Loading...
2001/11/12CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA SIXTEENTH MEETING Monday, November 12, 2001 Committee Room No. 2 - 5:00 p.m. Minutes of November 6, 2001, Corporate Services Meeting Deputations: 2002 Budget Request - Recreation Commission 2002 Budget Request - Arts and Culture Commission Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) Reference attached Report PD-2001-97 - Designated Heritage Property Grant Program and 2002 Budget Request Mr. R. Trbovic, 7004 Hagar Avenue and Mr. R. Trbovic, 6752 Margaret Street Reference By-law #2000-254 Change to Cemetery Plots Containing Fences Reports: R-200t -50 R-2001-51 F-200t -69 F-200t-70 - 2002 Cemetery Charges - Community Centre Selection of Architectural Team - Major Receivables Quarterly Report - Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of Taxes under Section 442 and 443 of the Municipal Act MW-2001-153 -Waste Management User Fees MW-2001-154 - Municipal Services Extension - Northwest Quadrant New Business Adjournment Staff Contact Adele Kon Adele Kon Doug Darbyson Adele Kon Adele Kon Adele Kon Lisa Antonio Anny Felicetti Ed Dujlovic Ed Dujlovic MINUTES CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE FIFTEENTH MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2001 COMMITTEE ROOM NO. 2 ~ 4:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Wayne Thomson, Aldermen Wayne Campbell, Chair; Kim Craitor, Art Federow, Ken Feren, Shirley Fisher, Gary Hendershot, Carolynn Ioannoni, Judy Orr, Victor Pietrangelo, Norman Puttick, Selina Volpatti and Janice Wing STAFF: E. Lustig, T. Ravenda, J. MacDonald, E. Dujlovic, R. Kallio, P. Pingue, A. Kon, L. Smith, K. Burden, S. Gruninger, J. Daniels MEDIA: CKTB Radio Station Niagara Falls Review Declarations of Conflict: Alderman Volpatti indicated a pecuniary interest on Report F-2001-66, Cheque No. 263394 because a family member serves on the Board. Alderman Craitor indicated a pecuniary interest on Report F-2001-66, Cheque Nos. 263359 and 263263 because a member of his family is employed by the recipient. Aldermen Fisher, Orr and Volpatti, indicated a conflict of interest with respect to Report F-2001-65 - Financing of the Acquisition of the CN/CP Railway Corridor. IN CAMERA SESSION The Chair convened the In-Camera Session at 4:00p. m. MOVED by Alderman Puttick, seconded by Alderman Volpatti, that Report HR-2001-04 be received for information. Motion Carried Alderman Craitor Opposed The In-Camera Session adjourned at 4:25p. m. MINUTES MOVED by Alderman Pietrangclo, seconded by Alderman Craitor, that the minutes of the October 1, 2001, Corporate Services Committee be adopted as recorded. Motion Carried -2- DEPUTATION Robin Argenta addressed the Committee on behalf of the Blue Light Prograt~ The program was established in 1998. Citizens are asked to shine one significant blue light amid their Christmas displays in memory of Police Officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Ms. Argenta requested sponsorship for advertising and the purchase of 2,000 blue lights for distribution. MOVED by Alderman Ioannoni, seconded by Alderman Fisher, that the cost of an advertisement for the Blue Light Program be approved. Motion Carried One Opposed MOVED by Alderman Ioannoni, seconded by Alderman Fisher, that a grant be approved for the Blue Light Program in an amount equal to the difference between the cost of the advertisement noted above and $1,000. Motion Carried Five Opposed REPORTS L-2001-65 - Body Rub Parlour Enforcement Update Staff was thanked for the update and commended for the progress that has been made in this matter. MO VED by Alderman Pietrangelo, seconded by Alderman Volpatti, that Report L-2001-65, Body Rub Parlour Enforcement Update be received for information. Motion Carried F-2001-65 - Financing of the Acquisition of the CN/CP Railway Corridor Staff was commended for the thoroughness of the financing recommendations. MOVED by Alderman Hendershot, seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo: 1. That the Corporate Services Committee approve an application be made to The Regional Municipality of Niagara to issue debentures up to a maximum of $12,500,000 for the City's share for the acquisition of the CN/CP Railway Corridor. That the Corporate Services Committee approve interim financing of $12,500,000 from the City's financial institution for the purpose of paying the City's share for the acquisition of CN/CP Railway Corridor. -3- That the Corporate Services Committee approve an application be made to The Regional Municipality of Niagara to issue debentures up to a maximum of $5,000,000 for the City's obligation for the demolition of the International Bridge. That the Corporate Services Committee approve obtaining a Letter of Credit for $4,000,000 plus CPI from the City's financialinstitution for the purpose of providing security for the City's obligation for the demolition of the International Bridge. That the Corporate Services Committee approve budgeting annual payments of $100,000 for five years, or up to a maximum of $500,000 for the purpose of paying the City's obligation for the maintenance of the International Bridge. That the Corporate Services Committee approve budgeting approximately $675,000 for the purpose of paying the City's share of due diligence investigation and closing costs. Motion Carried Five in Favour, Four Opposed Conflicts as noted for Aldermen Fisher, Orr and Volpatti MOVED by Alderman Puttick, seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo, that Staff report on the status of Development Charges for the permanent Casino. Motion Carried Report F-2001-66 - Municipal Accounts MOVED by Alderman Fisher, seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo, that the municipal accounts totalling $1,313,413.83 for the period ending November 5, 2001, be approved. Motion Carried COMMUNICATIONS MOVED by Alderman Pietrangelo, seconded by Alderman Craitor, that the communication on the 2002 Budget Schedule be received for information. Motion Carried NE W BUSINESS MOVED by Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo, that the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee of Council on Animal Population Control be amended to include rabbits and a review of the fine levels. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00p. m. Motion Carried RECREATION COMMISSION 2002 GRANT APPLICATIONS Boys & Girls Club Greater Niagara Senior Citizens Niagara Falls Badminton, Tennis & Lawn Bowling Club Niagara Falls Horticultural Society Niagara Falls Lightning Gymnastic Club Niagara Falls Lawn Bowling Club Niagara Falls Summer Playground 174,800.00 Pool 2,100.00 Rental 176,900.00 40,000.00 5,000.00 800.00 6,500.00 4,000.00 15,800.00 191,900.00 Pool 2,100.00 Rem~ 194,000.00 40,000.00 5,000.00 800.00 6,500.00 4,000.00 15,800.00 $194,000.00 Pool remal has been transferred to the YMCA Moved to separate budget $8,000.00 $800.00 $6,500.00 $4,000.00 $16,800.00 $194,000.00 Moved to separate budget $6,000.00 $800.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $16,800.00 -2- Niagara Falls Summer Swim Lessons St. John Ambulance Water Patrol Stamford Lions Stamford Horticultural Society The Family Y.M.C.A. of Niagara Falls 12,400.00 27,500.00 3,550.00 12,400.00 27,500.00 $12,400.00 $27,500.00 800.00 90,000.00 3,550.00 nil 90,000.00 $5,000.00 nil $90,000.00 Pool 2,100.00 RemM92,100.00 $12,400.00 $27,500.00 (Council approved an additional $7,000 - one time grant) 7,000.00 34,500.00 $5,000.00 nil $90,000.00 Pool 2,100.00 Rental 92,100.00 Date Revised: October 15th, 2001 S:lGtantsl2002 Grants~2002 GRANT RC. SUMM. wpd [. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The City of ~'~ll~ Corporate Sewlcas Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: wv, nv.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: plsnning~city.niagarafalls.on.ca Doug Darbyson Director PD-2001-97 November 12, 2001 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chairperson and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2001-97, Designated Heritage Propert7 Grant Program and 2002 Budget Request RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that: 7-/~' ~'OdE,gT.q ,t~e~ ~F~ Tv ~ 1) the Niagara Falls Designat~ Hell.ge Prope~ Grant Program be impiemen~d starring Janua~ 1, 2002; z) the sum of $9,000 annually be budgeted to fund the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program. -BACKGROUND: On the recommendation of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), Council directed that a committee of City staff be formed to investigate the possibility of creating a grant program for Designated Heritage Properties. The purpose of the program would be to provide a financial grant to owners of properties designated as being of historical or architectural value for the restoration o/' specific heritage elements. To encourage the maintenance and restoration o fheritage properties, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture provided limited financial assistance to owners of properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. This assistance has since been terminated by the current government. Recognizing the value eta grant program, LACAC recommends to the Council of the City of Niagara Falls that the municipality introduce a comparable program for heritage property owners within its jurisdiction. At the present time, 31 properties in the City have been designated under the Act. These include commercial, residential and institutional buildings that are representative of the key architectural styles of the 19~ and early 20~ centuries. Further, many of these buildings are associated with Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's * Finance · Hereon Resources * Information Systems Legal Planning & Development November 12, 2001 - 2 - PD-2001-97 historic events and with the men and women who have played a major role in, and made a significant contribution to, the life and development of the City. As such, these buildings, collectively, are an irreplaceable community asset which reflects our pride in the history of the City and which it is our responsibility to protect for the future. One of LACAC's functions is to evaluate heritage properties with a view to recommending their designation to Council in cases where the owner has expressed a willingness to accept designation. In several cases, owners have been reluctant to consider designation given that it appears to them there are no incentives to do so, other than the satisfaction of helping to preserve a historic structure. Provincial designated property grants were never so generous that they became the justification for designation on the part of the property owner; however, they signified an acceptance of the concept that responsibility for heritage preservation is one that must be shared by all segments of the community. Owners of heritage buildings will welcome even modest amounts of financial assistance since conservation or restoration of such buildings is inevitably more expensive than it would be for modem buildings. Materials and skills required for the preservation of heritage properties are becoming increasingly scarce. Council has already shown its commitment to protecting the "built environment" of Niagara Falls through its acceptance of the designation process. Members of LACAC urge Council to make a further commitment to extend that to the preservation of our City's built heritage. Suggested Guidelines for Property Grants: To be considered for a grant, the project must meet established criteria; eligible projects fall into three categories: conservation of existing architectural elements which are significant; reconstruction of significant architectural features which still exist, but which are beyond conservation or repair; restoration of signficant architectural features which have been lost, but for which documentary evidence exists. Designated Property Grants will provide funding for the conservation of all types of designated structures but will not be available for any work related to conservation of any component of a structure that has not been specifically included in the reason for designation. For example, interior renovations would not qualify, except in the rare case where some interior element (such as a staircase) was referred to in the designation by-law. The acceptability of each proposal will be determined by the Municipal Council on the advice of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee whose responsibility it will be to review and make a recommendation on all applications prior to the commencement of any work. The grant amount will be limited to two-thirds (2/3) of eligible costs to a maximum of $3,000 and will be based on actual expenditures as verified by invoices. The remaining one-third (I/3) will be made up by a contribution from the owner; donated labour and materials will not be considered as part of the costs or of the owner's contribution. November 12, 2001 - 3 - PD-2001-97 The grant amount will only be paid on satisfactory completion of the project as verified by the Municipal Building Department and LACAC. A property owner may receive only one grant per calendar year. It is recommended that Council reserve up to $9,000 in a calendar year to permit the award of Designated Property Grants to a maximum of three. CONCLUSION: The attached guidelines provide full detail on the above mentioned points. It is recommended that the Designated Heritage Property Grant Guidelines be implemented as a program for the designated properties in Niagara Falls and that the sum of $9,000 annually be budgeted to fund the program. Prepared by: ~>~ill Matson Assistant Planner Recommended by: Doug Darbyson Director of Planning & Development Respectfully submitted: Edward P. Lustig Chief Administrative Officer' Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services BM:tc Attach. S:kP DRk2001 kPD2001-97.wpd HERITAGE DESIGNATED PROPERTY GRANT GUIDELINES The C~ty of N~agara Falls Canada Planning & Development Department OCTOBER2~I DESIGNATED PROPERTY GRANTS Introduction Owners of properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as having historical and/or architectural significance within the City of Niagara Falls are eligible to receive grants toward the conservation and restoration of the heritage features of their properties. Through the Designated Property Grant program an owner may receive one grant per calendar year for work done on the heritage elements of the designated property. The grant offered is two thirds (2/3) of eligible costs to a maximum of $3000. In general, to be considered eligible for a grant, a project must be directed toward the conservation and/or restoration of those elements of the property cited in the Reasons for Designation, which form part of the designation by-law for the property. Some examples of the type of projects which may be eligible include the restoration of an original pomh, the conservation of period window trim and the restoration of other decorative trim such as finials and bargeboards. The acceptability of each proposal will be determined by City Council on the advice of the Niagara Falls Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC). Application forms are available from the Planning & Development Department. Grants will only be paid when the designation by-law has been passed and registered. Grant Amount The grant amount is two thirds (2/3) of eligible project costs (see definition of eligible projects included in these Guidelines), to a maximum grant of $3000. The owner must contribute the remaining one third (1/3) of project costs. The amount of grant funding available is determined on an annual basis by City Council. Applications will be considered on a case by case basis. Maximum grant allocation to an owner is also discretionary depending on volume of applications received, and whether a heritage property has previously received a grant. The grant is based on the owner's actual expenditures as verified by invoices. Donated labour and materials are not considered part of the costs or part of the owner's matching contribution. Upon satisfactory project completion, the City will pay the owner a maximum of two thirds (2/3) of eligible project costs to a maximum of $3000. Eligible Properties Any property which has been designated under Part IV (individual properties) or Part V (heritage districts) of the Ontario Heritage Act, is eligible. Frequency of Grant A property may receive one grant per calendar year. Grant Funding Policy Funding is available in the form of grants for the conservation and restoration of heritage designated properties. Funding awards am at the discretion of Niagara Falls City Council with the advice of the Niagara Falls LACAC. Funding is determined on a case by case basis. Decisions regarding funding awards are based on priority requirements such as: - condition of heritage structure - value to thc community - long term viability - visibility fhctor - completion of a project from a previously approved phase. - projects that are structurally significant (ie. roof and foundation before gutters and paint) - exterior work over interior work - documentary evidence Funding grants will be considered on a yearly basis. A property owner may receive one grant per calendar year. When Can I Apply? As an owner of a designated heritage property, you will receive an application package in December 2001 or January 2002. Early applications will receive first consideration. Applications must be received no later than March 29, 2002.* * (Should available funding still remain past this date, applications may still be received up until November 15, 2002). Owners are restricted to ONE application per calendar year; however, the application may contain more than one project. Funds are available until the end of the calendar year from the date the grant was approved. Any unspent funds at year's end will be removed from the applicant's allocation unless un extension of time has been requested in writing and has been approved in advance by the Niagara Falls LACAC. All applications will receive careful consideration but will not necessarily be funded. Eligible Projects Only those projects described below are eligible for grant funding. If there is doubt about the interpretation of these eligibility guidelines in relations to a specific project proposal, Planning & Development staff should be contacted for clarification. 1. General Any work which conserves or enhances elements sPeCified in the Reasons for Designation or Heritage District Plan, is eligible. Eligible projects fall into three categories: a) thc conservation of existing architectural elements which are significant. This would include, for instance, repair of deteriorated original elements such as doors and windows, siding and roofing materials, and other significant features. b) the reconstruction of significant architectural features which still exist, but which are beyond conservation or repair. This would include only ACCURATE reconstructions of the original features, using materials, sizes and configurations which match the original. c) thc restoration of significant architectural features which have been lost, but for which the appearance can be clearly determined from documentary sources. These documentary sources must pertain to the particular property for which funding is requested, not simply to similar properties in the neighbourhood. The documentation should be in the form of historic drawings or photographs clearly showing the feature(s) to be restored. Poor or defective work is not eligible. The only projects eligible for a grant are those in which the quality of work carried out is satisfactory. Unsatisfactory work includes minor items which can be corrected (such as paint dribbled onto adjacent surfaces) as well as major problems (such as an entire paint job which fails because of inadequate surface preparation, or masonry joints which have been cut out using power tools). In order to achieve acceptable projects, work undertaken on historic buildings requires care and often involves specialized materials and techniques. Please contact the Planning & Development Department about technical information that may be provided to the City by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. If further information is required, Staff can consult the Heritage Branch of the Ministry on an owners behal£ Short-term, routine maintenance is not eligible. This includes minor repairs (such as repairing a broken step or a broken window), painting (other than as specified in section 2.g below) and repair of non-original siding or roofing materials (aluminum siding, asphalt shingles, etc.). 2. Exterior Eligible projects might include the conservation or accurate reproduction or restoration of significant architectural features such as: · doors · windows · verandahs · cupolas · significant chimneys (exterior only) · bargeboard or other decorative trim · shopfronts which have been altered or replaced · fences and outbuildings if specifically referred to in Reasons for Designation or district plan · any other features important to the overall composition of the structure as specified in the Reasons for Designation or d/strict plan Eligible work does not include: · work on modem additions · sheds or outbuildings not specifically referred to in the Reasons for Designation or d/strict plan · modem doors and windows unless replicas of the original · new storm or screen doors and windows, except as described in (d) below · chimney repair other than restoration of a significant chimney · repair of eaves trough unless its nature is such that it is significant to the heritage of the structure For more detailed information on some eligible project types, see the explanatory notes below. a) The Conservation or Renewal of Original Roofing and Siding Materials This might include repair and replacement of wood clapboard or board-and-batten, repair and repointing of masonry buildings, stucco repair, repair or replacement of original roofing materials (slate, wood shingles, tile, etc.). It also includes removal of a modem material (aluminum siding, asphalt shingles, etc.) and replacement with the original material (where original material can be documented). It does not include repairs to or renewal of modem materials. The conservation or renewal of original roofing and siding materials deals exclusively with historical materials. The materials are defined as: wooden shingles, shakes, boards roofing; metal roofing made of copper, zinc, tin or temeplate; and roofing of clay tile and slate. Designated Property Grants am intended to help offset the extra costs associated with the new scarce materials and skills required for the preservation of heritage properties. For this reason, materials such as standard asphalt shingle and other "modem" readily available roofing types are not eligible under this program. The only exception to this role is that roofing for flat roofs (e.g. built-up roofing) is eligible under this program. b) The Repair, Repointing and Cleaning of Masonry Masonry work is eligible only if the materials and methods used will not cause harm to the historic masonry. In repair and repointing work, relatively soft lime mortars MUST be used. All cement content must be white cement, to avoid introducing harmful salts. Repointed areas are to match the historic mortar in colour, texture and joint width and profile. Old, defective mortars are to be cut out using hand tools only, except that power saws or discs may be used for partial cutting out of hard cement mortars, to a maximum of half the joint width. Masonry work using non-reversible materials such as epoxies is not eligible. Application of water-repellent coatings is not eligible. Cleaning of masonry buildings may be eligible if it is necessary for the building's preservation, and if it is carried out using suitable materials, methods and pressures. Under no cimumstances will grants be paid for sandblasting. c) Stucco Designated Property Grants may be applied to the restoration of stucco where this is known to have been the historic exterior finish for the slxucture. To receive a grant the stucco work must replicate the original or historic rendering for the building in colour, materials and texture: e.g. a structure originally finished in a "rough- cast" texture and yellow colour should be restored to this finish to be eligible. Modem renderings with high cement contents are not eligible. d) Storm and Screen Windows Designated Property Grants may be applied to the repair, consewation or reconstruction of wooden storm or screen windows if the historical evidence of the use of storm windows can be documented. The storm or screen windows must be replicas of the original both in style and material. Storm windows utilizing materials such as lexan, plexiglass, aluminum, or extruded metal are not eligible for funding. e) Stained Glass The Designated Property Grant program provides assistance for the conservation and repair of stained glass. Funding may be provided for the repair of lead or copper cames and wooden frames or the restoration of the stained glass lights. Funding is not provided for the installation of lexan, plexiglass or other synthetic materials to protect stained glass windows. These materials are considered as new storm windows and are ineligible. Eaves Troughing Designated Property Grants may be applied to the restoration of gutters and downpipes only where these items are considered to be a significant architectural feature of the building, such as: · gutters and downpipes ofnowrarely-used but long-lasting materials such as copper and lead; · gutters and downpipes which incorporate decorative elements (often found at the "storm heads" or at the metal straps); · gutters which are built into the building comice. Galvanized metal and modem materials such as plastic, vinyl or aluminum are not eligible for grant consideration. g) Painting of the Exterior in Documented Historic Colours Any property may receive one grant only for exterior painting in documented original colours. After this initial grant, it is expected that maintenance will be the owner's responsibility. Colours must be documented through paint analysis. Paint analysis may be performed either by using paint chip samples (viewed through a microscope or magnifying glass), or by sanding the paint surface in a circular motion to reveal the layers of paint (which can then be examined through a magnifying glass). Paint chips or scrapes must be taken in several different areas of the building, to provide the best opportunity for finding early paint layers and to reveal the different paint colours which may have been used on different building elements. Window frames, widow sash, doors and various areas of trim may all have been accented in colours that contrasted with the main body colour of the building. Also, the paint layers uncovered must be interpreted as to primer and finish coats, and the fading, yellowing and darkening of paints. Please consult technical information provided to municipalities by the Ministry. Fees for professional paint analysis may themselves be an eligible cost (see item 5 below). 3. Interior Interior work is not eligible for the conservation of features specifically referred to in the Reasons for Designation or district plan. Eligible interior features, if specified in the Reasons for Designation, include woodwork, plasterwork, wall or ceiling murals, etc. New services (electrical, plumbing heating) and insulation are not eligible. 4. Structure Work necessary to restore the building to structural soundness, but not including structural work to accommodate modem renovations, is eligible. This includes the correction of serious structural faults which threaten the building's survival, but does not include murine maintenance. 5. Architects' and Engineers' Fees Professional fees to a maximum of $500 of the grant are eligible under the Designated Property Grant program for work directly related to proposed conservation and rehabilitation projects. Funding is strictly limited to professional fees which are directly related to completed eligible projects. For instance, eligible fees might be related to: · preparation of drawings for reconstructed or restored elements such as porches, windows, doors, etc., for which the appearance for the individual property can be clearly determined from documentary sources; · preparation of specifications for masonry repair, repointing or cleaning; · paint analysis to document the historic paint colours for the building. Administration Application and Grant Process a) The property owner should consult with the City as early as possible in the process of planning a project. This pre- consultation helps to avoid ineligible proposals. b) The property owner submits an application for a grant to the Planning and Development Department, on application forms provided by the Planning and Development Department. This application must include all details necessary for a full understanding of the proposed work (e.g. materials to be used, dimensions, mortar mixes, cleaning chemicals for masonry, etc.). Where necessary, the City may request additional plans, specifications, drawings or photos. The professional fees for the preparation of such material may be grant- eligible. Properties must be designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. c) The application is reviewed by the City. Project proposals will be referred to the Niagara Falls LACAC. The Niagara Falls LACAC and/or City staff visit the building, discuss the proposed work with the owner, prepare comments and provide Council with reasons for accepting or rejecting the project proposal. Council's decision is final. The applicant will be informed in writing of Council's decision, and of the conditions under which the grant will be paid. d) e) Following Council's approval in principle, the owner undertakes the work. The owner is required to contact the municipality concerning any changes to the project which are proposed during the course of the work. Nothing contained in an application relieves the applicant from obtaining required Municipal Permits. All work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Mumcipal Bylaws. Work undertaken must be inspected to ensure conformity to the proposal submitted. Inspections may be earned out by City staff or, by Niagara Falls LACAC members. The grant is paid to the property owner by the municipality, on the basis of receipt for project costs. Conservation Information and Advice The Niagara Falls LACAC is a good source for information and advice, especially on designation, small-scale technical matters, and the Designated Property Grant. The Committee is accessible through the Planning and Development Depaatment. For further information regarding Preserving Niagara Falls' Designated Property Grant Program please contact: City of Niagara Falls Planning & Development Department P.O. Box 1023 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X2 905-356-7521, Extension 4342 905-356-2354 (Fax) Trbovic Cemetery Plots November 6, 2001 lhe City of Niogorc~ Foils Community Services Department Parks, Recreation & Culture 7565 Lundy's Lane Niagara Falls, ON L2H 1G9 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-7404 E-maih akon~city.niagarafalls.on.ca Adele Kon Director R-2001-$0 November 12, 2001 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chairperson and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: R-2001-50 Proposed 2002 Cemetery Charges RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the changes to the 2001 Cemetery Charges, as specified in the attached Cemetery Fee Schedule, be approved effective January 1, 2002. 2. That the By-law, appearing later this evening, be approved. That following City Council's approval, the 2002 Cemetery Fee Schedule be forwarded to the Ministry of Consumer and Commemial Relations, Cemeteries Branch, for their review and approval in accordance with the Cemetery Act. 4. That following City Council's approval and prior to implementation, 30 days public notice be given outlining the changes in Cemetery charges. BACKGROUND: City staff, and the Mayor met with representatives of the local Death Care Services Industry on November 8, 2001 to review the proposed 2002 Cemetery Charges. As Council is aware, in recent years, various percentage increases have been made for cemetery services. Staffis recommending that this trend continue to reflect our costs, while maintaining our current level of high quality services. The highlights of the proposed changes are provided below. R-2001-$0 - 2 - November 12, 2001 a) Proposed 5% Increase In Interment Rights Charges (Lot Sales) The proposed 5% increase in 2002 interment rights (lot) charges is based on our goal to obtain fair market value for cemetery land, and to continue to improve the actuarial viability of the long term Care and Maintenance Trust Fund. For comparison purposes, a survey was conducted with similar size municipalities (St. Catharines and Hamilton), as well as the privately owned Pleasantview Memorial Gardens in Fonthill. St. Catharines charges $805, Hamilton charges $1001 and Pleasantview charges $950 for a single lot purchase, compared to Niagara Falls rate of $820. St. Catharines proposes a 0% increase and Hamilton proposes a 3% increase in 2002. Pleasantview's rate was effective in August, 2001. b) Proposed 5% Increase In Interment Services Charges (Burial Fee) & Surcharges (eg. Saturday Burials) Our ongoing objective is to recover the actual costs for the various services we offer. The proposed 5% increase in the 2002 Cemetery Service Charges reflects the increased salary and benefit costs for City staff. Our overall cemetery service charges compare favourably with other regional municipalities, or cemetery operations, who have or are using a cost recovery model for the various services they offer. Council's concurrence with the recommendations contained in this report would be appreciated. Recommended by: ~ Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture Respectfully Submitted: //~Approz~ed by: Executive Director of Community Services AK/CRJdas Attachment S:\Coun¢il\Council 2001\R-2001-50.wpd CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE CEMETERY FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY I, 2002 Adult Single Lot 516.00 344,00 860.00 60.20 Adult Two Lot Plot 1032.00 688.00 1720.00 120.40 Adult Three Lot Plot 1548.00 1032.00 2680.00 180.60 Adult Four Lot Plot 2064.00 1376.00 3440.00 240.80 Adult Six Lot Plot 3096.00 2064.00 6160.00 361.20 Child/Infant Single Lot (Fairview) 153.00 102.00 255.00 17.85 Stillbom Single Lot (Lundy's Lane) 117.00 78.00 t95.00 13.65 Cremation Ptot (Four Lots) 258.00 172.00 430.00 30.10 Adult Casket Buria~ 650.00 10.00 660.00 46.20 Child Casket Burial 310.00 10.00 320.00 22.40 Infant/Stillborn Casket Burial 186.00 10.00 196.00 13.72 Cremains Urn Burial 185.00 N/A 186.00 12.95 Cremains Scatter Budal (Fairview) 110.00 N/A 110.00 7.70 Interment Cancellation - Casket 260.00 N/A 260.00 18.20 Interment Cancellation - Urn 115.00 N/A tt5.00 8.05 ~.dult Single Lot 774.00 516.00 1290.00 90.30 ~,dult Two Lot Plot 1548.00 1032.00 2580.00 180.60 ~,dult Three Lot Plot 2322.00 1548.00 3870,00 270.90 ~.dult Four Lot Plot 3096.00 2064.00 5160.00 361.20 ~.dult Six Lot Plot 4644.00 3096.00 7740.00 541.80 3hild/Infant Single Lot (Fairview) 231.00 154.00 385.00 26.95 Stillbom Single Lot (Lundy's Lane) 174.00 116.00 290.00 20.30 ~remation Plot (Four Lots) 387.00 258.00 645.00 45.15 ~,dult Casket Budal 980,00 990.00 69,30 Child Casket Burial 470.00 10.00 480.00 33.60 Infant/Stillborn Casket Burial 284.00 I0.00 294.00 20.58 Cremains Urn Burial 278.00 N/A 278.00 19.46 Cmmains Scatter Burial (Fairview) t65.00 N/A t65.00 11.55 Interment Cancellation - Casket 390.00 N/A 390.00 27.30 Interment Cancellation - Urn 172.00 N/A 172.00 12.04 PLEASE NOTE: 1) All Committal Service scheduling is at the discretion of the Cemetery's Section based on location, weather, staff availability & the number of set requested by Funeral Directom per day 2) Monday to Friday Interment Services (except on statutory or City holidays) may be scheduled, subject to Cemetery s Section approval, between 10:00 a.m. & 3:00 p.m. only. Saturday Interment Services may be scheduled, subject to Cemetery's Section approval, between 10:00 & 1:00 p.m. only. 3) Sunday & Statutory Holiday Interment Services may be scheduled, subject to Cemetery's Section approval, between 11:00 a.m. & 2:00 p.m. 4) A "scheduled" Funeral late arrival & other interment surcharges will apply as indicated in the Cemetery Fee Schedule. 5) Funeral late arrivals will be subject to an additional fee for "funeral crew standby". The standby fee will be $20 per 1/4 hr. + GST for weekdays and $26 per 1/4 hr. + GST for Sundays & Holidays 6) Funeral Directors are responsible for advising families, in advance, of potential funeral late charges & applicable surcharges. CEMETERY FEE SCHEDULE JANUARY 1, 2002 interment Rights Transfer 45.00 3.15 Interment Rights Exchange 45.00 3.15 Interment Rights Replacement/Duplicate 22.00 1.54 Cemetery Records Search 25 per hr. 1.75 per hr. Memodal Tree 200.00 14.00 Memorial Bench 1250.00 87,50 Memorial Planter 480.00 31,50 Weekday Funeral Late Arrival Scheduled After 3:15p.m, 83.00 5,81 Saturday Casket Budal - ArrNal Before t :00 p.m. 295.00 20.65 Sunday & Holiday Casket Burial - Arrival Before 2:00 p,m. 378.00 26.40 !Saturday Cremains Burial - Arrival Before 1:00 p.m. 183.00 10.71 Sunday/Holiday Cremains Burial - Arrival Before 2:00 p.m. 242.00 16.94 lent Rental (Child/StillbornlCremains Burials) t60.00 11.20 l'ent Rental Only (Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays) 324.00 22.68 _ess Than 8 Working Hours Casket Burial Order 187.00 10.99 Less Than 8 Working Hours Cremains Burial Order 79.00 5.53 Lower & Seal Concrete Vault/Liner Lid 25.00 1.75 Lower Concrete Vault/Liner Box 80.00 3.50 Foundation Concrete/Cubic Foot Supply & Install 19.00 1,33 Foundation Installation (Minimum Charge) 223.00 15.61 Veteran Upright Marker Seffing 80.00 5,60 Small Flat Marker Setting Under 172 Square Inches 36.00 2.52 Large Fiat Marker Setting Over 172 Square Inches 80.00 5.60 Comer Markers Setting (Per Set of 4) 45.00 3.15 Flat Marker Over 172 Square Inches $0.00 3.50 Upright Marker Including Base Up To 4 Feet High/Long t00.00 7.00 Upright Marker Including Base Over 4 Feet High/Long 200.00 14.00 ,] Adult/Child Dis-interment Only * Adult/Child Re-interment Infant/Stillborn Dis-interment Only * Infant/Stillborn Re-interment Cramains Dis-interment Only * Crsmains Rs-interment 9t5.00 64.05 t800.00 105.00 340.00 23,80 470.00 32.90 168.00 11.76 348.00 24.15 * Remains are removed from Municipal Cemetsty PLEASE NOTE: 1) Dis-interments will take place on a day, & at a time determined by the Cemetery Section 2) Dis-interments may be scheduled from May 1st to November 1st only 3) Dis-interments not in a vault will be contracted out & will be the responsibility of the Funeral Director 4) The Funeral Director is responsible for the scheduling & all related costs of: - casket\vault\urn removal - vault\urn unsealing & resealing - Niagara Regional Health Unit Niagara Community Services Department Parks, Recreation & Culture 7565 Lundy's Lane Niagara Falls, ON L2H 1G9 web site: www.city.niegerafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-7404 E-mail: akon@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Adele Ken Director R-200t-5'1 November 12, 2001 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chairperson and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: ' Re: R-2001-51 Community Centre Selection of Architectural Team RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approves the Steering Committee's recommendation to engage the joint architectural team ofMacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects and Chapman Murray Associates to plan, design, and provide contract administration/construction services for the Niagara Falls Community Centre. BACKGROUND: The Steering Committee of the Niagara Falls Community Centre has been engaged since June 200 l in a Quality Based Selection (QBS) process to select the most appropriate architectural team to plan, design and provide contract administration/construction for the project. Through Expressions of Interest (EOI) and Requests for Qualifications (RFQ's), the Committee narrowed the list of qualified architectural teams that would be considered to the following short list of three teams: MacLeunan Jaunkalns Miller Architects (Toronto) and Chapman Murray Associates (Niagara Falls); · Moffat Kinoshita Architects (Toronto) and Piraino and Raimondo (Niagara Falls); · Shore Tilbe Irwin & Partners (Toronto) and Macdonald Zuburec Ensslen (St. Catharines); Worhing Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development -2- Each firm was asked and responded to a Request for Proposals (RFP) including a fee budget proposal. The teams were evaluated based on their technical proposals and interviews that took place on October 30th, 2001. The Steering Committee unanimously selected the joint venture of MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Amhitects and Chapman Murray Associates as their preferred choice. The recommendation considered the following: · This firm has relevant experience in the design of community centres; The proposed project manager, Mr John MacLennan, is personally committed to our project and brings a wide range of innovations and successful experience; The design team is lead by Mr. Viktors Jaunkalns, who has considerable experience and particularly impressed the selection team; Chapman Murray Associates is the other architectural firm that will form the joint venture. This firm has a successful history in the community and will assume several important project responsibilities; The consultant team proposed represents some of the most qualified and experienced experts that will serve the project needs; The recommended team has the lowest estimated fee budget in comparison to the other fee budget proposals that were opened. Adele Kon Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture Approved by: Executive Director of Community Services AK/das Respectfully Submitted: Edward P. Lustig Chief Administrative Officer S:\Council\Council 200 l~r~-2001-5 I.wpd Corporate Services Department Finance Division 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls,on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2016 E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls.on.ca F-2001-69 Ken Burden Director Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: November 12, 2001 Re: F-2001-69 - Major Receivables Quarterly Report RECOMMENDATION: For the information of the Corporate Services Committee. BACKGROUND: The following is a quarterly report of Tax, Utility and Sundry Receivables to September 30, 2001. Tax Balances ~ Current Taxes 2001 2000 Percentage Collected Levy to Date Collections Balance Tax Arrears Percentage Collected Opening Balance Collections Balance Total Unpaid Taxes 91% 79% $77,200,070. $105,167,975. $70,058,788. $ 83,108,783. $ 7,141~82. $ 22,059,192. 2001 2000 48% 66% $10,359,000. $13,396,903. $ 4,963,864. $ 8,811,416. $ 5,395,154. $ 4,585,487. $12,536,436. $26,942,492. The total unpaid tax difference from 2000 to 2001 is partially due to the fact that we did not bill the capped classes until October 2001, due to Bill 140. November 12, 2001 - 2- F-2001-69 Utility Balances 2001 Utility Budget $ 24,158,700. Current Billing $ 75,108. Arrears $ 1,840,998. Total $ 1,916,106. Staffis working in joint collaboration with Niagara Falls Hydro in the final transition of the transfer of Water billing to Niagara Falls Hydro. Currently final readings and bills are being calculated by staff for the final transfer. Any water arrears accounts with no arrangements will be transferred to taxes or forwarded to the Credit Bureau for collection depending on account status. The amounts above do not reflect any water billings conducted by Niagara Falls Hydro. Sundry Receivables Accounts Receivable 2001 2000 $209,765. $154,060. Unpaid accounts are being actively pursued by staff and council will be kept informed of our progress. Prepared by: L. Antonio Coordinator of Tax, Utilities, and Other Receivables Approved By: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Recommended by: K.E. Burden Director of Finance H:\WPFILES\Commiitee~F-2001-69 - Major Receivables Respectfully submitted by: Edward P. Lustig ] Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services Department Finance Division The City of ~1~1~ 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls I1~1~ P.o. BOX 1023 Con~~. Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls,on.ca I - Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-0759 E-mail: afelicetti@city.niagarafalls.on,ca F-2001-70 Ken Burden Director November 12, 2001 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2001-70 - Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of Taxes Under Section 442 and 443 of the Municipal Act RECOMMENDATIONS: That the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes on the various accounts per attached summary be approved and granted to the individuals listed. BACKGROUND: Section 442 and 443 of The Municipal Act provides for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes for persons who were overcharged by reason of any gross or manifest error in the preparation of the Assessment Roll. Appeals have been received and the Applicants have been notified that the respective matters will be considered by the Corporate Services Committee this evening. The Provincial Assessment Department has confirmed that the subject properties were assessed incorrectly in that these properties: had structures that had been demolished or removed, have ceased to be liable at the rate it was taxed, had repairs/renovations for a period of 3 months, became exempt, or had a gross or manifest clerical error. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance Human Resources Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development November 12, 2001 - 2 - F-2001-70 The consideration of the committee would be appreciated. Prepared by: Al Felicetti Revenue Supervisor Recommended by: K. E. Burden Director of Finance Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Respectfully submitted by: Edward P. Lustig Chief Administrative Officer 0 o © The City of Niogoro Foils Community Services Department Municipal Works 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.cit¥.nia~larafalls.on.ca Tel.: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: ed ujlovi@city.niagarafatls.on.ca Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director MW-2001-153 November 12, 2001 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, ON Members: re: MW-2001-153 - Waste Management Fee Structure RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Regional Tax Levy for waste be used to generate revenue for Regional Waste Management Services. BACKGROUND: In February 2001, Council approved report MW-2001-09 (attached) that recommended the establishment ora Fee System for Waste Management. As a result of the implementation of the fee a number of concerns have been raised by residents and commercial property owners. The current fee for the commercial sector, which allows for up to nine bags of garbage, recycling collection and enhanced services such as street receptacle pick up and increased bag limits in the summer, is $603.00 per year. City staff has received numerous calls from commercial businesses indicating that they only put out one bag of garbage per week and, hence, the fee being charged is exorbitant. As explained to the commercial property owners, the fee was based on the service available to all property owners in that class and not the actual amount of waste that was produced per their site. Accordingly, it has been staffs position that there would be no reduction in the fee, as it would jeopardize the revenues required by the City in order to pay the Regional Waste Management bill. As a result of the information given to the property owners, a large number are indicating they no longer wish to have the service in 2002. As indicated in report MW-2001-09, Provincial Regulation 26-96 requires the City not to charge those properties or individuals not receiving service. Although, these property owners may elect not to use the Regional service in 2002, the cost to the City will not change. The reason that there will be no reduction in the cost to the City is that the Region develops its bill based on a fixed cost for the Waste Management Service for the year and it is not dependent upon the amount of stops or the volume of materials collected in 2002. WorMng Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development -2- As indicated in the previous report, staffis estimating that the 2002 Regional Waste Management expenses for the City would be approximately $6.3 million. Preliminary numbers that have been provided by the Region indicate that for 2002 Waste Management expenses will be in the order of $6.5 million, representing a 61% increase in cost. Report MW-2001-09 provides an explanation as to the significant increase. Staff is anticipating that with this increase, which would result in commercial fees being almost $1,000 and residential fees rising to $187.00, there will be a significant number of commercial property owners wishing to opt out of the service. In that the cost to the City will not change, this loss of revenue will have to be made up by the remaining users, in order to ensure that the City does not find itself in a deficit situation. Based on the above information, it is staff's recommendation that the Regional Tax Levy as discussed in report MW-2001-09 be implemented. It is staff's position that the Regional Tax Levy should be used to generate the necessary funds for the Regional service and thereby eliminating the revenue shortfall risk to the City. Committee's concurrence with the above recommendation would be appreciated. Recommended by: E. Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director of Municipal Works Respectfull~ submitted: ~ Edward P. Lustig // Chief Administrative Officer / Approved by: Executive Director of Community Services ED:kk Attachment ~he City of ~11~, Community Services Department Municipal Works 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls. ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.dty.nlagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 Alderman Victor Pietrsngelo, Chairperson · . ~'i 'I'I~.J and Members of the Community Sermees Comnuttee City °fNiagara Falls, Ontario ~zOUff Members: Re: MW-2001-09 - Waste Man~ Ed DuJlovic,~ Director MW-2001-09 E. DUJLOVIC F~lill~-y 5, 2001 FROM ~ R. O, KALLIO THE RECOMMENDATION (S) coNTAllNI~D  T WERE ~kDOIYFED IN ND RATIFIED BY CITY 0 5 2001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City implement a user pay system for waste management BACKGROUND: In September of 2000 Committee approved report MW-20~- 114 - Waste Management Waste Credit System which authorized Staff to obtain a consultant to investigate the establishment of a user pay system. As a result Staff retained the firm of C.N. Watson & Associates Limited to carry out the study. Before dealing with the issue of a user pay system it is important the Committee have an understanding of the impact on the budget as a result of the changes in waste management services and the closure of the Mountain Road Landfill. For the year 2000 gross expenses for waste management were $3.4 million dollars which was offset by a revenue of $1.6 million dollars which resulted in a net expenditure of $1.8 million dollars. The revenues for waste management included $700,000 in tipping fees receivgd~.at the~gate and $~00,000 from Regional brokering. As Committee may recall when the Region took over the adminis~xation of the Mountain Road Landfill it successfully amended the Certificate of Approval to allow for waste from the entire Region to be disposed of at the site. Having amended the C of A and realizing that the available capacity at the Mountain Road landfill would not be used prior to it's closure the Region requested proposals from the private sector to make use of this capacity. As a result the City and Region earned considemble revenue from this arrangement. In addition to the private sector waste, waste fxom a number of neighbouring Municipalities were also diverted to the Mountain Road Landfill, which resulted in additional revenue for the City except for the waste being diverted from Fort Erie. Instead of paying to dispose of our waste at the Fort Erie landfill the City received a credit, that is for every ton of waste brought in from Fort Erie the City would in the future be able to dispose of an equal amount of waste at a Regional facility. The credit that has been built up over the years and is in excess of 25,000 tonnes. 2001-02-05 -2 - MW-2001-09 For the year 2001 the gross expenditure for waste management is estimated at $4.5 million dollars and since the Mountain Road Landfill is now closed, there is no revenues to the City, hence the net expenditure is $4.5 million dollars. There are a number of factors that have lead to this substantial increase in the gross expenditure. The first and foremost is that the City no longer has a landfill and is now paying the Regional rote of $71.40 per ton which is considerably more than the cost incurred at the Mountain Road Landfill site. Other factors contributing to this increase include the enhancements to the base level of service as indicated in report MW-2001-13 and overall increases due to inflation. Another factor that is important to note is that the City for 2001 will be making use of the credit it has accumulated as a result of the waste taken in from Fort Erie. If this credit was not available, there would be an additional $1.8 million dollars in expenditures for 2001. Accordingly, irrespective of any inflationary adjustment, it is estimated that for 2002 waste management expenses for the City will be approximately $6.3 million dollars. This amounts to a $4.8 million dollar net increase in two years. As indicated in previous reports rather than include waste management as part of the Regional levy, the Region has decided to bill the area Municipalities for waste management service. In order to deal with this bill the City has a number of options which include a City Tax Levy, a Regional Tax Levy and the implementation of a User Pay System. City Tax Levy Due to the significant increase in waste management costs from 2000 to 2001 of $4.7 million dollars and a projected further increase of $1.8 million dollars in 2002 a thirty-eight percent O 8%) increase would be required to the tax levy to accommodate this cost. In addition, this service is now provided by the Region, therefore, it would not be appropriate to express it as a City tax levy. b) Region Tax Levy One of the options to the City is applying a tax rate for each of the property classes as calculated by the Regionin order to recover the waste management charges~ from the Region. Although simple to administer, one of the draw backs of implementing the Regional rate would be that those properties not currently receiving waste raanagement services would end up being charged. As this is a charge for a Regional service, the City's Finance staffare of the opinion that the City could not establish a rebate program for a service that it does not provide. Even if the City had the authority to implement a rebate program the funds, in the order of $600,000, would have to be recovered from those properties receiving the service. In that the City has established a practice of providing a credit to those properties that were not receiving waste collection services from the City it would be difficult now to impose a charge for waste management services. User Pay System As indicated, the City retained the frrm of C.N. Watson & Associates to help develop the user pay system. The theory behind the user pay system is that only those properties receiving the service would be issued a bill. This would eliminate the concerns of those properties not receiving the service. In addition to determining the cost for the various property classes the consultant also raised a number of issues with respect to the legality of ,2001-02-05 -3 - MW-2001-09 implementing user charges. A review conducted by the City Solicitor as well as the consultant has determined that under section 220.1 of the Municipal Act the City has the anthority to implement user fees via by-law for waste management services. This anthority, however, is limited by Regulation 26/96 in that the Municipality can only charge those persons who use the waste management service: Therefore, properties or individuals not receiving the service can not be charged. Based on the figures provided by the City and Region, including the recommended enhanced level ofservice, thecost for a residential homeowner onayearlybasis is approximately $114.00. Should the City decide to eliminate the enhanced service for residential, the yearly cost would drop to $107.00. It should be noted that these are pre 'hminary figures and there may be adjustments pending finalization of the budget. For the commercial sector, the cost for base level of service is approximately $297.00 with an additional $278.00 for the enhancements. The enhancements include street receptacle pickup, increased bag limit and recycling collection. The annual charge for containerized waste collection services for apartment buildings within the City is dependent upon the size of containers and number of pickups required. The cost range is from $432.00 to $9,100.00 per year, per individual unit. Council's concurrence with the recommendations outlined in this report would be appreciated. Ed Dujlovic Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted by: Edward P. Lustig Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: John MacDonald. Executive Director of Community Services Niagara Falls Community Services Department Municipal Works 4310 Queen Street P,C), Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-752t Fax: (905) 356-2354 Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director MW-2001-184 November 12, 2001 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re.' MW-2001-154 Municipal Services Extension - Northwest Quadrant RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City request the Regional Municipality of Niagara, approve the extension of water and sewer services to the northwest section of the City as per the recommendation of the Regional Niagara Public Health Department. BACKGROUND: As a result of ongoing problems that were being experienced by Club Italia, Shaddy Oakes Trailer Park, and the Regency Motel with both their water and sanitary sewer systems, the City requested that the Regional Niagara Public Health Department conduct a sanitary survey of the area. The attached report regarding the sanitmy survey concluded that municipal sanitary sewers and water for the commercial properties are recommended for the long term servicing solution. Following receipt of the report the City forwarded a copy to Regional Planning requesting that municipal servicing be allowed to extend beyond the urban boundary in order to service the properties that were experiencing failures with both their water and sewer systems. As a result of the request a meeting was held with Regional Planning Staff. The outcome of the meeting was that Regional Planning staff could support the request for the servicing extension to deal with the servicing problems with the existing developments and that a formal request from Council was required. Working Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development Building and By-Laws 2001 - 11 - 12 -2 - MW-2001-154 Committee's concurrence with the above recommendation would be appreciated. Prepared by: Ed Dujlovic Director of Municipal Works Recommended by: Ed Dujlovic, P.Eng. Director of Municipal Works Respe~eff~ly Submitted by: Edward P. Lustig ~ Chief Administrative Offic~ Approved by: Donald Director of Commurdty Services Attch. SANITARY SURVEY North-west Section of the City of Niagara Falls REGIONAL NIAGARA PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT Inspections by: Rocco Carnevale, B.Sc., C.P.H.I.(C) George Krupa, C.P.HI.(C) Report by: Rocco Carnevale August, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 Report Summary .................................................................................................... 3 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 4 Inspection Report of Commercial Propedies .......................................................... 4 Inspection Report of Residential Properties ............................................................ 5 Figure 1 - Area of Survey ....................................................................................... 6 Table 1 ................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2 ................................................................................................................... 11 INTRODUCTION A sanitary survey of properties comprising of four commercial and five residential premises was conducted in June and July of 2001 in a rural area located in the north- west section of the city of Niagara Falls. This survey was requested by Mayor Wayne Thomson of the City of Niagara Falls as an adjunct in the process of amending the Regional Official Plan and the City's Official Plan in order to include this area in the City's urban boundaries. As such, the area would be eligible for urban services such as watermains, sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities. The survey assessed both the sewage disposal systems and water supplies. Visual or direct evidence of problems and testimonial or anecdotal evidence is presented. An attempt was also made to identify potential future aroblems where a high probability existed. Where appropriate, past problems have also been included. REPORT SUMMARY If we consider the three commercial properties - namely Shady Oaks Trailer Park, Club Italia and the Regency Motel, we can conclude that the functioning of their sewage systems is at a transition point where the systems may permanently malfunction in the near future (not withstanding intermittent malfunctions as reported). The potential, therefore, exists that contamination from malfunctioning sewage systems will occur and that the use of permanent holding tanks with'pump out will be required as insufficient land area is available for on-site corrections. In addition, the grinder pump component of Club Italia's system has the potential of future breakdowns which could lead to sewage back-ups or discharges in the facilities and would certainly pose a health hazard. In terms of well water servicing the commercial properties, problems exist with respect to insufficient supplies (quantity) and problems exist due to sulphur, hardness and other esthetic conditions. The residential properties generally were found to be satisfactory with no reported or visual signs of septic malfunctions. However, if septic problems should occur, sufficient land area is available to repair or expand the sewage systems. The well water servicing the residential properties, while sufficient in quantity, appears to possess some of the same qualities as the water servicing the commercial properties. At the time of the survey, bacteriological test results indicated the water to be safe for drinking. RECOMMENDATIONS The installation of municipal sanitary sewers and municipal water for the commercial properties is recommended as the appropriate long-term servicing solution for these properties. INSPECTION REPORT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. Figure 1 shows the area surveyed. The table attached (Table 1) summarizes the results of the survey of the four commercial properties in the area. Table 1 indicates that only one out of four commercial properties are experiencing problems with their sewage disposal system that are visible. However, taking into account experiences and statements from managers or operators, three out of four or 75% of the commercial properties are experiencing problems with sewage disposal albeit intermittently. It should also be noted that in the case of Shady Oaks and the Regency Motel, expansion of the leaching bed is not possible due to the limited land area available. For instance, the Regency Motel provides baseball diamonds which act as a draw for clientele. If expansion of the leaching bed was required, the sewage system could possibly encroach on the ball diamonds which could impact the business economically (and possibly its viability). In the case of Club Italia, considerable expense has been undertaken to improve the sewage disposal system. With the increasing number and extent of functions (according to the management of Club Italia), the likelihood of malfunctioning of their sewage system is increased. The age of some of these systems is also a factor in their functioning. With respect to well water, two out of three have experienced problems in the past. Again, these problems occur sporadically and usually as a result of the breakdowns of equipment or maintenance problems. The risk is that these events may result in bacteriologically unsafe water or the inability to use washroom facilities. 4 INSPECTION REPORT Of RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES Table 2 attached summarizes the results of the survey of the five residential properties. Table 2 indicates that no problems with respect to sewage disposal were observed at the time of inspection. Two out of the five residential sewage systems are older than twenty years. Although no visual problems were noted, future deterioration may occur. In the case of residential properties, if a malfunction of the sewage system should occur, there is sufficient land area for repair or expansion on each of the properties.