 Moore Estate 1~~~ _ 1,200 McNiven Estate s~(S©a !. 500 McDonald Estate -~ ~ 400 Woodruff Estate ~ ~-_ 8,295 Coulsen Estate ~ 300 Wilson Estate 500 C. J. Doran Estate ._ ~-~~~;~ 500 ~': 109,488 32 cratvfomt smith ~, swallow Niagarajfalls cnnnoa F-2009-45 September 28, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Finance SUBJECT: F-2009-45 Operating Results as of August 31, 2009 RECOMMENDATION That Council receive the Operating Results report for information purposes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - The largest income stream forthe City, property taxes, are as budgeted based on the regular tax billing. - Increased taxation revenues could be derived from supplemental taxation. The City is dependant on MPAC for this data. - Payment in Lieu revenues, the second largest income stream, is on target, although the appeal by OLGC is still under review. Nonetheless, staff has made provision for the appeal, which appear adequate based on proceedings thus far. - User fee income is being negatively impacted due to an economic slowdown and is expected to be lower than budgeted. - Sales of services/products are expected to be lower than budgeted, particularly in Transit, where a reduction of the outside coach business has had a negative impact on sales of diesel and services. - As a result of the recent auction, property sales have been significant this year. - Penalties on tax arrears are greater than expected and will offset a decline in investment income, caused by lower than expected rates of return. - The reduction in sales and user fees can be offset by the use of reserves in these areas. As a result, staff predict that actual revenues will not be materially different from budget. - On the expenditure side, staff does not anticipate that actual amounts will exceed budgeted amounts, except in WSIB costs, which are a result of legislative rulings. A reserve exists that will offset some of the cost over run in this area. At the direction of the CAO, senior management has been directed to minimize spending for the balance of the year except in respect to prior commitments or essential expenditures. September 28, 2009 - 2 - F-2009-45 BACKGROUND The Finance division initiated enhanced reporting to Council regarding fiscal performance. This report is new to Council reporting and provides an eight-month overview of the operating performance of the corporation. The City of Niagara Falls approved an operating budget (known as General Purposes) of $92.5 million for the fiscal 2009 year. This report is being provided to inform Council on the City's financial performance for the eight month period ending August 31, 2009. The timing of this report coincides with the preparation of the 2010 General Purposes budget and is timely as any operating surplus generated in a year must be included in the subsequent budget year. Similarly, a municipality cannot operate at a deficit during a fiscal year. ANALYSISlRATIONALE The analysis of the year to date results will be segmented by revenue and expense based on the attached summary. The analysis will provide information of major factors. Revenues Taxation -City General & Urban Service The tax billing for 2009 has been completed for all property classes. Final due dates for residential classes is September and for all capped classes is October. Taxation revenues are expected to rise due to tax supplementals that will be billed later in the year. These revenues, due to the unpredictable nature are not budgeted for and represent a buffer against revenue losses in other areas. Assessment challenges by property owners through appeals were larger this year than in past years due to reassessment. However, in some cases, the time lags between appeal submission and final closure can be a few years. Thus, the impact of all assessment appeals will not be realized in this fiscal year and may impact future years. Finance staff monitors appeals and at this time believe that the allowance for writeoffs will be adequate. Payment in Lieu of Taxation Payments in Lieu (PIL's) are made by other levels of government for properties that they own in the municipality. PIL's revenue is determined in a variety of manners, some like other property owners using assessed values and applicable tax rates, others are determined by regulations based on land size or headcount while others are based on regulations. Staff do not know of factors that will increase revenues from this area this year. As Council is aware OLG has an appealed and the discussions are ongoing. An allowance was set up in the 2009 budget to offset any potential loss in assessment. Niagara Parks Commission The Niagara Parks Commission (NPC) and the City have entered into an agreement for services rendered by the City to NPC. The 2008 amount was paid by NPC in August, but the amount for 2009 has not been received as of yet. As per the terms of the agreement, NPC can pay these amounts within the life of the contract. It should be noted that the contract does come to an end this year and a new agreement will be required for 2010 and onwards. September 28, 2009 - 3 - F-2009-45 User Fees The City charges a variety of user fees throughout the Corporation. During the 2009 budget process, some new fees were implemented or increased to meet direct costs better. These included fees in fire for services previously not charged, increased application fees for building/planning, a change in ice policyto tighten up ice cancellation and increased parking rates. In many areas, the fees were implemented later in the year and as a result, the revenues will be less that expected. Similarly, the general economic climate has affected some fee groups particularly building, planning fees and transit fees which are based on volumes. While some of the user fees may rebound during the last four months of the year, due to the seasonal nature of fees, there is a general trend that user fees will be lower than expected. The shortfall in user fees will be offset by enhanced revenues in other areas or the use of specific reserves for those areas which under performed. This will be a year end action. Penalties and Investment Income This revenue stream is derived primarily in the finance and cemetery operations. The total anticipated revenues from these two categories were budgeted at $4.3 million (approximately). On the one hand, investment income is down and will be lower due to the significantly low interest rates earned. On the other hand, an increase in tax receivables has resulted in larger penalty revenue. It is anticipated that these two trends will offset one another at year end. Sales This revenue stream consists of the revenues charged for the sale of products to the public as well as land sales. Primarily divisions include cemetery operations, transit and finance operations. Revenues from cemetery operations are slightly less that budget predictions but seasonality does play a part in the achievement of budget. It is expected that cemetery product sales will achieve budgets if seasonal trends continue. Transit generates sales for the services provided to third-party bus companies. As been noted, the service garage takes advantage of the unique opportunity to service coach buses that come to Niagara Falls. Historically, favourable margins and volumes have resulted in revenues being generated to offset city transit expenses. However, this year with the downtown in the economy, the coach service business has been negatively impacted. Both the servicing of coaches and the sale of diesel fuel have been impacted. As a result, staff predicts that the revenue loss could be up to $500,000. A loss in revenue would be funded from the use of gas tax revenues unless savings can be achieved in other areas. The final action will be a year end decision based on results. Lastly, the City has had land sales this year amounting to approximately $1.8 million. This revenue is not budgeted for and represents surplus income. Council has provided broad guidelines that land sale funds should be reserved and used for future land acquisitions. Alternatively, these funds or a portion thereof may be required to assist in achieving a surplus in 2009. The direction for treatment of land sale revenue will be Council's direction once year end amounts are finalized. Expenses Salaries and Benefits Salary and benefit costs are the largest operating expenditures of the Corporation, at $44.6 million or 48% of total expenditures. With two thirds of the year completed or 66.7%, the labour costs are slightly less at 62.6% of budget. Finance has reviewed the cost incurred and has found no exceptional areas of concern. At the direction of the CAO, all staff September 28, 2009 - 4 - F-2D09-45 replacements are reviewed before appointment to determine whether alternative staffing approaches can be achieved. Staff is confident that there will no be extra spending forthis expenditure category. Materials and Services Expenditures in this category were budgeted at $14.2 million or 15.3% of total operating expenditures. Similar to salaries, the expenditures to date are coming in at target. At the direction of the CAO, senior management has been directed to withhold spending in this area to commitments already in place and to essential expenditures. One area of concern is the WSIB expense in which expenditures will exceed the budget. A reserve for WSIB claims is available, however, it will not be sufficient to meet this expenditure increase. The balance of cost overruns should be able to be accommodated within staff compensation budget, should existing trends continue. Contract Services Expenditures in this category were budgeted at $11.2 million or 12.1 % of total budgeted expenditures. The expenditures for this area are marginally above the prorated portion of the total expenditures, however, this is to be expected since seasonally, the City operations would perform much of its work by now. At the direction of the CAO senior management has been directed to withhold spending in this area to commitments already in place and to essential expenditures. Transfers to Reserves and Capital The expenditures in these areas combined were budgeted at approximately $8.2 million for 2009. The transfers to reserves and capital are typically accounting entries made at the end of the fiscal year. Staff anticipates that budget will be met. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The City of Niagara Falls, like all municipalities cannot record an operating budget deficit in a year. The City is required to use available reserves should this outcome occur. Alternatively, should an operating surplus occur, the City is required to use the surplus for the following year's budget. Staff will report to the Council on year end figures at the earliest time possible. The CAO has directed all departmental directors to limit spending for the remainder of the year to only existing commitments. Management continues to minimize the use of overtime, however, weather conditions and service expectations will impact this direction. Staff believes that total expenditures will not exceed budget. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attached is a summary of actual expenditures and August 2009. /~n Recommended by: Todd Approved by: K. E. Burden Respectfully submitted: n fUyf Ken Todd, for the year as of the end of of Financial Services Director, Corporate Services ministrative Officer CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 2009 GENERAL PURPOSES BUDGET SUMMARY OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE ACUTALVS.BUDGET August 31, 2009 REVENUES TAXATION CITY GENERAL & URBAN SERVICE TAXATION WASTE MANAGEMENT TAXATION OTHER CHARGES PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXATION GRANTS INVESTING IN ONTARIO GRANT LICENCES PERMITS RENTS SERVICE CHARGES USER FEES CONCESSIONS FINES PENALTIES AND INTEREST INVESTMENT INCOME DONATIONS SALES OTHER REVENUE INTERNAL TRANSFERS TRANSFERS FROM RESERVES, RESERVE FUNDS TOTAL REVENUES EXPENSES SALARIES AND WAGES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LONG TERM DEBT PAYMENTS MATERIALS AND SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES RENTS AND FINANCIAL TRANSFERS TO BOARDS, AGENCIES, COMMISSIONS TRANSFERS TO CAPITAL TRANSFERS TO RESERVES, RESERVE FUNDS INTERNAL TRANSFERS TOTAL EXPENSES REVENUES LESS EXPENSES 2009 2009 $ VARIANCE ACTUALS BUDGET as at August 31!09 PROJECTED 45,724,889 44,775,868 (949,021) 6,519,779 6,627,091 107,312 111,955 34,000 (77,955) 10,332,272 10,068,947 (263,325) 2,479,145 3,291,500 812,355 279,210 430,000 150,790 1,308,327 1,685,243 376,916 66,198 123,203 57,005 10,694 25,000 14,306 3,500,756 6,094,648 2,593,892 103,664 267,625 163,961 448,825 684,130 235,305 2,113,717 2,376,000 262,283 1,205,901 1,995,D00 789,099 40,335 21,000 (19,335) 1,483,249 2,006,000 522,751 2,465,179 2,807,109 341,930 909,322 3,344,120 2,434,798 4,075,411 5,896,348 1,820,937 83,178,828 92,552,832 9,374,004 22, 595 , 931 36, 040, 616 13, 444, 685 5,790,536 8,616,764 2,826,228 3,954,199 4,248,349 294,150 8,557,469 14,232,892 5,675,423 7,254,155 11,289,431 4,035,276 338,216 496,586 158,370 4,683,034 6,423,476 1,740,442 202,970 5,913,809 5,710,839 54,296 2,324,394 2,270,098 836,517 2,966,515 2,129,998 54,287,323 92,552,832 38,285,509 28,911,505 - 28,911,505 ~l~~t'ia~~i~8 CPS-2009-09 September 28, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Corporate Services Department SUBJECT: CPS-2009-09 Water/Wastewater Operations Long Range Financial Plan RECOMMENDATION That the allocation of $19,780 plus applicable taxes to engage a consultant to develop a Water/Wastewater Operations Long Range Financial Plan in accordance with O.Reg. 453/07 be approved. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Like all Ontario municipalities, the City of Niagara Falls is required to submit a minimum six-year financial plan for water and wastewater systems by July 1, 2010, to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The plan must be approved by the City Council and include details of projected financial position, operation and transactions. The preparation of the plan requires expertise and resources beyond the City's current ability. Staff anticipate that this expenditure can be funded from the budget by reducing other expenses for Contracted Services. BACKGROUND In 2002, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted "To provide for the protection of human health and the prevention of drinking water health hazards through the control and regulation of drinking water systems and drinking watertesting.". The SDWA requires that Ontario Municipalities must apply for a municipal drinking water licence, and before making the application, must prepare and approve financial plans that satisfy the requirements found in Ontario Regulation 453/07. The City of Niagara Falls, like many Ontario municipalities, is required to apply for the municipal drinking water licence, and to submit a minimum six-year financial plan for water and wastewater systems by July 1, 2010, to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The regulation stipulates several requirements to be included in the long range financial plan. The term of the plan must be for a minimum of six years, however, a longer term plan is encouraged to better enable asset replacement planning. The plan must be approved by the council of the municipality, if the owner of the drinking water system is a municipality, which for the City of Niagara Falls will be its City Council. The plan must include several financial documents which represent the projected financial position, financial operations and financial transactions within each year of the plan term.- The documents will identify assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses, and financial transactions such as the purchase and sale of capital assets, investing and financing. The plan must be submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing by July 1, 2010, September 28, 2009 _2_ CPS-2009-09 and be made available to the public without charge. Staff has gathered the relevant information such as past operating financial statements, current budgets, inventories of assets, records of ongoing liabilities and reserve funds, and future capital projects. This information, along with the development of policies for asset replacement, reserve fund and debt management, revenue and expenditure planning, will be coordinated into a form that satisfies the requirements ofthe SDWA and O.Reg.453/07. Staff has continued the investigation of changing the water and sewer rate structure. On February 9, 2009, report CPS-2009-01 responded to the Committee's direction - "to prepare recommendations for a water and sewer rate structure that fulfils the eight principles, considers the Region's review of water and sewer charges, and responds to the concerns raised via the Public Consultation." On April 27, 2009, Staff presented report CPS-2009-03 Water and Sewer Rate Structure. The report explained the five recommendations, one of which is that "a business plan that allocates revenues to be derived from atwo-part rate structure". The development of a business plan for revenues is relevant to the development of a long range financial plan for water/sewer operations. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This expenditure is not included in the consulting firms provided a proposal to Management Consulting Inc. provides appropriate experience. 2009 Municipal Utility Budget. Two qualified develop the long range plan. The firm of BMA the lower cost of comparable services and CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Well planned and maintained public infrastructure is essential to a quality community. One of Council's Strategic Commitments is to establish infrastructure investment priorities in roads,waterandwastewatersystems. The Ontario Ministry of Environment has developed new Drinking Water Quality Management Standards that require all operating authorities to have a Municipal Drinking Water Licence. To obtain the Licence, the Municipal Authority must submit a long term financial plan, which includes the long term planning for the construction, rehabilitation and repair of capital assets. By engaging the assistance of qualified and experienced consultants, City Council can further the process of establishing investment priorities for its Water and Wastewater distribution system assets, while complying with Provincial Government regulations. Recommended by: ~`~vC~~`t`~~ Ken Burden, Executive Director, Corporate Services Respectfully submitted: Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer KEB ~~ Niagara,FaIls FS-2009-07 September 28, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Fire Services SUBJECT: Radio System RECOMMENDATION 1) That Council authorize Staff to designate Glentel Inc. (Glentel) as the preferred proponent for the Niagara Falls Fire Services radio system. 2) That Staff negotiate with the preferred proponent, as per the Request for Proposal (RFP), to conclude the terms of a contract for the replacement of the Niagara Falls Fire Services radio system at an upset limit $2,099,035. 3) That, at the conclusion of negotiations, the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the contract. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current Niagara Falls Fire Services radio system has been plagued with issues over the years. An order from the Ministry of Labour prompted Fire Services to begin a process for a new system. The results of a 2008 study resulted in the selection of Lapp Hancock Associates Limited as the project managers to oversee the design and implementation of anew radio system. Lapp Hancock and Associates have completed the review of all proposals submitted in response to the RFP and have identified Glentel as the only compliant proponent. The RFP document allows negotiation with the proponent, which may result in further efficiencies in the proposal. Other associated costs related to the project will come forward in future Council reports. BACKGROUND The current radio system is leased from a third party provider and has been plagued with issues over the years. Numerous safety deficiencies have been documented that have serious implications to emergency operations. As a result, Council approved the project initially brought forward in the 2008 Capital budget. Systems expert Bill Anderson was hired as a consultantto assess the current status of our radio system and provide recommendations on alternatives. A study was commissioned to identify and review options for the replacement of the radio system. Lapp Hancock Associates Limited was subsequently hired as project managers to provide technical expertise in system selection and oversight of the radio system replacement. September 28, 2009 - 2 - FS-2009-07 Lapp Hancock and Associates conducted a complete review of all options available to Niagara Falls Fire Services to provide a safe, reliable and cost-effective communications system to the firefighters. Following extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including the radio committee, following an Order from the Ministry of Labour, an RFP (Request for Proposals) was prepared for public tender. ANALYSISIRATIONALE The City of Niagara Falls called for proposals for a new radio system in the form of an RFP. Proposals were received from four companies. Only one of the proposals was found to be compliant. One proponent lacked the experience to take on the project, another was not promoting the simulcast system, the system preferred by Niagara Falls Fire Services, and the third noncompliant bid was from the former third party provider. Although these proposals were significantly less- in cost, compared to the proposal submitted by Glentel, they were not recommended by Lapp Hancock and Associates. Glentel complied with the specifications set out in the RFP and confirmed in an addendum that was provided to all proponents during the process. Although the Glentel bid was more costly, it met the specifications in ensuring the radio system is designed as simulcast and allows for interfacing between the consoles and CAD. It should be noted that the simulcast system is used by GO Transit and other entities in the Province of Ontario. The preliminary nature of the Lapp Hancock and Associates report refers to the possibility of further system efficiencies that may be achieved prior to finalizing an agreement with Glentel through negotiations facilitated by Lapp Hancock and Associates with the Glentel design team. The City of Niagara Falls Manager of Supply and Services has reviewed the process and been consulted throughout to ensure the selection process was in conformance with policy. The final phase in the process of replacing the radio system will ensure the firefighters are provided with a safe and reliable mechanism for emergency communication. Coroner's Jury recommendations into fatalities of firefighters emphasize the need for effective communication devices as a critical component in emergency operations. The implementation of the new radio system will demonstrate due diligence in satisfying an Order from the Ministry of Labour issued to the City of Niagara Falls in November 2005. In addition, the new radio system will allow the Corporation to work toward complying with the radio communication standards referenced in the Ministry of Labour -Ontario Fire Service Section 21 Guidance Note #2-3 "Radio Communications". FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This project was approved in the 2008 Capital Budget. The approved total expenditures amount for this project was $3,086,069.00. The cost of the agreement staff is recommending that Council approve is within the budget allocated for this project. A summary of costs incurred to date is shown below: September 28, 2009 - 3 - FS-2009-07 The amount approved and allocated for the project: $ 3,086,069 The proposed cost from the preferred proponent: $ 2,099,035 The total costs incurred plus this contract: $ 2,148,595 Available funds: $ 914,803 While the contract costs will be the largest component of the capital budget, a number of future expenditures may be associated with the project. Staff believes that the available funds of $914,803 for the project will be adequate for these expenditures, which could include, but are not limited to, ensuring adequate electrical power, communication centre renovations, tower upgrades or modifications, site/location upgrades or modifications, additional system interconnections, such as microwave links and dedicated phone circuits, associated equipment, like portable and mobile radios, pagers, repeaters, and financing costs during implementation. The funding for this project will be fully derived from a debenture issue planned for 2010. The Niagara Falls Fire Services will be presenting future reports to Council for recommendation for proceeding with these additional projects related tothe Radio System. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Recommendation Report FS-2008-04 -Radio System Replacement Letter from Lapp Hancock dated September 21,, 2009 Recommended by: Lee Smith, Respectfully submitted: 60,/ Ken Todd, thief Administrative Officer J.Jessop/di:tc December 95, 2008 Niagara~'aIls cnnann His Worship Mayor Ted Salci and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Fails, Ontario Members: Re: FS-2068-04 Radio System t'roject Manager RECOMMENDATION: FS-2008-04 The recommendatiants) contained in this reportwere adopted by City Council That Council approves the expenditure of funds in fhe amount of $116,460.00 to secure the services of Lapp Hancock Associates Limited as project managers for the Niagara Falls Fire Department radio system replacement and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the related agreement. BACKGROUND; In the late 1990s, the Fire Department radio system required significant expensive upgrades to ensure the equipment and coverage met operational and safety requirements, Niagara Falls participated in the Niagara Voice Radio Project in attempts to secure aregion-wide radio system for fire, police and regional public works. After years of work and no viable system provided, the project was terminated late in 2001. 8y that time, our radio system had further deteriorated and further upgrades bad been delayed in anticipation ofthe new system. Other emergency services sought out #heir own solutions and we were left to find a solution to meet our own needs. In March 2003, the Fire Department began the process of instaAing a trunked radio system from a company called Maxtel. New radio system equipment was purchased but the infrastructure, including radio towers and switching equipment, was leased. Although the trunking system concept was superiorto the conventional system, our newsystem was fraught with problems due to design, equipment and training issues. Maxtel was taken over by Wireless Age and subsequently Wireless Works. The transition between multiple managers complicated the difficult issues we very diligently tried to overcome. The real benefits envisioned from the system were hampered by serious safety problems that persisted, In November 2005, the Ministry of Labour issued orders regarding the serious deficiencies of fhe radio system and they continue to monitor the situation. Commen#s from fhe orders include: "Although Chief Burke ' eking considerable effort to addre brought forth by t FA time is of fhe essence, hence a required toe ectifying the concems. Working Together to Serve Our Community .s the concerns gre ter effort is Fire Services December 15, 2008 - 2 - F5.2008-04 Danger is an inherent part oftheir job and therefore they should be provided with the best protection possible to ensure their safety in every circumstance." and "In all fairness to the employerthere are considerable safeguards in place in the form of procedures and basic training practices that are meant to protect the fire fighters during significant events, these procedures do not afford the same level of protection provided by a properly functioning communications system." Firefighters have worked closely with management to resolve issues but problems continued to occur despite our best efforts. There have been numerous system failures, as recently as October of 2008, and the fire fighters have no confidence in their radio system. In January 2008, a study was commissioned to identify and review options moving forward. The study was completed in May 2008 and the preferred solution was to obtain a wholly owned, conventional radio system at a cost of $2,200,000. In order to facilitate the #echnical aspects of the RFP process for a system provider, a project manager was stronglysuggested to be contracted as part of the project. A radio committee made up of management and association members have worked together to facilitate this process, Also included in the committee is our Manager of Supply and Services. The committee is in agreement with the direction proposed and a project management team selection has been completed #hrough an RFP and interview process. The proposed project timeline is approximately 14 months from the start date and includes the project management team assessing detailed system requirements, issuing and assessing an RFP for a system contractor, working with industry Canada regarding radio frequehcies, assisting with contract negotiations and overseeing all manufacture, installation and final testing activities. A future report will be forthcoming recommending a radio system provider once that RFP has been processed. The anticipated result is a very reliable, self-directed radio system that will satisfy fire department needs and dramatically reduce safety issues currently plaguing the Niagara Falls Fire Department. It is essential that the momentum of this project continue in order to provide this safety equipment and reduce our liability at the earliest opportunity. Council is being asked for approval to secure the services of a project manager for the project at this time. The costs of the contract for the project manager are included in the overall project expenditures of $2,200,000. The full expenditure amount was approved in the 2008 Capital Budget. The funding for this project will be fully derived from a debenture issue planned for 2010. Recommended by: Respectfully submitted; LSac ~~'_',,r Fire Lee Burden, Executive Director of Corporate Services J. Garry Rolston, President 9 Kane Terrace Nepean (Ottawa), Ontario, Canada K2J 2A5 Tel: (613)625-5898 Fax: (613)825-7640 E-mail: garryrolston@lapp-hancock.ca September 21, 2009 Mr. Jim Jessop, Assistant Chief of Administration Fire Services 5809 Morrison Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 2E8 Dear Mr. Jessop: Re: RFP P26-2009 VHF Simulcast, Conventional, Voice Radio Communications System Lapp-Hancock Associates Limited has undertaken a preliminary assessment of RFP responses received from Talk Wireless, Motorola Canada, Canquest and Glentel. We find that the responses to this RFP submitted by Talk Wireless, by Motorola Canada and by Canquest are non-compliant in that they do not incorporate a design for a simulcast system as required by the RFP and clarified in Addendum #2. We find that the response from Glentel is compliant, however, aspects of this response require further discussion. We recommend that the City enter into negotiations with Glentel to clarify these issues and arrive at an agreement that satisfies the requirements of the City of Niagara Falls. It is anticipated that the value of the negotiated bid will not exceed the funds available for this project. .:. ~~%~~ Garry Rolston, President.