The URL can be used to link to this page

2002/04/29REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 29, 2002 Order of Business and Agenda Package REGULAR MEETING April 29, 2002 PRAYER: Alderman Carolynn Ioannoni ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Planning Meeting of April 15, 2002 and Regular Meeting of April 22, 2002. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be ~made for the current Council Meeting at this time. MA YOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, REMARKS COMMUNICATIONS Canadian Hemochromatosis Society. Re: Proclamation- requesting that CoUncil proclaim the Week of May 25~h to May 31St, 2002 be proclaimed as "Hemochromatosis Awareness Week". RECOMMENDATION: That the request be approved. Will Beaudoin, Event Coordinator- Re: The Medieval Festival & Fund Raiser- advising that the Festival will be held on June 22~d and June 23~, 2002, requesting I) permission to use Centennial Square in front of City Hall, the Market Square and to close Queen Street from Crysler Avenue to Ede Street dudng the festiv~al; 2) requesting permission to erect signs at each end of the street; 3)~ requesting to access the washroom facilities downstairs at City Hall; 4) requesting public access via the stairs at City Hall and at the Market Square; and 5) requesting that the City waive all fees associated with the participation in this festival. RECOMMENDATION: Refer to staff. AdditiOnal Items for Council Consideration: The City Clerk will advise of any further items for Council consideration. REPORTS COMMUNITY SERVICES MATTERS Chief Administrative Officer MW-2002-49, Niagara Public Purchasing Committee 2002-T-12, Granular Mate~fals. Chief Administrative Officer MW-2002-55, Tender 2002-06; For the Supply and Services for Pavement Markings on Streets. Chief Administrative Officer MW-2002-56, Tender 2002-07; Forthe Supply and Services for Parking Lots and City-Owned Lands. PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE MA TTERS 1. Chief Administrative Officer R-2002-19, Agreement between Architects and City of Niagara Falls. PLANNING MATTERS Chief Administrative Officer PD-2002-41, Response to Beefeater Niagara Ltd. A/legations. ~ CORPORA T,E SERVICES MATTERS Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administretive Officer Chief Administrative Officer F-2002-27, Municipal Accounts. F-2002-28, Development Charges; 2002 Financial Information. F-2002-29, 2002 Reserves and Reserve Funds. F-2002-30, 2001 Capita/Accounts. F-2002-31, Major Receivables Quarterly Report. 6. Chief Administrative Officer 7. Chief Administrative Officer - AND - -3- F-2002-32, 2002 Financial Update, First Quarter. F-2002-33, Fralick's Tavern Project Report R-2002-20, Alderman Janice Wing/Friends of Lundy's Lane Allegations PUBLIC MEETING Report CD-2OO2-1f - Chief Administrative Officer- Re: Reduction of Council Size. 2. Report CD-2002.12 - Chief Administrative Officer- Re: Elimination of Wards. Please note that the following have requested to address Council with regard to the public meeting notification on the respective reports. Mr. Ron Planche Mr. Wayne Gates Mr. Mel Grunstein Mr. David Devine Ms. Bernadette Sacco Mr. Julius Banfai Mr. Don Pierson Ms. Jennifer Morneeu Mr. Guy Ungaro Mr. Steve Zolga Mr. Pelix Pingue The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by- laws listed for Council consideration. 2002-074 2002-075 BY-LAWS To amend By-law No. 2001-01, being a by-law to provide for apPointments to · certain Boards, Commissions and Committees. To authorize monies for General Purposes (April 29, 2002) -4- 2002-076 To adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on April 29, 2002. NEW BUSINESS CANADIAN HEMOCHROMATOSIS SOCIETY The Honorable Wayne 'Fhomson Mayor's Office PO Box 1023 Niagra Falls Ontario L2E 6X5 March 25, 2002 Dear Mayor: RE: HEMOCHROMATOSIS AWARENESS WEEK: May 25- 31, 2002-03-21 May 25-31, 2002 is observed in Canada by the Canadian Hemochromatosis Society as Hemochromatosis Awareness Week. We ask that you declare an official proclamation. Please issue a press release, add our website to your municipal health links, and promote awareness throughout the medical community and general public. This is the first year that our Society has selected communities across the nation for proclamation. We are com~ecting our new awareness initiative to a Post-Secondary Campaign that is operating right now. Join your local students in the awareness campaign, and help us spread the word. Public health attthorities can lead the way in eradicating the lack of knowledge about iron and its function in the body. This lack of awareness results in um~ecessary expenditures for healthcare in your comnmnity. Help us save valuable healthcare dollars mid prevent undue suffering. Our target is the identification of the 1 in 300 Canadians who are at risk of developing complications of this condition and the estimated 1 in 9 Canadians who, as siblings and offspring of these individuals are carriers of one recessive gene. Hereditary hemochromatosis is THEMOST COMMON genetic disorder in Canada. HEMOCItROMATOSIS IS THE ONLY HERITABLE DISORDER IN WHICH ALL THE COMPLICATIONS ARE PREVENTABLE BY EARLY DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT. The complications caused by iron overload include diabetes, liver disease, sexual dysfunction and arthritis. Find us one affected person and we have hope of saving an entire family! For your convenience we have printed a sample proclamation on the back of this letter. Thank you so much for your co-operation. Sincerely, o Charm Cottingham National President Enc. Contact: Marguie Nordman Education and Development Coordinator 272-7000 Minoru BIvd, Richmond BC, Canada V6Y 3Z5 Ph: 604-279-7135 Toll Free: 1-877-BADIRON Fx: 604-279-7138 Email: office@cdnhemochromatosis.ca www. cdnhemochromatosis.ca Board of ]Vlana~em~nt EO, Box ~, Ni~ata F~I~. Ontario L2E 658 Td.: Fax: (~05) a'blsOon,albn.com www.do~ntowania~arafall~,com Re: Middle A~es t:hzz~lxai~r, Demonstr~ion end Tournament Dear Will: On behalf of the Downtown Board. of M~ma~ement ] would lflce ~o ,hn,t: you for your presentntim re~mttul~ the above scheduled event for June 22n~ and 23r~, 2002. After some brief discussion, it was unnnimoes tlmt the board support ~s event, which we feel has the potet~n3 fl~r success. At ~k time we are plea~d a3 act as a sponsor sad provide the foaowins: 1. A cash donation of $1,O00.O0 2. The use of the BIA o~ce for ph(me calls, com~uter needs, meetings etc. 3. The use of our A,~at/ve A~stmtt tad office pe~anel As a condition of this support we would ask th,~ followint the event we have disclosure of the fmancinl statements frown tl~ Tender Wishes ort. aniz~on. We look ~orwanl to wo~l~i~_* together with yournelf and the SCA. Please drop offs schedule for our participation and/or oontaot Jenif~ Cass at our o~ee (90~) 3~4-0606. Sincerely, Downtown Niagara Falls: Where Variety Makes the Difference The Medieval Festival & Fund Raiser 4349 Queen St. Niagara Falls ON L2E 2K9 Phone: (905) 356-5756 Fax: (905) 356-9915 Email: illuminessence~,bellnet.ca April 24, 2002 To Mayor Wayne Thomson & The Members of council, My name is Will Beaudom and I am coordinator of Thc Medieval Festival & Fund Raiser. The Festival has brought together the support of four groups, The Tender Wishes Foundation, The Society for Creative Anachronisms, The Downtown BIA and Niagara Falls City Hall I have included the first page of a meeting held on April 16~ which includes all the contacts for Thc Festival. The Downtown BIA is a major sponsor of The Festival and is encour~ng the downtown merchants to participate. The proposed dole for The Festival is Saturday and Sunday June 22~ and23~a, 2002. It will mn from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM. We are anking the City for perminsion to use Centennial Square in front of City Hall, the Market Square and to close Queen St. from Chiysler Ave. to Erie St. for thin event. Many demonstrations and tournaments are planned and we hope to have a large turnout. To help attract people to the downtown, we would like to erect signs at each end of the street. Desj~tm.q have been submitted to City Hall. Also banners could be hung from streetlamps. We would like to dress up the downtown for a weekend. The Tender Wishes Foundation is concerned with handicap access to public washrooms, ffthe city could provide access for specific cases to usc the elevator at City Hall to access the washroom downstairs it would also help. Also public access via the Oairs at City Hall and at the Market Square would help greatly. Details of the event have been discussed with The City Clerk, Dean Iorfida and other City Hall Staff. As you know The Tender Wishes Foundation is a local charity and The Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA) is a not for profit o ~rgani?afion. The main pull~se of The Festival is to raise fullds for Tender Wishes but it will also generate a positive boost for The Downtown. The SCA is looking to form a group in Niagara Falls and this is the perffeet platform for them to strut their stuff. This is a festival where all the participants win. We are asking The City of Niagera Falls to waive all fees associated with their participation in this festival. Also, is there a chance that special buses could nm specifically to and from the festival for the day ... Just a thought. Thank-you for taking the lime in council for the consideration of this festival. Event Coordinator ~.l~i121, 2002 De~r Mr. Beaduoin: 1s ,~m~l Msdlav~I l~ssltval ~ ~ Rai~, With all of~ pl~ so far, ii appe~s io be going well a~ sho~!,')_ be ~ witli huge ~[ Ou~ membership es you t,,.~w comirts ~timl~ o£volunicae. We ~ na ~c~ve gov~ea ~; we rely ~ ~ ~ ~iv~ ~ ~ p~: ~ ~ f~s~ eves s~ as yoga. ~ ~u ~ow we ~ ~ff ~ ~vo~s m supron ~e ~fi~ u m~h ~ ~le. We have already reel sa a group .-~ I know we will be speaking in the near fu~'z, Again, on b~i~of~ Tm~er Wisl~a Fo~uclation, pleate know ti~ w sre not o~ly grateful for your companion lnd continual suppo~ but for helpi~ us mak~ s differencel W~e~ c~u ccm~ m~ through you! D~uiel H~a~on 2"~ Vi~ Pre~i.~nt (~ae) lTt-~ W. bait~, www. madar.,vi.h#.ar~, The City of Niagara Fallst Canada Community Services Department Municipal Works 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) 356-2354 E-mail: munwks@city.niagarafalls.on.ca April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: MW-2002-49 Niagara Public Purchasing Committee 2002-T-12 Granular Materials Ed Dujlovic, P, Eng. Director MW-2002-49 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the supply of granular material be awarded to Lafarge Canada, Walker Bros., and Ridgemount Quarries. BACKGROUND: For Niagara Falls Zone 1, Lafarge Canada was low bidder. Walker Quarries also bid and purchases will be made from each supplier based on aggregate type, cost and proximity to job sites. For Niagara Falls Zone 2 (south-end) Ridgemount Quarries is low bidder. Due to distances, other suppliers bids are not acceptable. The prices compared to 2001 prices represent an decrease of approximately 3 percent. Prepared by: Operations Superintendent /t~espe/c~tfully Submitted by: . John MacDonald Chief Administrative Officer o~ng. ' Director of Municipal Works /sc Attach. Municipal Works Working Together to Serve Our Community Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development Building & By-Laws Bid Evaluation Sheet #2002-T-12, Granula~ Materials 17-Apr-02 Section A - Pdce/Tonne At Quarry 1 5/8" Granular Class A 2 7/8" Granular Class A 3 Granular Class M 4 1/2" Clear Stone 5 314" Clear Stone 6 2" Crushed Rock Stone 7 Crushed Rock Screenings 8 Limestone Screenings 9 Sand Cushion 10 1/4" Stone Chips Washed 11 Agricultural Lime 12 1/2" Traffic Bond 13 3/4" Traffic Bond 14 Metedng Stone (P-Gravel) Delivery Charges To Other Than Section B Locations Remarks: Section B - Pdce/Tonne -Delivery To a City - Niagara Falls - Zone 1 City - Niagara Falls - Zone 2 b Town Of Pelham -Orchard Hill Road c Town Of Fort Erie d Niagara Parks e City - St. Cathadnes Remarks: Ounville Hard Rock Lafarge Lafarge Nelson Port :~idgemoun St. Around Vineland Vinemounl Walker Queenston Fonthill Colbome $8.50 $8.50 $8.90 No Bid $9.46 $8.54 $8.25 $8.50 $8.65 No Bid $9.26 $8.16 $8.50 $8.90 $8.90 No Rid $9.46 $8.16 $9.50 11.15 No Bid No Bid NO Bid $9.98 $9.25 $9.25 $10.25 No Bid $10.51 $8.00 $7.75 $8.15 $8.15 No Bid $8.76 $8.00 No Rid $8.50 NO Bid NO Bid $7.91 $8.92 $9.00 $20.00 $9.00 $8.25 $9.00 $8.75 $20.00 $8.75 $8.00 $8.75 $9.00 No Bid $9.00 $8.25 $9.00 $10.60 $20.00 $10.60 $9.50 $10.60 $10.25 $20.00 $10.25 $9.25 $10.25 $7.85 No Bid $7.85 $7.75 $7.85 $8.70 $20.00 $8.70 NO Bid $8.70 $8.00 $8.55 No Bid No Bid $7.91 $8.92 $8.70 $20.00 $8.70 $8.00 $8.70 No Bid No Bid No Bid $5.00 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid $12.10 NO Bid No Bid $11.26 No Bid $10.60 $20.00 $10.60 NO Bid $10.60 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid $8.70 No Bid $8.70 No Bid $8.70 $8.50 $8.90 $8.90 NO Bid $9.46 $8.54 $9.00 $20.00 $9.00 $8.25 $9.00 $8.25 $8.50 $8.65 No Bid $9.26 $8.16 $8.75 $20.00 $8.75 ${~.00 $8.75 $12.75 No Bid NO Bid $22,00 No Bid No Bid No Bid $37.50 No Bid $12.75 No Bid Request No Bid See Quote See Quote No Bid No Bid $1.17/KM Request $1.17/KM Request $1.17/KM Cubic Yard No Bid $4.05 $2.56 $4.40 No Bid $3.77 $4.75 $4.40 No Bid $4.11 No Bid $3.35 No Bid $4.64 No Bid $5.75 No Bid $4,02 See Quote $4.60 No Bid No Bid $4.35 $4.15 Min. Order See Quote No Bid Request Request Request Request No Bid $2.30 No Bid Request Request Request Request No Bid $3.10 $3.50 Request No Bid Request $2.55 No Bid No Bid No Bid Request $1.95 Request No Bid No Bid No Bid $4.00 Request No Bid Request No Bid No Bid $3.25 No Bid Request No Bid Request $2.95 No Bid $2.55 Min. Order See Quote Min.Order Min Order Min Order See Quote See Quote See Quote L/GRANULAR The City of Niagara Falls Canada Community Services Department Municipal Works 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: munwks@city.niagarafalls.on.ca April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson, and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: RE: MW-2002-55 Contract #2002-06 Tender for the Supply of Materials And Services for Pavement Markings (On-Street Application Only) RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the low bid, Provincial Maintenance, be accepted. Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director MW-2002-55 File G-180-01 BACKGROUND: The Tender Opening Committee, in the presence of the Manager of Supply and Service, Mr. Ray Miller, opened tenders on Thursday April 25, 2002 for the above noted contract. A total of two (2) bids were received. Shown below is a summary of bids received from the two Contractors. Contractor Total Cost Provincial Maintenance $ 81,769.40 Woodbine Pavement Markings LTD $147,767.00 Of the two contractors, Provincial Maintenance was the low bidder, and has previously completed the pavement marking program for the City of Niagara Falls. Therefore, it is recommended that Provincial Maintenance be awarded the contract to complete the on-street pavement markings for the year 2002. Financing: The estimated cost for the contract was $88,000.00 Project Cost: $ 81,769.40 April 29, 2002 -2- MW-2002-55 Funding: Account # P001-4800-1530 - $68,000.00 # G008-5306-2007 - $20,000.00 Council's concurrence with the recommendations outlined in this report would be appreciated. Prepared by: Karl Dren, C.E.T. Manager of Traffic & Parking Services Respectfully Submitted by: (f/~°h~e fMAadcmDi°nI~ldative O ffi cer Approved by: Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director of Municipal Works J. Gmbich S :\TRAFF1C~°,-EPORTS k2.00252002 CouncilWIW-2002-55 .wpd The City of Niagara Falls Canada Community Services Department Municipal Works 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: munwks@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director MW-2002-56 File G- 180-01 April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson, and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: RE: MW-2002-56 Contract #2002-07 Tender for the Supply of Materials And Services for Pavement Markings (Parking Lots & City Owned Lands) RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the low bid, R & C Line Painting, be accepted. BACKGROUND: The Tender Opening Committee, in the presence of the Manager of Supply and Service, Mr. Ray Miller, opened tenders on Thursday April 25, 2002 for the above noted contract. A total of three (3) bids were received. Shown below is a summary of bids received from the three Contractors. Two of the three contractors have their businesses located in Niagara Falls. Contractor Total Cost R & C Line Painting $12,144.50 Provincial Maintenance $15,461.50 Almon Environmental $ 82,791.25 This contract provides for the supply and application of pavement markings in parking lots and on other lands owned by the City. Previously this work was carried out in conjunction with the pavement marking applications on-street. However, in order to complete the program in a more expedient fashion, a separate tender was prepared. One of the three contractors, Provincial Maintenance, has previously completed the pavement marking program for the City of Niagara Falls. Although R & C Line Painting is a recently established company, staff employed by R & C previously worked for Provincial Maintenance. Therefore, it is reconunended that the low bid, R & C Line Painting, be awarded the pavement marking contract for parking lots and other City owned land for the year 2002. April 29, 2002 -2- MW-2002-56 Financing: The estimated cost for the contract was $30,000.00 Project Cost: $12,144.50 Funding: Account # P001-4800-1530 - $12,144.50 Council's concurrence with the recommendations outlined in this report would be appreciated. Prepared by: Karl Dren, C.E.T. Manager of Traffic & Parking Services Respectfully Submitted by: Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: Director of Municipal Works J. Grubich S :\TRAFFICXREPORTS~002~2002 Council~MW-2002-56.wpd The City of Niagara Falls Canada 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-mail: akon@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Adele Ken Director R-2002-t 9 April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: R-2002-19 - Agreement Between Architects and City of Niagara Falls RECOMMENDATION: The Contract of Agreement with the Joint Venture Architectural Team of MaeLennan Jaunkalns Miller and Chapman Murray and Associates be accepted. BACKGROUND: The Steering Committee for the Niagara Falls Community Centre selected the proposal of MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller and Chapman Murray and Associates as the successful proposal for designing the new Community Centre. Staffprepared Community Services Report R-2001-51 and City Council endorsed this decision on November 12, 2001. The architectural team submitted a Canadian Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and Architect outlining the agreement between The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. & Chapman Murray Associates Architects Inc., Architects in Joint Venture. The agreement is for the design, development, construction, and bidding/negotiation of the new Community Centre at Montrose Road and McLeod Road, Niagara Falls, Ontario. The Agreement outlines the following important responsibilities and considerations: · The responsibilities of the Architect · The responsibilities of the client, The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls · All General Conditions. · All Fees and Reimbursable Expenses under Schedule A. This will include an initial fee of $10,000 payable upon execution of the Agreement. · All Additional Services under Schedule B. Working Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works Fire Se/vices Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development R-2002-19 -2- April 29, 2002 The Agreement has been reviewed by the City's legal staff and all issues, including appropriate insurance coverage, are now acceptable. Recommended by: Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture Respectfully Submitted: JJohn MacDonald Chief Administrative Officer Attachment S:\Council\Counci12002~R-2002-19 Agreement Between Architects and City of Niagara Falls.wpd Document Six Architectural Institute of British Columbia Alberta Association of Architects Saskatchewan Association of Architeds Monitoba Association of Architects Ontmio Association of Architeds Ordre des architectes du Qu&bec Archlteds' Association of New Brunswick Nova Scotia Associatioa of Architects Architects Association of I)tbce Edward Island Newfoundland Association of Architects partnership with: the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Canadian Standard Form of Agrccment Betwcen Client and Architect 1997 Edition Agreement made as of the Twentieth day of November in the year of tWO thousand and one Between the C, llcnh (Include na~ a~ address) The CQ. rporation of the City of Niagarn Falls 4310 Queen Street~ Niagara Fails, Ontario, Canada L3E 6X5 and the Arch~. ~ (Include namO and address) MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. Chapman Murray Associates ArchiteCts Inc. Architects In Joint Venture 6385 Colbomc Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada L2E 6Z3 For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project location and scope) New Community Centre at Montrose Road and MeL¢od Road, Niagara Falls, Ontario of approximately one'hundred thousand square feet (100,000) and a construction budget of approximately twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The Client and the Architect agree as set forth in the following terms and conditions. 1 1.1 Construction Budget 1.2 Construction Cost 1.3 Contract 1.4 Contract Documents 1.5 Contractor 1.6 General Review 1.7 Place of the Work 1.8 Project 1.9 Project Budget 1.1.1 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3.1 1.4.1 1,5.1 1.6.1 1.7.1 1.8.1 1.9.1 Definitions In this Agreement the following definitions apply: The Construction Budget is the Client's budget for the Construction Cost including contingencies for cost increases. Construction Cost means the contract price(s) of all Project elements designed or specified by or on behalf of the Architect, permit fees, contingency amounts, and all applicable taxes indud- mg such value added taxes as the GST, whether recoverable or not. Where there is no contract price for all or part of the Project, the Construction Cost shall be the estimated cost of construction as determined by Architect, at market rates at the anti~'pated time of construction. Construction Cost does not inclt~de the compensation of the Architect, the Architect's consultants, the land cost, or other costs which are the responsibility of the Client. In the event that the Client furnishes labour or material below market cost or old materials are re-used, the Construction Cost for purposes of establishing the Architect's fee is the cost of all materials and labour necessary to complete the Work as if all materials had been new and as ff all labour had been paid for at market prices at the time of construction or, in the evem that the construction does not proceed, at existing market prices at the anticipated time of construction. The Contract is the undertaking between the Client and the Contractor to perform their respective duties, responsibilities and obligations as described in the Contract Documents. The Contract Documents consist of the executed agreement between the Client and the Contractor, the general conditions, the drawings, the specifications and all the other documents identified in the agreement as Contract Documents. The Contractor is the person or entity contracting with the Client to provide labour, materials and equipment for the execution of the Work. General Review means the visits to the Place of Work at Intervals appropriate to the stage of the construction that the Architect considers necessary to become familiar with the progress and quality of the Work and to determine that the Work is in general conformity with the Contract Documents. The Place of the Work is the designated site or location of the Work identified in the Contract Documents. The Project as described in this Agreement means the total construction contemplated of which the Work may be the whole or a part. The Project Budget is the Client's estimated total expenditure for the entire Project. It includes, but is not limited to, the Construction Budget, professional fees, costs of land, rights of way, and all other costs to the Client for the Project. A Subcontractor is a person or entity having a direct contract with the Contractor to perform a part or parts of the Work or to supply products worked to a special design for the Work. Substantial Performance of the Work is as defined in the lien legislation applicable to the Place of the Work. If such legislation is not in force or does not contain such definition, Substantial Performance of the Work shall have been reached when the Work is ready for use or is being used for the purpose intended and is so certified by the Architect. A Supplier is a person or entity having a direct contract with the Contractor to supply products not worked to a special design for the Work. The Work means the total construction and related services re01iired by the Contract Documents. 1.10.1 1.11.1 1.12.1 1;lb.1 1.10 Subcontractor 1.11 Substantial Performance of the Work 1.12 Supplier 1.13 Work 2 2.1 Architect's Basic Services 2.2 Schematic Design Phase 2.3 Design Development Phase 2.4 Construction Documents Phase Architect's Responsibilities 2.1.1 The Architect's basic services consist of those services performed by the Architect, the Architect's employees, and the Architect's consultants as set forth in Articles 2.1 to 2.9 of this Agreement and any other services included in Axtide 6. They include the provision of normal structural, mechanical and electrical engineering serv- ices by professional engineers. 2.1.2 The Architect's basic services include the co-ordination required to integrate all parts of the services. The Architect shall: 2.2.1 review the program of requirements furnished by the Client and the characteristics of the site; 2.2.2 review and comment on the Client's ConStruction Budget in relation to the Client's program of requirements; 2.2.3 review with the Client alternative approaches to: the design of the Project and the types of construction contract,s; 2.2.4 review applicable statutes, regulations, codes and by-laws and where necessary review the same ~'th the authorities having jurisdiction; 2.2.5 based on the mutually agreed upon program of requirements, schedule and Construction Budget, prepare for the Client's review and approval, schematic design documents to illustrate the scale and character of the Project and how the parts of the Project functionally relate to each other; and 2.2.6 prepare and submit to the Client a Construction Cost estimate based on current area or volume unit costs. Based on the Client approved schematic design documents and Construction Cost estimate, the Architect shall: 2.3.1 prepare for the Client's review and approval, design development documents consisting of drawings and other documents appropri- ate to the size of the Project, to describe the size and character of the entire Project including the architectural, structural, mechani- cal, and electrical systems, materials and such 'other elements as may be appropriate; 2.3.2 prepare and submit to the Client for approval a revised Con- struction Cost estimate; and 2.3.3 continue to review applicable statutes, regulations, codes and by laws as the design of the Project is developed. Based on the Client approved design development documents and Construction Cost estimate, the Architect shall: 2.4.1 prepare, for the Client's review and approval, construction docu- ments consisting of drawings and specifications setting forth in detail the requirements for the construction of the Project; 2.4.2 advise the Client of any adjustments to the Construction Cost estimate, including adjustments indicated by changes in require- ments and general market conditions; obtain instructions from and advise the Client on the preparation of the necessary bidding information, bidding forms, conditions of the contract and the form of contract between the Client and the Contractor; and 2.4.3 review statutes, regulations, codes and by-laws applicable to the design and where necessary review the same with the authorities having jurisdiction in order that the Client may apply for and obtain the consents, approvals, licences and permits necessary for the Project. 2.4.4 Following the Client's approval of the construction documents and the latest Construction Cost estimate, the Architect shall assist and advise the Cliem in obtaining bids or negotiated proposals and:in awarding and' preparing contracts for construction. 2.5.1 2:5 Bidding or Negotiation Phase The extent of the duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the Architect as the Client's representative during conStta~-'tion shall be modified or extended only with the written consent of the Client and the Architect. 11. 12. 13. 14. During the construction phase- contract administration, the Architect shall: 1. be a representative of the Client; 2. advise and consult with the Client; 3. have the authority to act on the Client'S. behalf.to the extent provided in this Agreemem and the Contract Documents; 4. have access to the Work at all times wherever it is iii preparation or progress; 5. forward all instructions from the Client to the Contractor; 6. carry out the General Review of the Work; 7. examine, evaluate and report to the Client upon representative samples of the Wot'k; keep the Client informed of the progress and quality of the Work, and report to the Client defects and deficiencies in the Work observed during the course of the site reviews; determine the amounts owing to the Contractor under the Contract based on the Architect's observations and evaluation of the Contractor's application(s) for payment; 10. issue certificates for payment in the value proportionate to the amount of the Contract, of work performed and products delivered to the Place of the Work; in the first instance, interpret the requirements of the Contract Documents and make findings as to the performance thereunder by both the Client and Contractor; render interpretations in written and graphic form as may be required with reasonable prompmess on the written request of either the Client or the Contractor; render written findings within a reasonable time, on all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the Client and the Contractor relating to the execution or performance of the Work or the interpretation of the Contract Documents; render interpretations and findings consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents; showing partiality to neither the Client nor the Comractor; but shall not be liable for the result of any interpretation or finding rendered in good faith in such capacity; 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6 Construction Phase - Contract Administration 2.7 Construction Budget and Construction Cost Estimates 2.6.3 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 15. have the authority to reject work which does not conform to the Contract Documents, and whenever, in the Archii~ct's opinion, it is necessary or advisable for the implementation of the intent of the Contract Documents, have the authority to require special inspection or testing of work, whether or not such work has been fabricated, installed or completed; 16. review and take other appropriate action with reasonable prompmess upon such Contractor's submittals as shop draw- ings, product data, and samples, for conformance with the general design concept of the Work as provided in the Contract Documents; 17. prepare change orders and change directives for the Client's approval and signature in accordance with the Contract Docu- ments; 18. have the authority to order minor adjustments in the Work which are consistent with the intent of the Contract Docu- ments, when these do not involve an adjustment in the contract price or an extension of the contract time; 19. furnish supplemental instructions to the Contractor with rea- sonable promptness or in accordance with a Schedule for such instructions agreed toby the Architect and the Contractor; 20. determine the date of Substamial Performance of the Work; 21. receive from the Contractor and forward to the Client for the Client's review the written warranties and related documents; 22. ~verify the validity of the Contractor's application for lVmal payment and issue a certificate of f'mal payment; and 23. prior to the end of the period of one year following the date of Substantial Performance of the Work, review any defects or deficiencies which have been reported or observed during that period, and notify the Contractor in writing of those items .requiring attention by the Contractor to complete the Work in accordance with the Contract. However, the Architect shall not: 1. be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site reviews; 2. be responsible for the acts or omissions of the Contractor, Sub- Contractors, Suppliers or any other persons performing any of the Work, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents; and 3. have control, charge or supervision of, or responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or pro- cedures or for safety precautions and programs required in connection with the Work. The Architect shall review and comment on the Client's Construc- tion Budget and shall prepare the Construction Cost estimates as set out in this Agreement. Neither the Architect nor the Client has control over the cost of labour, materials or equipment, over the Contractor's methods of determining bid prices, or over competitive bidding, market, or negotiating conditions and therefore the Architect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from the Construction Cost estimate. Variance from the Construction Budget or Project Budget estab- lished under this Agreement shall not constitute grounds for the Client to withhold fees due to the Architect. If the bidding or negotiation phase has not commenced within three months after the Architect submits the construction documents to the Client, the Construction Budget shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the construction industry between the date of submission of the construction documents to the Client and the date on which bids or proposals are sought. If the lowest bona fide bid or lowest negotiated proposal exceeds the latest approved Construction Cost estimate by more than 15%, the Client shall: 1. give written approval of an increase in the Construction Budget, or 2. authorize rebidding or re-negotiating of the proposal, or 3. co-operate with the Architect in revising the Project scope or quality as necessary to reduce the Construction Cost, or 4. terminate this Agreement in accordance with paragraph- 5.7.3 if. the Project is abandoned. If the Client chooses to proceed under 2.8.2.3, unless the excess is due to extraordinary market conditions, the Architect;at no additional fee shall modify the construction documents or provid~ other services necessary to reduce the Construction'Cost 'it"within, 15% of the latest approved Construction cost:~te. The modifl~,cation of the construction doe}aments shall l~b:'the;'timit 0f file Architect's responsibifity under 2.8.2.3, and having done sO, the Architect shall be entitled to compensation in. accordance wilih this ;a4~reement, for all services performed; whether or not the construction phase is commenced. 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 The issuance of a certificate for payment shall constitute a 2.9.1 representation by the Architect to the Client, based on the Architect's General Review and on review of the Contractor's schedule of values and application for payment that: the Work has progressed to the value indicated; to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief, the Work observed during the course of General Review is in general conforrnitywith the Contract Documents; and that the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certified. Such certification is subject to: 1. review and evaluation of the Work as it progresses for general conformity as provided in paragraphs 2.6.2.6 to .8; 2. the results of any subsequent tests required by or performed under the Contra'ct Documents; 3. minor deviations from the Contract Documents being corrected prior to completion; and 4. any specific qualifications stated in the certificate for payment. The issuance of the certificate for payment shall not be a 2.9.2 representation that the Architect has made any examination to ascertain how and for what purpose the Contractor has used the monies paid on account of the contract price, or that the Contractor has discharged the obligations imposed on him by law under the Workers' Compensation Act, or other applicable statute, non- compliance with which may render the Client personally liable for the Contractor's default. 2.8 Adjustment of Construction Budget 2.9 Certificate for Payment 3 CHent's Responsibilities 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 The Client shall provide: full information regarding the requirements for the Project includ- ing a program setting forth the Client's Project objectives, con- straints, schedules, and criteria, including: 1. spatial and functional requirements and relationships, 2. flexibility and expandability, 3. special equipment and systems, and 4. site requirements; a Construction Budget for the Project; and information, surveys, reports and services as set Out below, the accuracy and completeness of which the Architect sh,~ll be entitled to rely upon and such contracts for the provision of information, surveys, reports and services, whether arranged bythe Client or the Architect, shall be considered direct contracts with Client unless explicitly provided otherwise: 1. surveys describing physi~tt characteristics; legal limitations and utility locations for the Project site, and'a Written legal description of the. site and'adjoining properties as necessary showing the following:survey and~:legal information, as appli- cable: grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures; adjacent drainage; rights of way; restrictions; easements; encroachments; zoning; deed restrictions; boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and data pertaining to existing buildings, other improvements, and trees; and information concerning utility services, both public and private, above and below grade, .including inverts and depths; 2. subsurface investigation and reports which include but are not limited to test borings, test pits, determination of soil bearing values, percolation tests, a list of and evaluations of toxic and hazardous substances and materials present at the Place of the Work, ground corrosion and resistivity tests, including necess- ary operations for anticipating subsoil conditions, with reports and appropriate professional recommendations; 3. repons and appropriate professional recommendations of specialist consultants when required by the Architect; 4. air and water pollution tests, tests for toxic and hazardous 'substances and materials, structural, mechanical, chemical, and other laboratory and environmental tests, inspections, laboratory and field tests and reports as required by the Architect, the Architect's consultants, the authorities having jurisdiction or the Contract Documents; and 5 all legal, accounting and insurance counselling services as may be necessary at any time for the Project, including such auditing services as the Client may require to verify the Contractor's applications for payment or to ascertain how or for what purpose the Contractor uses the monies paid by or on behalf of the Client. The Client shall: ~ · . .: : . examine documents submitted by the Architect and give the Architect decisions and approvals as necessary; obtain and pay the cost of all required consents, approvals, licences and permits from authorities having jurisdiction; immediately notify the Architect in writing ff the Client observes or otherwise becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Proiect or any nonconformity with the requirements of the Contract; promptly fulfil the Client's responsibilities for the orderly progress of the Architect's services and of the Work; and authorize in writing a person to act on the Client's behalf, and define that person's scope of authority with respect to the Project when necessary. 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2 4 Payments to the Architect 4.1 Payments 4.2 Direct Personnel Expense 4.3 Reimbursable Expenses 4.1.1 4.1.2 The Client shall pay professional fees and reimbursable expenses as set forth in Article 4 and Schedule A. The initial payment as set forth in Schedule A is the minimum payment which the Client must pay the Architect under this Agreement. 4.1.3 Subsequent payments for the Architect's basic services shall be made monthly, and where applicable, shall be in proportion to services performed within each phase of the service. 4.1.4 Payments on account of additional services described in Article 6 and for reimbursable expenses shall be made monthly upon submittal of the Architect's invoice for services rendered or expenses incurred. 4.1.5 An invoice submitted by the Architect under this Agreement shall be paid by the Client within thirty days after submittal of the invoice to the Client. 4.1.6 An unpaid invoice shall bear interest at 5% per annum above the bank rate 30 days after the date that the Architect submits an invoice for fees, reimbursable oxpenses, and applicable taxes. 4.1.7 Bank rate means the bank rate established by the Bank of Canada as the minimum rate at which the Bank of Canada makes short term advances to the chartered banks. 4:1;8 4.2;1 4.3.1 No deductions shall be made by the Client from amounts payable to the ArebAtect on account of penalty, liquidated damages, or other sums withheld from payments to Contractors, or on account of.the cost of changes in the Work other than those for which the Architect is proven to be legally responsible or has agreed to pay. In Article 4 and Schedule A, direct personnel expense means the salary of the Architect's or the Architect's consultant's personnel engaged on the Project plus the cost of such mandatory and customary contributions and employee benefits as employment taxes and other statutory benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions and similar contributions and benefits. In Article 4 and Schedule A, reimbursable expenses include, but are not limited to, the following expenses incurred by the Archi- tect, the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project plus the percentage of such actual expenditure for admin- istrative services specified in Schedule A: 1. transportation in connection with the Project for authorized travel, e.g., for transportation, lodging and meals; 2. communication and shipping, e.g., for long distance telephone calls and facsimile messages, courier service, postage and electronic conveyances; 3. reproduetion of plans, sketches, drawings, graphic representa- tions, specifications and other documents; 4. renderings, plotting of computer-generated drawings, models, and mock-ups specifically requested by the Client; 5. fees, levies, duties or taxes for permits, iicences or approvals from authorities having jurisdiction; 6. overtime services authorized in advance by .the Client to the extent that the cost of such services exceeds normal direct personnel expenses; 7. additional insurance coverage or limits, including that of professional liability insurance, requested by the Client in excess of that normally carried by the Architect and the Architect's consultants. If any invoice submitted by the Architect remains unpaid by the Client for sixty days or more from the date the invoice was 4.4.1 submitted, then the Architect may give seven days' written notice to the Client that the Architect will stop rendering services. If within seven days of delivery of the notice in 4.4.1, the Client has not paid the ,imThitect's invoice, or the Architect and the Client'have 4.4.2 not agreed in writing on terms for payment of the invoice, the Architect may stop rendering services on the Project, andin that event the Client shall not have any claim whatsoever against the Architect for any loss, cost, damage, or expense incUrred or anticipated to be incurred by the Client as a result. 4.4 Architect's Right to Stop Rendering Services The rights of the Architect given by Article 4,4 al'~ ~da addition .to and not in substitution for any other rights.the fi~rChitect ri!ay have under 4,4.3 this Agreement or otherwise for nOt~-paymem 'of: 'the Architect's invoices by the Client. The basis for calculating the applicable poRion of the fee for each phase of the Architect's basic ~ces shall be as follows: 4.5.1 1. Schematic Design Phase: the mutu~tlly agreed Construction Budget at the commencement of the phase. 2. Design Development Phase: the approved Construction Cost estimate at the commenc~aent of the phase. 3. Construction Dcmuments Phase: the approved Construction Cost estimate at the commencement of the phase. 4. Bidding or Neg0tlation Phase: the approved Construction Cost estimate at the commencement of the phase. 5. Construction Phase - Contract Administration: the Construction Cost, including change orders and additional Project cost approved during the construction of the Work. For the Architect's basic services relative to the portions of the Project that are designed but then deleted or otherwise not 4.5.2 constructed, the fee for those portions of the Work shall be proportionate to the extent of such services in accordance with Article A2.3 and shall be based on the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal or, if there is no such bid or negotiated proposal, the latest approved Construction Cost estimate. For services in Schedule B and when revisions or additions are made to the program of requirements or previously approved dOCuments 4.6.1 prepared by the Architect and such revisions or additions require services beyond those already provided, the fee for such additional services shall be based on the rates in Article A3 of Schedule A or as otherwise mutually agreed with the Client. 4.5 Percentage-Based Fee 4.6 Fee for Additional Services 4.7 Changes and Adjustments 4.8 Project Suspension or Abandonment 4.9 Taxes 4.10 Accounting Records 4.9.2 4.7.1 If the scope of the Project or of the Architect's basic services is changed, the fees shall be equitably adjusted. 4.7.2 If and to the extent that the contract time initially established in the Contract for construction is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Architect, fees for services required for such extended period of the contract administration shall be computed as set forth in Article A3 of Schedule A. 4.8.1 If the Project is suspended or abandoned in whole or in part for more than a total of 60 days whether, cons6~tive or not, the Architect shall be paid within 30 days· of the date. that an invoice is submitted for all services performed, tog~, ther with reimbursable expenses then due and suspension eaq~nses calculated in the same manner as termination expor~.g6s in paragraph 5.7.5. If the Project is resumed after b~ing~gusp~d6,~ or aha~ldoned in whole or in part for more tha~;¢g.'(~,0f 60:days whetfier consecutive or not, the Architect's fe~' '~li' :be: equitabiy adjusted. 4.9.1 In the event tim{ new or addilional ta.xos in respect of the services inel~!ded .in tl~.Agreen!ent am .requi~ed by federal or provincial legi:$lation aftt~f the A~er~t, is executed, the amount under this ,Agreement shall be .a~ljUsted .to include such levies. Fe~$ and reimbursable expenses may be subject to such value added tax~s as the Federal Goods and Services Tax. The Client shall pay$o th~ :Architect, tOgether with and in addition to any fees and reimbursabl0 expenses that become payable, any value added taxes that become payable in relation to the fees and reimbursable expenses as required by legislation. The Architect shall maintain, by generally accepted accounting methods, records of reimbursable expenses, of expenditures pertaining to the Architect's additional services and of services for which the fee is computed as a multiple of direct personnel expense. These records shall be available to the Client at mutually convenient times. Gcneral Condit om Copyright for the design and drawings prepared by or on behalf of the Architect belong to the Architect. Plans, sketches, drawings, graphic representations and specifications, including computer generated designs, are instruments of the Architect's service and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the Project for which they are made is executed or not. 5.1.1 Submissions or distribution of the Architect's plans, sketChes, 5.1.2 drawings, graphic representations and specifications to meet official regulatory requirements or for other purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the Architect's r~served rights. The Client may retain copies, including reproducible ~ies, 0f 5,;2.1 plans, sketches, drawings, graphic representations and spe~;it~eatitnS : · for information and reference in connection with the Gent,s Use ' and occupancy of the Project. Except for reference pu~S; the plans, sketches, drawings graphic representatiol.~,s aiid s~eations shall not be used for additions or alterations to ~e P~ or On any · other project. ' ' ' As a condition precedent to the use ofthe Plans, sketehes, drawings, 5.2.2 graphic representati~ and a~tions for'th~:~ject, all fees and reimbursable expenses of tie Architect aH reqalred t° be paid The Client shall be entitled to k~p original mOdels or architectural renderings the Client Specificall7 comml~ioned. 5.2.3 The Architect shall be entitled t6 sign the building by inscription or othm'wise on a suitable and r~bly visible part of the permanent fabric of the bUilding, 5.3.1 The Architect shall be entitled to include as part of the Contract Documents a provision to erect a sign identifying the Architect and the Architect'S consultants on the Project site. 5.3.2 For purposes of Article 5.4, ~dispute' means a disagreement arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or in respect of any def'med legal relationship associated with it or derived from it and includes any failure 'to reach agreement where an agreement is required. 5.4.1 The parties shall make all reasonable efforts to resolve a dispute by amicable negotiations and agree to provide, on a without prejudice basis, frank, candid and timely disclosure of relevant facts, information and documents to facilitate these negotiations. 5.4.2 If the parties have been unable to resolve a dispute, either party may, by written notice, require the appointment of a mediator in accor- dance with the latest editon at date of execution of this Agreement of the Rules for Mediation and Arbitration of Construction Disputes, CCDC Document 40, to assist the parties to reach agreement. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediated negotiations shall be con- ducted in accordance with those Rules as amended as follows: 5.4.3 5 5.1 Copyright 5.2 Use of Documents 5.3 Project Identification 5.4 Dispute Resolution 5.5 Liability of the Architect 5.6 Toxic or Hazardous Substances or Materials 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 1. all references to "the Contract' are to be considered references to ~this Agreement"; 2. for references in CCDC 40 for Schedule; time; Extension of time period; and termination if no agreement; the time period shall be adjusted from ~10 Working Days" to read "15 calendar days". ff the dispute has not been resolved within 15 calendar days after a mediator was appointed under paragraph 5.4.3, or within such fur- ther period agreed to by the parties, the mediator shall terminate the mediated negotiations by giving written notice. All unresolved disputes shall be refen~ to and finally resolved by arbitration under the latest edition of the Rules for Mediation and Arbitration of Construction Disputes, CCDC Document 40 as amend- ed as follows: 1. all references to "the Contract" are to be considered references to ~the Agreement"; and 2. the applicable date referring to Substantial Performance of the Work does not apply. Dispute resolution shall be Conducted in the jurisdiction of the prin- dpai phce of business 'of the Architect 'unless otherwise agreed. 5.5.1 For the purposes of Article 5.5: 1. ~claim' or ~claims' shall.mean a claim or claims whether in contract or tort. 2. the ~Architect' includes Architect's officers, directors, employ- ees, representatives and consultants. 5.5.2 gi'h~ Ciien/~)ees that/4/ny~nd all _c)~/~'hich/lh~lient/ha~s ~ h/te~....fte/..ma~/.hav, e ,/a~a.. inst~.e .Ar/c/fi .t~t/iA any_/~_ y//risin~ 96t/bf ~re~e~ tm~i~~:~e ~b~t ~'s,~ t° 5.6.1 For the purposes of Article 3.1.3 and Artide 5.6: 1. "toxic or hazardous substances or materials' means any solid, liquid, gaseous, thermal or electromagnetic irritam or contami- nant and includes, without limitation, pollutants and hazard- ous or special wastes whether or not defined in any federal, provincial or municipal laws, statutes or regulations; 2. "Architect' includes the Architect's officers, directors, employ- ees, representatives and consultants. 5.6.2 Unless otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, the Architect shall have no responsibility for: 1. the discovery, reporting, analyses, evaluation, presence, han- dling, removal or disposal of, 2. the advice of any independent expert selected by the Architect on behalf of the Client and the Contractor under the Contract in respect of, or 3. the exposure of persons, property or the environment to, toxic or hazardous substances or materials in any form at the Place of the Work. Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, the Architect's services terminate one year after certification of Substantial Performance of the Work. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon not less than seven days' written notice should the other party fail substan- tially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the Client upon at least seven days' written notice to the Architect in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned. 5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3 In the event of termination, the Architect shall be paid within 30 5.7.4 days of the date that an invoice is submitted for all setWices performed to the effective termination date, together with reimbursable expenses and applicable taxes then due and all termination expenses as defined in paragraph 5.7.5. Termination expenses mean expenses directly attributable to 5.7.5 suspension or abandonment of the Project or termination Of this aAn~g~;, ment for which the Architect is not ot~ coml~nsated, d m addition, an mount computed as a percen~ge of the total fee for the Architect's basic services and additional aervices earned to the time of termir~ation, as follows: 1. twenty perc~t ff suspension or termination occurs during the schematic design phase; or 2. ten percent if suspenMon .or terminat~n occurs during the design development phase; or 3. five percent if suspe~ion or termination occurs during a phase subsequent to the design development phase. /~U O ed ~ nts igto~ff~l~ 5.8.1 The Client and the Architect, respectively bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, neither the Client nor the Architect shall assign, sublet, or transfer an interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the Client and the Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by both Client and Architect. 5.9.1 5.10.1 5.7 " Termination 5.8 Law Governing This Agreement 5.9 Successors. and Assigns 5.10 Extent of Agreement 6 Conditions Tli~i'fee for services includes basic architectural, stmctu?al, mechanical, electrical and civil engineering as well as life safety, s¢_s~inability, building science and acoustics consultants. This Ag~ement entered into as of the day and year first above written. Client .- The Corporation of the City of Niagara Fsils Witness Ambttect MacLennan Jaunkahts Miller Architect~ Ltd. Chapman Murray Associates Architects Architects In Joint Venture Witness SChedule A Fccs and Reimbursable Expenses The Client shall pay fees and reimbursable expenses to the Architect when invoices are submitted as set forth below: A1 A1.1 INITIAL PAYMF. NT ($Tl~(j~j.~t shall pay an initial amount of Ten Thousand *******:~; dollars ) upon execution of this Agreement. The payment shall be credited to the Client's account at f'mal payment. A2 ~ FOR SF~RVIC~-q The fee for the Architect's basic services shall be computed as follows; (Here, insert basis of fees, including fixed amounts, houdy rates, multiplqa.of direct personnel expense, or percen- rages, and identify phases to which particular fee e.alOtdatlorts apply, if. necessary.) A2.2 e fee for the Schematic Desigl!.Ptiaae sh~l be five point five percent (5.5%) of e mutually agreed construct:.~/:~tdget including :~e Goods and Services Tax (G.S.T.). : The fee for Design Dev~opment~ction Documents and Bidding/Negotiation Phases shall !Ye five: Pohtt five percent (5.5%) of the approved construction cost est/mate inoluding theGoods and Se~ic~s Tax (G.S.T.). The fee for the Construction t~haSe - Contract Administration shall befive pointfive percent (5.$%) of the actual construction cost including the Goods and Services Tax for Architectural and Engineering Services. If through no fault of the Architect, the services for the schematic design phase, the design de~tglopment phase, and the construction documents phase have not been completed within 36 months after the date of this Agreement, or for the remaining phases within months after the date of this Agreement, the amounts, rates, and multiples set forth in this Article applicable to the respective phases of service shall be subject to review and equitable adjustment. When the fee for the Architect's basic services is a fixed amount or percentage-based, it shall be apportioned to the phases of service as follows: (Include any additional phases as appropriate.) Schematic Design Phase Twelve and a half percent percent (12½ Design Development Phase Construction Documents Phase Bidding or Negotiation Phase Construction Phase - Contract Administration Twelve and a half percent Forty-five percent Five percent ~Twenty-fiv¢ percent percent 02½0/6) pe~ent 05 %) percent (5 %) pe~ent 65 %) Total one hundred percent (100%) A3 A3.1 FEES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES Fees for the A~chitect's additional services, excluding those provided by the Architect's consultants, shall be computed as follows: (Here, insert basis of fees, including hourly rates and multiples of direct personnel expense for officers, directors, partners, principals and employees. Identify specific services to which particular fee calculations apply, if necessary.) Hourly Rates for Additional Services: Principal/Partner $125.00 Senior Design Architect/Engineer $110.00 Project Architect/Engineer $93.00 Contract Adminishator $95.00 Senior Technologist $85.:00 Intern Architect/Engineer/Design $70.00 Intern Technologists $i50.00 Administrative $55.00 A3.2 Fees for additional services provided by the Architect's consultants shah be as invoiced by the consultant according to the hourly rotes and multiples Of direct personnel expense set out below plus 10 %of the consultant's invoiced amounts. (Identifyspeciftc Opes of consultants in Ar~'cle ~, if required.) Types of consultants are, but may not be limited to the following: Construction Cost Consultant Landscape Architects Furnishings/Equipment Consultants Functional Programme Functional Programme Operating Programme Site Planning Beyond Community Centre needs Swimming Pool Consultant Commissioning Consultant A3.3 Hourly rotes of fees in A.3 are subject to review and adjustment annually or as follows: (Here, insert effective dates or time periods for periodic adjustments in hourly rates.) Annually each September A4 REIMB~I.~_ EXPENSES A.4.1 The percentage added to the reimbursable expenses for administrative services in Article 4.3 shall be 8 %. Schedule B Additional Services B1 PROVISION OF ADDitiONAL SERVICES The additional services described in this schedule are not included in the Architect's basic services unless so identified in Article 6. The Architect shall only provide these additional services if authorized by the Client. B2 PROJECT REPRESENTATION B2.1 Providing more exhaustive or continuous on site review or representation. 1. If more extensive representation at the site than is described in paragraph 2.6.2.6 is required, the Architect shall provide one or more Project representatives to assist in carrying out such additional site review responsibilities. 2. Such Project representatives shall be selected, employed, and directed by the ArchRect, and the Architect shall be compensated as agreed by the :Client and Architect. B3 OTHER ADDITIONAL SERVICES B3.9 B3.10 B3.11 B3.1 Providing analyses of the Client's needs and'programming requirements for the Project. B3.2 Providing financial feasibility, Project Budget or other special-costing ~tudies. B3.3 Providing sRe evaluations, plarming s~eys; or comparative studies of prosPeCtive sites. B3.4 Providing sPecial-surveys, environn%ental sRl~dies and submissions and other related services required for approval by authorities having .jtlrisdiction over the Project, except for those set out in paragraph 2.2.4, including submission for zoning changes, variances from by-laws or site plan approvals necessary for proceeding with the Project. B3.5 Providing services relating to future facilities, systems and equipment. B3.6 Providing services to investigate existing conditions or facilities such as preparing measured drawings or verifying the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by the Client. B3.7 Providing detailed estimates of Construction Costs, detailed quantity surveys, inventories of material and equipment, or analyses of owning and operating costs. B3.8 Providing interior design, graphic design, signage and other similar services required for or in connection with the selection, procurement or installation of furniture, furnishings and related equipment. Providing tenant layout and design services. Preparing models or architectural renderings specifically commissioned by the Client. Preparing documents for alternative, separate or sequential bids or providing extra servic.~.s in connection with bidding, negotiation, or construction prior to the completion of the c~ struction documents phase. B3.12 B3.13 Co-ordinating construction work performed by separate contractors or by the Client's own forces and co-ordinating the services required in connection with construction performed and' equipment supplied by the Client. Providing services in connection with the Work of a construction manager, or separate consultants retained by the Client. B3.14 Providing services after the date of Substantial Performance of the Work, except for those described in 2 The Architect's Responsibilities. B3.15 Providing services after expiry of the period of one year following the date of Substantial Performance of the Work. B3.16 Revising or providing additional drawings, specifications or other documents which are: 1. caused by instructions that are inconsistent with instructions or written approvals previously given by the Client, including revisions made necessary by adjustments in the Client's program or Project Budget; 2. caused by the enactment or revisions of statutes, regulations,, codes or by-laws, subsequent to the preparation of such documents; 3. caused by an interpretation by the authorities having jurisdiction which differs from the Architect's interpretation of statutes, regulations, codes and by-laws, which difference the Architect could not have reasonably anticipated, or 4. due to changes required as a result of the Client's failure to render decisions in a timely manner. B3.17 Providing. services required because of significant changes in the' Project including, but not limited to size, quality, complexity, the Client's schedule, or the mothod of bidding or negotiating and contracting for construction, except for services required under paragraph 2.9.2. B3.18 B3.19 B3.20 B3.21 B3.22 B3.23 B3.24 B3.25 B3.26 Preparing drawings, specifications and supporting data, evaluating Contractor's proposal}, and providing other services in connection with .~g~s to the:Project. Providing services in connection with evaluating substit3R:ions proposed by the Contractor and making subsequent revisions to the dt'awings, ape~_cifications and other documentation resulting from them; Making investigations, inventories of materials and equipment, valuations and detailed appraisals of existing facilities. Providing services made necessary by the default of the Contractor, by major defects or deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor, or by failure of performance by either the Client or Contractor under the Contract. Providing consultation concerning replacement of any work damaged by fire or other cause during construction .and furnishing services as may be required in connection with the replacement of such work. Providing services in evaluating an extensive or unreasonable number of claims submitted by the Contractor or others in connection with the Work. Preparing record drawings showing changes in the Work made during construction based on marked-up prints, drawings; and other data furnished by the Contractor to the Architect; the accuracy of such information shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Providing assistance in the utilization of equipment or systems such as testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation and maintenance and consultation during operation. Providing services to the Client in connection with any public heating, mediation, arbitration proceeding, or legal proceeding. B3.27 Providing for services of consultants for other than the architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical engineering portions of the Project provided as a part of the Architect's basic services. B3.28 Translating documents into a language other than the language of this Agreement. B3.29 Providing or arranging for any services not otherwise included in this Agreement. The City of Niagara Falls Canada Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 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) 356-2354 E-maih planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Doug Darbyson Director PD-2002-41 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: RECOMMENDATION: PD-2002-41 Response to Beefeater Niagara Ltd. Allegations For Council's information. BACKGROUND: On April 15, 2002, Mr. Charlie Burland representing Beefeater Niagara Ltd., attended the City Council meeting to speak against a streetscape plan for Falls Avenue proposed by Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. Mr. Burland was critical of the process being followed by the City in considering the proposed streetscape project including the difficulty in gaining access to information concerning the proposal, the lack of sufficient notice, potential impacts the proposal might have on pedestrian flows, construction safety and access and the need to address other relevant factors which may affect the economic viability of Clifton Hill and Falls Avenue. Mr. Burland also made several remarks about the lack of transparency in the City's public decision making process, the impropriety of recent Committee of Adjustment approvals and Council's approval of a fountain encroachment on a public sidewalk with no public input. The following comments and attached documentation provides a detailed response to the allegations raised. The report is organized following the same order Mr. Burland used in his Council presentation. 1. Previous Committee of Adjustment Approvals. Mr. Burland alleges the difficulties he has experienced over the last 18 months with respect to two Committee of Adjustment decisions regarding proposed building expansions by Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance · Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development April 22, 2002 - 2 - PD-2002-41 Canadian Niagara Hotels (CNH). Mr. Bufland contends that in both cases, CNH did not follow the legally required process. The Committee of Adjustment approved two building projects through minor variance applications whereas he believed that rezoning should have been the proper application fommt. Mr. Burland further contends the City should not permit incremental piecemeal development through the minor variance process. More comprehensive by-law amendment procedures should have been used. Committee of Adjustment application A-37/2000 Proposed Hotel meeting rooms and entertainment centre As indicated in the documents attached as appendices 1, 2 and 3 City staff advised the proponents early in the process that the proposed building expansion and entertainment centre would require a rezoning. Notwithstanding this planning opinion, CNH submitted a minor variance application and staff had no authority to refuse its processing. The Committee of Adjustment was advised of the Planning Depathnent's opinion regarding rezoning and as the minutes of the meeting reveal the same opinion was rendered by a planner and a lawyer representing Beefeater Niagara Ltd. The Committee of Adjustment approved the minor variance application citing the following reasons for approval - that the requested variances were minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is within the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Beefeater Niagara Ltd appealed the Committee of Adjustment decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, however, the matter was not adjudicated but settled between the parties. Although Beefeater had the right to have its appeal decided by the OMB, it chose not to do so and instead, settled the matter with Canadian Niagara Hi~tels. One of the al!egations made against the City at the Council meeting of April 15, 2002 by Charlie Burland, an officer of Beefeater and Burland Properties was that the City did not enforce the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board when it granted two minor variances for the convention centre and the RainForest Caf& This matter is presently before the courts in Action No. 43328/01 between Beefeater and Burland and the City and Sheraton on the Falls. While the matter should not be discussed publicly while it is before the courts, the allegation by Mr. Burland at the Council meeting of April 15 mirrors the allegations in the lawsuit. The lawsuit has been adjourned indefinitely at the request of Beefeater and Budand, to which request the City has consented. At the conclusion of the lawsuit, there will be a full report presented to Council. Committee of Adjustment Application A-06/2002 Proposed Drop Zone Commercial Amusement and Carousel Upon completion of the hotel meeting rooms and entertainment centre, CNH inquired as to the process required to add two building additions to the existing construction in the from of amusement rides. As set out in the attached appendices 4, 5 and 6 the Planning Department placed the onus on the proponent to justify the form of application with proper support documentation. CNH chose the minor variance route and submitted the requested support materials. Planning staffrecommended support of the minor variance application and the Committee of Adjustment approved same. April 22, 2002 - 3 - PD-2002-41 Mr. Takishita, Solicitor for Beefeater Niagara Ltd, was present at the meeting and presented arguments against the minor variance application including the inappropriateness of the process being followed. Beefeater Niagara Ltd has appealed the second application to the OMB. It is staff's respectful opinion that the Committee of Adjustment has the authority under the Planning Act to decide on any application brought before them despite the recommendations ofstaffand the public input received. The appeal procedures under the Act provides for the accountability of the process. As demonstrated in appendices 1 through 6 the process is fully transparent and Mr. Burland has and continues to exercise his fights to appeal decisions. Fountain Encroachment on Public Sidewalk The Water Feature in front of the RainForest Caf6 was reviewed and approved by staff through the Site Plan Approval process having met the standards for access and pedestrian safety. The feature did encroach minimally onto the municipal road allowance requiring Council's approval and on April 23, 2001 authorization was received (see appendix 7:- MW-2001-54). No other permits or public notification was required. The installation of the fountain was not related to the OMB hearing that dealt with the minor variance application for the additions to the hotel and the RainForest Caf& Falls Avenue Master Plan The initiative of CNH to upgrade Falls Avenue and a portion of Clifton Hill does not fall under any Planning Act approval process. CNH retained consultants to prepare the Master Plan proposal and after a series of consultation meetings with NPC and City staff, revised plans were submitted for the purpose of seeking Council's approval City departments receive numerous proposals in the course of the year from third parties such as developers, hotel owners and builders. Most third parties speak to staff with an expectation of confidentiality until their plans are finalized and are ready to be made public. Should any proposal require the legal giving of notice, the holding of public meetings and background documentation, the City is not only required by law to comply but in fact does so. In this case, there are no statutory notice requirements. The allegations that sufficient notice was not given and that there was a reluctance to share infoimation are unfair. The City does not share proposals until they are ready to come before Council. In this case, when there was interest expressed in the proposal, a copy of the final plans were given to Mr. Burland as soon as they were available and notice that Council would be considering the matter in principle at its meeting of April 15 was given even though there was no legal requirement to do so. The detailed analysis and public input will follow the Council meeting of April 15. April 22, 2002 - 4 - PD-2002-4! With respect to the other issues raised by Mr. Burland regarding potential impacts, staff shares many of these concerns and has identified same in form of attachments to the submitted Council report. The concerns of Mr. Burland regarding public input and due process were intended to be accommodated by recommendation 4 in the Council report seeking BIA comments prior to any construction. It has always been City practise to consult with local BIA's regarding any streetscape improvement works, notwithstanding the fact that there is no legislated process setting out procedures to be followed. CONCLUSION: The development approval process is often perceived as complicated and confusing. Staffattempt to guide building proponents through the appropriate approval processes however, some applicants wish to pursue applications in formats which may not be recommended or prescribed. No one would disagree with Mr. Burland's contention that a more comprehensive planning approach for the CNH lands would be desirable, however, the City is not in a position to require same. Indeed, incremental applications have been submitted which the City is obliged to process. The Committee of Adjustment and Council exercise their decision making authority in accordance with the Planning Act having regard to staff recommendations but are not always in agreement with same. The public input process and legislated appeal procedures are designed to ensure accountability and provide for transparency in the decision making process. Staff respectfully submits this report to respond to the issues raised by Mr. Burland. Staff believe that the integrity of the City development approval process is being challenged and a full and detailed response is in order. Staff are prepared to answer any further questions which may arise at the Council meeting. Mr. Burland has been invited to attend. Prepared and Recommended by: anning & Development City Solicit~ Ed Dujlovic Director of Municipal Works ,Respectfully submitted: ~onald Chief Administrative Officer pproved by: ~ Tony Ravenda ~ Executive Director of Corporate Services DD/RK/ED:am The City of Niagara Falls Canada A~PEND[X 1 Planning & Development Department 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) 356-2354 E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Doug Darbyson Director June 8, 2000 Italia Gilberti Broderick & Partners P.O. Box 897 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6V6 Dear Ms. Gilberti: Re: Application to Committee of Adjustment Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. I am writing to update you on the above noted Committee of Adjustment (C of A) application, the discussions that have taken place and the comments which have been received to date. 1) On May 23, 2000 you and Dino Sr. met in my office to discuss whether the proposed expansion of the Foxhead Hotel should be considered as a minor variance application or rezoning. The Planning Depattment expressed the concern that the proposed 62,000 square feet addition requiring substantial variance to height, lot coverage, rear yard setbacks and parking may not meet the Planning Act requirements for consideration as a minor variance. We also noted Council's procedural policies set out in O.P.A. #26 which identifies Council as the approval body for new tourist commercial developments. 2) On May 26, 2000 you responded in writing that Canadian Niagara wished to proceed with an application to the Committee of Adjustment. Your letter reviewed the four tests set out in the Planning Act which the Committee of Adjustment must consider in determining its decision making authority in this matter. We agree that the Committee of Adjustment may grant the requested variances if in their opinion, all four tests have been satisfied. 3) Given that the plans submitted with the application contain very limited information, I visited the site on May 25, 2000 to gain a better understanding of the project. Dino Sr. gave me an additional ground elevation plan for Falls Avenue which indicated that a recessed pedestrian courtyard was planned and that the Falls Avenue facade was intended to be constructed with less glass than was originally shown. With the focus of the new Official Plan on building design, this additional information is appreciated. 4) Public notice for the proposed Committee of Adjustment application was made on May 29, 2000. The notice refers to an addition comprising of hotel meeting rooms and entertainment area- a change from the submitted application describing the project as a conference/entertainment centre. This change was requested by Dino Sr. to better reflect the intent of the application. You will also note that four variances are described in the notice. Based on clarification received, a fifth variance regarding parking stall sizes would not be required. Workhtg Together to Serve Our Community -2- 5) The application was circulated to various commenting departments and agencies. To date comments from the Building Division and Ministry of Transportation have been received. Verbal comments have also been received from the Municipal Works Division regarding parking and traffic impacts. A site meeting was held Monday, June 6 to acquaint various staff as to the project layout. The Building Division and Fire Department were satisfied that their concerns would be addressed. 6) Dino Sr. has forwarded to the City a copy cfa 1997 traffic study. Upon review of this study, the Municipal Works Division has determined that it does not address the proposed expansion and the study is based on outdated traffic information. A meeting has been arranged for Thursday, June 8, 2000 to discuss the need for a parking and traffic study update. The next step in the process is to prepare a staffreport to the Committee of Adjustment. Before doing so, we would like to provide you with a summmy of our concerns. In our view, there are two fundamental problems associated with the proposed application as a minor variance. The Official Plan contemplates that all new tourist commercial development will be guided by its prescribed policies. We believe that it was the intent of Sections 4.13, 4.1.23 and 4.1.24 to have Council deal with applications of this nature and apply appropriate design criteria. The second problem deals with the antiquated nature of the applicable by-law 5335. How can a minor variance application meet the purpose and intent cfa by-law which never contemplated modem day high-rise hotels with higher parking standards and full service facilities such as meeting rooms, entertainment and retail areas, valet parking and bus drop-offs. We should set a time frame for bringing the whole of the Canadian Niagara Hotels property up to contemporary zoning standards to avoid this problem in the future. Having regard to the foregoing, we are concerned that the Committee of Adjustment may not feel that they have the proper authority to deal with the application as a minor variance. A third issue deals with impact. It would appear that a traffic impact study will be required by both the City and Ministry of Transportation. This would be recommended as a condition, if the C cfa were cfa mind to approve the application. These matters will be dealt with in City staff's report to the C cfA. Please do not hesitate to call me before our report is finalized so that all of the issues can be dealt with in an objective manner. Yours truly, DD:tc C~ E. P. Lustig John MacDonald Doug Darbyson Director of Planning & Development Ext. 4230 FILE: S :\Co fA2000\Canadian.37\Gilberti.ltt.wpd APPENDIX 2 RE?L .r TO THE COMMITTEE OF ADJ I'MENT Ct.tv of Niaeara Falls DATE June 9. 2000 NAME OF MUNICIPALITY HEARING DATE Tuesday. June 13. 2000 FILE NO. A-37/2000 NAME OF APPLICANT Canadian Nine, ara Hotels Inc. SUBJECT PROPERTY 4915 Clifton Hill LEGAL DESCRIPTION Part Lot No. 106-1 (Parts of Lots 106 & 107'~. Plan 1002 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing hotel complex to accommodate proposed hotel meeting rooms and entertainment area. Relief to the following provisions of Zoning By-law 5335, 1955 as amended and as amended by the Site Specific By-law 98-155 are required: Provision Existing , Proposed Requirement Extent of Variance Requirement Maximum Height 35 feet 72 feet 37 feet Maximum Lot Coverage 80% 90% 10% Rear Yard Setback - 24 feet 0 feet 24 feet North Parking Spaces - on site 80 43 37 A. ~ Tourist Commercial (OPA 26) DOES THE PROPOSED RELIEF FROM THE BY-LAW MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN? YES l~O X COMMENTS: The Committee of Adjustment must have regard to the newly adopted Official Plan Amendment #26 when considering the proposed minor variance application. This amendment was not in effect when previous minor variance applications were brought before the Committee. Section 4.1.3 of the Official Plan Indicates that all new tourist commercial development will be guided by the policies of the new Official Plan. Sections 4.1.23 and 4.1.24 of the Official Plan establishes design criteria for high rise hotels including their podium base components. Section 4.4.2 of the Official Plan indicates that building heights throughout the tourist area shall be restricted to four storeys in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. By-law 5335 specifies 35 feet as the maximum building height. Section 4.4.2 further states that Council shall consider the allocation of additional building heights through site specific rezonlugs. The height of the proposed hotel podium (72 feet) exceeds the criteria stated in this policy which prompts the need for rezonlng. The Committee will need to determine if the purpose and intent of the Official Plan is being maintained when considering the proposed application. B. ZONING BY-LAW: Commercial I (By-law 5335 as amended) DOES THE PROPOSED RELIEF FROM THE BY-LAW MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW? YES NO X COMMENTS: Within the Tourist Commercial core area only the Canadian Niagara Hotels property falls under Zoning By-law 5335. The by-law is old and very antiquated compared to By-law 79-200 which applies to all other Tourist Commercial properties. By-law 5335 provides no definitions for a hotel or its ancillary uses and its parking requirements are substandard. It would be safe to say that this by-law did not envision the form of modern day hotel developments that the City is presently experiencing. The Committee will need to determine whether the purpose and intent of By-law 5335 is being maintained when considering the proposed variance application. IS THE PROPOSAL DESIRABLE FOR THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OR USE OF THE LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE? YESX ~Q COMMENTS: The development of a podium base for the Foxhead Hotel will provide the necessary meeting rooms and amenities generally associated with new hotel development. Whether the ground floor building plans provide suitable loading and unloading space, hotel drop offs for buses and other design matters relative to pedestrian and traffic movements, remains to be investigated. Both the City's Municipal Works Department and the Ministry of Transportation are requiring a Traffic Impact Study to be undertaken prior to site plan approval to ensure that parking, pedestrian and traffic related matters have been appropriately addressed. Staff have discussed this requirement with the applicant and the requirements of the Municipal Works Department and Ministry of Transportation are outlined in their reporta. IS THE PROPOSAL CONSIDERED MINOR IN NATURE? YES NO X COMMENTS: The proposal does not appear to meet the Planning Act's four tests for the application to be considered as a minor variance. RECOMMENDATION: The Committee of ~4djustment will need to consider whether they have the authority to deal wffh the proposed minor variance application having regard to the four tests set out in the Planning ,4ct. Should the Committee determine that the application is appropriate, approval should be conditional upon a Traffic Impact Study being undertaken to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation and the City prior to site plan approval and construction. The results of the study are to be Implemented to the satisfaction of both the City and the Ministry of Transportation. DATE Junel2.2000 SIGNATURE NAME Doue Darbvson TITLE Director of Plannin~ & Develot~ment DD/am S :\Co fA2OOO\Canadie n 3 7XteporC wlxl APPENDIX 3 Minutes of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, Tuesday, June 13, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. in Committee Room 2. ATTENDANCE: J. Hiebert (Chairman), V. Pietrangelo, C. Ioannoni, E. Michalczyk, C. Antonio, G. Prata, W. Thomson, K. Feren (Members), R. Wilson, Wm. Clark, A. Morocco (Staff). ABSENT: J. Collinson MINUTES: It was moved by C. Antonio, seconded by V. Pietrangelo, that the minutes from May 23, 2000 be approved as circulated. Carried Unanimously. A-37/2000, Canadian Niagara Hotels, Agent - Italia Gilberti, 4915 Clifton Hill: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing hotel complex to accommodate proposed hotel meeting rooms and entertainment area. Relief to the following provisions of Zoning By- law 5335, 1955 as amended and as amended by the Site Specific By-law 98-155 are required: Provision Existing Proposed Extent of Variance Requirement Requirement Maximum Height 35 feet Maximum Lot Coverage 80% Rear Yard Setback - North 24 feet Parking Spaces - on site 80 72 feet 37 feet 90% 10% 0 feet 24 feet 43 37 The Planning and Development Department recommended the Committee of Adjustment will need to consider whether they have the authority to deal with the proposed minor variance application having regard to the four tests set out in the Planning Act. Should the Committee determine that the application is appropriate, approval should be conditional upon a Traffic Impact Study being undertaken to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation and the City prior to site plan approval and construction. The results of the study are to be implemented to the satisfaction of both the City and the Ministry of Transportation. W. Thomson, E. Mi'chalczyk and K. Feren declared a conflict of interest for the application. Correspondence City of Niagara Falls Planning & Development Department Broderick & Partners dated May 26, 2000 Broderick & Partners dated June 1, 2000 City of Niagara Falls Building Division City of Niagara Falls Municipal Works City of Niagara Falls Traffic & Parking Services Ministry of Transportation Regional Niagara Health Services Department Tremayne-Lloyd Partners dated June 12, 2000 Broderick & Partners dated June 8, 2000 Mr. Dino DiCienzo, Ms. Italia Gilberti - Agent for the applicant and Mr. ~'{ichael Shore were present at the meeting. The architect for Mr. DiCienzo, Mr. V. Panici was also,,present in the audience. J. Hiebert confirmed Nina Perfetto and Wendy Nott were present at the meeting in opposition to the application. Nina Perfetto represents Beefeater Properties Inc and C.I. Burland who are the owners of the adjoining land to the west. Ms. Perfetto noted they agree with staff's report stating the application is not minor for the reasons set out. They ask the committee to consider the application in the context of the applicants previous building practice. Where minor variances have been granted after the fact, after construction has commenced. In their view it is another attempt by the applicant to do things in an incremental way, all the small steps, minor variances when you look at the total impact of the development is does require a more thorough review or more thorough look at what is going on. Given their own Official Plan and the antiquated by-law it is obvious that the intent is that there be a site specific rezoning in these circumstances. This is the type of application that requires Council review, review of all the issues and a great deal of public input. The letter by Council for the applicant states very clearly that this is one land holding, all the more reasons why this committee should look at it as a big parcel which requires a rezoning. This is not minor variance and is only the next step for the one that is to follow that is we know this applicant is going to continue to develop in small steps or big steps but he calls them small steps. Her client would have been severely impacted by these developments or by these small process and is here today to voice his concerns. The fact that minor variances have been granted in the past should not be a factor for this committee. The minor variances were granted under circumstances where perhaps your hands were tied given the state of the development but each application should be considered by its merits and we agree with staff's report that the application does not meet the four tests in the Planning Act and in no way would collect the intent of the Official Plan that is now adopted or the Zoning By-law. Italia Gilberti spoke in length on the information that was presented in her document and as addressed by the Secretary-Treasurer to the Committee. In conclusion the applicant respectfully submits that all of the requested variances are minor in nature, are desirable for the location, do respect and maintain the general purpose and intent of the by-law and the official plan. V. Pietrangelo asked staff with regard to the report brought forward to the Committee of Adjustment why couldn't the application be considered minor in nature. Wm. Clark explained that under comments staff felt the proposal did not meet the Planning Act 4 tests for the application to be considered for a minor variance. It is the lack of, in staff's opinion, of compliance with official plan policies, zoning by-law provisions and the desirability of the application which gave the response to "no" with regard to minor in nature. V. Pietrangelo questioned a vote of 2 to 1, with respect to those 4 tests, where desirability is marked yes, official plan is no and zoning by-law is no. Wm. Clark noted the Planning Acts states that you should comply with all four tests and through desirability it could be deemed to be desirable provided that the appropriate parking study is completed. Wm. Clark further noted that the question of the 72 foot podium, the height exceeds the intent of section 4.4.2 of the Official Plan policy #26, therefore requires a zoning amendment. Wm. Clark also clarified for the committee members with respect to his question on height and By- 1aw.79-200 that if the property was under Zoning By-law 79-200 the by-law would still require a rezoning for height. In response to further questions the committee was referred to the Planning report as stated: "the committee will need to determine if the proposed purpos~ and intent of the OP is being maintained in their consideration when considering the proposed application". The Zoning By-law reiterates the same statement. In response to V. Pietrangelo question that staff's only concern is height, Wm. Clark further commented that height was a problem, as was the lack of on-site parking at this particular site and there is a need to study the impact of the addition and the reduction in on-site parking and the aspect of off-site parking on the lands behind the Brock Hotel. V. Pietrangelo noted the surplus of off-site parking spaces. Wm. Clark agreed with this statement but the concern would be with traffic and the trips generated from the site to the available parking spaces behind the hotel without the proper traffic study. D. DiCienzo advised the committee of a traffic study prepared by Totten Sims for the hotel including the meeting rooms and everything to go with the 670 room hotel. C. Antonio was advised by the applicant that the meeting rooms are for people already staying in the hotel. In response to a question from C. Antonio, Wm. Clark could not determine the time limit of the site plan and traffic study. The City's traffic staff feels the present traffic study needs to be updated to meet the requirements and today's standards. The MTO also requires a traffic study. If the present traffic study is deemed to be appropriate to their satisfaction then no further traffic study is required or if updates are required it will be a longer time limit. The traffic study is needed to be completed so those recommendations in order that they can be implemented within the site plan approval and can be implemented into the design and construction of the hotel. It was moved by C. Ioannoni, seconded by V. Pietrangelo that the application be approved, as the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and is within the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Approval is conditional upon a Traffic Impact Study being undertaken to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation and the City prior to site plan approval and construction. The results of the study are to be implemented to the satisfaction of both the City and the Ministry of Transportation. Carried Unanimously B22/2000/NF Norman & Eleanor Smith, 9368 Ridge Road: The application is made for consent to convey 0.5 acres (0.2 hectares) of land which is to merge with the abutting rural residential land to the north known municipal}y as 9368 Ridge Road. The 74 acre (29.95 hectare) remnant parcel is to be retained for continued rural/agricultural use. The subject land is located on the south side of Ridge Road and west side of Morris Road, in the City of Niagara Falls. Mr. and Mrs. Smith were present at the meeting. J. Hiebert confirmed there was no one present either for or against the application. APPENDIX 4 Corr ,te Services Department Planning & Development 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) 356-2354 E-mail: planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Doug Darbyson Director January 2, 2002 Emilio Raimondo Piraino & Raimondo Architects 4395 Kent Avenue Niagara Falls, ON L2H 1J1 Dear Mr. Raimondo: Re; Sheraton on the Falls Hotel - 4915 Clifton Hill Proposed Drop Zone Commercial Amusement I wish to confirm that the proposed "amusemenf', although a pemdtted use, exceeds the height limitations set out in the By-law. By-law 5335, 1955 as amended; and as further amended by By-law 7320, 1967 permits a building or structure to have a maximum height of 35 feet, whereas the Drop Zone structure will have a height of 160 feet. In order to proceed with this structure the By-law regulation will have to be amended through the zoning amendment process or varied by the Committee of Adjustment. In either case, it would be necessary for you to set out in your application planning arguments which would support your request. It ~vould be prudent for your clients to engage the services of a professional planner to address the issue of height in terms of the Zoning By-law, the relevant Tourist Commercial Official Plan policies and the recent decision of the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to Committee of Adjustment application A-37/2000. The planner should also address the issue of height in terms of site characteristics and the surrounding properties. Senior Zoning Administrator ~.. Ext. 4233 WC:gd c. Ray Kallio Doug Darbyson Susan Scerbo S:\COM UNITY~QUEENVIC\C L[FTOI, h4 9 l 5Clifton.ltr. wpd Working Together to Serve Our CommuniO~ Clerk's · Finance Human Resources Information Systems l_ega/ Planning & Development APPENDIX 5 REP(, £ TO THE COMMITTEE OF ADJk fMENT Cio; of Nta~,ara Falls NAME OF MUNICIPALITY FILE NO. A-06/2002 HEARING DATE NAME OF APPLICANT SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL: Tuesday. February 12. 2002 Canadian Niagara Hotels ~;7~ Falls Avenue Lot Nos. 106 & 107. Part of Lot Nos. 30. 31 & 14, Rec, istered Plan No. 59R~4347 The applicant is proposing to construct an amusement slructure and carousel on the subject property. Where By-law No. 5335 permits a maximum building height of 10.67m (35.0 fi.) on the westerly portion of the property, the amusement structure will have a height of 56.08m (184.0 fi.). A variance of 45.41m (149.0 fi.) is requested. Where By-law No. 5335, as amended and as varied by the Committee of Adjustment, permits a maximum building height of 16.76m (55.0 ft.) along the middle of the property's frontage on Clifton Hill, the carousel will have a height of 21.94m (72.0 ft.) A variance of 5.18m (17.0 ft.) is requested. OFFICIAL PLAN: Tourist Commercial DOES THE PROPOSED RELIEF FROM THE BY-LAW MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN? YES X NO COMMENTS: The subject property is located in an area where high-rise buildings are anticipated. Council has already addressed the Official Plan policy on additional height for this properS/through a zoning application, permitting a 22 storey hotel on the easterly portion of the property. The amusement structure and the carousel are proposed to be constracted behind the existing hotel adj scent to the Clifton Hill frontage. These structures, which are lower than the hotel, will not detract from or ova'whelm the public realm or be v~sually massive. The Clifton Hill Tourism Subdistrict is intended to function as the commercial-entertainment centre of the City. It's festival atmosphere is intended to be preserved and the proposal would enhance that atmosphere. Commercial, in accordance with By-lawNo. 5335/55,~amended. The property is also subject to the amending by-law, By-law No.~. 155 and the Committee of Adjustment, A-37/2000. DOES THE PROPOSED RELIEF FROM'rU.E BY-LAW MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW? Y~ X NO COUNTS: The intent behind the curtailment of building height to 10.67 metres was to ensure that buildings reflect a pedestrian-scale design. The architectural detail and building articulation are being used to relate to human form. The height relief being sought is for two building additions. The amusement structure is a narrow point tower which is similar to the one on the opposite side of the street, but is shorter and has an open frame-type construction. The carousel is to be incorporated as the architectural feature on the existing podium level. Both structures are proposed as integral features to the existing building behind the hotel that was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. C. DESIRABILITY: IS THE PROPOSAL DESIRABLE FOR THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OR USE OF THE LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE? YES X NO COMMENTS: The proposed building additions will complement the existing atmosphere and character of the area. The additions will not affect any site lines of the Falls enjoyed by adjoining properties nor cast excessive shadows on neighbouring properties. Both additions are similar to other architectural features that will add to the character of the site. -2- D. MINOR IN NATURE: IS Tl~g PROPOSAL CONSIDEI~D MINOR IN NATURE? YES X NO COMMENTS: The relief requested is minor compared to the height and massing already permitted for the existing hotel complex on the property. The proposal rdaintains the existing character of the area. RECOMMENDATION: The application, A-06/2002, by Canadian Niagara Hotels, may be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Officinl Plan, maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, would be appropriate for the development of the land, building or structure; and ts minor in nature. DATE February 4, 2002 NAME Doug Darbyson K2H:ss S :\Co fA2002~Can adian Niagara Hot els.06'ceporl wpd TITLE POT Director of Planning & Development APPENDIX 6 ***Extract from Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting - February 12, 2002*** Minutes of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. in Committee Room 2. ATTENDANCE: S. Volpatti (Chairman), G. Prata, J. Collinson, C. Antonio, V. Pietrangelo, J. Hiebert, N. Puttick, K. Feren (Members), Wm. Clark, R. Wilson, S. Scerbo (Staff). ABSENT: W. Thomson (Member). A-06/2002, Canadian Niagara Hotels, 4875 Falls Avenue: Correspondence: City of Niagara Falls Planning & Development City of Niagara Falls Building and By-law Services Regional Municipality of Niagara Planning and Development Synectics Tremayne-Lloyd Partnem Mr. Michael DiCienzo and his agent, Mr. Emilio Raimondo, were present at the meeting. Mr. Takishita, Tremayne-Lloyd Partners, on behalf of Beefeater Niagara Limited and C.I. Burland Properties Limited, was present at the meeting. Mr. Takishita pointed out a typographical error in his submission. The letter refers to an OMB Hearing in the year 2001, whereas it should read 2000. Mr. Takishita requested a copy of comments and recommendations read before the Committee. The second Synectics report made reference to a precedent setting decision, as it was called, of the OMB, essentially establishing that tall structures being built beside other tall structures were deemed minor. Perhaps someone on the Committee could make reference to that decision. Mr. Takishita was advised that his office should have a copy of the Board's Order. However, S. Scerbo would provide him with the Order. Mr. Takishita, referring to the Region's comments, addresses the issue as to whether or not the matter should have been considered as a by-law amendment rather than a minor variance application. The letter states that "the City should be satisfied that this application is following the appropriate planning process since policy 4.1.23 suggests that proposals to exceed 4 storeys shall be considered through a site specific zoning by-law amendment." Mr. Takishita stated that his clients have some serious concerns with the application. One of the major concerns that they have with the application is the process through which the application -2- has been pursued. Their position is that the application should have, from..the beginning, proceeded through a zoning by-law amendment. There are some serious height differences from the drawings provided to the OMB and what is being pursued now through the minor variance application. The proposal is for a 149.0 fl. increase in height for the north tower and a 17 ft. increase on the south, which is very substantial. They have been advised by their experts that the setback requirements have been changed. In other words, the proposed structures will border on his clients land 2.0 ft. from the property line. Mr. Takishita pointed out that their position is that the applicant is trying to circumvent a more stringent by-law amendment process by pursuing numerous minor variance applications. There are decisions of the OMB that say that applicants can't try to do through a number of minor variances, what they should be doing through a by-law amendment, and in his opinion, this is what the applicant is doing. Mr. Takishita stated that the requested variances are not minor in nature, which is a test set forth in Section 45(1) of the Act. The proposal does not satisfactorily address the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and specifically Plan Amendment 26. The proposal does not satisfactorily address the purpose and intent of the current by-law, with respect to building heights. The proposal does represent appropriate and desirable development of the site due to it's potential for adverse impacts on neighbouring properties which in his view have not been addressed because this application is for a minor variance rather than a zoning by-law amendment. The proposed variances are not minor and should proceed by way of a comprehensive rezoning application which identifies and evaluates all of the intended development of the site. Therefore, the applicant shou_!d not be advancing these proposals in an incremental fashion. Mr. Takishita noted that their concerns deal with height and density variances that are being sought by the applicant. The application for these incremental variances accumulatively has a detrimental effect on his clients land and therefore should have been pursued properly through a zoning by-law amendment. The variances are not consistent with the Order of the Board, the Plans are not consistent with the plans put before the Board at the hearing and subsequently approved by the Board. The applications do not conform with Official Plan Amendment No. 26, and in their view as stated, the minor variances are not minor. They respectively request that the honourable Committee does not approve the minor variances as requested. E. Raimondo stated that they had met with City Staff, they have gone through a recognizable process that they had chosen. They feel that the project that has been presented does meet the 4 tests as required in the Planning Act, and their report specifically describes how they do. As far as the OMB hearing, Plans were presented at the Hearing, there were developments shown on the Hill side which was shown with a dashed line, which basically show retail uses. The proposed facilities support the 2 designated retail uses. As far as the contravention of side yard setbacks, from recollection at the OMB hearing, there was detemfination that there ~vould be 2 additional buildings placed along Clifton Hill at which point and time the footprints were not determined and that is the reason why they were shown dashed. As a matter of fact, they felt that they have -3- actually improved the building configurations as previously shown on theplans by making the buildings narrower and actually creating more public space in front of the Clifton Hill site. Therefore, they disagree with Mr. Takishita's comments respecting this. E. Raimondo stated that as far as the attractions not being minor in nature, they feel that they have looked at the various issues and have met with Staffto discuss the issues in great depth and feel that the attractions are minor in nature. J. Collinson asked Wm. Clark how the proposal affects the parking requirements. Wm. Clark responded that there are no additional parking requirements. J. Collinson asked the applicant if the attached conditions of the Board's Order have been met. E. Raimondo stated that the 4 conditions have been placed on the site plan. In response to J. Collinson, he added that the building falls well within the boundmy lines and also within the development requirements established for the site. Mr. Takishiki noted that the proponent's building encroaches on Canadian Niagara Hotel's property by a matter of about 1.5 ft. J. Collinson stated that them appears to be a difference of opinion, however, it should be worked out between the two parties and is not something the Committee can deal with. He questioned ~how the ride will operate, i.e. pneumatically_0pe~ra~_e_d? .Brill there be any emissions as a result of the ride? E. Raimondo explained the ride. J. Collinson stated that any concerns that he had was with the process and not the project itself. Sometimes it is questionable if the Committee, in approving particular applications, does the applicant a disservice because there have been a number of questions raised about the process whether it should be done through a zoning amendment application. He stated that when he first examined the application, he thought that anything as controversial as this, it might have better gone to Council as a special site amendment as opposed to a minor variance application. M. DiCienzo stated that they met with Staffand were well aware that if there was an appeal lodged they would be willing to address it. They are well aware of the processes under the Act and the Staff's recommendation clearly states that the request is appropriate. They are prepared for any recourse to the event. The opposition has continuously appealed to the OMB and of course they were thrown out. It has caused major delays in construction and adversely effected the Fallsview/Clifton Hilt area and businesses. The appeal previously before the Board was quickly dismissed. They are here to promote and develop Niagara Falls and they will continue to do so. -4- N. Puttick stated that he is always of the opinion that when you hear both sides and staff's recommendation, and staff is in support of the application, then the request is quite simple. In this case staff have advised that in their opinion the request is minor and within the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law; and the request is appropriate. Therefore, he could support the request. Mr. Takishita clarified that although the applicant stated that the previous matter before the Board was dismissed, in his opinion it was not. In fact, there was an Order with conditions. V. Pietrangelo stated that he was in support of the application and agreed with N. Puttick's comments with respect to Staff's recommendation. V. Pietrangelo reminded the Committee that when the proponent of the permanent Casino was chosen they were supposed to build an attractor since then they have stated that they would not be building the attractor. The City of Niagara Falls would be lucky if they have any new attractions coming to Niagara Falls and complimented the applicant for not only the attractions that they brought in the past few years but also this development. C. Antonio asked Mr. Raimondo to explain how the ride fimctions from beginning to end. Are the people strapped in? Do they wear a harness? How long does the ride take?, etc... J. Hiebert questioned how Mr. Antonio's concems had anything to do with the application. C. Antonio stated that the questi?ns are very important and is the function of the w_hole height variance application. S. Volpatti allowed the question to stand. E. Raimondo explained that there will be a ticket booth, people will purchase the ticket, enter the building and queuing will be within the building itself. It is will be a two storey structure, with a stairwell which will lead purchasers up to the ride. Although he could not comment on the ride itself, it stated that there are authorities (TSSA) Technical Standards Authorities, and the ride will meet those standards, set legislatively by that authority. C. Antonio stated that he noticed there was a wall adjacent to the Burland property and assumed that was a buffer for noise from the ride. E. Raimondo replied that the actual building on that side of the property is a two storey building. The actual platform that supports the structure is a one storey platform, hence the one storey remains at the front of the building. C. Antonio stated that it should then buffer any noise emanating from the ride. It was moved by N. Puttick, seconded by J. Hiebert, that the application be approved, as the requested variance is minor in nature, within the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is appropriate for the development of the land, building or structure. K. Feren Conflict of Interest Carried Unanimously. Niagara Falls llJdl_ Community Services Department Municipal Works 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) 356-2354 E-maih siorfid@city.niagarafalls.on.ca APPENDIX 7 Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director MW-2001-54 File: Clifton Hill Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: RECOMMENDATION: AI~ ,23, 2001 ' E. Duji0Vi~ FROM: E. C.. lgagg ';/'~iE RECOMMENDA~I.ON [S) CONTAINED iHiS REPORT WERE ADOPTED IN ~.,.tMIFIEE AND-RATIFIED BY CITY ~-2001-54 ~OUNCIL AT THE MEETING HELD ON Water Fea~re ~ Front of Ra~fores~~ / ~ ~ It is recommended that the geyser water feature be allowed to be partially located on the City's sidewalk area and that an encroachment agreement be entered into with all costs associated with the water feature be borne by the developer. BACKGROUND: The redevelopment of the former Tussaud's Wax Museum site will create an exterior forecourt entrance with access to the Rain Forest Caf6 on one side and interactive arcade on the other. As part of this fore. eom, a geyser water feature is planned to highlight this spectacular entrance. The water feature will be partially located on the sidewalk area, however, the majority of the sidewalk will not be affected and will still be wider than most other areas along Clifton Hill. The approval of this request will create an attractive feature that will be enjoyed by all visitors on Clifton Hill. Prepare/0fby: Sam Iorfida Manager of Development /~pproved by: A J ~// John MacDonald Executive Director of Community Services Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted by: d~ard~L'ustig~~~ Chief Administrative Officer Attach. S:~.EPORTS~O01 Report$~Raln Forest Cafe - W~ter F~ature.wpd Municipal Works Working Together to Serve Our Community Fire Sen/ices · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Laws Clifton Hill The City of Niagara Falls Canada 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-2002-27 Kenneth E. Burden Director of Finance April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2002-27 - Municipal Accounts RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the municipal accounts totalling $3,242,196.21 for the period ending April 29, 2002. BACKGROUND: The accounts have been reviewed by the Director of Finance and the by-law authorizing payment is listed on tonight's Council agenda. Recommended by: K.E. Burden Director of Finance ~ spectfully submitted: John MacDonald Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services KEB:jd Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development The City of Niagara Falls Canada Corporate Services Department Finance 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) 357-2016 E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls.on His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re'- April 29, 2002 F-2002-28 - Development Charges 2001 Financial Information RECOMMENDATION: That City Council receive and file the attached financial statements regarding Development Charges for the 2001 fiscal year. BACKGROUND: It is a requirement of the Development Charges Act to file with Council a statement disclosing the receipt and application of all development charges collected under the authority of Part II of the Development Charges Act, 1997. The required content for this financial reporting is as follows: Balance as of January 1 · The development charges reserve fund balances as reported on the audited financial statements for the preceding year. Development Charges Received or Receivable · These development charges are to be allocated to the specific service to which they are to be applied. Development Charges Refunded · The total of all refunds of development charges, including the interest on the refund calculated on the basis of the provisions of section 13 of Ontario Regulation 725/89. · The total refunded amount is to be credited to the specific service to which the original charges had been applied. Accrued Interest · The total interest earned on all reserve fund investments shall be shown, as well as the apportiomnent of such interest earnings among the various services. F-2002-28 Kenneth E. Burden Director of Finance April 29, 2002 - 2 - F-2002-28 Transfers to Capital Fund · The total of all amounts transferred to the capital fund including all interest earned on such funds as at the date the amounts are transferred. · The total of the amounts transferred are to be credited to the specific service to which the original charges had been applied. Amounts Allocated to Other Services · Indicate the amounts which Council has determined are to be transferred from the service originally allocated to another service. Balance at Year's End · The development charge reserve fund balance or balances as reported on the audited financial statements of the current year. A summary of the financial statement follows: Balance as at January 1, 2001 Received Development Charges Refunded Development Charges Interest Earned Transfer to Capital Projects Balance as at December 31, 2001 $6,046,103 1,785,660 (35,810) 447,686 (151,676) $&091,964 Prepared by: M. Dell-McPhaden Manager of Accounting Approved by: Executive Director of Corporate Services Recommended by: K.E. Burden Director of Finance Respectfully submitted: John MacDona~ ~trative Officer CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF CONTINUITY FOR THE PERIOD JAN 1 TO DEC. 31, 2001 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES RESERVE FUNDS Opening Sub-Account Purpose/Service Balance Jan1/01 Add: Subtract: Add: Subtract: Allocation: Received Refunded Interest Transfers Transfers Closing Development Development Earned To Capital Between Balance Charges Charges Projects Services Dec. 31/01 $0 $0 $6,612 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GENERAL SERVICES - INELIGIBLE (s.s.2.4; s.s 5.3) Government $146,792 $0 $153,404 Fire Protection 0 0 0 Municipal Works 125,514 0 131,168 Parks and Recreation 0 0 0 Library 0 0 General Services Total 272,307 0 0 12,265 0 0 284,572 URBAN SERVICES - INELIGIBLE (s.s.2.4; s.s.5. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL RESERVE FUNDS - INELIGIBLE 272,307 0 0 12,265 0 0 284,572 CITY WIDE SERVICES Administration 54,105 32,692 678 2,533 0 0 88,652 Roads 1,726,129 550,396 7,280 131,824 0 0 2,401,069 Transit 21,747 20,440 438 1,018 0 0 42,767 Parks & Recreation 483,014 208,142 17,280 35,598 0 0 709,474 Library 92,211 72,345 2,657 5,616 0 0 167,515 City Wide Services Total 2,377,206 884,015 28,334 176,590 0 0 3,409,477 URBAN SERVICES OTC Water 430,984 52,928 1,585 33,690 20,553 0 495,464 Sanitary Sewerage 810,586 76,144 2,011 63,158 37,925 0 909,950 Storm Water Managment 1,310,209 129,350 3,511 102,142 61,498 0 1,476,692 Fire 244,954 32,643 0 15,527 (10,455) 0 303,579 Urban Services OTC Total 2,796,732 291,065 7,107 214,517 109,522 0 3,185,685 TOURIST CORE SERVICES Water 25,276 25,727 16 1,930 1,939 0 50,978 Sanitary Sewerage 52,200 53,133 32 3,986 4,005 0 105,281 Storm Water Managment 471,994 480,431 290 36,040 36,210 0 951,964 Fire 50,389 51,289 31 2,359 0 0 104,006 Tourist Core Services Total 599,858 610,580 369 44,315 42,154 0 1,212,230 SUBTOTAL RESERVE FUNDS 5,773,796 1,785,660 35,810 435,421 151,676 0 7,807,392 GRAND TOTAL $61046,103 $1,785,660 $35,810 $447,686 $151,676 $0 $8,091,964 BANK BALANCE R730 (Account #411-14) BANK BALANCE R740 (Account#63-19) RECEIVABLES INVESTMENTS (as at Dec. 31/01) DUE (TO)FROM REVENUE FUND (not proofed) TOTAL $284,572 719,502 0 5,488,725 1,599,166 $8,091,964 devchrgcont00 04/08~2002 mdm The City of Niagara Falls I Canada Corporate Services Department Finance 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-2002-29 Kenneth E. Burden Director of Finance April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2002-29 - 2001 Reserves and Reserve Funds RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and approve the 2001 transfers to reserves and reserve funds. BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the reserves and reserve funds for 2001 showing the balances at January 1, 2001, the amounts to be added, the amounts used in 2001, and the balances at December 31,2001. RESERVES When reserves are created, the amounts are appropriated from net revenue in the same year and then used for those same purposes in a subsequent year. While reserves may be established for any municipal purpose, the most common are as follows: 1. Reserve for working funds In most municipalities, accounts have to be paid before taxes, grants and other revenues become available, including revenues still to be collected for the previous year. A municipality can obtain a short-term loan to meet this need, but borrowing incurs interest charges. In order to reduce and, if possible, avoid short-term borrowing, a working fund reserve is one financial management technique that can be helpful. It is also a cash management device to enhance cash flow. April 29, 2002 - 2 - F-2002-29 2. Reserve for contingencies Such a reserve is established in anticipation of unknown expenditures or liabilities such as emergency repairs, damage claims, etc. If a reserve for contingencies is not created, it could have a significant effect on the future tax levy of the municipality should the liability actually materialize. 3. Reserve for equipment replacement Major items of equipment have to be replaced on a regular basis. In a municipality, such a reserve eliminates the need to levy for the full cost of the equipment in the year of acquisition. This avoids the resulting fluctuation in the tax levy from year to year. RESERVE FUNDS A reserve fund differs from a reserve in that reserve fund assets are segregated and restricted to meet the purpose of the reserve fund. There are two types of reserve funds: obligatory reserve funds and discretionary reserve funds. Obligatory reserve funds are to be used solely for the purpose prescribed for them by Statute. Park Purpose Municipal Parking · Development Charges Discretionary reserve funds may be used for a number of different purposes. Some examples of these are: · Future expenditures for capital projects · Debt retirement · Levy or user fee stabilization · Promotion of special projects Prepared by: M. Dell-McPhaden Manager of Accounting Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Recommended by: K.E. Burden Director of Finance R/~)pect fully submitted: yohn MacDL/'Chief Adm?n~sa~rdative Officer CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS RESERVES AND RESERVE FUNDS RESERVES Special Purposes Working Capital Watermain Improvements Metering Program OPENING JAN.1/01 10,408,070 265,000 5,800 42,763 OPERATING OPERATING CAPITAL ADDITIONS USES USES 1,045,224 2,351,790 1,352,825 TOTAL USES 3,704,615 0 0 0 CLOSING DEC. 31/01 7,748,679 265,000 5,800 42,763 TOTAL RESERVES 10,721,633 1,045,224 2,351,790 1,352,825 3,704,615 8,062,242 RESERVE FUNDS (Set aside by Council) Development Charges 272,307 Development Charges bylaw 99-144 5,773,796 L.L. Battlefield Debenture 98-2001 0 Workers Compensation 0 Fire Stn #5 - Willoughby - Mtg fund 161,269 NF Hydro - Debenture #8416-96 764,650 Recreation Trail Development 53,506 2% Prk!nd Dedictn - Chippawa 0 2% Prklnd Dedictn - River Road 0 2% Prklnd Dedictn - Whirlpool 0 2% Prklnd Dedictn - Lundy's Lane 78,333 2% Prklnd Dedictn - Fallsview 116,017 2% Prklnd Dedictn - Clifton Hill 50,923 Capital/Operating Fund 723,610 Tree Planting - Developers 5,383 Sale of John Allan Park 57,221 Park Development 117,759 Sewer and Water Levies 865,123 Expansion and Renewal 316,871 Conrail Drainage 414,698 Prepaid Work Proj's. Contributions 1,760,587 Sidewalk Construction 185,740 Future Municipal Works 538,762 Lot Drainage 112,289 Library Special Projects 240,477 Library Property Maintenance 86,588 Library Automation Fund 373,070 Sanitary (Recycling Surplus) 262,060 Sports Fnd - new equip/program 0 Projs - Special Needs' Children 12,041 12,265 2,229,218 99,104 150,000 10,156 57,986 86,336 42,383 6,249 2,342 308,831 748 2,632 6,329 68,080 41,979 30,025 141,204 11,894 41,206 5,185 61,868 11,983 24,6791 19,355/ 4,000 554 33,491 162,130 16,932 143,148 81 202,255 114,202 232,000 16,112 2,496 725 214,565 966 5,315 121,630 296 1,449 22,988 80,705 644 0~ 0 195,622 0 o 16,932 143,148 114,202 0 0 0 0 81 0 434,255 0 0 16,112 2,496 215,290 966 126,944 296 1,449 0 22,988 0 80,705 644 0 0 8,062,242 RESERVE FUNDS (Set aside by Legislation) Park Purpose (Planning Act) Municipal Parking TOTAL RESERVE FUNDS 0 284,572 7,807,392 99,104 150,000 154,493 679,488 25,641 0 0 0 120,716 122,186 53,265 598,187 6,131 59,853 107,976 930,707 143,561 443,756 1,774,846 197,339 578,519 117,454 279,357 98,571 317,045 280,770 4,000 12,595 13,343,080 3,476,572 527,603 844,527 1,372,130 15,447,523 15,447,523 23,015 89,078 97,428 97,428 14,665 1,416,536 65,160 39,032 532,667 571,699 ~9,_~_6_ 1,439,551 154,237' 136,460 532,667 669,127 924,661 54,782,631 3,630,810 6~_~_,~63_ 1,377,194 2,041,257 16,372,184] 16,372,184 SUMRES00 1 04/17/2002 mdm The City of Niagara Fallst Canada 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 F-2002-30 Kenneth E. Burden Director of Finance April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2002-30 - 2001 Capital Accounts RECOMMENDATION: For the information of the City Council. BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the capital account summary by department for 2001 showing the balances at January 1, 2001, the amounts added in 2001, the amounts expensed in 2001, and the balances as at December 31, 2001. These capital projects are carryovers from previous years and new ones started in 2001. Approval for the projects comes from the yearly approved Capital Projects Budget and from other Council approvals during the year. Revenue Additions for 2001 Operating Accounts Reserve and Reserve Funds Local Improvements Grants Outside Agencies Debt $6,556,553.00 2,191,806.00 40,409.00 85,489.00 690,967.00 2,422,000.00 $11,987,224.00 The expenses are authorized and approved invoices submitted to accounts payable for payment. In the balance column, the bracketed amounts still have costs outstanding, the non-bracketed amounts are still to be funded. The funding sources for these are: Working Together.to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development April 29, 2002 - 2 - F-2002-30 Reserves Local Improvements Outside Agencies Operating Accounts $ 963,423.00 445,077.00 310,434.00 17,881,170.00 $19,600,104.00 Prepared by: M. Dell-McPhaden Manager of Accounting Recommended by: K.E. Burden Director of Finance Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Respectfully submitted: ~trdative Officer CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Summary of Capital Account Activity for the year 2001 ACCOUNT BALANCE Jan.01/01 GENERAL C 001 FIRE C 002 MUNICIPAL WORKS C 008 TRANSIT C 010 POLLUTION CONTROL C 016 STORMS SEWERS C 017 WATERWORKS C 018 LANDFILL C019 CEMETERY C 028 RECREATION C 037 PLANNING C 041 INDUSTRY C 042 1,068,564.23 (lO,OOO.OO) 1,154,515.57 0.00 263,071.45 104,360.50 2,869,433.43 0.00 (86,221.76) 120,201.56 1,102.56 100,516.63 Grand Totals 5,585,544.17 2001 Revenue 444,979.66 25,184.74 3,510,548.11 200,000.00 2,138,803.61 833,107.61 2,573,333.04 1,114,000.00 (7,356.15) 933,072.79 8,672.00 212,878.35 11,987,223.76 Expenses 13,512,608.89 30,6O8.77 2,686,191.93 170,000.00 1,599,864.64 564,253.44 1,774,746.89 1,481,079.54 25,396.10 1,015,725.04 7,569.44 53,575.60 22,921,620.28 BALANCE Dec.31/01 14,136,193.46 (4,575.97) 330,159.39 (30,000.00) (275,867.52) (164,493.67) 2,070,847.28 367,079.54 (53,469.51) 202,853.81 (0.00) (58,786.12) 16,519,940.69 16,519,940.69 00FIRS5 1 04/08/2002 mdm The City of Niagara Falls Canada 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-2002-31 Ken Burden Director April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2002-31 - Major Receivables Quarterly Report RECOMMENDATION: For the information of the City Council. BACKGROUND: The following is a quarterly report of Tax, Utility and Sundry Receivables to March 31, 2002. Tax Balances Current Taxes 2002 2001 Percentage Collected Levy to Date Collections Balance 50% 51.5% $ 52,351,083. $ 48,187,000. $ 26,178,262. $ 24,803.000. $ 26,172,821. $ 23,384.000. Tax Arrears 2002 2001 Percentage Collected 32.8% 27.2% Opening Balance $14,655,133. $10, 359,000. Collections $ 4,807,165. $ 2,816,000. Balance 5; 9,847,968. $ 7,543,000. Total Unpaid Taxes $ 36,020,789. $ 30,927,000. The total unpaid tax difference from 2001 to 2002 is partially due to the fact that due to bill 140 we did not bill the capped classes until October 2001. Also the impact of September 11th, resulted in ratepayers delaying their tax payments. April 29, 2002 - 2- F-2002-31 Water Arrears 2002 Current Billing $ 139,081. Arrears $1,079,393. Total $1,218,474. Staff is working in joint collaboration with Niagara Falls Hydro in the transition of the transfer of Water billing to Niagara Falls Hydro. Any water arrears accounts with no arrangements will be forwarded to the Credit Bureau for collection. The amounts above do not reflect any water billings conducted by Niagara Falls Hydro. Sundry Receivables Accounts Receivable 2002 2001 $ 711,484. $ 411,568. 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\ConUmtiee~F-2002-31 - Major Receivables.wpd Respectfully submitted by: Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services Department The City of Niagara Falls' Canada Finance 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafal[s.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 357-2016 E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls.on April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2002-32 - 2002 Financial Update - First Quarter F~2002-32 Kenneth E. Burden Director of Finance RECOMMENDATION: For the information of the City Council. BACKGROUND: The 2002 Budget was based on several assumptions. The assumptions were developed into forecasts for revenues and expenses. The forecasts have been compared to actual results for the period January 1 to March 31. Staff has prepared summaries for revenues and expenses which show the comparison between the actuals and budgets for the 2001 and 2002 revenues and expenditures for the three-month period. REVENUES TAXATION: The 2002 interim levy, including the Region and Education allocations, was approximately $4.1 million more than 2001. The increase resulted from the regulated calculations for the capped classes. The Region and Education portions for 2002 are approximately $3.0 million more than 2001. This increase also resulted from the regulated calculations for the capped classes. As a result, the City' s retention portion of the interim levy was approximately $1.1 million more than 2001. PENALTIES AND INTEREST ON TAXES: The increased income for 2002, versus 2001, can largely be attributed to the year-end increased tax receivables. This increase in receivable balances has produced more penalty and interest revenues than was experienced in the same period in 2001. The increase matches the 2002 budget projection of increased penalty and interest revenues. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's * Finance Human Resources Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development April 29, 2002 - 2 - F-2002-32 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXATION: Provincial regulations govern the weighted sharing of payments in lieu of taxes paid to municipalities for tax exempt properties. The 2002 receipts are more than the 2001 comparison; the timing of the receipts are dependent upon the discretion of the P.I.L. property owners. GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES: The Community Reinvestment Fund grant is paid quarterly to the City from the provincial government. LICENCES, PERMITS AND FEES: These combined revenues have increased by $1.4 million which reflects several of the assumptions as reported in the 2002 Budget. Most of the anticipated revenues are comparable to the 2001 experience. In addition, new revenues were realized from the rental of the City's election vote tabulators and the collection of street end lease payments. The increase year-to-year is mostly attributed to the collection of the Casino building permit; this income will necessarily be attributed to this year and 2003, 2004. Also note the new revenues from arena concessions and seniors centre. LAND SALES: The land sale to Metro Development was completed in February 2002 for $400,000; the remaining $100,000 in revenue will be transferred into this account from the City's Trust Fund for land sale deposits. RESERVES FUNDS, RESERVES AND SURPLUS: The 2002 Budget was based on a dependance of Reserve Funds and Reserves. To date, this source of revenue has been partially called upon to fund Current Operating Expenditures. REVENUE SUMMARY: The revenue for the three-month period January 1 to March 31 is approximately $3.0 million more for 2002 when compared to the revenues received in the same period in 2001. EXPENSES COMMUNITY SERVICES: Expenditures for 2002 are less than 2001 by approximately $827,000. This difference resulted from the timing differences of transferring operating funds to capital uses. AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Expenditures for 2002 are more than 2001 by approximately $64,000. This difference resulted from the planned 2002increases in contributions for 2002. CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR'S OFFICE, CAO AND CORPORATE SERVICES: Expenses for 2002 are less than 2001 by approximately $140,000. This difference resulted from the timing differences of transferring operating funds to capital uses. April 29, 2002 - 3 - F-2002-32 SALARIES, WAGES AND BENEFITS: For the first three months, total salaries and wages amounted to $4,599,000 for 2002 compared to $5,124,000 for 2001. Benefit expenditures are comparable to 2001 and the forecast for the 2002 Budget. MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Utilities (electricity, gas, water) for 2002 totalled $204,000, approximately $16,000 more than 2001. City has paid its annual premium for general insurance. Neither the planned vehicle purchases nor the waste management services have been billed to the City. CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION: There has not been any major transfer of operating funds to the Capital Contribution. As capital projects are approved by Council, the approved funding will be transferred to the Capital Fund. DEBENTURE DEBT REPAYMENT: Principal and Interest Payments for 2002 to date total $436,000 of the expected total payment of $1.2 million. New long-term financing, as approved in the 2002 Capital Budget, has not been incurred to date. AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: The total grants to date are approximately $64,000 more than 2001. This increase is mostly due to the larger contributions to the Niagara Falls Transit. EXPENSE SUMMARY: Total Expenditures compare favourably to the 2002 Budget for the period January 1 to March 31, 2002. Changes in expenditures are attributable to Contributions, transfers to Capital uses and expenses for Salaries, Wages and Benefits. Recommended by: K.E. Burden Director of Finance Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Respectfully submitted: i°r~saltrdative Officer CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS EXPENSE and REVENUE SUMMARY 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 EXPENSE COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCIES, BOARDS and COMMISSIONS CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR'S OFFICE, CAO, and CORPORATE SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSE REVENUE TAXATION REVENUE PAYMENTS IN LIEU REVENUE GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES REVENUE SERVICES OTHER TOTAL REVENUE SURPLUS or (DEFICIT) 20011 2002 ACTUAL 2001 20021 BUDGETI PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET $ VARIANCE $ VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 5,854,619 34,759,000 5,027,258 38,447,200 (827,361) 3,688,200 16.8% 13.1% 2,064,783 5,999,800 2,129,034 6,006,850 64,252 7,050 34.4% 35.4% 3,320,040 13,460,200 3,179,985 15,940,700 (140,055) 2,480,500 24.7% 19.9% 11,239,441 54,219,000 10,336,277 60,394,750 (903,164) 6,175,750 20.7% 17.1% 9,911,399 32,510,000 11,205,371 41,033,300 1,293,972 8,523,300 30.5% 27.3% 884,991 4,614,000 991,637 4,408,000 106,647 (206,000 19.2% 22.5% 348,750 1,459,000 348,750 1,459,000 0 0 23.9% 23.9% 1,516,121 11,705,000 2,946,036 9,477,000 1,429,915 (2,228,000 13.0% 31.1% 989,067 3,931,000 1,220,868 4,017,450 231,802 86,450 25.2% 30.4% 13,650,328 54,219,000 16,712,663 60,394,750 3,062,335 6,175,750 25.2% 27.7% 2,410,887 0 6,376~386 (1 ',3,965,499 (1 04/23/2002 Addendum 1 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS STATEMENT OF REVENUE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 TAXATION Property and Business Taxation Waste Management (transfer from Fee to Tax) Penalties and Interest on Taxes PAYMENTS IN LIEU Canada Ontario Municipal and Other GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES Canada Ontario Unconditional Ontario Specific Municipal SERVICES Licences, Permits and Fees User Rentals and Fees OTHER Sales of Property and Equipment Contributions from Other Funds Contributions from Reserve/Surplus Sundry TOTAL REVENUE 2001 2001 2002 2002! ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OFI ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET S VARIANCE S VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET! i 9,505,967 31,027,000 10,663,269 33,634,7001 1,157,301 2,607,700 30.6% 31.7% 0 0 (3,688) 5,353,600 (3,688) 5,353,600 0.0% -0.1% 405,432 1,483,000 545,791 2,045,000 140,359 562,000 27.3% 26.7% 21,153 93,000 68,767 150,000 47,614 57,000 22.7% 45.8% 694,017 4,053,000 622,016 3,817,200 (72,001) (235,800) 17.1% 16.3% 169,821 468,000 300,854 440,800 131,033 (27,200) 36.3% 68.3% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 348,750 1,395,000 348,750 1,395,000 0 0 25.0% 25.0% 0 43,000 0 43,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 21,000 0 21,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1,004,022 9,785,800 2,404,431 7,338,600 1,400,409 (2,447,200) 10.3% 32.8% 512,099 1,919,200 541,605 2,138,400 29,506 219,200 26.7% 25.3% 0 245,000 313,469 430,000 313,469 185,000 0.0% 72.9%i 0 341,000 0 154,000 0 (187,000) 0.0% 0.0% 122,220 538,000 40,582 536,450 (81,638) (1,550) 22.7% 7.6% 866,847 2,807,000 866,817 2,897,000 (30) 90,000 30.9% 29.9% 13,650,328 54,219,000 16,712,663 60,394,750 3,062,335 6,175,750 25.2% 27.7% CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS TAXATION REVENUE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 2001 2001 2002 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET $ VARIANCE $ VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 24,609,747 16,989,309 26,214,739 18,100,324 1,604,991 1,111,015 144.9% 144.8% 2,350,648 1,594,539 2,642,866 1,986,389 192,217 391,850 147.4% 128.0% 16,192,010 10,775,204 20,163,399 11,833,235 3,971,389 1,058,031 150.3% 170.4% 3,409,141 1,040,797 2,300,458 1,160,077 (1,108,683) 119,280 327.6% 198.3% 1,170,904 430,923 659,558 332,626 (511,346) (98,297' 271.7% 198.3% 417,718 174,216 431,128 195,165 13,410 20,949 239.8% 220.9% 36,103 21,725 38,483 26,572 2,381 4,847 166.2% 144.8% 475 287 452 312 (24) 25 165.6% 1 44.8% ( 18,871,120) (21,409,732) (2,538,612) 0 (19,809,660) (20,278,082) (468,422) 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 9,505,967 31,027,000 10,663,269 33,634,700 1,157,301 2,607,700 30.6% 31.7% 0 0i (3,688) 5,353,600 (3,688) 5,353,600 0.0% -0.1% 405,432 1,483,000 545,791 2,045,000 140,359 562,000 27.3% 26.7% 9,911,3991 32,510,000 11,205,371 I 41,033,300 1,293,9721 8,523,300 _. 30.5% 27.3% PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Residential Multi-residential Commercial industrial Large Industrial Pipeline Farmlands Managed Forests Less: Regional Allocation of Interim Billing Less: Education Allocation of Interim Billing Local Improvements - General - Urban Service Area WASTE MANAGEMENT (transfer from Services PENALTIES and INTEREST TOTAL TAXATION CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS PAYMENTS IN LIEU REVENUE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY I TO MARCH 31 CANADA Federal Properties ONTARIO Ontario Highways & P.Works Niagara Housing International Bridges Ontado Hydro-Electric Services Hydro-Bectric Power Generation Niagara Parks Commission Niagara College Hospital MUNICIPAL and OTHER Niagara Falls Hydro Region Of Niagara Railways 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET S VARIANCE S VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 21,153 93,000 68,767 150,000 47,614 57,000 22.7% 45.8% 0 154,000 52,409 204,000 52,409 50,000 0.0% 25.7% 120,048 380,000 0 4,200 (120,048) (375,800' 31.6% 0.0% 0 28,000 0 60,000 0 32,000 0.0% 0.0% 573,968 819,000 569,607 861,000 (4,362) 42,000 70.1% 66.2% 1,728,000 1,772,600 0 44,600 0.0% 0.0% 0 886,000 0 857,800 0 (28,200' 0.0% 0.0% 0 28,000 0 27,450 0 (550' 0.0% 0.0% 0 30,000 0 30,150 0 150 0.0% 0.0% 694,017 4,053,000 622,016 3,817,200 (72,001) (235,800' 17.1% 16.3% 65,844 171,000 98,978 145,300 33,133 (25,700 38.5% 68.1% 0 146,000 98,484 144,900 i 98,484 (1,100 0.0% 68.0% 103,977 151,000 103,392 150,600; (584) (400 68.9% 68.7% 169,821 468,000 300,854 440,800 131,033 (27,200 36.3% 68.3% 884,991 4,614,000 991,637 4,408,000 106,647 (206,000 19.2% 22.5% TOTAL PAYMENTS IN LIEU CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES REVENUE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 2001 2001 2002 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET S VARIANCE S VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 0 0 0 O~ 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 348,750 1,395,000 348,750 1,395,000 0 0 25.0% 25.0% 348,750 1,395,000 348,750 1,395,000 0 0 25.0% 25.0% 0 43,000 0 43,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 43,000 0 43,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 21,000 0 21,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% I~__ 0 0 23.9% 23.9% CANADA Canada Day Grant ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL Community Reinvestment Fund ONTARIO SPECIFIC Aggregate Grants MUNICIPAL Region of Niagara TOTAL GRANTS and SUBSIDIES CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS SERVICES REVENUE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 2001 2001 2002 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET $ VARIANCE $ VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 3,252 18,000 4,245 22,100 993 4,100 18.1% 19.2% 15,041 83,000 31,552 81,600 16,511 (1,400 18.1% 38.7% 94,599 447,0001 91,989 420,300 (2,610) (26,700 21.2% 21.9% 0 0 ' 0 01 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 255 1,000 8,086 1,000 7,831 0 25.5% 808.6% 113,147 549,000 135,872 525,000 22,725 (24,000' 20.6% 25.9% 23 300 23 300 0 (0 7.7% 7.7% 10,964 59,000 13,160 63,000 2,197 4,000 18.6% 20.9% 7,238 24,000 8,056 31,800~ 818 7,800 30.2% 25.3% 10,099 325,000 35,933 225,000 25,834 (100,000 3.1% 16.0% 0 1,063,000 0 1,063,000 0.0% 0.0% 11,624 61,700 18,037 60,200 6,413 (1,500' 18.8% 30.0% 39,947 470,000 75,2t0 1,443,300 35,262 973,300 8.5% 5.2% 215 800 30 800 (185) 0 26.8% 3.8% 8,372 19,200 73,460 22,000 65,088 2,800 43.6% 333.9% 8,586 20,000 73,490 22,800 64,903 2,800 42.9% 322.3% 13,320 65,000 26,914 65,000 13,594 (0 20.5% 41.4% 9,423 42,000 I 15,273 42,0001 5,850 0 22.4% 36.4% 244,835 1,364,000 1,853,645 1,886,699 1,608,810 522,699 17.9% 98.2% 3,287 31,000 7,800 34,800 4,513 3,800 10.6% 22.4% 564 5,000 832 6,000 267 1,000 11.3% 13.9% 284 34,000 2,654 34,000 2,371 0 0.8% 7.8% 12,182 97,000 12,514 75,000 332 (22,000 12.6% 16.7% 3,256 4,000 4,457 5,600 1,201 1,600 81.4% 79.6% 1,531 4,000 412 4,000 (1,119) 0 38.3% 10.3% (622) 8,000 (409) 10,000 213 2,000 -7.8% -4.1% 474 5,000 81 3,700 (393) (1,300 9.5% 2.2% 288,534 1,659,000 1,924,172 2,166,800 1,635,639 507,800 17.4% 88.8% LICENCES, PERMITS, and FEES City Clerk Services Marriage Licences General Licences & Fees Lottery Licences Livestock Loss Claims Miscellaneous Finance Services Hunting Licences Tax Certificates Tax Information Investment Interest Niagara Falls Hydro Investment Miscellaneous City Solicitor Services Freedom of Information Fees Miscellaneous Building Inspection and Bylaw Services (New) Plumbing Permits Sewer Permits Building Permits Sign Permits Sundry Permits Conditional Permit Agreements Compliance Letters OHRP, RRAP Fees Miscellaneous Weed Control By-Law Convictions CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS SERVICES REVENUE (continued) 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 2001 2001 2002 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET SVARIANCE SVARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 0 1,000 ! 270 800 270 (200 0.0% 33.7% 5,400 21,000 2,800 19,800 (2,600) (1,200 25.7% 14.1% 0 7,500 0 7,500 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 16,792 33,600 8,396 34,400 (8,396) 800 50.0% 24.4% 2,609 12,000 1,510 12,000 i ( 1,099) (0 21.7% 12.6% 13,230 7,400 0 9,300 (13,230) 1,900 178.8% 0.0% 0 500 3,400 500 3,400 0 0.0% 680.0% 38,031 83,000 16,376 84,300 (21,655) 1,300 45.8% 19.4% 29,094 400,000 (7,969) 364,300 (37,063) (35,700' 7.3% -2.2% 343,189 1,955,200 0 1,953,600 (343,189) (1,600 17.6% 0.0% 640 17,000 (1,025) 18,400 (1,665) 1,400 3.8% -5.6% 99,548 310,000 112,371 389,600 12,823 79,600 32.1% 28.8% 0 56,000 0 56,000 0 (11 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 100,000 0 I00,000 0.0% 0.0% 610 700 184 800 (426) 100 87.1% 23.0% 0 300 0 300 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1,445 12,000 9,520 12,500 8,075 500 12.0% 76.2% (2,518) 0 0 0 2,518 0 - 100.0% 0.0% 0 4,059,600 0 0 0 (4,059,600', 0.0% 0.0% 12,804 65,000 34,531 65,000 21,727 0 19.7% 53.1% 484,811 6,875,800 147,612 2,960,500 (337,199) (3,915,3001 7.1% 5.0% 347 1,000 309 1,300 (37) 300 34.7% 23.8% 3,350 20,000 4,785 22,800 1,435 2,800 16.8% 21.0% 15,969 58,000 15,980 70,600 11 12,600 27.5% 22.6% 0 3,000 0 2,800 0 (200] 0.0% 0.0% 11,300 45,000 10,625 36,400 (675) (8,600} 25.1% 29.2% 0 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 30,966 129,000 31,699 135,900 733 6,900 24.0% 23.3% ,004,022 9,785,800 2,404,431 7,338,600 1,400,409 (2,447,200 10.3% 32.8% LICENCES, PERMITS, and FEES (continued) Fire Services Fire Route Signs Fire Highway Calls Alarm Systems Town of Lincoln Dispatch Fire Letter Fees False Alarm Fees (New) Miscellaneous Municipal Works Services Engineering Fees Internal Equipment Rental Driveway Approaches Parking Enforcement Parking Lots Payments in Lieu of Taxes Parking Fund Contribution Newspaper Box Fees Tourism Maps Street Lights Landfill Tipping Fees Waste Management, Pickup & Disposal Fees Miscellaneous Planning Services Environmental Letters Site Plan Fees Planning Applications Sidewalk Cafe Licence Fees Committee of Adjustment Miscellaneous TOTAL LICENCES, PERMITS, and FEES CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS SERVICES REVENUE (continued) 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 USER RENTALS and FEES Rents - Sylvia Place Market - Leases Cemeteries - Trust Fund Interest and Miscellaneous - Internment (Burial) Charges and Surcharges - Provincial Burial Fees - Disinternment Charges - Marker Charges - Internment Rights (Lot) Charges Arenas and Concessions - Stamford/Jack Bell Arena - Stamford/Jack Bell Concessions - Niagara Falls Memodal Arena - Niagara Falls Memorial Concessions - Chippawa/Willoughby Arena - ChippawaNVilloughby Concessions Pools - F.H. Leslie - S.C.V.F.A. - Prince Charles - Niagara Falls Lions Club Park Revenue Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Center Miscellaneous Special Events TOTAL USER RENTALS and FEES TOTALSERVlCES 2001 20011 2002 20021 ACTUAL BUDGET I PERCENTOF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET $ VARIANCE $ VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET I I 4,526 8,500 2,320 8,500 (2,207) 0 53.3% 27.3% 23,016 23,100 25,905 33,100 __2__,889 10,000 99.6% 78.3% 27,542 31,600 28,224 41,600 682 10,000 87.2% 67.8% 325 66,000 1,549 105,000 1,225 39,000 0.5% 1.5% 50,635 268,200 80,151 284,200 29,516 16,000 18.9% 28.2% 730 4,000 1,010 4,000 280 0 18.3% 25.3% 0 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 0.0% 5,892 40,000 8,096 43,000 2,203 3,000 14.7% 18.8% 21,402 204,600 25,849 100,000 4,447 (104,6001 _ 10.5% 25.8% 78,984 582,800 116,656 539,200 37,672 (43,6001 13.6% 21.6% 187,046 614,000 138,664 634,000 (48,382) 20,000 30.5% 21.9% 0 0 11,781 95,000 11,781 95,000 0.0% 12.4% 81,438 311,000 113,729 319,800 32,290 8,800 26.2% 35.6% 28,156 144,300 25,605 144,300 (2,550) 0 19.5% 17.7% 79,244 202,500 79,940 207,500 696 5,000 39.1% 38.5% 0 0 0 47,000 0 47,000 0.0% 0.0% 375,884 1,271,800 369,719 1,447,600 (6,165) 175,800 29.6% 25.5% 0 11,000 0 11,000 0 01 0.0% 0.0% 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 7,000 0 7,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 28,000 0 28,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 9,867 5,000 t,310 5,000 (8,557) 0 197.3% 26.2% 0 0 14,380 77,000 14,380 77,000 0.0% 18.7% 1,500 0 10,742 0 9,242 0 100.0% 100.0% 18,322 0 575 0 (17,747) 0 100.0% 100.0% 512,099 1,919,200 541,605 2,138,400 29,506 219,200 26.7% 25.3% 1,516,121 11,705,000 2,946,036 9,477,000 1,429,915 (2,228,0001 13.0% 31.1% CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS OTHER REVENUE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 SALES OF PROPERTY and EQUIPMENT - Land Sales - Equipment Sales CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER FUNDS - Reserve Funds CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RESERVES and SURPLUS - Reserves - Surplus SUNDRY General Government Services Casino Niagara Compensatory Grant Provincial Offences Net Revenue Sharing GRAND TOTAL 2001 2001 2002 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET $ VARIANCE $ VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 0 215,000 300,000 400,000 300,000 185,000 0.0% 75.0% 0 30,000 13,469 30,000 13,469 0 0.0% 44.9% 0 245,000 313,469 430,000 313,469 185,000 0.0% 72.9% 0 341,000 0 154,000 0 (187,000) 0.0% 0.0% 122,220 538,000 40,582 536,450 (81,638) (1,550 22.7% 7.6% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 122,220 538,000 40,582 536,450 (81,638) (1,550 22.7% 7.6% 0 1,000 0 1,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 180 6,000 150 6,000 (30) 0 3.0% 2.5% 866,667 2,600,000 866,667 2,600,000 0 0 33.3% 33.3% 0 200,000 0 290,000 0 90,000 0.0% 0.0% 866,847 2,807,000 866,817 2,897,000 (30) 90,000 30.9% 29.9% 989,067 3,931,000 1,220,868 4,017,450 231,802 86,450 25.2% 30.4% 13,650,328 54,219,000 16,712,663 60,394,750 3,062,335 6,175,750 25.2% 27.7% TOTAL OTHER CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS STATEMENT OF EXPENSE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 COMMUNITY SERVICES Community Services Office Business Development Services Fire Services Building and Bylaw Services Municipal Services Waste Management Services Parks, Recreation and Culture Services AGENCIES, BOARDS and COMMISSIONS CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR'S OFFICE, CAO and CORPORATE SERVICES City Council Mayor's Office Chief Administrator's Office Corporate Services TOTAL EXPENSE 2001 2001 2002 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET $ VARIANCE $ VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 67,188 390,100 42,529 503,500 (24,659) 113,400 17.2% 8.4% 71,635 309,800 67,461 320,700 (4,175) 10,900 23.1% 21.0% 1,727,407 7,030,000 1,703,304 7,832,300 (24,103) 802,300 24.6% 21.7% 253,809 1,116,000 207,691 1,143,000 (46,118) 27,000 22.7% 18.2% 2,570,904 15,801,400 2,023,778 16,648,500 (547,126) 847,100 16.3% 12.2% 86,576 4,059,600 18,622 5,353,600 (67,954) 1,294,000 2.1% 0.3% 1,077,099 6,052,100 963,874 6,645,600 (113,226) 593,500 17.8% 14.5% 2,064,783 5,999,800 2,129,034 6,006,850 64,252 7,050 34.4% 35.4% 59,374 235,200 51,846 242,400 (7,527) 7,200 25.2% 21.4% 51,913 239,000 53,176 242,300 1,263 3,300 21.7% 21.9% 48,248 181,000 102,811 173,000 54,563 (8,000 26.7% 59.4% 3,160,505 12,805,000 2,972,151 15,283,000 (188,353) 2,478,000 24.7% 19.4% 11,239,441 54,219,000 10,336,277 60,394,750 (903,164) 6,175,7-~[ ' - 20.7% 17.1% 04/23/2002 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS COMMUNITY SERVICES EXPENSE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICE Administration Special Events TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FIRE SERVICES Administration Training Prevention Communications Station No.1 Station No.2 Station No.3 Station No.4 Station No.5 Station No.6 Extra Duty Acting Rank Other Wages Fill-in 2001 2001 2002 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET S VARIANCE S VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 57,698 285,200 36,490 320,700 (21,208) 35,500 20.2% 11.4% 9,490 104,900 6,038 182,800 (3,451) 77,900 9.0% 3.3% 67,188 390,100 42,529 503,500 (24,659) 113,400 17.2% 8.4% 71,635 309,800 67,461 320,700 (4,175) 10,900 23.1% 21.0% 150,099 938,800 123,614 918,800 (26,485) (20,000' 16.0% 13.5% 18,662 139,800 25,637 158,400 6,975 18,600 13.3% 16.2% 82,440 508,700 118,667 507,300 36,227 (1,400' 16.2% 23.4% 58,855 222,000 49,901 269,500 (8,954) 47,500 26.5% 18.5% 1,304,679 4,756,500 1,326,935 5,464,800 22,256 708,300 27.4% 24.3% 5,943 33,900 11,255 30,900 5,312 (3,000', 17.5% 36.4% 2,092 27,200 4,197 40,900 2,105 13,700 7.7% 10.3% 14,206 87,800 8,799 102,300 (5,407) 14,500 16.2% 8.6% 7,274 60,300 2,282 67,900 (4,992) 7,600 12.1% 3.4% 11,352 60,000 3,147 70,500 (8,205) 10,500 18.9% 4.5% 1,543 27,000 4,271 27,000 2,728 0 5.7% 15.8% 13,223 50,000 9,933 55,000 (3,290) 5,000 26.4% 18.1% ~ 0 18,000 0 19,000 0 1,000 0.0% 0.0% 57,041 100,000 14,666 100,000 (42,374) 0 57.0% 14.7% 1,727,407 7,030,000 1,703,304 7,832,300 (24,103) 802,300 24.6% 21.7% 235,611 851,600 203,720 872,400 (31,891 ) 20,800 27.7% 23.4% 18,198 236,800 3,971 242,500 (14,227) 5,700 7.7% 1.6% 0 27,600 0 28,100 0 500 0.0% 0.0% 253,809 1,116,000 207,691_ 1,143,000 (46,118) 27,000 22.7% 18.2% TOTAL FIRE SERVICES TOTAL BUILDING and BYLAW SERVICES BUILDING and BYLAW SERVICES Building and Inspection By-Law Services Weed Control 04/23/2002 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS COMMUNITY SERVICES EXPENSE (cont'd.) 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 MUNICIPAL SERVICES Building Division - Properties Road Maintenance Traffic and Crossing Guards Parking Control Service Center Maintenance Sidewalks Road Overhead Road Reconstruction Engineering Garage Operation; Replacement Eqmt. Equipment Maintenance Street Lighting Storm Sewers TOTAL MUNICIPAL SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PARKS, RECREATION, CULTURE Cemeteries Community Dev. & Landscape Design Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Center Parks Arenas/Pools Administration Pools Stamford/Jack Bell Arenas Stamford/Jack Bell Concessions Niagara Fails Memorial Arena Niagara Falls Memorial Concessions ChippawaNVilloughby Arena Chippawa/Willoughby Concessions Lions Outdoor Rink Fralick's Tavern TOTAL PARKS, RECREATION, CULTURE TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES EXPENSE 2001 2001J 2002 2002 ACTUAL BUDGETI PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL BUDGETi ACTUAL BUDGET $ VARIANCE $ VARIANCE 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 195,984 757,7001 144,335 812,300 (51,649) 54,600 25.9% 17.8% 498,923 3,157,600, 256,741 3,536,500 (242,182) 378,900 15.8% 7.3% 293,381 1,381,8001 217,251 1,187,400 (76,130) (194,400 21.2% 18.3% 101,626 377,0001 58,228 432,700 (43,398) 55,700 27.0% 13.5% 70,610 624,500 110,374 519,000 39,764 (105,500 11.3% 21.3% 12,267 639,500 392 856,300 (11,875) 216,800 1.9% 0.0% 502,051 764,900 339,296 725,400 (162,756) (39,500 65.6% 46.8% 16 1,982,300 134,757 2,283,900 134,742 301,600 0.0% 5.9% 528,874 1,955,400 410,827 2,046,100 (118,047) 90,700 27.0% 20.1% 156,626 987,900 110,633 1,083,600 (45,993) 95,700 15.9% 10.2% 133,470 1,077,300 114,283 1,072,400 (19,187) (4,900 12.4% 10.7% 72,598 691,600 54,197 673,700 (18,401 ) (17,900 10.5% 8.0% 4,478 1,403,900 72,464 1,419,200 67,986 15,300 0.3% 5.1% 2,570,904 15,801,400 2,023,778 16,648,500 (547,126) 847,100 16.3% 12.2% 86,576 4,059,600 18,622 5,353,600 (67,954) 1,294,000 2.1% 0.3% 153,144 1,086,700 117,561 1,087,100 (35,583) 400 14.1% 10.8% i 186,458 817,600 171,219 926,100 (15,240) 108,500 22.8% 18.5% 0 0 32,330 172,200 32,330 172,200 0.0% 18.8% 198,861 1,725,600 139,727 1,857,900 (59,134) 132,300 11.5% 7.5% 73,956 334,100 78,530 334,600 4,573 500 22.1% 23.5% 7,976 371,600 27,597 386,600 19,621 15,000 2.1% 7.1% 184,823 685,600 154,828 702,400 (29,994) 16,800 27.0% 22.0% 0 0 7,887 69,700 7,887 69,700 0.0% 11.3% 150,855 563,600 136,001 586,200 (14,854) 22,600 26.8% 23.2% 5,983 106,600 8,316 114,100 2,333 7,500 5.6% 7.3% 106,817 324,200 72,931 334,300 (33,886) 10,100 32.9% 21.8% 0 0 56 35,500 56 35,500 0.0% 0.2% 8,226 36,500 8,815 38,900 589 2,400 22.5% 22.7% 0 0 8,075 0 8,075 0 0.0% 0.0% 1,077,099 6,~)5~_2,100 963,874 6,645,600 (113,226) 593,500 17.8% 14.5% 5,854,619 34,759,000 5,027,258 38,447,200 (827,~36__1) 3,688,200 16.8% __13.1% 04/23/2002 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS AGENCIES, BOARDS and COMMISSIONS 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 N.F. HUMANE SOCIETY N.F. TRANSIT COMMISSION NIAGARA CHAIR-A-VAN N.F. RECREATION COMMISSION N.F. ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION NIAGARA AIRPORT COMMISSION PERMISSIVE GRANTS N.F. LIBRARY BOARD N.F. BOARD OF MUSEUMS N.F. ILLUMINATION BOARD N.F. TOURISM BUREAU GREATER NIAG. GEN. HOSP. FOUNDATION TOTAL AGENCIES, BOARDS, and COMMISSIONS 2001 ACTUAL 104,333 625,325 49,675 156,622 4,081 16,018 57,167 567,850 53,162 30,550 400,000 0 2001 BUDGET 2002 ACTUAL 2O02 BUDGET ACTUAL $ VARIANCE 104,333 313,000 (0) 313,000 1,298,500 198,700 441,500 747,925 52,075 1,310,900 208,300 122,600 2,400 BUDGETI PERCENT OF PERCENTOF SVARIANCE!2001BUDGET 2002BUDGET 12,40~ 33.3% 9,600 48.2% 25.0% 35.5% 20,100 76,900 171,500 90,774 404,100 (65,848) (37,400 20.3% 20.8% 33.3% 2,398 19,463 57,167 2,271,400 137,200 31,000 940,000 100,000 5,999,800 20,100 78,000 171,500 (1,683) 3,448 (0) 25.0% 38.7% 98.5% 42.6% 0.0% 0 1,100 0 588,275 38,075 30,550 348,000 50,000 2,353,100 152,300 30,550 865,000, 100,000 20,425 (15,087) 0 (52,000) 50,000 2~064,783 2,129,034 6,006,850 64,252 34.4% 81,700 15,100 (45o: (75,ooo: 7,051 33.3% 57.1% 25.0% 22.5% 11.9% 25.0% 33.3% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% 40.2% 50.0% 35.4% 04/23/2002 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR'S OFFICE, CAO and CORPORATE SERVICES EXPENSE 2002 GENERAL PURPOSES FUND JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31 CITY COUNCIL MAYOR'S OFFICE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CORPORATE SERVICES Administration Finance Services Fiscal Expense Taxation Expense Employee Benefits Expense Sick Leave Human Resources Services Workplace Safety Insurance Modified Work Program Information Systems Services City Clerk Services City Solicitor Services Insurance Claims Planning Services Committee of Adjustment 2001 20011 2002 20021 ACTUAL BUDGETI PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ACTUAL $ VARIANCE 2001 ACTUAL BUDGET! BUDGET! $ VARIANCEI, BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 59,374 235,200 51,846 242,400 (7,527) 7,200 25.2% 21.4% 51,913 239,000 ~1 --' 53,176 242,3001 1,263 3,3001 21.7% 21.9% [ 48,248 181,000 102,811 173,000 54,563 (8,00(; 26.7% 59.4% 59,816 367,0001 60,313 367,000 497 0 16.3% 16.4% 258,524 837,100 i 204,741 879,700 (53,783) 42,600 30.9% 23.3% 810,266 1,962,600 572,315 2,875,000 (237,951) 912,400 41.3% 19.9% 148,690 1,009,900 237,766 1,010,000 89,076 100 14.7% 23.5% 927,057 3,658,000 930,237 4,230,100 3,180 572,100 25.3% 22.0% 5,147 450,000 60,825 680,000 55,678 230,000 1.1% 8.9% 89,108 674,000 80,913 1,216,100 (8,195) 542,100 13.2% 6.7% 84,223 510,000 92,033 568,000 7,810 58,000 16.5% 16.2% 0 75,000 0 75,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 157,619 903,500 171,773 1,005,000 14,153 101,500 17.4% 17.1% 216,081 833,100 188,038 821,600 (28,043) (11,500', 25.9% 22.9% 164,749 454,000 105,234 473,000 (59,514) 19,000 36.3% 22.2% 12,687 160,000 93,337 160,000 80,650 0 7.9% 58.3% 225,282 897,500 172,412 908,700 (52,870) 11,200 25.1% 19.0% 1,255 13,300 2,213 13,800 958 500 9.4% 16.0% 3,160,505 12,805,000 2,972,151 15,283,000 (188,353) 2,478,000 24.7% 19.4% 3,320,0~0 13,460,200 3,179,985 15,940,700 (140,055) 2,480,500 24.7% 19.9% 11,239,441 54,219,000 10,336,277 60,394,750 (903,164) 6,175,750 20.7% 17.1% TOTAL CORPORATE SERVICES TOTAL CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR'S OFFICE, CAO and CORPORATE SERVICES EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSE 04/23/2002 The City of Niagara Falls Canada 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-2002-33 Kenneth E. Burden Director of Finance April29,2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2002-33 - Lundy's Lane Battlefield Millennium Project RECOMMENDATION: For the information of the City Council. BACKGROUND: At the Council Meeting of April 8, 2002, Alderman Volpatti requested a report on the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Millennium Project that highlighted two financial matters. The first matter concerned the actual costs of the project and the related outstanding receivable accom~t with the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield. The second matter concerned the value of the lost financial opportunity due to the incompletion of the project. Actual Costs: The total value of the actual costs expended for the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Millennium Project was $478,949.93. Of this total, $249,053.96 is the responsibility of the Friends of the Ltindy's Lane Battlefield. The City' s Auditor, Crawford Smith and Swallow, is currentlyreviewing the actual costs and verifying the accuracy of the amounts. To date, the Friends have paid $53,000.00 and have also been credited with a further $6,058.50 (the Postal Hockey Tournament donation). The resulting outstanding receivable account is $189,995.46. Since January 1,2002, this account has been charged late payment interest of 1.25% per month. Prior to this date, interest was not being charged because staff believed that it was not in the City's best interest while the project was ongoing. On August 14, 2000, Staffmet with the Friends' President Janice Wing, Treasurer Les Elliott, and member Glennis Elliott. At this meeting, Staff agreed to accept responsibility for the accounting of the project and provide quarterly invoicing with billing summary as per the request of Mr. Elliott. The Friends committed to pay the quarterly invoicing after their review, and to submit claims to the Millennium Bureau for funding. On November 21, 2000, the first quarterly invoice was sent to the Friends. Since that time, City staff has sent five additional quarterly invoices and has made numerous contacts to collect this account. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance · Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development April 29, 2002 - 2 - F-2002-33 The first payment of $13,000.00 was received from the Friends on July 23,2001. At that time, the outstanding receivable account had a balance of$104,556.81. The next payment of $40,000.00 was received September 12, 2001. Since that time, no further payments have been received. At various times, Staff was told by the President of the Friends that the reasons why invoices were not being paid were: (1) the invoicing had not yet been reviewed by the Friends' Treasurer; (2) that they had not received a transfer of funds from the Millennium Bureau; (3) that their legal counsel, Tom Richardson, had advised that the Friends may wish to not proceed with payments from the funds that they had fund-raised until various outstanding issues were settled. Most recently, the President of the Friends (now Margaret Mingle) informed the City Clerk that the Friends have the cheque from the Millennium Bureau. The City Clerk advised the President that this cheque should be given directly to the City's Director of Finance. To date, this cheque has not been received. Staffis concerned about the collection of this outstanding receivable account with the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield. Staff recommends that all reasonable collection action should be endorsed by City Council to secure and collect all of the outstanding amount of $197,120.28 (including interest of $7,124.82). Lost Financial Opportuni~_ : The Lundy's Lane Battlefield Millennium Project has a total estimated value of $2,364,600.00. Of this total, the Millennium Bureau approved $684,500.00 of the estimated costs that would be eligible for millennium funding. The funding from the Millennium Bureau was approved in the amount of an upset value of $228,000.00 which represents approximately one-third of the eligible estimated costs. As per agreement between the Millennium Bureau and the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield, the remaining funding of approximately two-thirds, or $456,000.00, was the responsibility of the Friends. On April 26, 1999, City Council approved a financial contribution of $228,000.00, or approximately one-third of the eligible estimated costs, to the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Millennium Project. Essentially, the City contributed fifty percent of the Friends' responsibility for funding. On August 15, 2000, Staff advised the Friends that a donation of $6,058.50 from the International Postal Hockey Tournament, would be credited to their fundraising efforts. On or about October 2000, the Friends and the City made application to the Ontario Heritage Foundation for a grant of $100,000.00 for this project. This grant was also credited to the fundraising responsibility of the Friends. Consequently, whereas the Friends, through agreement, accepted the responsibility of fundraising approximately $456,000.00, the net fundraising required was $121,941.50. On March 29, 2001, Staff raised the issue of non-payment with the President of the Friends. The President advised that they had raised approximately $95,000.00 and that the City would be paid. On May 31, 2001, Staff sent a letter to the Friends that advised that only essential work would be completed on the Fralick's Tavern portion of the project and that no further work would be commenced. At that time, the City had expended approximately $268,000.00 with an additional commitment of $152,000.00 to complete the Fralick's Tavern portion of the project. Staff also realized that even though an extension of the project completion date had been granted by the Millemfium Bureau, there was still insufficient time to complete the remaining portions of the project. Consequently, Staff sent the letter to protect the interests of the City. April29,2002 -3- F-2002-33 The Fralick's Tavem portion represented the majority share of the project costs. The following summary was prepared by staff and summarizes the estimated and actual eligible costs of the Lundy's Lane Millennium Project. The total actual costs of $478,949.93 were less than the total estimated costs by $205,550.07. This difference represents the lost financial opportunity that resulted from the incompletion of the project. The reason why this opportunity is considered lost is due to the fact that the Millennium Bureau funding is no longer accessible. Also, the City's funding, which was mostly debentured ($216,000.00), had to be reallocated in conformance with Municipal Act legislation as a result of the lost opportunity. Actual Original (City Expenses) Restore Fralick's Tavern Tavem fit-up for Visitor Centre Temporary Interpretive Centre (Exhibits) Cemetery & Holman landscape improvements Coronation Park landscape improvements Cemetery Marker Repair Temporary Interpretive Kiosks Total $ 379,000.00 $ 408,458.33 68,500.00 4,263.71 70,000.00 65,000.00 18,704.96 32,000.00 60,000.00 47,552.93 10,000.00 $ 684,500.00 $ 478,949.93 Conclusion: The value of the outstanding receivable account, including interest, is $197,120.28. In addition, the lost financial opportunity amounted to $205,550.07. The City committed its staff resources and $228,000.00 of City funding for this project. The City honoured its commitment and provided all of the management and accounting services, has advanced all of the funds for the payment of the project costs, and has contributed its promised share of the project funding. The Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield committed to pay the quarterly invoices and to submit claims to the Millennium Bureau for funding. The Friends have paid $53,000.00; have been credited with the International Postal Tournament donation of $6,058.50, and are responsible to pay an outstanding account balance of $197,120.28. Recommended by: K.E. Burden Director of Finance Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Respectfully submitted: John MacDonald Chief Administrative Officer KEB:jd The City of Niagara Falls Canada 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-mail: akon@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Adele Kan Director R-2002-20 April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: RECOMMENDATION: For the information of Council. Re: R-2002-20 Alderman Wing/Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield Allegations BACKGROUND: Miss Ruth Redmond gave property to the City, which included Fralick's tavern. With the input of many community groups, the City developed a master plan for the Battlefield site, and restoration of the Tavern, which is referred to as "the project" in this report. The Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield wished to be the lead community group for the project, and staff assumed that Staffwould manage the project with input from the Friends and LACAC with final approval coming from the Ontario Heritage Foundation. The City, of course, owns the project since it owns the property and the building. It is the usual practice in projects of this kind that input from community groups is sought and acted upon whenever possible. Final decisions are made by City staff. It seems that because the Friends had applied and been approved for the Millennium Grant, the President of the Friends at that time, Alderman Janice Wing, thought that the Friends controlled, managed, or even owned the project. This is not the case. The City's practice with similar projects is that volunteer groups may bring funds to a project and provide input, but staff manages the actual project on behalf of the City. As the owner, the City is ultimately responsible for long term operating costs, such as maintenance and improvements. Staff is charged with managing such properties efficiently and effectively in the interests of City residents. Working Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development -2- Although the total approved grant for the project was $684,500, only $478,949 was spent by the City. Constant delays resulted in missed deadlines and the inability to move forward on the project. As explained in Finance report R-2002-16 - Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield, this resulted in a lost opportunity to the residents of this City. In managing the Lundy's Lane Battlefield project, Staff assumed that they had the same objective as the Friends - to restore the battlefield. However, as the project proceeded, it became obvious that the Friends and the City had competing goals and objectives. At the April 8 Council meeting, Alderman Janice Wing raised a number of issues and allegations suggesting that City staffdid not conduct themselves in a professional manner regarding the Lundy's Lane Battlefield project. The following addresses the Aldenuan's comments, in the order that they were made that evening. 1. Conducting an Audit of the Friends At the April 8, 2002 meeting, Alderman Wing alleged that there was an untrue statement made in the previous staff report (R-2002-16 - Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield). She was referring to a comment attributed to the Director of Finance in the Community Services meeting minutes of January 28, 2002 which inaccurately stated "that the auditor for the Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield would not provide a comment on the financial status of the organization." The staffreport was not untrue and was based on actually what was said at the meetings of January 14 and 28. The minutes of January 28 were recorded incorrectly and should have been amended. The secretary's notes confirmed that staff indicated that they did not have the right to request an audit, as the Friends is a private organization. Meeting with the Friends Alderman Wing, referring to the minutes of the January 28 meeting, also stated that attempts by the Finance Department to meet with the Friends have been unsuccessful to date. This statement is indeed accurate and is reflected in the minutes. Staff of the Finance Department tried unsuccessfully on a number of occasions to meet with Mrs. Mingle, in order to address her concerns and to finalize the submission to the Millennium Bureau. The final date for submission of the invoices had already been extended by the Millennium Bureau from March 31, 2001, to December 31, 2001 at the request of the City. Given the fact that deadline was quickly approaching, staffmade a final attempt to meet with Mrs. Mingle on December 18, 2001. That meeting was scheduled to take place with Finance Staffat 1:00 p.m. However, at the hour of the meeting, Mrs. Mingle called to inform staff she was too busy to meet. She recommended that staff complete the required Millennium Bureau form on behalf of the Friends, and she agreed to submit all the City invoices. Staff therefore assumed another meeting was unnecessary. -3- Numerous Untrue Statements Alderman Wing stated that the above two statements "represent only two of the numerous untrue statements made by City Hall staff regarding the Friends over the last three years, the lifetime of this project." Staff takes strong exception to this statement. At no time did stafflie. Staff requests that Alderman Wing and Margaret Mingle state what these 'untrue' statements were. Friends and LACAC Barely Tolerated In her remarks, Alderman Wing stated that the presence of LACAC (on the Fralick's project) was barely tolerated. Chapman Murray Associates Architects Inc. was the architectural firm retained for the restoration project. The Architectural team, not Staff, called and conducted all of these meetings. Comments from Wayne Murray of Chapman Murray Associates Architects Inc. are attached. At the beginning of the project, a staff technical team was assembled, consisting of Alex Herlovitch, Planning, Adele Kon, Parks Recreation & Culture and Tom Mussari, Municipal Works (Building Services), to oversee the Fralick's Restoration project. Alex Herlovitch was the staffliaison with LACAC and part of his responsibilities were to update LACAC and to obtain their input. In December 2000, Alex Herlovitch, stated that there was increasing input from LACAC and he requested that a LACAC member be appointed to the Committee. This was agreed upon and Margaret Mingle (then also Vice President of the Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield) volunteered to be their representative. A total of 37 restoration site meetings took place and a representative from both the Friends and LACAC were invited to attend all of the meetings. Aldemxan Wing was a member of both LACAC and the Friends. The facts of the matter are that LACAC was represented at all 37 Fralick's meetings. Furthermore, the LACAC minutes show that the project was discussed at 17 of their 19 regular meetings. Mffiennium Bureau - Authority for the Project The Millennium Bureau of Canada (the "Bureau") entered into an agreement with the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield (the "Friends") dated December 8, 1999 whereby the Bureau made a financial contribution to the Friends for the development of Lundy's Lane Battlefield as an historic site. This agreement is a financial agreement, not a construction agreement. That is, the Bureau will pay the costs and expenses incurred in the development of the site after it is satisfied that the project is proceeding according to plan. The Friends were the recipients of the money and were accountable to the Bureau to ensure that the funds were properly spent. The City owns the property and the project. Input is received from the stakeholders. The City makes the final decisions on behalf of the residents of Niagara Falls. The minutes -4- of the various meetings of the stakeholders confirm that everyone was made aware that this was the case. In a number of meetings with Aldemmn Wing and various members of her Executive Committee, John MacDonald provided a clear explanation of staff roles and responsibilities, including: that the battlefield restoration was a City project; that the City was ultimately responsible; and that staffwould continue to manage the project with input from the Friends. Mr. MacDonald also suggested to Alderman Wing that if she wanted to be the project manager, she should apply to Council for permission to do so. No such application was ever made. The extent of the City's management of this project can be traced back through 15 Council reports. Many of these reports required action/direction/approval of Council. When these reports appeared before Council, Alderman Wing declared a conflict of interest. Another executive member of the Friends, however, could have voiced the concerns of the Friends. Many such opportunities existed, but during the course of the project, the Friends failed to tell Council of their concems. Staff Actions Offensive Aldemxen Wing again stated that according to Mrs. Mingle there were numerous untrue statements made by staff over the last three years. Alderman Wing also stated that while she was President of the Friends, she "found many of the staff's actions offensive and knows that many of her colleagues and other people since then have found things offensive." What were these offensive actions? It is Staff's opinion that the source of the Friends' dissatisfaction was not Staff actions or statements, but the fact that the City controlled the project, that Staff was in charge, and that Alderman Wing wanted both to control and manage the project. Conclusion: The restoration of the Battlefield was, and is, a very valuable project. There was a lost opportunity as explained in Finance report F-2002-33 - Fralick's Tavern Project Report. Further, Staff did everything possible to: · manage the project efficiently, · accommodate the requests and wishes of the Friends and LACAC whenever possible, and · ensure that the directions of Council were carried out. Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture AK:kk ~rTpectfully submitted: A~n~sa[rdati~ e Attachment CHAPMAN MURRAY ASSOCIATES ARCH ID=985 354 CHAPMAN MU.__ RRAY ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS INC. ~395 COL$ORNE STREET, NIAGARA FALLS., ONTARIO, L2J 48g E-MAIL: cma~¢h~lm'~i.lilmurray, com .~05e354~,1674 Toll Free I ea66*272.4455 t:Rx B05,3S4.2940 April 19, 2002 Ms. Adele Ken Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture The City of Niagara Falls Park, Recreation & Culture Department 7565 Lundy's Lane Niagara Falls, Ontario L2H 1G9 Dear Ms. Kon: The Restoration of Fralick's Tavern Ferry Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario Commission No. 99!,57 In response to your inquiry regarding the involvement of LACAC and the Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield (FLLB), I reviewed the Minutes of all the job meetings which were held during the reconstruction of this building. As you are aware our design team of Peter Stokes, Jon Jouppien and Chapman Murray Associates Architects was selected because of the experience and knowledge in the re-construction and restoration of histodc buildings throughout the province. In most projects, the historical consultants make recommendations to the Client based on their investigation. Those recommendations form the basis of the instructions to the contractors are implemented with much further discussion. The opinion of the design team are traditionally not challenged. In this. project, weekly or bi-weekly meetings were held initially at the Parks and Recreation Department offices and then at Fralicks, when the interior was useable. At virtually all meetings representatives of LACAC and FLLB were in attendance and participated enthusiastically. Initially Alex Herlovich sat in and reported back to LACAC and brought LACAC's concerns back to the committee. Then Margaret Mingle acted as liaison. The FLLB was represented by several peopJe but usually Ms. Corfield, Ms. Wing all of whom were sent the minutes of each meeting. ~4-25-~2 15:e8 CHAPMAN MURRAY ABSOCIATES ARCH ID=9~5 354 294~ P~3/~3 Ms. Adele Kon Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture The City of Niagara Falls Park, Recreation & Culture Department April 19, 2002 Page 2 At some meetings individuals did wish to review certain decisions which could not be supported entirely by the evidence on site, and on several occasions, many members of LACAC and FLLB toured the project while it was under construction to better understand the matter to be resolved. I can recall differences of opinions being expressed within the design team itself and usually, we deferred to Peter Stokes whose entire life has been devoted to the restoration of significant historic buildings throughout the province. Mr. John Blumenson of the Ontado Heritage Foundation attended a meeting or two and was so satisfied with the credentials and knowledge of the design team that he found it unnecessary to return, although we were in contact with him when another opinion was required. In summary, the committee meeting regularly from June 13, 2000 to October 2, 2001 Minutes of each meeting were sent to all in attendance and many who were not but were interested. The participated level of everyone at the meetings was extremely high, and their enthusiasm produced exceptional results, results in which we all should take great pride. Yours very truly, WM:ad · Encl. Wayne Murray, O ,~MR~IC, Chapman Murray Associates Architects Inc. The City of Niagara Falls Canada Clerk's 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) 356-9083 E-mail: diorlida@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Dean Iorflda City Clerk April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls Members: CD-2002-11 Reduction of Council Size RECOMMENDATION: For the information and consideration of Council. BACKGROUND: At the January 14, 2002 meeting, Council passed a motion asking that staff bring back a report on reducing the number of Aldermen. That report (CD-2002-02) was presented to Council on Janu~any 28, 2002. The report outlined that Council has the authority under the Municipal Act to pass a by- law changing the number of its elected members. A council must comprise the head of council and at least four other elected members. Before passing a by-law on the number of Aldemien, Council shall hold at least one public meeting to consider the matter. This Council received the report and instructed staffto schedule a public meeting, which is taking place this evening. History Over the last few years, Council has debated its size. In July 2000, a motion was defeated to put a question on the municipal election ballot respecting the reduction of Council (Attachment #1). More recently, however, in January 2001, Niagara Falls City Council passed a resolution (Attachment #2) (Aldermen Craitor, Feren and Wing opposed) stating that the Council of the City of Niagara Falls set an example by reducing the size of the municipal council in time for the next municipal election in 2003. The resolution, so noted, came about during the time that the Niagara Region was receiving a report from the Berekeley Group on a Made in Niagara solution to the issue of municipal amalgamations, Soon after, Premier Hams went on record stating that there would be no more amalgamations imposed on municipalities. A plan for a public meeting on the reduction was deferred at the April 9, 2001 Council meeting (Attachment #3). WorMng Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development April 29, 2002 - 2 - CD-2002-11 Appropriate Size of Council It may be useful to look at similar-sized municipalities in Ontario to see how many representatives they have on their respective councils. A survey of Ontario municipalities between 71,000 and 87,000 people (Attachment #4) indicates that only Sault Ste. Made has a council as big as Niagara Falls. No municipality has a bigger Council than us. Brantford and Peterborough are close with 10 representatives each, then the numbers consecutively decline from eight representatives to four (Samia, Whitby, Picketing, Waterloo and Ajax, respectively). It should also be noted that in three cases a number of councillors do double duty sitting on both the local council and their upper-tier level of government. A survey of larger municipalities was not undertaken, however, in a couple of noteworthy cases, Niagara Falls has a larger council than bigger cities. Mississauga has 9 representatives for a population over 600,000, and Burlington, has a mere six councillors, who also sit at Halton Region, for a population of 150,000 people. A survey reported in the September 1999 edition of Municipal Worm (Attachment #5) based on 1994 figures, indicates that the average Council size of medium sized municipalities (defined as between 10,000 to 100,000 people) was 7.7 members. Since the survey, the number of municipalities in Ontario has drastically decreased because of amalgamation. Taking the number of all municipalities (small to large) with the number of all councillors, there is an average of 6.3 councillors per municipality, which is up slightly from the 5.6 average in 1996 (Attachment #6). Pros and Cons of a Smaller Council The obvious shortcoming of a smaller council is that the work load will be divided among a smaller number of Aldemsen. There is also the fear that a smaller council does not guarantee that a vadety of voter interests are being represented. Perhaps it is useful to look at the case of Burlington. In 1996, the Council took the radical decision to reduce its size from 16 councillors down to 6! The elections in 1997 and 2000 have been contested with the smaller council size with little of the perceived problems associated with reduced representation. The article from the Hamilton Spectator, Burlington's Out of Reform Starting Gate, (Attachment #7) indicates that the public seemed satisfied that their interests were being represented and that the smaller Council was expedient in their decision-making. One of the theories is that a smaller council will operate in a more business-like fashion, realizing that they have a lot of items on their plate can not get too sidetracked by needless debate and personality conflicts. , The councillors in Burlington have felt at times that they have been overworked but it must be noted that they also sit on their Regional Council, which is not being contemplated in Niagara Falls. In another Hamilton Spectator the following is stated: April 29, 2002 - 3 - CD-2002-11 "...council members applaud the seven-member (including Mayor) system as efficient, resulting in good decision-making. And there are some good things about small councils. All members are visible, with little opportunity to hide lack of preparation." Conclusion It should be stressed that the decision of whether to reduce the size of Council rests with the elected members. It would be inappropriate for staffto recommend a course of action for what is a political decision. Staff should set the context and provide pros and cons regarding the matter at hand. Recommended by: City Clerk Respectfully submitted: John Ma_cDonald Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services :di The City of Niagara Falls Canada Corporate Services Department Clerk's 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) 356-9083 E-mail: diorfida~city.niagarafalls.on.ca CD-2002-12 Dean Iorflda City Clerk April 29, 2002 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls Members: CD-2002-12 - Elimination of Wards RECOMMENDATION: For the info.nation and consideration of Council. BACKGROUND: (Please note: for purposes of this report it is assumed that it is understood the distinctions between at-large and ward electoral systems.) The report (CD-2002-02) presented to Council on January 28, 2002 outlined that Council has the authority under the MunicipalAct to divide, redivide or dissolve existing wards. Similar to decisions on the number of members, Council must hold at least one public meeting to consider the matter. Unlike a decision on Council size, a decision on changes to the ward system is appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board. History The debate on whether to have an at-large or ward system is not new to Niagara Falls. As early as 1974, Council petitioned the Province to create an at-large system. The request was rejected because it was contrary to the general trend to ward systems. Reviews of the former ward system in Niagara Falls took place in 1980 and 1986 with no action taken. In 1996, an appeal was made by local electors to the Ontario Municipal Board for a new division of wards in Niagara Falls. The appeal was granted redividing the City from four wards to six wards of roughly equal size and population. (Attachment #8) Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance * Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development April 29, 2002 - 2 - CD-2002-12 There seems to be a misconception among the public that Niagara Falls used to have an at-large system and it was rejected in favour of a ward system by the O.M.B. This is incorrect. Niagara Falls already had a ward system, albeit one with a ward that elected eight members. The problem, according to the O.M.B. member was that the existing system was inequitable. The voters per councillor in the Niagara Falls ward were 6,345 to one, while the ratio in Crowland was a mere 672 to one. The member also seemed to allude to the fact that there was no public meeting in the Niagara Falls ward when the ill-fated committee in 1995 studied the ward issue. Since the O.M.B. decision, the existing ward system has been lauded by some and criticized by others. At a September 1998 Council meeting, Alderman Wing successfully forwarded a resolution asking that council affirm its support of the "six ward system". The vote was six in favour (Aldeimen Wing, Orr, Craitor, Michalczyk, Fisher and Feren) and four against (Aldem~en Campbell, Pietrangelo, Cummings and Volpatti), while Mayor Thomson, Aldermen Puttick and Janvary were all absent. At the same meeting, Council passed a motion to put the issue of ward versus at-large to a question on the next municipal ballot (Attachment #9). Due to Provincial requirements, the referendum question that appeared on the 2000 election ballot had to be answerable by yes or no; therefore, it could not read, "which do you prefer a ward or at- large system?". Instead, it read: "Are you in favour of changing the Existing Ward System for electing Aldermen in the City of Niagara Falls?" The result was that 10,186 electors voted "no", while 10,162 voted "yes", nearly a dead heat. It is debatable whether these figures lead to a definitive conclusion. Anecdotally, some voters thought that a yes vote was an endorsement of the ward system, while in fact it was a repudiation of the system, and vice versa. Also, it should be noted that nearly 3,500 electors chose to simply ignore the question, a possible indication of confusion or misunderstanding of the question (Attachment #10). Other.Municipalities It may prove valuable to look at what the electoral system is in other municipalities. A survey of similar-sized municipalities (Attachment #4) shows that only Samia has an at-large system. An article from Municipal Worm (Attachment #5) indicates that seven out of every ten municipalities in Ontario between 10,000 and 100,000 people have a ward system. All Ontario municipalities in excess of 100,000 people have a ward system. Interestingly enough, Vancouver and Victoria are the only major urban centres in Canada that have at-large systems. April 29, 2002 - 3 - CD-2002-12 Pros and Cons. The ward system's proponents tout the fact that it is more likely that the electors will know the candidate in a ward election as opposed to an at-large system. Similarly, it is thought that candidates in the ward will be more cognizant of the issues affecting, and the concerns of, the individuals in that ward. Ward systems are supposed to ensure that all areas of a municipality are represented, however, there is nothing preventing a candidate from running in a ward where they do not reside or work. Because there is a smaller geographical area to cover for candidates, ward elections are supposed to be less expensive to nm. Finally, there is some data that indicates a higher turnout in ward elections than in at-large campaigns, possibly because the electorate feels more of a connection or familiarity with the candidates. The downside of the ward system is encapsulated in the following quote from noted Political Scientists, Tindal and Tindal: [Opponents of wards] claim that ward elections tend to perpetuate and even accentuate divisions within the municipality. It is argued that a ward council is very parochial in outlook with councillors worrying about their individual bailiwicks wherein they must seek re- election rather than being concerned about the good of the whole community. It is also argued that some representatives get elected on a ward basis who would not have' been chosen if they were running over the entire municipality (Tindal, p. 102-103.) An at-large system is said to result in a council that sees city-wide issues and is more apt to concentrate on long-term goals for the municipality. The successful candidates under this electoral system are seen to represent the entire municipality. A criticism of the ward system is that a successful candidate can occasionally represent a view of a special interest group or faction that does not necessarily have broad-based support throughout the community. The at-large system is said to elect better qualified candidates, since they must have the confidence of the entire city. An argument against the at-large system is that city-wide campaigns, obviously, tend to be more expensive because of the larger territory to cover. Also, under an at-large system there are no guarantees that all areas of the municipality or minority groups will be interested. (Please refer to Attachments #11-13 for more background on the pros and cons of each electoral system). O.M.B. Decisions on Electoral Systems It is perhaps useful to look at various O.M.B. decisions related to the ward system for guidance. Once again, it must be pointed out that 1996 decision in Niagara Falls was not a repudiation of the at-large system. It was a decision against an inequitable, existing ward system. April 29, 2002 - 4 - Also, in 1996 the O.M.B. heard a petition of residents fro community into a ward system. The member hearing this a[ on the town. (See Attachment #14) One of the arguments for the ward system in Niagara-on-ti that all areas of the town, rural, Old Town etc., had represenl the electoral system was unnecessary because with an at-lart all areas of the community. In fact, it was found that resl approached the councillor who lived in their neighbourhoo electors prefer a ward system because of the easier access t One of the other arguments presented at the hearing was tha there was representation from the heritage community on ( was preserved in Niagara-on-the-Lake because of official Town's Planning Department took when hearing applicati( The decision on whether to impose a ward system often ~ communities of interest or identity that need to be preserved hearing in 1999, it was ruled that the at-large system was fi: boundaries with a sense of community because of the "diver Attachment #15) It is debatable whether the wards within Niagara Falls exception of Chippawa and, possibly, Downtown. It would or group of residents that defines the Stamford, Lundy's L: The Thorold decision also negates the long held belief that electorate will be more familiar with their ward representati them on problems or issues. The evidence presented at the 1 apathetic when it comes to politics, especially on the local le shy bringing their problems to City Council or contacting Of course, to be fair, the communities of Thorold and Niag~ Falls, so the situations are not necessarily analogous. It: O.M.B. decisions on the issue, however, an in-depth study The three local O.M.B. decisions do seem to indicate that system or ward boundaries if there is perceived to be ineqt would seem that opponents of the current system in Niagm not work for any change to be accepted by the O.M.B. CD-2002-12 Niagara-on-the-Lake to divide~ their >eal ruled not to impose a ward system ,Lake was that it would better ensure ation. The member ruled that changing :e system there was representation from dents active in the "Old Town" never t, contrary to the long held notion that ~ their representatives. : a ward system might better ensure that '.ouncil. The member felt that heritage plan policies and extra steps that the ns. lepends on whether there are separate in a municipality. In a Thorold O.M.B. lc. Any division would not create ward physical geography" !nThorold: (See lave a sense of community, with the ~e difficult to identify a unique character me, Portage and Beaverdams wards. the benefit of a ward system is that the ~e and, therefore, more likely to contact tearing indicated that most residents are ~el; however, active ratepayers Were not ouncillors. :a-on-the-Lake are smaller than Niagara s presumed that there have been other has not been undertaken at this time. ;he Board will only change an electoral ities in the current system; therefore, it a Falls woUld have to show that it does April 29, 2002 - 5 - CD-2002-12 Conclusion There are obviously pros and cons for both systems of representation. The key is to find a system that best fits the community in question. It should be stressed that the decision of whether to eliminate the ward system rests with the elected members of Council. It would be inappropriate for staff to recommend a course of action for what is a political decision. There will be a number of speakers from the public espousing both views and there are a number of correspondences and instant editorials in the package for Council's information. Recommended by: /~Respectfully submitted: / /// John Ma_cDonald City Clerk /~/ Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Attachment 1- (1 of 1) -15- Communication No. 156 - Township of A~hfleld - Re: Province.Wide Moratorium on Liquid Manure Facilities. The communication requests that Council support a resolution asking that the Government of Ontario immediately put in place a moratorium prohibiting the constp___.~lo~__ of any new liquid manure facilities or the addition to any existing facilities, uS It ~s ~.m ~ov~n ~ ~ e~ron~ ~ our d~ng water Mil not be n~ve~ Im~. O~RED on ~ motion of Alderman Vol~ffi, ~ed by ~erman Fisher, ~ t~ Communication No. t57 - Sr. hool of Horticulture & Botanical Gardens - Re: Proclamation. The communicalion requnsts that Councilproclalm Ihe week of August 14~ to August 20"'. 2000 as 'Niagara Bigga Tomatefest Week' in Niagara Falls. ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Volpattl, seconded by Alderman Femn, that the Communication No. t58 - The Arthrlt~ 8oclety -Re: Prodama~n. The communication requests that Council proclaim the month of September, 2000 as 'National Arthritis Month' and requesting · flag raiMng ceremony to be held outside of City Hall on September 5, 2000 and that the flag remain displayed for the month of September. ORDERED on the motion of Aidem~an Volpaffi. seconded by Alderman Fisher, that the [ Communication No. 1~9 - Judith Lowe - Re: Long Distance Rates. The communication requests that conslcleratJon be given to the re. lents and businesses of Niagara Falls to be connected to all majonciflas in the penlnsuts without long distance rotes being chmged. ORDERED on the moflcln of Alderman Volpattl, seconded by Alderman Feran, that the CommunlcatJgm No. 1~0 - Mini~ of Municipal Affalm and Housing- Re: Direct Democracy Through M~pictpal Refemnclums Act, 2000. The communication pmvidee~ in~rn~n on ~e new regulations which give votes a ~b-~ vo~ in ~ ~1 ~m~m~ ~oo~m ~ al~M~ m~m~e~ to m~ ~ ~e~erendum q~ on the municipal belloL ORDERED on lhe mo~n of Alderman Feren, seconded by Alderman Fisher, II~t the Tbe City Clerk i:ex~:l intommtion as to the tknefmme for considering the passage of a by~w te ~ a ~ns~m on ~ ~ E~n ~ Fol~ some d~n, E was ORDE~D o~ the moron of Alderman Vol~ffi, ~ ~ N~mmm Janva~, ~ ~ ~ a ~1 me~ on J~ 31a, ~to ~ ~ a b~ ~ ~ a q~ ~ ~ ~t In ~ ~ ~n ~n~l~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~m~, CroP. r, ~, ~1; V~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~em F~, MI~ a~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n: ORDERED on ~ mo~n of N~rman ~:ell, s~ed by Alderman Cm~r, te i~ · qu~on ~ a ~ in ~ ~r ~A~e~ for d~ss~n at ~ S~l ~. ~e ~n ~ / ~ ~ V~, M~, ~, ~, a~ Fe~ ~ ~,/~i~ ~ ~ ~n a~ ~e~n ~m~ll, Cm~r, Fisher a~ Jan~l ~fl~ in ~ur. Attachment 2 - (1 of 4) -8- Alderman Ga~y Hendershot reran'ed to the pa~cipation of Niagara Falls, the Region, local municipalities and the Berkiey Group to create a "Made in Niagara" Govemanoe model and ot'the Provincial Government guidelines which provide specific objectives for amalgamation to in~ude fewer munici~ poeicians and requestad a repoa from the CAC) on the matter. Mayor ~ diab ',T~eted a reaoMfo~ dealing with the Governance ieaue. indicating that the Provincial Government had provided specific ~ for accountability at the J,~,a~ level. contran/to the motion and wilh all othef,s voting in favour. Ndennan V~ refen~ to a series of ~em'mam being hekl in February in Toronto dealing with ~1 amalgamatJe~s. His Worship Mayor Thomson commented on the issue of the Niagara District Aiq)ort, wh'~h has IX~tential to expand ils facilities and req,___,e~ed, through resolution, that the Region conduct a study to look it better utilizing air links In the Region and the feasibility of increased sen~ices atthe N'mgara Dtst~t Nmmt ORDE RED on the rnotio~ o( Alderman Pia~angeto, seconded by Alderman Fem., that the Region conduct 8 study to look at be~r ulizing air ,nks in the Reg~n ~,nd the fea~bilily of incmnsed ~n~ nt ~e Nlngnm ~ Al~x~t. ~ ,~ R~mlution No. 02 ORDERED on the rnolion of Aldem~n Volpatti, t~onded by Aklerman Ioannoni, lhat the toeing be adjourned. Canted Unenimou~y, READ AND ADOPTED, Attachment 2 - (2 of 4) The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Council Chambers NO. Moved by Alderman Seconded by Alderman January 15, 2001 WHEREAS the Provincial Government has encouraged local municipalities to improve their efficiency by amalgamation; AND WHEREAS the Provincial Government has provided specific objectives for amalgamation which would include: - Fewer municipal politicians while maintaining accessible, effective, accountable representation, taking into consideration population and community identity; - Lower taxes by reducing overall municipal spending, delivering high quality services at the lowest possible cost, preserving voluntarism, and promoting job creation, investment and economic growth; - Better, more efficient service delivery while maintaining taxpayer accessibility; - Less bureaucracy by simplifying and streamlining government, reducing duplication and overlap, and reducing barriers and red tape for business; - Clear lines of responsibility and better accountability at the local level by reducing duplication and overlap; AND WHEREAS the City of Niagara Falls participated with the Region, local municipalities and the Berkeley Group to create a "Made in Niagara" Governance Model; AND Attachment 2 - (3 of 4) -2- WHEREAS the Berkeley Report did not support a uniCity for Niagara, but did encourage an action plan to modify the status quo based on the Provincial Government guidelines; AND WHEREAS the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance is committed to reporting its preferred governance model to the Provincial Government by the end of 2001; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls hereby resolves that the Council of the City of Niagara Falls set an example by reducing the size of the current municipal council in time for the next municipal election in 2003; and further that b) c) the Region and local municipalities be encouraged to take similar action by reducing the number of their current councils; and further that the Region and other local municipalities be encouraged to continue to work cooperatively to form joint ventures to provide coordinated services; and further that d) municipalities be encouraged to initiate voluntary amalgamations with neighbouring municipalities where in their opinion services to local residents would be enhanced. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Niagara, the individual municipalities within the Niagara Region, and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. AND the Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. E.C. WAGG WAYNE THOMSON CITY CLERK MAYOR Attachment 2 - (4 of 4) -7- RATIFICATION OF COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Pletmngelo, seconded by Alderman Fisher, that the actions taken in Commit'~ of-the-Whole earlier this evening be adopted. 1. That the City Solicitor be authorized to commence, settle and defend claims within the jurisdiction of the small cJelms court; 2. That Council approves the increase of two Fire Prevention Officer positions within Fire Services. Canted Unanimously. Alderman Hendemhot referred to the motion which had been brought forward from the Resl;ucturing Committee meeting, held sedier this evening, stating that the City had agreed to red uce the number of Alden~en to 6 plus the Mayor effective the next election; and he stated that as a requirement under the Municipal Act, a public meeting be scheduled and that a notice be placad in the local newspaper advertising of the public meeting to discuss the motion Following some discussion, it was ORDERED on the moUon of Alderman Hendershot, seconded by Alderman Volpafl], that the City agrees to reducing the number of Alderman to 6 plus the Mayor and that a public rneeUng be held to d!_~_ _~se the motion. The motion Carried with Aldermen Orr, Pk~-angelo, Puttick and Wing voting cor~ to the motion and with ell others voting in favour. Following the discussion it was OROERED on the motion of Alderman Hendemlx)~ seconded by Aldem~n Fisher, to approve the resolution on Governance and bring it forward to the Govem~nca committee. Carried UnanimouslY. NO. 06 - HENDERSHOT - VOLPATTI - ~I~IEREAS the Provincial Goverrmtent has encouraged local municipalities to Improve their efficiency by amalgamation; AND which would inchxle: 1. Fewer municipal politicians, while maintaining accessible, effective. accountable repms~,LuGon, taking into consideration population and mnit~ ideni~i~ 2. Lower taxea by red~ _..r~g overall municipal spendir~ d~ high quality sewices at the lowest poesible cost, prese~ng volu~arlsm, and prorno~ng job creation, inve~..~nt and economic growth; 3. El~t~r, more ~flclent eervice eativ~y ~ maintaining taxpayer acceselbllity; 4. ~ bumaucracyby simpl~ and s'o-eamffning government, reducing duplication and ovedap, and reducing bantens and red lapa for ~; 5. Clear lines of tl~oOnMbtlWj aM better aoe, ounlability at the Weal level by reducing duplication and overlap; AND ¥1ff4EREAS the City of Niagara Fal~ padicipatad with the Region, local rnunicipalitie~ and the Berkeley Group to create a 'Made in Niagara' Govemanca Model; AND WHEREAS the Bed~ Report did not support a oniCity for Niagara, but did encourage an action plan to modify the status quo based on the Provincial Government guidelines; AND WHERE. A,S the Ad Hoc Committee on Govemanca is committed to repodtng its prefen'ed gavemame model to the Provincial Government by the end of 2001; Attachment 3 - -3- Orttario Minor Hockey A~o~i~tion His Worship Mayor Thomson advised that Aldem~an Wing has been appointed as the Council's official representative to the Ontario Minor Hockey Association Committee to deal wllh the issues involved. Fliml ~natioll of C~euel RIIdln~ on thl Airways Alderman Fisher referred to an organization that is attempting to stop the reading of the Gospel of our Lord on the airways and to remove all Christmas programs, Christmas songs and Christmas carols from public schools and she requested that everyone participate In expressing their opposition to this proposal. ORDERED on the motion of Nderman Fisher, seconded by AJdernmn Feren, that Ihe matter be refen'ed to staff and that a copy of the petition be forwarded to all the churches in ~e area. C~ Fo#owing some discu__-~o__n on the governance issue, it was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Craltor, seconded by AJdmman Hendershot, to defertakJng any action including the holding of a public meeting to discuss the issue of gove~. The motion P~anied with Aldermen Fisher, Hendemhot, Ple~lo, Federow, C~mpbell, Cmitor and Mayor Thomson voting in favour and ,Mth all others voting contrary to the motion. ~NTATIONS Peninsula CUD Annual Dart Tournament Mr. Wayne Quirk of Remax ~ City R~ made a presentation to His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and ~ Gary Hendershot, who participated in the Peninsula Cup ~mual Dart Tmamament. Ma~or's Challenge on Mamh 3n. 2001. Mr, Brian Wlpper, Event Chairman presented a cheque in the form of a donation to Tender VW. shes o~ behalf of His Worship Mayor Thomson and Alderman Ga~y Hendemhot who were the victors In the ~umEu'nem. Sue Sza~zl, Pflnclpal of OrchMd Park School, extended an invitation to membem of Council and staff to visit the schools during Education month, and students, Lyndsay Hu;~6r and RachM AtMrmMk provided Information on the various school activities that were being held during the month of April, being Education Month. with student, Rod McCme encouraged Council and the community to participate during Education Month in the District School BoaM of Niagara; buttons were dlsatbuted to His Worship Mayor ~, rnembe~ of Council, and staff to show awareness of activities at the schools dudng this month. Attachment 4 - (1 of 1) REPRESENTATION IN SIMILAR SIZED MUNICIPALITIES MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS Ajax 4 Brantford 10 Peterborough 10 Picketing 6 ELECTORAL SYSTEM 1 rep per ward 2 reps per ward 2 reps per ward 2 reps per ward ** Note: 3 of Pickering's councilors are also their representatives on Regional Council Sarnia 8 At large ** Note: 4 of Sarnia's councilors are also their representatives on County Council Sault Ste. Marie 12 2 reps per ward Waterloo g 1 rep per ward Whitby 7 ward system ** Note: Whitby has 4 wards that elect one representative each. 3 councilors sit on both local and Regional Council. These dual representatives are voted at large. Attachment 5 - (1 of 2) ELECTION- MUNICIPAL Joseph Kushner, Department of Economics, Brock University, and City Councillor, City of St. Catharines David Siegel, Department of Politics, Brock University Hannah Stanwick, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Universily of Toronto Electoral Systems in Ontario Municipalities The question of ward versus at-large electoral systems is frequently a very conten- tious issue. This was recently witnessed in the Niagara Region when residents of Niag- ara-on-the Lake and Thorold petitioned for a ward system and took their respective municipalities to the Ontario Municipal Board. The advantages and disadvantages of the two systems have been discussed in a previous article in Municipal World.t The purpose of this paper is to describe the extent to which both systems are used in Ontario municipalities. Specifically examined are the results ora 1996 survey of Ontario mu- nicipalities regarding the 1982, 1988 and 1994 elections? Electoral Systems Table 1 provides information on the use of ward and at-large electoral systems for the election of councillors in the 1994 election. Data for earlier years, although col- lected, are not reported because there was very little change over time. This is not un- expected given the recent lack of urban growth of Ontario's municipalities and the le- gal barriers to changing the electoral system. As the table indicates, the at-large system of election is very popular in smaller jurisdictions, whereas all large municipalities employ a ward system. Even in medium-sized municipalities, there is a decided pref- erence for the ward system. Table 1 Electoral System Employed by Ontario Municipalities Ward At-Large Small (less than 10,000) 16.3% 83.7% Medium (10,000-100,00 0) 70.0% 30.0% Large (mom than 100,000) 100.0% 0.0% Table 2 on the following page provides data on the number of wards and the size of councils in 1994. Once again, because there were few changes from one election to the next, the data for previous years are not reported. As one would expect, both the num- ber of wards and the number of councillors increase as the size of the municipality in- creases. David Siegel: "At-Large versus Ward Elections," Municipal World (March 1987) More extensive information is provided in a lengthier version of this paper: Joseph Kushner, David Siegel, and Hmmah Stanwick, "Ontario Municipal Elections: Voting Trends and Determinants of Electoral Success in a Canadian Province," The Canadial~ Journal ofPolit calScience, vol. 30, no 3 (September 1997), pp. 539-553 Municipal World SEPTEMBER 1999 17 Table 2 Number of Ward~ and Councillors - 1994 Nmr, ber of War:ts Number of Councillors (not including head of council) Average Mm Max Average Mm Max Small 3.2 2 6 4 7 2 8 Medium 5.1 2 10 7.7 3 15 Large 9.2 5 Ig 12.5 6 18 Voter Turnout Voter turnout has long presented a conundrum for students of local government. Local government likes to bill itself as the level of government that is closest to the people and that holds the greatest interest for the public. However, voter turnout is virtually always lower in municipal elections compared to provincial and federal elections) The higher turnout for national elections is universal,4 although few other countries show as great a variance between local and other elections as does Canada. A frequently-discussed issue is the extent to which the size of the municipality influences voter tumout. Two contrasting views exist. The "mobilization model" argues that voter interest should increase in larger urban areas because people who live in larger areas experience more political stimuli,s Conversely, the "de- cline-of-community model" holds that people living in smaller communities have a greater sense of community and therefore will feel a greater need to participate in local political activities.6 The data presented in Table 3 indicate that in the Ontario municipal elections reviewed, voter turnout rates are highest in the smaller municipalities. The differences between the small, medium and large-sized communities are statistically signifi- Table 3 Average Voter Turnout 1982 1988 1994 Small 57.5% 53.2% 54.0% Medium 46.7% 45.3% 43.6% Large 39.9% 36. 3 % 37.0o/o Doug Coiling Vice President, Consulting Services (4t6) 777-8659 Suite 3300 Commerce Court West PO Box 31 Stn Commerce Court Toronto Ontario M5L lB2 Telehx (416) 777-8070 dcoilmg~.kpmg.ca htlp//ww,~ kp~ng.ca cant. These results are similar to those in six western European countries during the 1956-79 period.7 It should be noted that while there is some evidence that at the federal level this smaller versus larger community distinction in participation is disappearing,* it continues at the municipal level. This finding has significant policy consequences. Some provinces such as Ontario, are pursuing a conscious policy of encouraging municipal consolidations in the interest of effi- cient service delivery. In economic literature, evidence indi- cates that once municipalities reach a certain size, they will in- cur higher costs.9 Thus consolidation beyond a certain size could create the worst of both worlds - no improvement in eco- nomic efficiency and lower participation rates. ~ 3 Robert Drummond, "Voting Behaviour: Counting the Change," in Ora- ham White (ed.), The Government and Politics of Ontario, 4th ed. (Searborough, Ont.: Nelson Canada, 1990), p. 250 and pc~sirn. 4 Robert L. Morlan, "Municipal vs. National Election Voter Turnout: Eu- rope and the United Slates," Political Science Quarterly, vol. 99, no. 3 (Fall 1984), pp. 462-5. 5 Political Participation, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1977), pp. 89-90 and poxs#n. 6 Sidney Verba and Norman H Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality (New York: Ha~er & Row, Publishers, 1972), pp 231 and passim. 7 Morlan, "Municipal vs. National Election Voter Turnout," pp. 465-8. 8 Mum'oe Eagles, "Voting and Non-Voting in Canadian Federal Elections," in Herman Bakvis (ed.), Yoter lhrnout in Canada (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991), p. 9. 9 J. Kushner et al., Detemunants of Municipal l~xpenfftture in Ontario, in Cana- dian Ta~ Jo urnal, Vol. 44, No. 2 ( 1996), pp.451464; C.IL Tmdal, "Municipal Reslmcturing: The Myth and the Reality," Municipal Worm (March 1996), pp. 3-8; J. Kushner, "Municipal Reform: Is Consolidation the Amwe~." Munici- pal Worm (Mamh 1996), pp. 10--1; A. Sancton, "Reducing Costs by Consoli- dating Municipalities: New Bnmswick, Nova Scotia, and Ontario," Canadian PublicAdministrat~on, vol. 39, no. 3 flail 1996), pp. 267-89. A TRADITION OF INNOVATION AND EXCELLENCE The Municipal, Planning & Environmental Law Group represents public and private sector clients on a wide range of issues including: planning and building code approvals advice to municipal corporations restructuring and amalgamations court applications property tax and assessment appeals environmental approvals Stanley M. Makuch 416.869.5977 M. Vhginia Madaean~ Q.C. 416869.5736 A. Nell Craik 416.869.5978 Tanya Carinci Land Use Planner 416.869.5753 CASSELS POULIOT DOUGLAS NORIECA Toronto Montreal Vancouver Mexico City SEPTEMBER 1999 Municipal World ~istry of Municipal Affairs and Housing- Restructuring FlashNcws Attt~clilll~llt O - ti ~'* '/ or Municipal Affairs and Housing I central site I feedback I search I site map I frar~:ak I Restructuring FloshHews Prod. ced by Municipal Gov~manc e and ,gructures B~ anch Mtn~str), of t~m~ctpal A.~'a~'a and Homing Last Modified: 21-0t-02 Progress · Full Report · Ma_Em · Related Link~ · Contact What is Restructuring Flash News FlashNews is a database maintained by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It contains information on the restructuring of the province's municipalities, including the names of the former and newly-restructured municipalities, the number of municipalities and the number of municipal councillors. Restructuring FlashNews contains information about the restructuring, under the Municipal Act, of municipalities in counties and regions, separated towns and cities, and unincorporated communities in Northern Ontario. Restructuring decisions may be developed locally or by commissions appointed by the Minister in response to local requests. It also contains information on the restructuring, through specific legislation, of Toronto and the regions of Haldirnand-Norfolk, Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carieton and Sudbury. Restructuring FlashNews is updated regularly to reflect recent restructuring activity. If you require assistance, please email: [nsab.m,_ u~_ mah.oov.on.ca Our Progress... Reporting for January 2002 Date IINumber of Municipal.les IINumber of Councillors July 1996 11815 114,58~ January 1997 1178 II January 1999 ]1586 January 2000 11571 January 2001 11447 January 2002 11447 113,$27 113,457 112,804 112,803 ,ww.w. mah.8ov.o~.ca~usiness/flasbncws/flashnews.e.&sp PaS~ I of 3 ilt0n Spectator -: Final News Saturday, May 1, 1999 A9 BURLINGTON'S OUT OF REFORM STARTING GATE COOKE TItINKS POLITICIANS TItERE TRUST CITY STAFF MORE CARMELA FRAGOMENI, THE SPECTATOR LENGTH: Long Either Burlington is advanced in the world of local politics or it hears the beat of a different drum. Burlington keeps embracing municipal reform, while other nearby cities . continue to shy away from it. Three years ago, Burlington dramatically cut its council from 17 members to seven: six councillors and the mayor. Despite some nervous misgivings that the Documents Attachment 7 - (2 of 4) Page 20 of 22 cut might be too deep, the change took effect in the 1997 municipal election. And so far, residents such as Rick Dawson like what they see. The minor hockey president, who appears before council on arena issues~ s.aid,* "It speeds up decisions." Burlington recently tried to expand reform beyond its boundaries by attempting to convince its regional partners to consider replacing regional govenunent with a services board. The nonelected body would co-ordinate for several municipalities those services that are more efficiently operated on a large scale, like garbage collection and policing. The idea didn't fly, but Burlington Mayor Rob Maclsaac believes it will resurface in a few years. Hamilton-Wentworth has gone through turmoil in its unsuccessful restructuring efforts. Councils throughout Hamilton-Wentworth recently considered shrinking their membership. Burlington council's move to fewer representatives, which completed restructuring at city hall, began in 1995. Savings from restructuring have amounted to $2 million a year, primarily through staff attrition and retirements. City manager Tim Dobbie says downsizing was bom out of concern about controlling tax increases, something that would ensure a fiscally healthy ' community capable of surviving on its own if necessary. Council downsizing alone didn't save tax dollars because council salaries were bumped up. But it did create a better informed, more business-like council. How was Burlington able to make major changes in its operations and cut council by 63 per cent in relative calm? How has it proposed amalgamations with Flamborough or Milton without creating dustups? Similar thinking has been a political hot button in Hamilton-Wentworth for years. POLITICAL CULTURE Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Chairman Teny Cooke credits a different political culture in Burlington, where politicians are less territorial and more trusting of staff. "There is less tuff involved." Cooke said the history of Hamilton's councils indicates a tendency among ald~m,en to see themselves as "brokers for the constituents." They become involved in administrative matters through that. "In Burlington, the del'ineation is clear, council's role is to conceive policy, the staff role is to administer it. The line has been more blurred here." Mark Sproule-Jones, a McMaster University political science professor, says much of the explanation involves the very different makeup and histories of the http://newportal.cedrom-sni.com/partenaires/payment/eSelectReceive.asp?NoTrans= 105652004/23/2002 Documents Attachment 7 - (3 of 4) Page 21 of 22 two cities. "Burlington tends to be an upper middle class area without the diversity we see in Hamilton. So it's easier to reach agreement." The city has also "been blessed with growth in population and, because of that, the flexibility to develop a first-rate administrative staff." It's meant Burlington councillors have a great deal more trust in their staff and willingness to let them proceed. Mistrust has prevailed in Hamilton, partly because staff expertise changed over time and because "Hamilton, as an older city, wasn't able to introduce things because it didn't have the budgets" of higher-growth areas. Hamilton also has more intense politics, partly because of greater economic diversity and its citizens' more varied backgrounds. "There have been traditional differences, so it's harder to forge consensus. Traditional political battles take a lot longer to dissipate." Former Burlington councillor Joan Little says Burlington council has always been progressive, mainly due to the leadership of its mayors. "With Hamilton- Wentworth, they have a council entrenched for a long time. I don't think they have the same will to do things. They fought like crazy for years and they tend to get involved in lesser issues." In Burlington, Maclsaac says, "I think we have a tradition and a culture of ~ ". being progressive. It has a lot to do with our electorate. For whatever reason, they!ye come to expect excellence fi:om local government. They demand it of us ' now." Dobbie says: "My view is we got tired of responding to various reports coming out of the province (on government reform). Every time we turned around, we were responding to other people's ideas. "We decided we'd rather try to get control of it and develop our own principles and how to achieve them." He said in hindsight, Burlington may have been premature in, suggesting regional reform but at least it's ready to tackle the issue. - - "I'm hearing that after the provincial election, there's likely to be action taken in Hamilton and in Ottawa. That may be it, but if it isn't, we want to be ready to be an active partner in any discussions." Sproule-Jones says amalgamation would be a less daunting task for Burlington than Hamilton-Wentworth. Burlington isn't much different fi:om Oakville in size and character, so it can look at amalgamation in a different way. "The ~ region of Halton represents more ora modem urban area, where there isn't a central city and different nodes of economic activity. Whereas Hamilton, by tradition, has the city and then the suburbs." "It's a different lifestyle in Halton. Urban sprawl is not just fi:om one central city, so you can't expect the same type of solutions." http ://newportal.cedrom-sni.com/partenaires/paymentJeSelectReceive. asp?NoTrans= 105652~004. (23/2002 Documents Attachment 7 - (4 of 4) ,. Page 22 of 22 However, Sproule-Jones isn't convinced that Burlington's desire to create a larger city government through amalgamations will ensure its survival. "It's a myth to think you'll get efficiencies by bigger government. We are seeing retreat from these policies all over the world, except in OntariO. To me, it's very, very curious." Sproule-Jones also points out that reducing local government is one way to get rid of political opposition. In Toronto, for example, the Harris government effectively got rid of NDP- minded councillors by creating the megacity. But he thinks Burlington is on the right track in wanting a services board which can produce savings. He said service boards work well in British Columbia, where they have existed since 1963. ~1999 The Hamilton Spectator. All rights reserved. DOC. #: 990501HS1024 This material Is copyrighted. All rights reserved. © 2001 CEDROM-Snl http://n~wp~rtal~c~dr~m~sni~c~m/part~naires/payment~e~e~ectReceive.asp?N~Trans=~ 0565g004¢23/2002 DI~I ~ ORDER ISSUE DATE DEC 1 9 1996 Ontario FOLIO# ~ Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario Attachment 8 - (1 of 12) C i ih~ 960070 ;:~, r The electors of the City of Niagara Falls have applied to the Ontario Municipal Board under Subsection 13(3) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45 to make a new division of wards AMENDING DECISION delivered bY T, Y__~O AND ORDER OF THE BOARD The six new wards will be named as follows: temporary name name Downtown Ward 1 Downtown Lundy°s Lane Ward 2 Lundy's Lane Portage Ward 3 Portage Stamford Ward 4 Stamford Beaverdams Ward 5 Beaverdams Chippawa-Willoughby- Ward 6 Chippawa-Willoughby- Crowland Crowland In addition, pursuant to the Board's power to vary, a decision under section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the southern boundary of Ward 2 Lundy's Lane and the northern boundary of Ward 6 Chippawa-Willoughby-Crowland is to be placed at McLeod Road, in order to provide for a more equitable distribution of voters. The Board so orders. MEMBER ORDER ISSUE DATE DEC 0 6 Ontario Ontario Municipal Board ;omm~s.~on des affaires municipales de I'Ontario The electors of the City of Niagara Falls have applied to the Ontario Municipal Board under Subsection 13(3) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45 to make a new division of wards Attachment 8 - (2 of 12) M 900070 .i' i. '96 ~EP~ 11 A 9:50 qOIJNSEL c~d ~-qEH'~: Ray O. Kallio for the City of Niagara Falls John Ross for himself and 250 petitioners Norm C. Seebach for himself Larry Savage for himself Kim Craitor for himself Garrett Lacey for himself Fermino Susin for himself Shirley Fisher for herself DECISION delivered by T. YAO AND ORDER OF THE BOARD This is a petition by John Ross for revised ward boundaries. I am allowing the petition. Niagara Falls has a four ward system which is really a combined at-large and ward Attachment 8 - (3 of 12) -2- system. For the former (i.e. pre-Regional government) City of Niagara Falls, there is an at-large system, with eight members of council. Ward 2, the former Village of Chippawa, ' Ward 4 CITY OF NIAG,', I~ A FA I.I.S CANADA Ward 3 ,~.r. Ward 2 Attachment 8 - (4 of 12) - 3 - M 900070 has two. Ward 3, the former Township of Willoughby, has one; as does ward 4, the former Township of Crowland. Although this system was proposed by the local representatives~ at the time of amalgamation, popular mythology is that it was "returned down the throats" of local councillors by the Prevince. The system was obviously unbalanced when it was breught in, but it had a certain logic in the extinction of the three rural municipalities. The question is whether it has any logic today. In 1974, the Council asked the Province to create a pure at-la~'ge system (while retaining twelve members.) The Prevince refused, because it was contrary to a general trend to ward systems. In 1980, this matter again became an election issue, leading to a committee chaired by Councillor Norm Puttick, and composed of the present Mayor Thomson, five aldermen and the Clerk. After a public meeting, the Clerk prepared a staff report, concluding the system functioned "surprisingly" well. CounCil decided to keep the mixed system, but to review it again in five years. In 1986, council decided again to maintain the existing system, apparently the review did not include a public meeting or staff report. In 1995, Council struck a second committee to review the ward system, to be chaired by Councillor Klm Craitor. Frem the beginning, the Committee was afflicted by dissension. There was little consensus on highly sensitive issues such as downsizing, work!oad, i. he ability oT ward council members to fa,dy represeni other wards, cos~ sawngs and whether councillors should be full or part time. On September 19, and 20, 1995, there ~Amalgamation was preceded by a joint meeting of the four municipalities on Feb 11, 1969. The minutes show Chippawa Reeve Wightman "indicated that the municipalities to be incorporated in the enlarged city would suggest a new electoral system based on three election zones and the City; that Chippawa have two representatives, Willoughby to have one and Crewland have one; that this representation be carried on for a minimum period of two elections or six years unless there is exceptional expansion warranting a re-evaluation. The motion was carried by a 18 to 14 majority." " ' i Attachment 8 - (5 of 12) -4- were meetings by the Committee in Chippawa and Crowland. Not surprisingly, the mood in these areas was squarely opposed to any change. Councillor Craitor acknowledges the message came through "loud and clear''. The Committee's work was terminated September 25, 1995. In addition to the opposition from the rural residents, Council was critical of Chair Craitor's handling of his responsibilities. He and another councillor had gone to two shopping centre over a weekend, and distributed over 500 questionnaires asking, amon.cl other items, for the public to respond to certain ward issues and to draw specific ward boundaries. He received only a small number of responses: 26 said they wanted to continue the existing system, 17 wanted an at-large system and 9 wished modifications of existing wards. At the headng, Councillor Craitor expressed his disappointment that such an important issue would draw fewer than a dozen people in the audience, many of them councillors, city hall staff and the press. Council's action resulted in the cancellation of public meetings in Ward 1, where one might hear the other side of the story. This triggered Mr. Ross's petition. He has a travel agency and has taken on this public watch dog role, apparently out of pure public interest. He stresses that this is a pure representation by population issue; he has no axe to grind with councillors' salaries, workloads or place of residence. He sent Council a petition on May 2, 1996 asking it to have "the Ontario Municipal Board to review the ward boundaries to give better representation to the taxpayers." On June 10, Council voted to receive the petition, but did not make any decision. Mr. Ross appealed Council's refusal on Oct. 2, 1996 and this hearing was held December 2, 1996. Since the original petition, no dialogue has passed between Mr. Ross and Council. Attachment 8 - (6 of 12) - 5 - M 900070 In particular, Council never saw Mr. Ross's five ward map until he published notices for the hearing in the newspaper. Five wards with two councillors per ward needs an amendment to the section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act, that stipulates '~velve members elected by wards." It is not possible to amend this requirement in an application under Section 13 of the Municipal Act, which merely permits the Board to set out ward boundaries. The present ward system is grossly unbalanced in favour of rural :~reas. Using voter counts from Clerk E. C. Wagg's office, I calculate the numbers of voters for each councillor as follows: Voters per councillor voters no. of councillors voters per councillor Ward 1 50,763 8 6345 Ward 2 3,577 2 1789 Ward 3 i ,2u;~ i 1203 Ward 4 672 1 672 average 2503 One of Mr. Ross's supporters, John Savage is a nineteen year old student, who stated that I have calculated that if Ward 1 got as many aldermen proportionately as Ward 4, Attachment 8 - (7 of 12) -6- it would be entitled to almost a hundred aldermen. Mr. Ross wasn't perfect but he really goes a long way. The Ward 1 area here is larger than the provincial election boundary for Niagara Falls. Seven of the eight aldermen live in the east and north of Ward 1, so it just adds to the unrepresentativeness for people in the west and south. All I really wanted to point out, in Ward 1 there are people who finished and got 8,000 or 9,000 votes and didn't get elected, whereas 300 or 400 can elect someone in Ward 4. In support of the present system, Mayor Wayne Thomson said: I am here to represent the decision of Council. Council basically supports the status quo; Council have established the system after debate. The at-large system was to try to unify the city. At Regional Council, they are very parochial. They have no spirit of working together. It is very difficult. An individual municipality may sabotage a project since it will affect the budget in another. Mayor Thomson has been mayor since 1978 with one hiatus; and never been defeated. On at least five occasions, he said, council reviewed the mixed system and decided it merited retention. Well, I think you have to forget about the systems existing in other areas. There are municipalities who are elected at large and mur, icipalifies on wards. ~_ach hcs its strengths. This is a made in Niagara solution. This [Mr. Ross's proposal] is obvious it doesn't fit, and in my opinion there is no hue and cry. This [turnout at the hearing] is a very poor representation and I can't stress how important it is. Yet how many bother to show up?... VVhen I talk about Chippawa, they don't consider themselves separate. They have their own volunteer fire department, they have their own spirit.., and they feel they are a community onto themselves. Mayor Thomson's view of the existing Council is that it has a single vision for Niagara, with hardworking councillors, no one being tied to a local area's interests and each eager to do what is in the best interests for the community as a whole. I would have accepted this, had Attachment 8 - (8 of 12) - 7 - M 900070 the Craitor committee been able to complete its process and found no great disenchantment. However, the cancellation of public meetings and the minutes of the committee suggest that Council finds it difficult to amend the mixed system. Should Council opt for a more representative system, it would face criticism not only from the rural municipalities that face loss of representation, but also from urban area residents who would ask why Council had permitted this system to go on at their detriment for so long. Councillor Puttick stated: I sit on AMO and we meet monthly and with all the different things going on, the consultation process is not that great. Leach has said in Eastern Ont they had to amalgamate or they would do it for them. I have brought it up at Council, we have to change the ward system, it is unfair .... and I honestly believe, that others aren't here, because they feel in the present climate, nothing is going to happen. This council doesn't have the will to make the change. We had staff input, I don't mean to make little of it, but when you sit down, after the situation gets going, [and public criticism starts flowing in] there no control any more.. I believe that you have enough information to make a fair adjustment. That's why we have an outside body to make the tough decisions. [my interpolations] I a~lree with Councillor Puttick. The government has put in place a tribunal w.hereby outside persons may arbitrate disputes that are difficult to settle at the local level. This is not because the tribunal has superior wisdom, but because local interests are at an impasse. The only difficulty is that Mr. Ross's solution envisages 10 councillors and fairness requires either a pure at-large system, 12 wards of one councillor each or six wards with two councillors. Attachment 8 - (9 of 12) ' -8- At my request, Mr. Savage drew a six ward map. Stamford Beaverdams poflage Lundy'sLane Downtown CAN,~D^ Attachment 8 - (10 of 12) - 9 - M 900070 For ease of reference I have given his wards temporary labels from the planning district map. Unfortunately, the MunicipalAct says '~he Municipal Board shall divide a city...into wards, and shall designate the name or number each ward shall bear." I think it presumptuous us me to give the names, so I will withhold the order until I have heard from the Clerk as to how Council wishes to name the wards. If I do not hear from the Clerk by Dec 20, 1996, I will choose a number system. Savage Proposal Downtown Lundy's Lane Potage Stamford Beaverdams C hippawa-Willoughby-Crowland average Votom 8847 11765 9651 11027 9472 5457 9370 It may be seen that Mr. Savage's map produces much better equality of representation than does the present system (the largest is about twice as large as the smallest instead of being six times the smallest.) However, this still gives an over representation to rural areas and it happens that one or the largest wards - Luncly ~ Lane - is adjacen[ ward. Therefore the boundary could be readjusted along McLeod Road to give the following more balanced wards. Modified Savage Proposal Votem Lundy's Lane 8963 Chippawa-Willoughby-Crowland 8259 Attachment 8 - (11 of 12) -10- 200 Existing Wards deviations f~ average (%) Savage Proposal deviation from average (%) · Stamf~'d IS -10 - Attachment 8 - (12 of 12) - 11 - M 900070 Although the Savage proposal is not as theoretically perfect as one with a boundary at McLeod Road, the rural citizens are still very over-represented with two councillors to represent their interests. This is the exact plan proposed by Mr. Savage and is a "made in Niagara Falls" solution, with no tinkering by me. Niagara Falls' wards are divided as shown on page 8 with two members per ward. The boundaries shall be effective January 1, 1997 for all purposes except with respect to the offices to which persons were elected in the municipal election of 1994. The new ward boundaries will be in effect for all purposes in connection with the election for November 1997, and thereafter. A further order will issue regarding the names of the wards. The Board so orders. DATED at TORONTO this 6~.h. da~, of Decembe= ].996. T. YAO' MEMBER Attachment 9 - (1 of 2) -18- The rnoUon Can,led with Alderman Orr abstaining from the vote on By-law No. 98-201 on a conflict of interest previously noted; Aldermen Campbell, Craitor, Cummings and Michelczyk, abstaining fn)m Jim vole on By-law No. 98-205 on conflicts of interest previously noted and with all outer= voting in favour. Downtown Bu~ines~ ImDmy~men( AM Alderman Orr referred to correspondence with respect to the Downtown Business Improvement Area and advised that in response to the matter, the Downtown Board would be holding a meeting to discuss the benefifs of the BIA and invited members of Council end staff to attend the meeting on September 22, 1998 at 5 p.m. at Ch~fst Church Hall. Alderman Wing referred to the Issue of the at-large ward system vs the 6 ward system and presented a resoluSon to Council dea#ng with the 6 ward electoral system. Discussion ensued with respect to providing ample opportunity for everyone involved to have futthe~ d~__~mJsslons on the issue of the at-isrge ward system vs the 6 ward electoral system. 'FoEow~ the dlscuaaJon, it was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Campbell, seconded by Alderman Votpaffi, that the metier be tabled until the October Council meeting. The motion was Lost with Aldermen Campbell, Pietrangelo and Volpaffi voEng in favour and with all others vot~g co, bary. Following some discussion, Aldermen VrOng presented a resolution, seconded by Alderman Orr, that pe it ~ that {be Council of the Corpomtion of the City of Niagare Fallsaffirmsitssupportforesix-Wa~eisctorelsystern. ThemotionCarrfadwithAldermen Csmpbel/, Ptebangelo, Cummings end Volpetti voting contrary to the mo&~n end with all others voting in favour. Following furfber ~scusslon, it was ORDERED on the motion of Aldennan VolpeYd, seconded by Aldemmn Fisher, that the question of the Ward System versus the At-large System be placed on the next municipal electkm ballot. ~ Alderman Michalczyk referred to his recent attendance at the AMO Conference, where he met with the A___~at~n of Not, em Muntci~s, who had provided a donation of 25O tree ~ which hed bsen ¢~sbfbuted by ~he Manager of Parks, Recreation end Culture end he requested that · letter of appreciation be fonverded to the Association of Noflhem Municipalities for their Idnd donation of the 250 sap~ng trees. ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Michak=yk, seconded by Alderman Pietrengelo, that a letter of epprecistion be fotwarrted to the Association of Northern Municipalities for their kind donation of 250 sapling trees. ~ l[ } I I I ~lllll I Attachment 9 - (2 of 2) ..... 19 - Chippewa Junior ~C" Onenin~_ Game Aldermen Michalczyk extended an invitaUon to members of Council end the community to attend the home opening game of the Chippewa Junior 'C"s on September 27, 1998 et the Chippewa Arena. Alderman Michalczyk referred to moving the boundary line from McLeod Road south to the Railway cortfdor. The City SoYtcitor edvised that Council had the autho#ty to m-det~e the wan~s under the Municipal Act but would have to give notice of a public meeting and a by-law be prepared,- he further advised that if Council passed a resolution at this meeting, this would be direction to staff to start the process in accordance to the Municipal Act. Following the discussion, it was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Michelczyk, seconded by Alderman Femn, that the northem boundary of Ward 6 (McLeod Road) be shifted south to the railway cortfdor. ~Z~d_J~J~2~p~.~ ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Volpetti, seconded by Alderman Fisher, that the ques~fon of the Ward System vs the At-Large System be placed on the Municipal election ballot in the year 2000. ~3~ft.~3~J~ Alderman Femn wished to express his disappointment at the Hyatt's decision regatrling putO'ng in 200 rooms and 100 stores at the permanent casino. He stated that this decision would take business away from the existing hotels, motels and stores that am surrounding the proposed complex. ORDERED on the motion of Aldermen Michalczyk, seconded by Alderman Campbell, that the meeting be edjoumed. ~ READ AND ADOPTED !a [ I I ill I Attachment 10 - (1 of 4) lheCltyof ~. Nio~ra F~II~ lil, lw_ Ward I CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS MUNICIPAL ELECTION - Monday, November 13, 2000 Vote like this ~ ~ Votez comme ceci Rosle BARILLARI George Terrance O'REILLY Wayne THOMSON Darren W. WOOD Mark A. BAY Wayne CAMPBELL Nancy HUBER W.E. (Judy) ORR Albert ZAPPITELLI George BAILEY John BEAM David CLAYDON Tony FERA Wayne GATES Rob NICHOLSON Sean PERRY Bill SMEATON YES O NO © FRONT C~d 1 SEQ# 1 .Attachment 10 - (2 of 4) Statement of Votes Cast City of Niagara Falls Municipal Election 2O00 Date: 11/15/00 Time: I 1:10:36 Page:45 of 46 I SOVC For Jurisdiction Wide, All Counters, All Races Final Results l, Elwood Wagg, Returning Officer for the City of Niag~/~, ~he H results listed below as being the official results of the 2000 Municipal Elections~ · THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: MAYOR WAS 23442 (OF WHICH) Rosie BARILLARI RECEIVED 1773 George T. O'REILLY RECEIVED 761 Wayne THOMSON RECEIVED 19458 Darren W. WOOD RECEIVED 1450 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: Alderman Ward 1 WAS 4108 (OF WHICH) Mark A. BAY RECEIVED 193 Wayne CAMPBELL RECEIVED 1463 Nancy HUBER RECEIVED 468 W.E. (Judy) ORR RECEIVED 1072 Albed ZAPPITELLI RECEIVED 912 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: Alderman Ward 2 ?,S 5945 (OF WHICH) Klm CRAITOR RECEIVED 2361 Victor FERRAIUOLO RECEIVED 523 Claude SONIER RECEIVED 1255 Bemie VILLAMIL RECEIVED 367 Janice WING RECEIVED 1439 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: Alderman Ward 3 WAS 7148 (OF WHICH) Frank De LUCA RECEIVED 1448 Gary F. HENDERSHOT RECEIVED 2179 Carolynn IOANNONI RECEIVED 1780 Paisley JANVARY-POOL RECEIVEB 1741 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: Alderman Ward 4 WAS 8740 (OF WHICH) Anne ANGELONE RECEIVED 1272 Enzo DELLA-MARCA RECEIVED 493 Tony GIGLIOTTI RECEIVED 1301 Norman J. PUTTICK RECEIVED 2676 Selina VOLPATTI RECEIVED 2998 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: Alderman Ward 5 "VAS 7181 (OF WHICH) Shirley CLAIR RECEIVED 1254 Ray COURSOL RECEIVED 1400 Ken FEREN RECEIVED 2049 Attachment 10 - (3 of 4) Statement of Votes Cast City of Niagara Falls Municipal Election ) 2000 SOVC For Jurisdiction Wide, All Counters, All Races Final Results Victor PIETRANGELO RECEIVED 2478 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: Alderman Ward 6 WAS 6242 (OF WHICH) Art FEDEROW RECEIVED 1508 Shirley M. FISHER RECEIVED 1668 Ed MICHALCZYK RECEIVED 1122 Joyce MOROCCO RECEIVED 1002 Jeff SUSIN RECEIVED 942 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: Regional Councillor WAS 53869 (OF WHICH) George BAILEY RECEIVED 11304 John BEAM RECEIVED 1021 David CLAYDON RECEIVED 1726 Tony FERA RECEIVED 5388 Wayne GATES RECEIVED 4716 Rob NICHOLSON RECEIVED 14757 Sean PERRY RECEIVED 1085 Bill SMEATON RECEIVED 13872 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: English Public School WAS 20992 (OF WHICH) Kevin MAVES RECEIVED 7064 Margaret MINGLE RECEIVED 5405 Barbara NESS RECEIVED 6049 I. PLOSZCZANSKY-KIS RECEIVED 2474 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: English Separate School WAS 12170 (OF WHICH) Joe BRUZZESE RECEIVED 1777 Michael CARROLL RECEIVED 1308 Paul DOWNIE RECEIVED 1181 Frank FERA RECEIVED 3509 Ed NIEUWESTEEG RECEIVED 4395 THE WHOLE NUMBER OF VOTES GIVEN: Question WAS 20348 (OF WHICH) YES RECEIVED 10162 NO RECEIVED 10186 Date: 11/15/001 Time: 1 I: 10:36 Page:46 of 46 'Attachment 10 - (4 of 4) Election Summary Report City of Niagara Falls Municipal Election 2000 Summary For Jurisdiction Wide, All Counters, All Races Registered voters 59457 - Cards Cast 23972 English Public School Number of Precincts Precincts Reporting Times Counted Total Votes Number Of Under Votes EPS Total 6l 61 15005/39956 20992 9018 100.00% 37.55% Kevin MAVES Barbara NESS Margaret MINGLE I. PLOSZCZANSKY-KIS 7064 6049 5405 2474 33.65% 28.82% 25.75% 11.79% English Separate School Number of Precincts Precincts Reporting Times Counted Total Votes Number Of Under Votes ESS Total 61 61 8204/16345 12170 4238 100.00% 50.19% Ed NIEUWESTEEG Frank FERA Joe B RU7:ZI=SE Michael CARROLL Paul DOWNIE 4395 3509 1777 1308 1181 36.11% 28.83% 14.60% 10.75% 9.70% Date: 11/14/0( Time:15:48:3' Page:2 of: Num. Report Precinct 61 - Num. Reporting 61 Question Number of Precincts Precincts Reporting Times Counted Total Votes Number Of Under Votes Total 61 61 23832/59457 20348 3484 100.00% 40.08% NO 10186 50.06% YES 10162 49.94% City of Vancouver - Election Systems: Chapter 4. Systems for electing city government Page 1 of 4 Attachment 11 - (1 of 4) ~j[.i aTY OF VANCOUVER Chapter 4. Systems for electing city government This chapter describes the ways that most city governments are currently elected in North America and reviews the debate about the merits of different systems. The information here is not intended to recommend any particular option, but to show how they are presented by their opponents, proponents, and academic observers. The following chapter deals with how these systems are applied in "real life," using the cities included in our survey as examples. City councils in North America arc elected according to three main systems: at-large systems in which all elig/ble voters within the city boundaries vote on the same list of candidates · ward systems in which a city is broken down into smaller areas (wards), and voters living in each ward vote on their own list of candidates who wish to represent their ward on council. Wards may bc single- or multi-member. · mixed systems which include some members elected at large and some by ward. In most municipalities, whether using a ward system or not, the mayor is elected at large and independently from the rest &council. In others, the mayor may be a councillor who is elected by other councillors, or the councillor with the highest popular vote. Urban politics is far from being a laboratory in which government systems can be tested against one another, and there are few credible evaluations which conclusively show which system might be "best" or "worst" for even one city - never mind all cities. Each system has its proponents and opponents, and individual cities' experiences with different systems have been highly varied, as the survey results in the next chapter indicate. Nonetheless, it is of value to set out some of the major arguments which have been made in this long-mnning debate, as well as to describe the systems themselves. At-large elections At-large elections became popular as part of the urban reform movement earlier in this century, which sought to create more efficient, professional city governments and reduce the power of ward "bosses." Those in favour of the at-large system often argue that city- wide election results in a city council which views the city's needs as a whole, and fi'om a long-term view. Councillors are said to be better able to concentrate on city-wide issues, particularly budgetary ones, and make balanced decisions about services affecting all parts of the city such as public transport, policing and fire services, and libraries. The http://www.city.vancouvcr.bc.ca/ctyclerk/election_systems/chapter4.html 04/23/2002 City of Vancouver - Election Systems: Chapter 4. Systems for electing city government Attachment 11 - (2 of 4) argument is occasionally made that the system may elect better qualified candidates since they must have the confidence of the entire city. The system is administratively simple compared to the alternatives, and easy fbr voters to understand. One of the main arguments against the at-large system, particularly if it is combined with "winner-take-all" voting, is that it leads to city councils which under-represent minority groups. (See, among other treatments of the subject, the 1995 Report of the Elections Task Force to the Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco which is included among the documents reproduced in Volume II.) Another argument against at-large elections is that city-wide campaigning is more expensive than it would be if candidates ran on a ward basis. This is said to favour the election of candidates with greater financial resources and reduce the feeling of ordinary citizens that they might ever be able to run for office. In recent years, there has been some experimentation by at-large cities in the United States with alternative voting methods such as preferential and cumulative voting. These have been in order to increase the chances of minority candidates to win seats on council, usually in smaller cities where specific minorities have been under-represented politically. Page 2 of 4 Ward elections Electing councils by ward or district became widespread in the 19th century. Unlike at- large elections which have historically under-represented even large communities or minority groups, particularly under winner-take-all conditions, wards ensure greater balance of representation for all geographic areas of a city. Those in favour of the system argue that it brings politics "closer to the people," that voters in wards know more about the candidates they have to choose from, and that the person elected will be more knowledgeable about the needs and concerns of voters. The accountability of councillors is increased because voters know who "their" representative is and can monitor his or her voting record. Ward elections ensure that different parts of a city are represented on council and may lead to a higher turnout of voters. Ward campaigns are held to be less expensive than at-large campaigns for the individual candidate since the number of people and the physical area a candidate must address is much smaller. This, it is argued, makes participation in politics more accessible to a wider range of people and groups. One political scientist summarizes the arguments against wards as follows: [Opponents of wards] claim that ward elections tend to perpetuate and even accentuate divisions within the municipality. It is argued that a ward council is very parochial in outlook with councillors worrying about their individual · bailiwicks wherein they must seek re-election rather than being concerned about the good of the whole community. It is also argued that some representatives get elected on a ward basis who would not have been chosen if they were running over the entire municipality (Tindal, p. 102-103.) There are also arguments against particular kinds of wards. It is argued that in single- member wards, voters who do not agree with their representative may feel that no one on council speaks for them at all. Multi-member wards, particularly those combined with cumulative voting systems, are said to remedy this problem but may be perceived by http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/eleetion_systems/chapter4.html 04/23/2002 City of Vancouver - Election Systems: Chapter 4. Systems for electing city government Attachment 11 - (3 of 4) voters as too complicated. On the other hand, multi-member wards are used in some American cities specifically as a way of increasing the chances of electing minority candidates to council. Both opponents and proponents of wards agree that creating wards can be a difficult business, both technically and politically. A participant in a ward re-division exercise in Ontario illustrated the challenge of creating workable ward boundaries as follows: If Kingston could be divided into equal wards, they would all have equal population, be united around similar communities of interest (i.e., schools and community centres), and each be composed of citizens with similar socio-economic factors. The boundaries would be easily recognizable, preferably multi-lane streets or other barriers to neighbourhoods. The lines would also have been in existence for some considerable time so that residents would be familiar with them and feel a sense of allegiance to their wards. The municipality would also be static so that population growth will not upset this perfectly balanced arrangement. Ideal wards are impossible. The question is how far from the ideal is acceptable? (Williams, p. 1.) Page 3 of 4 Mixed or partial ward systems Mixed systems are used in an increasing number of cities in the United States, according to figures collected by the International City/County Management Association. A study based on these figures suggests that mixed systems may be a "reasonable form of compromise for jurisdictions facing representational controversies" (Rermer, p. 67). Again, the main source of these controversies is the need to increase the representation of minority groups. The main argument in favour of mixed systems is that they provide the best of both worlds: the "close to the people" benefits of the ward system and the city-wide outlook of at-large elections. Opponents assert that mixed systems create tWo "classes'! of ~ councillor, with those elected at-large having more prestige and clout than those elected by wards, For further information In response to a request for information in our survey, a number of municipalities sent some very helpful documentation. One of the most in-depth was a 1995 report t~om San Francisco called A Report of the Elections Task Force to the Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco. The report discusses a number of options for reforming San Francisco's electoral system and voting methods with a view to increasing representation and accountability. From Kitchener, we received Robert Williams' succinct and clearly written "Some Criteria for Revising Kitchener's Ward System," which provides an excellent introduction to the considerations that go into creating acceptable ward boundaries. The already-mentioned book by C. R. Tindal, Local Government in Canada, gives a general overview of the ward/at-large debate as it has been framed in Canada since the 1970s. http://www.city.vancouver.bc, caJctyclerk/election_systems/chapter4.html 04/23/2002 City of Vancouver - Election Systems: Chapter 4. Systems for electing city government Attachment 11 - (4 of 4) Page 4 of 4 For a broad overview of trends in municipal governments in the United States since 1981, see Taft Renner and Victor S. DeSantis's "Contemporary Patterns and Trends in Municipal Government Structures" in the Intemati0nal City/County Management Association's Municipal Yearbook, 1993. [Previous Pagel ~ [Next Page] Comments or questions.'? Please contact info~city.vancouver.bc.ca Last Updated: June, 1996 (c) 1996 City of Vancouver http://www.city.Vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/election_.systems/chapter4.html 04/23/2002 Attachment 12 - (1 of 2) Lesson 1 The Machinery of Municipal Government term planning. On the other hand, there is some indication that the longer term may discourage some from running for office, and may also account for some of the resignations which occur within the term. Nonetheless, there has been little agitation for any further adjustment in this three year term. 2. Ward Versus General Vote The basic distinction between these two approaches is quite straightforward. In general elections, candidates campaign over the entire municipality and those receiving the most votes cast throughout the municipality are elected. Alternatively, the municipality may be divided into a number of geographic areas, or wards, with a number of members (usually an equal number) to be elected from each ward. Candidates do not campaign over the whole municipality but only in "their' ward, and voters are limited to choosing the candidates in the ward in which they exercise their franchise. While both approaches are in widespread use, they each have their proponents and their alleged advantages and disadvantages? Those who favour the ward system contend that with this approach voters are much more likely to know the limited number of candidates among whom they must choose, and, in turn, the candidates are more likely to be aware of the particular needs and concerns of the local populace. It is also argued that ward elections ensure that all areas of the municipality will be represented on council, although this argument is weakened by the fact that councillors need not live in the ward in which they are elected. Ward elections mean less expensive campaign costs and there is some evidence to support the claim that they generate a higher voting turnout than elections at large. Proponents of election at large, however, assert that ward elections help to perpetuate and even accentuate differences and divisions within the municipality. They argue that a council elected on the ward basis is parochial in outlook, with councillors preoccupied with the individual areas of the municipality within which they must obtain re-election. It is also suggested that some representa- tives get elected on a ward basis who would not have been chosen if forced to obtain support from the entire municipality. For this reason, it is held that election by general vote results in stronger, better qualified councillors. This viewpoint was particularly strong dudng the turn of the century reform era (discussed in Unit 1) and prompted efforts to abolish or reduce the number of wards. Another argument in favour of a general vote is that it produces a council more capable of taking a broad view of the overall needs of the municipality. An example of the blending of these two principles can be found in the experience of the City of Niagara Falls. Pdor to 1969, the City elected its council members at large. With the formation of regional government in the Niagara Peninsula, the City was enlarged by adding a village and part of two adjacent townships. To assure representation on council for the new areas of the city, four wards were established; one comprising the former city and electing eight aldermen; one 6The discussion which follows is based on ibid.,pp. 15~1~_1.5_4 Attachment 12 - (2 of 2) Unit 2 of MAP 6 comprising the former village and electing two aldermen; and one for each of the former townships, electing one alderman each. Another interesting variation is provided by a recent initiative of the City of Kingston.7 Over the years, council had often considered reducing the size of its 15 member council and perhaps abolishing the ward basis of election as well. The rationale for such changes was usually couched in terms of the need for a smaller body to provide more expeditious decision making and reduced "politicking." Following a recommendation from a report prepared by Frank Collom of Queen's University, the city introduced, effective the November 1994 municipal election, a change which managed to reduce the size of council while at the same time enhancing its representative dimension. This combination was achieved by reducing the number of representatives from each ward from two to one, while increasing the number of wards from seven to ten: The net result was to reduce the overall size of council (including the mayor) from 15 to 11. Whatever the respective merits of the two methods of election, there is a widespread feeling that as the population of a municipality increases, so does the case for a ward system of election. Beyond a certain point, wards are felt to be desirable so that citizens will have some possibility of knowing their candidates and so that candidates will not face the financial and time demands of campaigning over an excessively large area and population. Yet there is little agreement as to what this break-point should be and there are exceptions to this pattern. The most notable departure is probably the City of Vancouver which has since 1936 elected its councillors on an at large basis, in spite of several local initiatives over the past couple of decades to reintroduce the ward system. Conversely, election by ward is being seriously considered by a number of relatively small Ontado townships as a way of attempting to ensure a balanced representation of their diverse urban and rural areas. Wards are also found in a number of townships which were formed through consolidation and, in these instances, serve to provide representation from the previously separate municipalities. 3. Direct and Indirect Election In most cases, election to municipal office in Ontado is direct B in that voters choose a candidate for a particular position and no other. However, upper tier governments are indirectly elected in whole or in part. In other words, they are comprised of members who were directly elected to constituent lower tier municipalities and by virtue of their local office (or on the selection of their local council) become upper tier councillors. This method of indirect election has been criticized on the g~ound that it results in a parochial council with representatives feeling loyalty to their own municipalities rather than considering the needs of the whole area -- essentially the same criticism as that levelled at election by ward. The main justification for indirect election has been the view that it provides valuable liaison ?The summary which follows is based on. ibid., p. 154~ Page 1 of 2 RE: Ward System Conversion Attachment 13 - (1 of 1) OUICK S~ARCH: HOME ABOUT AMO AMO Board of Directors contact us AMO CONFERENCES ADVANCED SEARCH MUNICOM SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION online re(~istration LOCAL GOVERNMENT QI~ DAILY MUNICIPAL CLIPPINGS ALERTS, FYIs, REPORTS ARCHIVE MUNICIPAL VIRTUAL I_[BRARY PUBLICA'I'[ONS & FREE DOCUMENTS CLASSI~EDS / )OBS EVENTS LJNKS Ontario associations Ontario municipalities Canadian associations/~ov'ts PRODUCTS & SERVICES purchase ad space purchase mailing list L.A.S VuBiz On-tine Training MEMBER UPDATES password change information change add new users Muni 9 om . copyright / disclaimer Discussion is owned and operated by [ho RE: Ward System Conversion Posted by Julia Shiu, Acting Information Resources Manager, Asso¢iat on of Municipalities of' Ontario The September 1999 issue of Municipal World contains the article "Electoral Systems in Ontario Municipalities". The article reports that in sma!l municipalities (less than 10,000), 16.3% used the ward system and 83.7% used an at-large system of representation. The average number of wards in the small municipalities was 3.2, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6. [Note: these statistics are based on the 1994 municipal election.] Please see Municom's Municipal Election 2000 Results for examples of municipalities which use the ward system: http ://209.167.222.$2/reports/Municipal_Election2000_Results.htm. The 5th edition of "Local Government in Canada" by C. Richard Tindal and Susan Nobes Tindal discusses the issue of ward versus at-large representation. In this publication it states: "...Supporters of the ward system argue that under this approach the voters are much more likely to be familiar with the limited range of candidates from which they must choose and the candidate will be more aware of the particular needs and interests of their constituents. It is also contended that ward elections ensure that all areas of the municipality will be represented on council, that they mean less expensive campaign costs, and that they bring a higher voter turnout, an assertion that appears to have some validity. On the other hand, those supporting election by general vote claim that ward elections tend to perpetuate and even accentuate differences and divisions within the municipality...It is also contended that some representatives get elected on a ward basis who would not have been chosen if they were running over the entire municipality...Finally, proponents of a general vote assert that it results in a council more capable of taking a broad view of the overall needs of the municipality." Original message posted by: ~¢pbeD__K._eaSL_.~;/eEK~T_Qwr~.~f_'[beJ~Iu~-Et~-~D~LaS I would be most interested in and appreciative of comments from employees of any small to medium size municipalities, preferably with an agricultural and recreational land use base, that may have recently converted to a ward system of representation. As part of the general consideration for the 2003 municipal election, any tips, warnings, positive or negative feedback, etc., would be of assistance as to proceeding with consideration of conversion or not. Friday, .lanuary 18, 2002 Replies: · Ward System Conversion http://www.municom.com/board/AMODiscussion.asp?DiscussionlD= 188&BoardID= 1 04/19/2002 ORDER ISSUE DATE DEC 2 4 19°J6 On~rlo Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affairas municipales de I'Ontario The Electors of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake have made an application to the Ontado Municipal Board under subsection 13(3) of the (~4~:~f, iJ~.~[~ R.S.O, t990, c.M.45 for a Division of the Town into Wards Attachment 14 - (1 of ll) M950022 COUNSEL: T. A. Richardson Ms Yolanta Bula (student-at-law) for Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake D_EC.~$!O_L~._d.eliver.e..d. Zo_,~ ~.A HA._.R.R.O.N_ .A. ND .O .P.,~_~F TH,F, The Board has been asked by way of a petition signed by in excess of 150 electors of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake to divide the Town under Section 13 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 302, into wards. The Town opposes the petition and asks the Board to refuse it. The petition was spearheaded by Thomas Braybrook who appeared at this hearing, presenting background material along with maps of proposed ward boundaries. Mr. Braybrook was mayoral candidate in the last municipal election where one of the major issues was the division of the Town into wards versus a continuation of election of mayor and councillors "at large" for the entire Town. The Town has a population of some 13,000 and occupies 48.7 square miles. The Council of the Town presently consists of a Lord Mayor and eight Aldermen. A Regional Councillor is elected at large within the Municipality, It is generally recognized that the Town has unique characteristics in that its agricultural base is ~ntred around a grape growing industry and affiliated wineries, tender fruit production, the historical hedtage of the Attachment 14 - (2 of 11) -2- community and its well known and highly regarded theatre attractions such as the Shaw Festival. The combination of the foregoing and the close proximity of Niagara Falls has resulted in an ever growing tourist industry. In order to set out the importance of Heritage Conservation a major focal point relating to the request for a ward system of government, it is appropriate to quote the Background to the Heritage Conservation Section of the Official Plan as follows: 'q'he Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake is one of Ontario's oldest communities. The area was settled at the close of the American Revolution by Loyalist and Niagare-~3n-the-Lake has a long and distinguished history which parallels the growth of the province. The designation of Niagara/Old Town, as the first capital of the newly created province of Upper Canada in 1791 was the chief contributing factor to its early growth. The Town (then know as Newark) was the capital of Upper Canada from 1792 to 1797 before the seat of central government was moved to York. The burning of the Tow~ by the Americans on December 10, 1813 during the war of 1812 left Niagara/Old Town in ruins. The townspeople rebuilt, despite the objections of the government and the community flourished until the opening of the second Welland Canal in the 1840's and the subsequent increasing importance of St. Catharines as a commercial centre. Oueenston also has historical connections with the beginning of Upper Canada. Queenston was the home of Robert Hamilton, William Lyon MacKenzie and Laura Secord. In recant times, a great deal of concern has been expressed by many people over the persecution of the heritage resources located throughout the Town of Niagara-on-the Lake. In the selection and evaluation of areas within the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake as potential Heritage Conservation Districts, the facts themselves constitute ample justification for any plan of preservation or restoration. Within the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, there are areas which have certain unique or distinctive characteristics which cannot be attributed solely to a collection of individual buildings of the same or related periods. These characteristics are difficult to isolate apart from the special air or atmosphere the street exhibits, they are, for the most part, intangible qualities. Nonetheless, these intangibles combine to produce a strong cumulative ¢4/22/2M~Z Attachment 14 - (3 of 11) - 3 - M950022 effect which, together with the distinct and intact legacy of original 19th century buildings, creates a valuable historic flavour." During the course of the headng the Board he~rd from a total of 42 witnesses many of them citizens who expressed strong feelings both for and against a ward system of government. Several present and former aldermen testified including the present and two former Lord Mayors. Needless to say, there were opposing views expressed on the matter. Counsel for the Town called the Town Clerk, two land use planners, the Lord Mayor, a Regional Coundllor, Dr. David Siegel, a professor at Brock University and a local resident, all of whom testified in support of the present "at large" system of government. The Board does not intend to recount all of the evidence or mention all witnesses by name. However, the Board has reviewed and considered all of the evidence during deliberations. At the outset, the Board would like to commend Mr. Braybrook who did a lot of research and work drawing up ward boundaries that he sincerely felt would' result in improved representation and local government for the Town, if initiated. Mr. Braybrook, in Exhibit #2, set out suggested ward boundaries, each. containing approximately 1,250 electors in what he felt were common communities of interest to the residents of each ward ie, the historic Old Town has a strong heritage b~ckground would have approximately 3,750 electors and would elect three councillors whereas Queenston and St. Davids would elect one councillor. Each area would then be guaranteed proportional representation. It was interesting to note that the make up of the present Council is not unlike Mr. Braybrook's proposal. As an alternative and for the Boards consideration, Mr. Braybrook filed as Exhibit #6 a proposal for 8 wards with one councillor being elected by approximately 1,2SO - 1,275 eligible voters in each proposed ward and the Mayor being elected at large, the same as proposed in the initial proposal. Mr. Braybrook indicated he was not "married" to either proposal in that he was willing to sit down with Town staff and set up wards that would result in fair and equitable representation. Attachment 14 - (4 of 11) -4- A summa~ of the evidence of the citizens in favour of the ward system is as follows: the at large system is vulnerable to block voting by one large section or another thereby blocking out minority sections being heard, AJdermen from a particular ward would be more knowledgeable of local issues and could be held more accountable. A candidate for election in a ward could much easier finance and campaign in the smaller area, Democracy works best in political processes when the representatives of the people advocate views that are derived from the people they represent and to whom they are accountable. They do not believe that a rural dominated Council puts enough emphasis on preservation of thc historic Old Tewn, A ward system would avoid costly O.M.B. hearings in that a local Alderman could present local views at Council prior to an appeal being launched. A summary of presentations ;'rom those in favour of the present at large elections of councillors is as follows: Since taxes are collected and disbursed throughout the total Town, they want a chance to either elect or reject the total Council that makes decisions for the total area. Historic designations should be decided in the interests of the total community, not just a small group. A ward system of government could split the community into "them versus us". The total Council should work for the good of the total community. 84/22/2002 14:14 Attachment 14 - (5 of 11) - 5 - M950022 William Walker, Director of Planning and Development Services for the Town, outlined the history of land use planning and the direction the Town is now taking in order to ensure proper planning and heritage conservation takes place. He told the Board there are two current Official Plans in effect. There is the former Town of Niagara Planning Area Plan and the former Township of Niagara Official Plan. Both were adopted and approved in 1970 and 1971. A new Official Plan for the Town is now in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There are some outstanding objections and referral requests to this 1994 draft plan. Mr. Walker outlined some sections of both the 1970 former Town of Niagara Official Plan and the new 1994 draft plan that in his opinion addresses some of the concerns raised by the residents at this hearing. He stated that the 1970 former Town of Niagara Official Plan contains development policies which underline the basic challenges facing the community, The attempt to strike a harmony between the need to retain the community heritage resources and recognizJng the economic needs of the Town are addressed as follows. Section 2(d), Purpose of the Plan, states: 'q'o maintain a pleasant residential and historical atmosphere of the Town, but provide a framework in which future development can take place to assure the continued, well-rounded growth of the community. i) above all, to encourage the preservation of the unique environment of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and its historic sites and buildings as a continuing reminder of the importance of the Town in the history of our nation." Section 6, Development Policy the Plan states: 'q'he existing atmosphere of the Town with its historic buildings and sites is unique in Ontado. Its ~'ee lined streets and environment from earlier periods of the country's history are different from almost any other town in Ontario." It is recegnized that with a historical atmosphere and the problems which adse in the preservation of early buildings, it becomes even more important that the Town receive the co-operation of the retepayers in adhering to the guidelines which are set out in this plan." Under Development Policy Statements, Section 1, states, in part; 04×22/2002 14:14 N0.690 Q007 Attachment ~4 - (6 of 11) -6- "It is a firm policy of this plan that the quiet, historic atmosphere of Niagara- on-the-Lake should be maintained." He then referred the Board to the new 1994 draft plan where heritage is defined as: "means the sum total of our inheritance, both natural and cultural and shall also include real immovable properties and buildings and other artifacts of natural historic importance." Under Historic Sites and Heritage Resources, the plan states: '~'he hedtage of Niagara-on-the-Lake is of such importance to its cultural and economic viability that any intrusion should be dealt with in a careful and thorough manner. Many of the communities in the Town are at a critical crossroads in which incompatible development could have a negative effect on the unique histodc and heritage resources of the community involved. The policies of the plan provide that all development will be evaluated with the objective of maintaining the historic ambience and character of the community involved." states: "Proposals for changes in the use of land that require the application of ' Planning Impact Analysis will be evaluated, in consultation with appropriate agencies, on the basis of: q) The identification of hedtage resources in the area and how the development will impact on that resource." Section 8, Residential "(~oals and Obiectives 6) To support the retention and to give consideration to the expansion of heritage districts in the older areas of Niagara/Old Town and Queenston through the policies of this plan and the establishment of Heritage Conservation Distills." Section 8.4.4 states: "Several of the structures within the established residential area have been designated as "Heritage" buildings under the Ontario Herita,qe Act. Every effort should be made by both the owner and the Town to ensure the Attachment 14 - (7 of 11) - 7 - M950022 continuation of the existence of that structure in its historically significant fom'l." In support of the foregoing the Town retained the services of Cathy Macdonald, as a heritage planner/researcher, who commenced her duties on July 24, 1995, apparently the retention of the heritage planner is to carry out the intent of the Heritage Policies of the Official Plan. Mr. Walker also outlined to the Board the extra steps that Niagara.on-the-Lake takes to ensure public input into all planning maffers being considered. Prior to a planning meeting the public is invited to attend a meeting where they receive planning documents and an explanation of what issue is before the Planning Committee. This procedure is followed in all Official Plan Amendments and By-law Amendments...The foregoing public meeting is over and above the public meeting required by the ~. The Town has also set up a LACAC Committee that deals with hedtage matters. LACAC meets every two weeks. In 1 ~82 a list of bu~iotngs -~r ~,.i ~uc~ures ;~-,~ pi .~-;a~,~ [ ~UG ,va~ ~u,l~i~i,=;..,,J. ~'i~ list was filed with the Board. Lord Mayor Dietsch gave evidence in support of the present at large system and outlined in great detail many of the programs undertaken by Council partially in response to input from ratepayers relating to heritage and cultural matters. He stated they have developed a strategic plan in 1995 where they felt they reached out to the community to see and analyze if some of the programs undertaken by Council were meeting community needs and 'if not what changes were required. He said that it was interesting to note that on a questionnaire that was sent out, a ward system of government was rated Iow priority. He told the Board that a local newspaper has changed the publication date so that each home in the Town receives it on a Saturday. It always has an article on Council news called "Keeping You Informed" in an attempt to inform and keep the ratepayers up to date 'with Council happenings. He was adamant that heritage is not restricted to one particular area of the Town and outlined various buildings including churches etc. throughout the Town that have a historic aspect to them. In his opinion a ward system of government will 14: 1~ Attachment 14 - (8 of 11) -8- not solve perceived problems outlined by some of the ratepayers at this hearing. In his opinion the community is being well served.by the present form of government and to change to a ward system could lead to a split within the community, The Board was referred to three studies that had taken place over the years relating to local government. In 1966 Mr. Henry B. Mayo released the Mayo Report. On August 29, 1975 Mr. William L. Archer was appointed Chairman of a Commission called the Niagara Region Study Review Commission. The Board was told by some of the citizens that both'Mr. Archer and Mr. Mayo recommended a ward system for elections. The third commission appointed by the Provincial Government, the Niagara Region Review Commission was launched in 1988: Mr. Harry Kitchen was appointed Commissioner and Mr. David Siegel was appointed Research Director. Once again according to the citizens, Mr. Kitchen's report recommended a ward system of elections for the Town of Niagara-on- the-Lake. Dr. David T. Siegel gave evidence at this hearing and outlined the results of the Kitchen review of local government in a somewhat different manner than portrayed by the citizens. Dr. Siegel is now Associate Vice President, Academics, Brock University (1995 - 1998). Dr. Siegel told the Board that in a recent study of Niagara-on-the-Lake, which was detailed in .graph .form, and filed as Exhibit #35 to these proceedings; he could not identify separate communities of interest in order to recommend a ward system of government for Niagara-on-the-Lake, Unlike Mr. Braybrook, Dr. Siegel included Virgil as an urban area. Following a review of the urban type development including restaurants, retail businesses, arena and municipal office, automobile dealerships, the Board is inclined to agree with Dr. Siegel. Following a study of voting patterns within Niagara-on-the-Lake, Dr. Siegel said that generally speaking people who got elected did well across the whole Town and a ward system would not have resulted in different results. In his opinion he feels Mayo did not recommend a ward system, He refe,i~d to the Archer Report where Mr, Archer said at page 122 "in setting up a ward system do not split communities". He then went on and reviewed the Kitchen Report on which he was the Research Director, referring the Board to page 122 where it says that Mr. Kitchen did not look at a ward system for the local level, 04/22/2002 14:14 Attachment 14 - (9 of 11) _ g _ M950022 Regardless of the foregoing studies, this Board will decide on a ward system based on the evidence brought forward at this hearing. Mr. Braybrook, in argument, reiterated some of his evidence when he said %/ith a ward system of government, all areas of the Town will have guaranteed representation". In his opinion a ward system is gressroots democracy that will benefit the total community. The result of election by ward system would be a direct voice of the Council table by communities of interest and special interests. Counsel for the Town argued that the evidence clearly indicates, the Council has not been neglecting heritage issues. He was concerned that the division of the Municipality into wards will divide the community. He filed case law that the Board has read and considered as well as material forwarded by Mr. Braybrook subsequent to the hearing. It has become abundantly dear throughout these procccdings that Niagara-on-the- Lake is unique in that it has a history, both natural and cultural, including buildings that are of not only local but provincial and national importance. This heritage plus the tender fruit and wine industry is of tremendous economic importance to the Town and the Region as a whole. The residents and elected officials who testified and presented written submissions all agreed to the foregoing and the fact the municipality must play a leading roll in its preservation and promotion. There was a difference of opinion however in whether the Council in some of its decisions pays as much heed to hedtage conservation as some residents would like. While a number of development proposals, some resulting in O.M.B. hearings, were outlined to the Board, the one issue of late that seemed to cause the most concern was Council's decision to install curbs and gutters dudng the Gate Street re-construction from Queen Street to Front Street which apparently is within the Heritage District. The Board was supplied with a lot of printed information related to the issue and the Mayor outlined Council's reasons for the installation. I am not going to comment whether curbs and gutters should have been installed or not, as that issue is not before the Board. The residents in favour of wards, however, feel that if a local Alderman had 84/22?2002 N0.690 P~ll -10- directly presented local feelings on the matter, curbs and gutters may not have been installed. The Mayor argued an alderman resided in the vicinity of the construction. After carefully considering all of the evidence from those proposing and in favour of wards the Board has not been persuaded that a ward system of government will correct any perceived or real problems outlined to the Board. It is clear to the Board that the municipality has set out its goals and objectives, spelling out in a clear and concise manner in the Official Plan the importance of, and steps to preserve the Heritage of the total municipality. They have now taken a very important second step by hiring a Heritage Planner. The Council has opened the planning process to enable ample opportunity for public input into planning matters. The Board is unable to comment on whether a ward system of local government would lessen the number of O.M.B. hearings or not other than to say, a municipality with 'the cultural and historic features of Niagara-on-the-Lake could have more controversy than a similar sized municipality with fewer unique features. One witness who is a member of the local c~nservancy told the Board that the Ontario Heritage Act is a "toothless tiger", particularly relating to preserving buildings that have been designated historical, If correct, this is a provincial problem and the Council may want to approach the provincial government with suggestions that would put more teeth in the Ontario Heritacle Act. The present Council is well proportioned in that the urban and rural representation is about equal and it appears to the Board that Councillors are accessible if approached. it was interesting to note that during cross-examination many witnesses from "Old Town" would not approach members of Council who reside in Old Town on controversial matters. This is unfortunate. An election based on wards would not necessarily correct that problem, There was no evidence of neglect of any particular area or segment of the population. Attachment 14 - (11 of 11) -11 - M950022 The Board was impressed with the tremendous dedication expressed by the citizens in preserving the local heritage. There is a lot of local pride in the community. It is understandable that there can be differences of opinion. The Board therefore, for the foregoing reasons, refuses the petition to divide Niagara-on-the-Lake into wards. The Board is confident Council will carry out the intent and direction as set out in the Official Plan. The Board is cognizant of the studies and changes now taking place in local government structure through out the Province of Ontario. This decision will not preclude a subsequent application resulting from any suggested changes as a result of the ongoing studies. DATED at TORONTO this 24th day of December, 1996 G. A. HARRON MEMBER 04/24/2002 13:02 FAX 905 227 5590 City Clerk Attachment 15 - (1 of 8) ISSUE DATE; Aug. 19, 1999 DECISION/ORDER NO: 1554 PL980626 Ontario Ontado Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de rOntario The electors of the City of Thorold have applied to the Ontario Municipal Board 'under Subsection 13.2 (3) of the Municipal ACt, R.S.O. 1990, cml 45 in order to establish a Ward System OMB File 'No. M980035 APPEARANCES: Pa .tries The City of Thorold T. Richardson and Jane Clarkson (student at law) LEAD PETITIONERS: Peter Langer Stephen Boa1 Betty Wicks Ron Devereux Don Measner DECISION DELIVERED BY RONALD J. EMO AND ORDER OF THE BOARD The petition seeking a Ward system for the City of Thomld (the city) is essentially a repeat of similar proceedings heard by the Board (differently constituted) in 1987. Although the individual players have changed, their cause is much the same and that is to reshuffle Thorold's electoral deck. The lead petitioners submit that the 'at large' electoral system renders it virtually impossible for a candidate from the so-called rural area to capture the votes needed to gain election to city council. The city, supported bythe current Mayor, his three immediate predecessors and the regional councillor submit that the present system works quite well, thank you very much, and there is no need to tinker with it. The Board was told ora number of excellent councillors, including former Mayors Longo and Woodhouse. who lived in the rural area and did not find it an obstacle, to their electoral success, i The Board also heard of plans for a major expansion of the city's urban area to the west of Port Robinson, adjacent to the City of Welland. In addition, a committee of regional councillors is presently studying "governance issues" which may (Board emphasis) result in changes to Niagara's local municipalities. Mayor Tim Kenny is concerned that the 04/24/2002 13:02 FAX 905 227 5590 CiTy Clerk Attachment 15 - (2 of 8) - 2 - PL980626 Region's governance committee may be going in a circle although there is a feeling that any re-structuring ought to be "made in Niagara' ratherthan Queen's Park. After a careful weighing of the evidence, both written and oral, I prefer that of the city and have decided, as in 1987, the time is not yet dpe to impose a Ward system on Thorold. The details and my reasoning follow. The proceedings took' three full days after the Board had denied the city's motion for an adjournment to permit itto review Mr. Langer's proposed Ward boundaries and Mr. Measner's extensive and, with respect, confusing "Centre of Equilibrium"analysis. There was no disagreement that the petition, signed by some 330 ratepayers, complied with subsection 13.2 of the Municipal Act. Mr. Langer, a resident (since 1993) of South Thorold and a two time (unsuccessful) candidate for council took the lead in presenting the case for a Ward system. In his quest, he was supported by Stephen Boal and Don Measner, both residents of Thorold's 'old town', Ron Devereux of the Port Robinson community and Mrs. Betty Wicks of the St. John's community, adjacent to Short Hills Provincial Park. Mrs. Wicks was the only lead petitioner who actually lives in a rural area. Tl~e present city was formed in the 1969 re-structuring of the counties of Welland and Lincoln into the Regional Municipality of Niagara (Region) which saw the existing Town and Township of Thorold amalgamated to become the Town of Thorold. Dr. Don McMillan, a former Mayor, told the Board that in 1975, Thorold was upgraded to City status by a special Act of the legislature to forestall a feared annexation by the adjoining City of St. Cathadnes. It was noted that while the legislature could have used this opportunity to impose a Ward system, in vogue in those days, it chose not to do so. Thorold's current population is about 18,500 which translates into an electorate of 14,400 voters. Quoting a 1990 Parks Master Plan, Adele Arbour, the city's planning director gave the Board the following population breakdown for Thorold's vadous communities. · 'Old Town' 7,988 · Confederation Heights 4,542 · Brock Area 33 · North East Area 83 Attachment 15 - (3 of 8) -3- PL980626 · Beaverdams 190 · Thorold South 1,598 · AJlanbu~ 378 Lake Gibson 379 Short Hills 349 · S.W. Area 460 · S.E. Area 208 · Port Robinson 382 16,589 (1990 numbem) It was her further evidence that Thorold South, AIlanburg and Port Robinson are essentially urban communities. Confederation Heights is immediately west of big hway 58, while Beaverdams is immediately to the south so that both are really extensions of 'old town'. The thrust of Ms Arbour's testimony is that Thorold is really a community of communities with at least three urban/suburban 'clusters". During the hearing, I reported on my brief tour around the southerly part of the city in which I had observed substantial industrial development in a non-urban setting as well as scattered rural-residential strip development along the back roads. Regional councillor Robin Davidson told the Board that 44% of Thorold's tax base is Industry, a highly desirable attribute in a time of declining grants. ' ":' "--'"~' Thorold's dominating physical feature is the We, and Canal which passes through the city on a (diagonal) north.south route from a point about midway along the southerly boundary to the north easterly comer of the city. The Board learned of the 10ss of three bridges (two in 'old town' and one in Port Robinson). According to the petitioners, reduced access across the canal has lead to a sense of isolation despite the 'old town' bridges having been replaced by the tunnel on highway 58. The Port Robinson bridge was damaged by a ship and has not been replaced except by a pedestrian ferry, during navigation season, and a subsidized taxi operation in the winter. This situation has divided Port Robinson into two essentially separate communities. Highway 406 and Lake Gibson are also significant physical features creating artificial separations between Thorold's Attachment 15 - (4 of 8) -4- PL980626 urban, suburban and rural areas. Mr. Langer and Mr. Bice, in their respective attempts to create possible Ward boundaries, having some relation to population, encountered problems with these definitive physical barriers. Ms Arbour told the Board that because of its lack of ~tender fruit lands', Thorold has been targeted as a growth centre in the Region's Official Policy Plan (ROPP), As such, the city is expected to produce some 2700 housing units by tl~e year 2016. Ms Arbour made mention of the "Port Robinson Expansion Area" as a special policy area to the west of this community, abutting the city's boundary with Welland. She estimates that this area may ultimately see between 3100 and 4200 housing units. The Board heard a litany of incidents ranging from Pelham's discharge of storm water on to St. Johns, the loss of the old Port Robinson school, slow response to the Cataract Road culvert problem to differing methods of financing infrastructure projects as between 'old town' and Thorold South. The petitioners concluded that each of these situations could have been dealt with in a more responsive manner if there had been a councillor elected from their part of Thorold. This councillor would act as a sort of 'knight in shining armour' in defending the interests of that part of the city beyond 'old town'. Although, in the interests of time, I told Mr. Richardson that he need not respond to each incident cited by the petitioners, several of the city's witnesses did provide rebuttals. Mr. Langer portrayed the present system as being re-active rather than pro-active. In fairness, I am not sure how events such as the washout of the culverts on Cataract Road could be anticipated by any councillorwhether elected at large or from the proposed rural ward. Mayor Tim 'Kenny related the efforts he and his council have made to overcome a perceived sense of alienation by residents living outside of 'old town'. The Mayor noted however that many ratepayers display considerable apathy to municipal government and indeed distrust all levels of government. The Board took note of the good natured verbal spar'ring between Mrs. Wicks and the Mayor as supportive of his point that active ratepayers are not shy in bringing problems to city council.' Indeed, Mrs. Wicks told the Board that she has never had a problem reaching councillors. Mrs. Wicks attends all advertised public meetings but still believes that councillors elected directly from the rural area would provide better representation. As noted by several city witnesses, residents of the truly rural areas, such as Mrs. Wicks, would still be at a disadvantage under Mr. Langer's proposed Ward system, as then Thorold South would replace 'old town' as the main repository of votes in the new (rural) Ward. From the testimony of the Mayors, past 04/24/2002 13:03 FAX 905 227 5590 City Clerk Attachment 15 - (5 of 8) -5- PL980626 and present, as well as city staff, I find it difficult to accept that councillors from Thorold South or elsewhere would somehow be more responsive to the truly rural area than the current system. Following receipt of Mr. Langer's petition on Apdl 7,1998, city council directed its staff to suggest possible Ward boundaries and to arrange for meetings in non 'old-town' locations to gauge the level of public Interest. Four such meetings were held between late September and mid October of last year. The meeting locations and the attendance are as follows: City Hall (11); St. John's firehall (70); Thorold South firehall (22) and the Port Robinson community centre (30). At these meetings, an historical overview together with five potential options were presented, one being retention of the 'at large' system. A two page questionnaire was also distributed which was also available to the public at large as advertised in the Thorold News. The questionnaire exercise resulted in a total of 108 responses of which 84 (82 outside 'old town') supported a ward system. Subsequently, on December 8,1998, by a 5 to 4 (recorded) vote, council opted to retain the present system. Mayor Kenny told the Board that he had offered to place a question on the ballot in the next municipal election to gain public comment on a Ward system but that this offer was not acceptable to the lead petitioners. The Board was interested to hear some history of the Ward question from city clerk John Bice. From his research, the topic flint surfaced in 1975 when a petition was submitted to council. No action was taken on the petition and the petitioners did not pursue the issue. A similar situation occurred in 1982 and again itwas not pursued. Athird petition in 1986 was also denied by council but this time, it was appealed.an: Board headng in which members Chapman and Middleton concluded there was not sufficient support to medta change. This member was interested to learn that, following an overwhelming (1991) plebiscite in favour, the number of councillors was reduced from ten to eight. In 1992, an ad hoc committee of council again reviewed various aspects of municipal governance. Although this committee was initially 'leaning" towards a Ward system., the substantial opposition they encountered led them to recommend that there be no change. Mr. Bice, whose options included four different Ward layouts, gave the Board his thoughtful and considered opinion that with the 'cons" outweighing the "pros", the status quo should be retained. It is obvious that Thorold councils, over the years, have not been afraid to review municipal governance issues. Attachment 15 - (6 of 8) -6- PL980626 City Administrator Bob Casselman while lauding the extensive work done by Clerk Bice, noted the meager (less than 1%) response to the questionnaire as well as the very few people attending these proceedings. Mr. Casselman told the Board that this council has been particularly sensitive to the sense of alienation from residents outside of 'old town'. In support of this statement he pointed to the retention of transit runs to Thorold South despite overwhelming economic reasons to reduce their frequency. In his opinion, library and community centre boards together with the rural community ad hoc committee all provide opportunities for interaction with the non 'old town' area. His conclusion was that the Ward issue is "hardly even on the radar screen". The Board heard from two residents from outside of 'old town' who support the present 'at large' system. Helmut Rempel, a Port Robinson area farmer and not a fan of the current council, as evidenced by his recent appeal of a by-law to this Board (differently constituted), gave his opinion that 'it would be a very difficult task for two people to represent the diverse interests of the different communities outside of'old town'. During the course of this three day hearing, the Board learned of the significant community role played by Thorold's' 150 volunteer fireflghters. Indeed the volunteers, deployed at five stations throughout the town seemed somewhat akin to a [, al:ernity. Betty Wicks fears a rumoured re-location of the St. John's station even though the Mayor and Administrator responded that the city was reviewing its entire fire service as a prudent municipal manager. Dick Burke, a former district (volunteer) fire chief, believes a Ward system would split the community. Mr. Burke, who lives on the same stroct in Thorold South as Mr. Langer, stated that if he wanted to be a co~Jncillor, he believes he could get elected even though he does not live in 'old t;3wn'. '" " Mr. Richardson and Mr. Langer each provided me with previous Board decisions dealing with both the creation and changes to a Ward system which proved helpful. In a 1985 decision dealing with the alteration of Ward boundaries in the City of Oshawa (Oshawa), vice-Chair Diplock stated that the 'basic principle in Ontado, therefore has been to establish Wards ... The general vote system must be regarded as an exception to the rule ...". Mr. Richardson submitted that recent legislative changes have removed this previous direction or 'bent' towards the Wahl system as inferred in the Oshawa case. It is his position that these changes now give the Board a freer hand in making decisions on a Ward system. Mr. Richardson also referred to a recent Order-in-Council for the Town of Kenora in which the Ward system is ultimately to be replaced by an 'at large' system. Both Attachment 15 - (7 of 8) -7- PL980626 the Oshawa decision and a 1993 decision on Ward boundaries in the Town of Markham (members Delfino and Fish) set out three criteria or 'tests' to be considered in the realignment of such boundaries. These 'tests' are also applicable to the creation of new Wards'and are cited herewith. 1. equitable representation with population levels that are reasonably equivalent between Wards; a sense of community ~at defines the boundaries of the Wards; and a compact and contiguous shape in the resulting Ward configuration. Mr. Langer's layout (Exhibit 5) and the four options (Exhibit 16) prepared by John Bice demonstrate the problems inherent in addressing these 'tests'. Other than petitioners Boal and Measner, there were no ratepayers from 'old town'. The inference that the Board takes from this situation, is that 'old town' does not feel the need for a Ward system. Notwithstanding, this implicit message, adherence to the first 'test' would require Ward boundaries cutting through the heart of 'old town', surely not a desirable goal. Similarly, given Thorold's diverse physical geography and urban/suburban centres, any thoughtfully designed Ward system will have difficulty addressing the second and third 'tests'. The other recurring theme that my reading of the previous Board cases disclosed is a need for broad citizen support. In the Board's 1992 decision denying a petition for Wards in the Town of Newmarket, vice-Chair Santo and member K!-: groundswell for change at present...".' In a 1982 Board decision, members l~indhardt and Rogers rejected a request to double East York's four Ward system on the basis that 'the proposition is based on the aspirations of one group of residents only, without consideration of the interests of other citizens, has very little support within its own community and is opposed by the majority of the elected representatives". A news item in the Thorold News of October 3, 1998 (tab 10110 of Exhibit 3) stated that the 1986 petition contained 2000 signatures. The current petition has 330 names. As noted by Administrator Casselman, unlike other Thorold municipal issues, the Ward system is hardly on the radar screen. It is not a difficult finding that there is no groundswell of support from Thorold's ratepayers for a Ward system. Attachment 15 - (8 of 8) -8- PL980626 As to the inference that unless a candidate resides in 'old town', he.or she will have great d~culty in being elected to council. I have reviewed the results (Exhibit 17) of the past five Thorold elections and can only observe that nearly all the candidates, suc.cessful and unsuccessful, appear to reside in 'old town'. I note that Sam Law of the St. John's community was elected for the 1992-94 term but was unsuccessful the next election. The same thing has happened to 'old town' candidates. There is nothing in the legislation dealing with a candidate's electability. Dick Burke believes he could get elected from Thorold South if he chose to run. Sam Law from the small St. John's community won and lost. It can be done. The other factor persuading the Board to rule against a Ward system, at this time, is an expectation that the next decade or so will see substantial growth in Thorold, particularly in the designated area west of Port Robinson. As this growth evolves, the Board expects that a 'made in Thorold' solution will manifest itself through the political process if, and it is a big if, a significant number of citizens believe they need a Ward system. Such a situation is much preferable to a Board dictated solution. Also larking on the horizon is a potential, albeit doubtful, realignment of Niagara's local municipalities. Accordingly, being satisfied that it is. not in the (Thorold) public interest to create a Ward system at this time, the Board will deny the petition. It is so Ordered. RECEIVED C I'Y OF THoROLD "R. J. Emo" RONALD J. EMO MEMBER t.tI~, I:~I.LS CLERKS 'OP 0404 ~.065 Barney & ~arie Wunovic 6903 Heximer Avenue Niagara Falls,Ont. L2G kT3 Dear Sir; We are in favor of the by-law to reduce the size of City Council, pursuant to section 29 (7) of the Municipal Act, with Niagara Falls City Council holding a public meeting to consider a by-law to reduce the size of City Council. We would like to have a by-law dissolving the current ward system and replacing it with an "at large" system. Pursuant to section 13 (5) of the Nunicipal Act,Niagara Falls City Council will be holding a public meeting to consider a by-law dissolving the current ward system and replacing it with an "at large" electoral system. Yours truly -. ~ e, .... · ",gq NI~. FflLL~ CLERK~. 02 t~415ta9~_~ 7937 Regent Crt. Niagara Falls, Ontario L2H 2S9 April 11, 2002 Mr. Ken Feren 7430 Bambi Crescent Niagara Falls, Ontario L2H 2K3 Dear Mr. Feren: This letter is to express my support of the "Ward System". Why is this issue even being discussed. The Ward System was voted in by the people of Niagara Falls; bringing us in step with the rest of the province. Why would we regress to something that took many years to get rid of. I sincerely hope "Council" does not vote to return to the "at large" electoral system. Yours truly, Annette Niemi Cc~ Victor Pietrangelo Carolyn Ioannoni Dean Iorfida Ward issue reopened The Editor: We would like to express our outrage at the decision by city council to reopen the issue of the ward system. After years of debate and a referem alum, city voters decided to keep the ward system. The vote may not have passed by much and it may not have been the result that certain members of council wanted, but you cannot i~nore the voters and their democratic deci- sion. Why is this issue being reopened? There has been no public outcry for change. Niagara Falls finally joined the rest of Ontario When. it adopted the system we have now. It is time to real- ize ward systems are a key component of a modern, democratic city. ' Janet & David Devine Niagara Falls council members. With the ward system, we know our ward's aldermen will be informed on our ward's issues, as well as the concerns of the city as a whole. We appreciate this' personal commitment. There is a danger with the at- large system - the risk that the elected council members could become influenced by certain busi- ness activities and no longer repre- sent the full scope of our diverse and expanding population and community. Why is this issue being reopened? Judith and Gerry MacCarthy Niagara Falls Let them eat cake? The Editor: How many of us are in debt to the point that interest is taking a 20 Don't reopen ward issue The Editor: We wish to echo the sentiments expressed by Janet and David Devine ("Ward issue reopened," The Review, April 11) in their letter questioning the re-opening of our city's procechare for the election of Letters to The Review welcomes Letters to the Editor. Let ly typed or printed, and of local interest. Letter and a daytime telephone number for verificatio~ phone before their submission is printed. For' current world events, all Letters must have a ' Normally, writers' names and city of residence son to-withhold them. Writers may be limited t( to express their opinion. The Review reserves and for reasons of libel and good taste. Send Box 270, Niagara Fails, Ont. L2E 6T6; Fax: 90{ Why-reopen ward issue? The Editor: Here we go again - politicians are trying to open up the ward sys- tem again. The only problem with the ward system we have is that we have a bunch of country bumpkins who do not understand how it works. Nearly every city in North America works on this system and they do not have any problems. John Ross Niagara Falls 6139 Summer Street, Niagara Falls,ON L2G 7L3 April 18,2002 Dean Iorfida,City Clerk 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 WRITTEN SUBMISSION Concerning Section 13(5) of the Municipal Act of Niagara Falls stating that ~ity council members be elected by the ward system: I request the ward system, with 2 representatives per ward, be retained for the following reasons: (1) The citizens need to know and have quick access to council members who are fully knowledgeable with their area/ward. The ward system provides this personal commitment. (2) When the entire city is governed through the ward system the risk of councillors/aldermen being elected from only one or two neighborhoods is eliminated. (3) The ward system minimizes the possibility of some businesses, industries or community issues exertin8 undue influence around the council table as all districts of the city are represented. (4) Election by wards offers candidates a manageable territory in which to campaign for office - walking the streets, knocking on doors, talking with people, becoming informed while informing. Large sums of campaign funds are not necessary. It is understood that aldermen speak for the residents of the ward in which they are elected, as well as voting democratically fqr the overall welfare of the city in its entirety. The ward system works. Submitted by Judith MacCarthy. (905-356-7390) Dean Iorfida,City Clerk 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 6139 Summer Street, Niagara Falls,ON L2G 7L3 April 18,2002 WRITTEN SUBMISSION Concerning Section 29(7) of the Municipal of Niagara Falls stating city council consists of twelve(12) elected aldermen and one mayor: I request the number of elected aldermen remain at 12 for the following reasons: (1) The reducing of elected officials would necessitate the hiring of more bureaucratic staff - the flavour of local representative governing would be changed. Money would not be saved. (2) Our 12 elected aldermen, many of whom are employed part or full time,require numerous hours to deal with the problems within their wards, with attendance at city business meetings, and the attendance at public meetings and functions. By curtailing the size of City Council the election of top quality representatives is also reduced, for only retired or non-employed persons would have enough time to fulfill their aldermanic responsibilities. (3) The lessening of council members would deprive the public's capacity to be fully represented. Aldermen would be so occupied their time and availability to listen to citizen's concerns would be severely diminished. (4) It is a democratic right that many points of view are able to be expressed around the council table. Twelve aldermen ensure this priviledge. The fewer representatives of the people the more constrained will be the opinions and findings offered. On April 4,2002 on the CBC noon radio program "Ontario Today", municipal government representatives Austin Davies,Sudbury and David Miller,Toronto lamented the reduction of their local council sizes. Submitted by Judith MacCarthy (905-356-7390) · t'llg'~ F~L$ OLE~S '02 04tl · ' ' iq~], F~LL$ OLER[($' ', April 22, 2002 D. Iorfida City Clerk city of Niagara Questions re~ardin~ Proposed By-laws: "Elimination of Wards" 1/ Was the present system not put into place to correct inequalities in the old system in which Ward (]ne (City proper) dominated Council? Won't an at large system re-introduce that 2/ Doesnft the mt large system favor incumbents and those with deep pockets? Advertising costs would be prohibitive. 3/ Why hms the City not taken the time ot trouble to explain to its citizens the fact that althou~3h Council members are elected Ward, they st~ll, in fact~represent any and all citizens regardless "Reduction of Council Size" 1/ With the growth of population that has taken place and with even greater~ growth expected w~t.1)'i:the projects about to open around the City... explain how havi~g fewer representatives around the Council table help~the mvsrage Citizen? There will obviously be more work for each council member. Will %his lead to the eventual call for full time council members with a yearly salary, benefits, pensions, ets? These will obviously drive up costs, not save costs. ~/ ~Iow does pl~c~n~ %h~: p~wer t~ enact l~s into the bands of fe~er ~eople advance the democra%ic~ri~hts of cltizsns? W~ll their accessibilty to their reprssentatives )~.e stren(3thened or ~eakened? Richard Mufti 6411 Orchard Ave. Niagara Falls. 0nt, L2G 4H3 I0d 669'0N £806 9~£ S06 e 6~N 3W0±S 3]dGNOAW OP:SI 2002/I2/~ The Review ESTABLISHED IN 1879 Published by Niagara Newspaper Group Inc. A Division of Southam Publications / A CanWest Company 4801 Valley Way, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada L2E 6T6 Telephone: 905-358-5711 in Niagara Falls; 905-871-5771 in Fort Erie; Business Fax: 905-356-0785; Editorial Fax: 905-374-0461. ' David Beattie, Publisher and General Manager Managing Editor - Joe ~Vallace Advertising Manager- Mark Holmes Art Director/PrePress. Manager- Joanne Moreau Pressroom Manager - Shane Moon Rift on council shouldn't be sole reason for change C ity council will revisit the the ward system ited means. Proponents also argue the area in which debate Monday at a public meeting when they live gets an equal voice on council. politicians consider replacing the system of Those against it point to the parochialism it brings to representation that has been in place since 1997. the council table. They argue it is more fair to let all 'The debate has raged in the city for years. Even a 2000 referendum on the issue failed to provide a clear message to council. Voters indicated then that they didn't want to see the current system change before the 2003 municipal elec- tion. The side preferring the ward system, in which two aldermen are selected from six wards in the city, won the. day by 24 votes, but the results aren't binding because fewer than 50 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots. The arguments haven't changed much. Those in favour of the system feel running for office in a smaller area opens the field to candidates with lim- voters choose who represents them on council.. Some blame the current riff on council on the ward system alone. That may be unfair. While the parochial argument may work in this instance, it doesn't necessarily mean that a similar riff wouldn't have occurred within a council elected at- large. Perhaps there are compelling reasons to change the way People are elected to municipal council in Niagara Falls. Perhaps there's not. The inability of the current representatives to get along shouldn't be the sole reason driving the effort to change the way council is elected. Mrs. Naomi Tsumura 6707 Margaret St. Niagara Falls, Ont. L2G 2V4 April 19, 2002 Mayor Thompson mand Members of Council City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen St. Niagara Falls, Ont. I wish to go on record as opposing the motion to eliminate the ward system for electing aldermen for the city of Niagara Falls as each ward should be represented with equal weight to protect their specific interests and problems. Also by decreasing the number of members in council issues would not be properly debated. I would like the list of businesses whose taxes are being forgiven to be published. As a taxpayer I am "showing compassion" as well and I am opposed to doing so. Our taxes are being increased unfairly. The average citizen is having problems meeting their financial obligations without assuming responsibility for the taxes of these businesses. The roads are in deplorable condition and the Union Centre continues to be an eyesore. Why are our taxes not being used to remedy these and some of the other things promised in council? I feel that all members of council should be allowed to express their opinions without interruption or derision. They should be treated with equal respect as they are doing the job for which they were elected. Naomi Tsumura t-II fiG, FP~I_S CLERt~ '02 0~15 !4:17 The War of the Wards: A Report on the Niagara Falls Electoral System Submission to Niagara Falls City Council, Public Meeting on the ward system Larry Savage April, 2002 THE WAR OF THE WARDS: A REPORT ON THE NIAGARA FALLS ELECTORAL SYSTEM The debate over ward versus at-large elections at the municipal level in Ontario has generated some interest from political scientists interested in local government. In at- large elections, representatives are elected by a vote of the entire municipality, whereas in ward elections, representatives are elected from specific areas within the municipality. It is a generally accepted principle that a municipality ought to adopt the electoral system which best suits the needs of its citizens. As a result, smaller, relatively homogeneous municipalities often choose at-large electoral systems, whereas larger, more diverse communities almost always opt for ward elections. In Ontario, many municipalities fall somewhere in between 'small' and 'large'.~ This makes the task of choosing an appropriate electoral system more difficult because it involves balancing competing interests and objectives. Most middle-sized Ontario municipalities operate with ward- based electoral systems, but no consensus exists as to which system works better. Generally, proponents of the ward system claim that it ensures representation from all areas, and that it works best in municipalities which are growing. Supporters of at-large elections believe that aldermen elected under that system will better respond to city-wide concerns. At-large elections favour well-financed, well-organized interests and tend to work well in smaller municipalities. Niagara Falls Ontario offers a unique and interesting case study for students of municipal electoral systems. In 1969, as a result of the introduction ora regional form of government, the municipalities of Niagara Falls, Chippawa, Willoughby and Crowiand were amalgamated into the new City of Niagara Falls. From 1969-1997, the city of Niagara Falls operated with a very atypical ward system which divided the city into four uneven wards. Ward 1 elected 8 aldermen from the former City of Niagara Falls. Ward 2 elected 2 aldem~en from the former Village of Chippawa. Ward 3 elected I alderman from the former Township of Willoughby and Ward 4 elected one alderman from the former Township of Crowland. In a sense, the city's electoral system could have been considered a hybrid system since Ward 1 essentially operated as an at-large system, complemented by a few representatives from the amalgamated communities to the south of the city proper. Niagara Falls ward system 1969-1997 Before amalgamation took place in 1969, local' municipalities met and agreed to support the atypical W period of two elections or six years unless there is exce re-evaluation. The motion was carried by a 18 to 14 m )oliticians from all four ard structure "for a minimum ~tional expansion re-warranting a ority.''2 In 1974, council voted to abolish the ward syst~ elections.3 Opponents of the ward system argued that ~ the right to vote for every alderman,n However, the 7-5 system was nixed four months later by the provincial g~vemment,s On at least five different occasions since then, Niagara Falls city council reviewed the ward system and found that it operated well and that the public was satired with the system despite the fact that rural areas were enormously over-represented. The public mood changed ing the electoral system flirted considerably in 1995 when a Council Committee study with correcting the numerical imbalances in the existin large. The divisive debate over the electoral system lei meetings and an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hear ~ and convert to at-large :veryone in the city ought to have decision to abolish the ward ticative tribunal appointed by the the Provincial Municipal Auditor ceeping. In 1906, it was renamed :r additional responsibility for 12, it became the Ontario n over 180 statutesfi In 1996, the :ity residents, conducted a hearing The OMB is an independent and impartial adju, provincial government. Created in 1897, the Office of was originally created to supervise municipal account- the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board and took ov. modes of transportation between municipalities. In 19 Municipal Board and presently obtains jurisdiction fro OMB, in response to a petition signed by hundreds oft g system by going completely at- [to the cancellation of public lng. to determine whether the city of Niagara Falls could keep its unique electoral setup. It took OMB member Ted Yao only one day of hearings to decide that the city's electoral system needed to be replaced. Mayor Wayne Thomson reacted to the decision with anger and accused the OMB member of pre-judging the outcome of the hearing without properly considering the evidence presented. John Ross, the downtown businessperson whose petition triggered the OMB hearing, was elated by the OMB's decision to scrap the city's old electoral system in favour of a more equal distribution of wards based on population. The 1997 election, the first to be held under the new ward system, saw the defeat of one incumbent, and the election of three newcomers to council, but not everyone regarded this as a positive development. The old guard on council decided that they would like to see at-large elections revived and in April 1998, Alderman Pat Cummings indicated that he would present a motion to abolish the wards in September 1998. The Campaign for Local Democracy (CLD), a citizen's group, fought back and in the end, the question of the ward system was placed on the ballot for the 2000 election. In the 2000 election, voters were asked if they supported changing the OMB imposed ward system. By a razor thin margin of 50.1% to 49.9% citizens voted to retain their ward system, but provincial legislation required a 50% voter turn out to make the vote binding on council. Niagara Falls, like most Ontario municipalities rarely ever sees voter turnouts higher than 40%, so the referendum did little to settle arguments between supporters of each system.7 Although the new, more traditional ward system has only been in place since 1997, a review of its performance and its impact on city politics is in order. BACKGROUND The current debate over the Niagara Falls ward system dates back to an OMB hearing in December1996. A series of events led to the OMB hearing which subsequently led to a decision that the dty could not keep its unique electoral setup. OMB member Ted Yao outlined the sequence of events that led to the hearing. In 1995 Council struck a committee to review the ward system, to be chaired by Councillor Klm Craitor. From the beginning, the Committee was afflicted by dissension. There was little consensus on highly sensitive issues such as downsizing, workload, the ability of ward council members to fairly represent other wards, cost savings and whether councillors should be full or part time. On September 19, and 20, 1995, there were meetings by the Committee in Chippawa and Crowland. Not surprisingly, the mood in these areas was squarely opposed to any change. Councillor Craitor acknowledges the message came through "loud and clear". Niagara Falls ward system 1997-present Ward 1 -bounded to the north by the city limits of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. -bounded to the west by Stanley Avenue. -bounded to the south by Marineland Parkway extending to the Niagara River. -bounded to the east by the Niagara River. Ward 2 -bounded to the north by Lundy's Lane and Ferry Street. -bounded to the west by the Q.E.W. -bounded to the south by McLeod Road and Marineland Parkway. -bounded to the east by Stanley Avenue. Ward 3 -bounded to the north by Thorold Stone Road. -bounded to the west by the Q.E.W. -bounded to the south by Lundy's Lane and Ferry Street. -bounded to the east by Stanley Avenue. Ward 4 -bounded to the north by the city limits of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. -bounded to the west by the Q.EW. -bounded to the south by Thorold Stone Road. -bounded to the east by Stanley Avenue. Ward 5 -bounded to the north by the city limits of Niagara Fall: -bounded to the west by the city limits of Niagara Falls -bounded to the south by the Welland River. -bounded to the east by the Q.E.W. Ward 6 -bounded to the north by the Welland River, the Q.E.g Parkway extending to the Niagara River. -bounded to the west by the city limits of Niagara Falls -bounded to the south by the city limits of Niagara Fall -bounded to the east by the Niagara River. Months after the OMB decision, Mayor Thorns which the ward issue was handled. "It went to the OM] had one yahoo come down here who didn't know what ward system in a half an hour.''t° The OMB member x served on the Board since July 1989 and had previousi Toronto, Mississauga and Oshawa. Yao had also wort National Capital Commission and had appeared freque appointment. Although the Mayor was upset with the OMB { surprised. When Council was reviewing the old ward speaking about the pre-1997 ward map, said "the ward work.''n Later that year, after Council voted to cancel system, Thomson said "I think we're needlessly gettin: about a system that hasn't worked that badly, really.''r conversion was complete. He told the OMB, "the stat~ did not agree. According to Yao, "the cancellation of the Committee suggest that Council finds it difficult tc Alderman Norm Puttick told the OMB "this cc change.''~5 He went on to tell Yao, "I believe that you fair adjustment. That's why we have an outside body and Niagara-on-the-Lake. '., McLeod Road and Marineland ~n complained about the way in 5 and they had a heating and we he was doing and implemented a 'ho ordered the decision had · acted as city solicitor for ed as an urban planner for the ntly before the OMB prior to his [ecision, he could hardly have been system in 1995, Thomson, system, in my opinion, does not public meetings on the ward ;a lot of people agitated and upset A few months later, Thomson's is quo has worked.''~3 The OMB mblic meetings and the minutes of amend the mixed system.''~4 ~ncil doesn't have the will to make lave enough information to make a :o make the tough decisions.''~6 Yao agreed with Puttick's comments. "The govemme at has put in place a tribunal whereby outside persons may arbitrate disputes that atp difficult to settle at the local level. This. is not ,,~?because the tribunal has superior wisdom, but because local ~nterests' are at an ~mpasse. Alderman Kim Craitor, who cha~red the committee dealing with the ward system, was angry that the cancellation of public meetings had led to an OMB- imposed ?cision.~8 However, rather than dwell on th~ past, Craitor looked towards the future. "I 11 say one thing, ali these changes will make for one hell of an exciting election."~9 / / THE 1997 MUNICIPAL ELECTION The 1997 municipal election, the first to be conducted under the new system, saw the defeat of one incumbent alderman and the election of three rookie politicians. Alderman Bruce Ward was displaced by Ed Michalczyk in the new Ward 6, Janice Wing finished second in the Ward 2 race to capture a spot on council which opened up due to redistribution, and Ken Feren edged out several other newcomers in Ward 5 to also win a council seat created through redistribution. Alderman Selina Volpatti came within 1000 votes of losing her council seat in the new Ward 4 and unsuccessful candidate Carolyn Ioannoni came close to defeating incumbent Paisley Janvary in Ward 3.2° Although neither admitted it publicly, aldermen Gary Hendershot and Fermino Susin may have chosen not to run for re-election because the new ward map placed them at a severe disadvantage. Although many incumbents were not defeated outright, the new ward system was responsible for injecting new blood into city hall and also forced long time incumbents to take notice. CAMPAIGN FOR LOCAL DEMOCRACY In April 1998, Aid. Pat Cummings gave a notice of motion to abolish the ward system in September 1998. He explained that aldermen would have ample time to consult with the public over the summer months before making a decision. His notice of motion also gave citizens time to organize a Campaign for Local Democracy (CLD) to save the ward system. The CLD was a loose coalition of concerned citizens who feared that a return to at-large elections would jeopardize the accountability and democratic benefits of the ward system. The CLD organized its petition campaign around the timetable suggested by Cummings and planned on presenting its petition to Council on the same day that the motion to abolish the wards was to be debated. Alderman Selina Volpatti described the CLD as "interest group politics at its worst" and Alderman Norm Puttick unfairly dismissed the group as a bunch of disgruntled and defeated politicians. Although the coalition included several unsuccessful aide,manic candidates, most of the core activists had never run for elected office and had no political aspirations. They simply wanted to see the city retain the ward system because they felt that it would bring government closer to the people and increase accountability. The coalition included New Democrats, Reform Party members, Liberals and Tories, but it also included many non-affiliated political activists concerned about the state of local government. Gaining such widespread support across the political spectrum was probably the most impressive accomplishment of the CLD. The campaign's petition to save the ward system was available to be signed at the constituency office of the local Conservative MPP, at the Niagara Falls and District Labour Council, and at a number of local businesses around the city. There were no organized groups opposing the ward system, only politicians at city hall. The petition campaign was designed to build momentum for a public meeting on the ward system where the CLD expected to demonstrate to council that the ward system enjoyed popular support. The idea for a town hall meeting came from Reform Party activists who had successfully staged a number of public meetings dealing with contentious federal issues. The local Reform Party ridi] local incumbent MP to a public meeting on a pressing 1; show up, the Reformers succeeded in embarrassing hirr unaccountable and out of touch. However, in the event Reformers would have a public forum in which to chall hold him to account. The coalition agreed that this type of strategy c( aldermen had been reluctant to take a stand on the issu{ nine out of twelve aldermen showed up to the meeting' cable television. Alderman Judy Orr sent regrets, but opponents Pat Cummings and Paisley Janvary were cz meeting had been very well advertised in the newspape person in attendance supported the ward system. Sparl~ exchanges between aldermen and the public set the sta debate at city hall. As was previously stated, the CLD planned on in September in order to coincide with Aid. Cummings system. At the first Council meeting in September, Ale Cummings and the CLD to the punch by moving a mol for the current ward system. Wing's motion provoked Thomson, Alderman Puttick, and Alderman Janvary w, Wing's resolution passed 6-4 with aldermen Volpatti, ] Cummings voting against. At the same meeting, Aid. ' the question of the ward system be put on the municipe REFERENDUM 2000 In the 2000 municipal election, Niagara Falls v, favour of changing the existing ward system for electir keep their electoral system by the razor thin margin of supporters of the ward system, nor the supporters of th, launch significant campaigns to influence voters. Al& one newspaper advertisement encouraging voters to & democracy to Niagara Falls" and Mayor Thomson wa: feelings towards ward elections, but these attacks on ti offset by other political actors involved in the campaig did not take an editorial position on the referendum qu Niagara Falls Review had been supportive of the ward made no secret of her position in favour of retaining w were presented with a full line-up of candidates on rec system?2 There were no public debates specifically conc referendum question was scarcely discussed in the ney tg association used to invite the olitical issue. If the MP did not by suggesting that he was that the MP did show up, ~nge the MP on his position and uld pay offsince a number of · To the surprise of the CLD, vhich was being aired on local layor Thomson and ward system tspicuously absent. Although the r and on the radio, nearly every ~ flew and a number of fiery ,e for a renewed and controversial vrapping up its petition campaign motion to abolish the ward · Janice Wing beat bot, h on to confirm council s support controversy because Mayor ~'re all absent from the meeting.2~ 'ietrangelo, Campbell, and Iolpatti successfully moved that ballot in the 2000 election. ters were asked "are you in g aldermen". Citizens opted to 50.1% to 49.9% Neither the ~ at-large option bothered to rman Volpatti purchased at least mp the ward system and "restore ; also outspoken about his negative e ward system were somewhat a. Although the local newspaper ~stion, in previous years, the option. Alderman Janice Wing ~rd elections and Ward 6 voters )rd as supporters of the ward xned with the ward system and the 'spaper. Like many other citizens, Campaign for Local Democracy activists were preoccupied with aldermanic campaigns and the impending federal election. The ward versus at-large debate had been exhaustively debated in 1998 and many CLD activists were confident that the NO option would easily prevail in the referendum. The CLD was also concerned that the glitz and glamour of a full-scale campaign could stir up the opponents of the ward system. There were no citizen's groups promoting at-large elections, but several aldermen felt very strongly about the issue and the CLD feared that, if provoked, they would use the financial clout of their corporate backers to bombard voters with an anti-ward system advertising campaign in the days leading up the vote. In the end, neither supporters of the ward system, nor opponents of the ward system made any serious attempt to sway voters. On election day, the NO option won out by only 24 votes. Let's put the numbers in perspective. 50.1% of citizens who cast ballots voted NO to changing the system. These voters supported the status quo of six evenly divided wards with two aldermen elected from each. Although 49.9% of citizens voted YES in favour of changing the "existing" ward system, there is no way to accurately determine what percentage of voters actually wanted at-large elections. The YES position grouped blocks of voters who disliked the current ward system for various different reasons. Some of these voters undoubtedly wanted an at-large system, but others who voted YES simply wanted to return to the pre-1997 ward system which disproportionately gave outlying areas greater representation. Other YES voters wanted twelve single member districts, some wanted fewer wards23, and some voters simply wanted the ward boundaries changed.24 To put it simply, to interpret the YES vote of 49.9% as complete support for an at-large system is very misleading. The only information that council can rely on for certain is that a majority of city residents support the existing system and that an even greater number of voters may support the concept of a ward system. One of the problems with posing referendum questions is that they turn complicated political questions into simplistic, black and white answers. The newspaper contributed to this fake polarization by only reporting two of the possible options for voters (ie. the current wards or no wards at all). Nevertheless, voters opted to keep the ward system and it is incumbent upon aldermen to honour the will of the people. Another important incident to note during the 2000 municipal election was the defeat of long-time alderman Paisley Janvary. Janvary, who had served on council for roughly 20 years, lost by just 39 votes to Carolyn Ioannoni in Ward 3. Former alderman Gary Hendershot returned to council by topping the polls in Ward 3. Rookie alderman Ed Michalczyk was defeated in Ward 6 by newcomer Art Federow. Both Ioannoni and Federow relied on labour intensive campaigns to win their seats on council. Ward 2 alderman Janice Wing and Ward 1 alderman Judy Orr both came close to defeat (both were less than 200 votes ahead of their nearest challenger), but they were able to hold on to their council seats. The ward system has unquestionably created more competition and there is nothing better to keep a politician on his or her toes than the prospect of defeat. THE WAR OF THE WARDS IN NIAGARA FALLS The CLD's successful 1998 petition campaign lo retain the ward system relied on a number of key arguments which convinced the publi~; that saving the ward system was an important goal. The background flyer used by the {~LD is transcribed below. / Campaign for Local Democracy... save the~ard system / The Niagara Falls ward system is being threatened by ~, few politicians at City Hall who seem to know the cost of everything, but the value ofn othing. Some aldermen at City Hall want to scrap our democr~ an at-large system of electing politicians. Under our current ward system, two aldermen are elecl Municipal government works best under a war, The ward system guarantees that... all areas of Niagara Falls are represented at City H 1. your elected representative is directly accountable every citizen has a fair chance at being elected to Your vote carries more weight. An at-large system of electing municipal politicians democracy which only a ward system can provide. An at-large system would... potentially eliminate representation from rural are~ allow local politicians to become less accountable give the wealthiest residents an unfair advantage i~ Make local politics more remote than ever before. Arguments made by the CLD obviously did not cc the new ward system. Instead, some aldermen relied justify their support for at-large elections. Each one ~x THE WARD SYSTEM AND PAROCHIALI$ According to the academic literature, parochial of one's ward at the expense of city-wide issues - is th However, in Niagara Falls, there is little evidence to s~ has been a major problem. In July 1998, Aid. Paisley in a radio talk-show interview that city council had no of the new ward system. In August 1998 Aid. Selina~ tic ward system and replace it with ed in each of the city's six wards. system. nvince every alderman to support ,n a set of alternate arguments to ill be dealt with in turn M ism - voting solely in the interests e primary defect of ward systems. lpport the claim that parochialism lanvary, a ward opponent, admitted : become more parochial as a result /olpatti, another ward system s of the city. ~.o their neighbours. . election campaigns. :eatens all the benefits of local yOU. :ity Hall. opponent, told the Niagara Falls Review "I think aldermen are voting now as they always have - for the good of the whole city.''25 Alderman Volpatti has since changed her mind and now feels that the ward system does breed parochialism. However, she has failed, over the years, to adopt a consistent stance on the ward system. In the summer of 1995, for example, she pushed for the city to adopt a completely at-large electoral system, but by the fall of 1995, she dropped the idea and spoke in favour of keeping the city's mixed system. When the OMB decided in December 1996 to implement the current ward system in time for the 1997 municipal election, Volpatti was reported as saying, "I honestly believe it will bring new blood onto this council... And I think we should have a lot of turnover on council. I'm really happy with the decision. I hope we see lots of new faces around the table.''26 After a close race in 1997 to retain her council seat under the current ward system, Volpatti's view changed once again. She voted against confirming Council's support for the new ward system in September 1998 and has since become the most outspoken opponent of ward elections. It was Volpatti who moved the successful motion to have voters decide on the fate of the ward system in the 2000 municipal election. Ironically, citizens democratically voted to retain the ward system that Volpatti now describes as "highly undemocratic.''27 To be fair, every member of council has had to adjust his or her position on the electoral system in response to various political factors. However, no one has wavered as often or as dramatically as Volpatti. In a September 1998 editorial, The Niagara Falls Review wrote "We support the ward system. It's fairer, more representative, better reflects the community, and allows anyone to run... With all the benefits of a ward system, we see no evidence of parochialism - aldermen voting for their neighbourhood's interests at the expense of the whole city - as its detractors claim.''28 Some aldermen at city hall would undoubtedly disagree with the Review's stand on the ward system. In particular, aldermen have concentrated on a few examples in order to prove that the ward system has indeed created a council plagued by parochialism. MULHERN PARK In 1948, the Mulhern family donated a large piece of land to Stamford Township (which later became part of the City of Niagara Falls) intending it to be used as a park. Sometime in the 1960s the Mulhern land became part of a land swap between the city and the school board. The school board later decided against building the school it had planned for the area and instead sold the land to River Realty. When the Mulhern land was about to be developed in July 1998, local residents in Ward 5 petitioned the city to buy back the land and keep it for its intended purpose as a park Ward 5 aldermen Ken Feren and Victor Pietrangelo lobbied the rest of council to swap land again and return ownership of Mulhern Park to the city. City staff suggested that Mulhern Park be developed for residential purpose used as a park instead. In the end, Council decided not to take its staW ownership of Mulhern Park to the city through a land s, aldermen Volpatti, Orr, and Wing voting against the m( later raised the Mulhern Park issue as evidence that the parochialism. He reasoned that under an at-large systel feared the electoral consequences of voting against trar Mulhern Park back. Pietrangelo's logic was later questioned by Wa~ who told a local newspaper, "two people don't make th or you don't get the support of the remainder of counci alderman is constantly making self-serving decisions al entire city, the other aldermen will notice and simply o~ Pietrangelo's opposition to ward elections came since the alderman was once the biggest opponent of at Aid. Victor Pietrangelo, who represented Crowland at ward system similar to the one that the city currently Review "I have big reservations about an at-large syste~ and that the adjacent land be advice and voted to return ~ap with River Realty (with )tion). Ward 5 Aid. Pietrangelo ward system created n, all twelve aldermen would have sferring the land in order to get 1 Alderman Wayne Campbell vote. You either get the support .,,29 Campbell isright. If an id ignoring the interests of the ~tvote the parochial politicians. as a big surprise to many voters -large elections. On April 5, 1995 he time, advocated an equalized es. He told the Niagara Falls n.''3° A couple months later, Pietrangelo reiterated his opposition to at-large electior s. The Niagara Falls Review wrote: "He [Pietrangelo] said without its own council member, smaller communities like Crowland and Willoughby would be ignored by an at-10rge council... After the meeting Pietrangelo said aldermen already represent the entire 0ty, even under the ward system. He is a member of a number of city hall committees whose work covers all of Niagara Falls'"3~ / 1v[ILLENNIUM TRAil. In 2000, the city's Environmental Planning & Greening Committee endorsed a plan to develop a "Millennium Trail" through the city 0fNiagara Falls. Aid. Janvary, the chair of the committee, was an outspoken advocate oft he Millennium Trail and worked hard to ensure that it would be safe, enjoyable and user be developed in a number of phases, ran into oppositio: complained that they did not want a trail in their backy Ward 3, defended the plan, but eventually the Commit! trail would not be developed in areas where residents o MJllenium Trail would only be developed along the Or Lundy's Lane, and later, from Whirlpool Road to Mort Janvary bowed to public pressure and moved to accept develop the trail through neighbourhoods in her Ward. support for the scheme irked many Ward 3 residents ar defeat at the polls in 2000 friendly. The trail, which was to ~ when Ward 3 residents ~rds. Janvary, who represented ee backed off and decided that the pposed the plan. Instead, the tario Hydro Power Canal, south of ison Street. In the end, Aid. the recommendation not to However, Janvary's initial d probably contributed to her At the time of the vote on the Millennium Trail, Aid. Volpatti, who opposed the recommendations of the committee, expressed the view that the Trail needed to be developed in its entirety as part of an overall vision for the city. This experience undoubtedly contributed to Volpatti's view that an at-large system of electing aldermen would better enable politicians to base their decisions on what was best for the city as a whole, rather than what was best for voters in a single ward. In both the Mulhern Park and Millenium Trail examples, aldermen directly accountable to the affected constituents voted based on what the respective neighbourhoods wanted. In the Mulhern Park example, Aid. Pietrangelo argued that all twelve aldermen would have feared the wrath of local residents under an at-large system. However, in the Millenium Trail example, Volpatti insinuated that, under an at-large system, aldermen would have had the courage to rise above neighbourhood opposition to make decisions for the good of the city as a whole. Proponents of the at-large system cannot have it both ways. Either at-large elections make aldermen more responsive to neighbourhood concerns, or they don't. These two contradictory arguments for at-large elections highlight the inconsistencies inherent in the arguments of the opponents of the ward system. THE RAIl,WAY LANDS PURCHASE Proponents of at-large elections in the city have also pointed to the debate over the recent railway lands purchase to argue that wards are divisive. For years, city hall has advocated removal of a railway line running through the tourist district. When the opportunity to purchase the rail line finally presented itself, disagreements arose over who should finance the deal. In October 2001, the City finally inked a deal and bought the railway lands for $12.5 million. Around the same time, aldermen Kim Craitor and Janice Wing sent a newsletter to their constituents in Ward 2. One of the issues raised in the newsletter was the railway lands purchase. Craitor and Wing told constituents "we agree that removing the railway line from the heart of the tourist area is a good thing. For this reason, we wanted to support the deal, but did not because of its potential impact on the residential tax bill.''32 The Ward 2 aldermen felt that the financial burden of purchasing the railway land should have been shouldered by the local tourism industry, not the residential taxpayer. Ward 3 alderman Carolyn Ioannoni, and Ward 6 alderman Art Federow joined Craitor and Wing in opposition to the purchase. (Aldermen Orr, Volpatti and Fisher declared conflicts) Growing political dissent prompted Mayor Thomson to declare "It's a council on a road to destruction." Thomson, who was also annoyed that Federow had accused city staff of obstructing a probe into the affairs of Niagara Falls Minor Hockey, told the Review that he was contemplating quitting his job as Mayor because of all the infighting. Aldermen Volpatti and Campbell blamed the wE infighting because, they said, it nurtured parochialism. offer "to rebuild the team approach that characterized ti 199%2000"33 seems to contradict the view of Volpatti ward system during that time period. Furthermore, the Federow's probe into the affairs of Niagara Falls Minm considered ward issues. Both affect the entire city rega residential taxpayer and the concerned citizen are not Sl Parochialism, in the context of municipal gover: unreasonable attachment to local ward issues. None of opponents of the ward system have demonstrated that in the interest of their wards. If anything, Craitor and writing a newsletter and keeping their constituents up- According to Aid. Janice Wing, unity on council and issues. When asked about the increased friction on cou rd system for the increased However, Mayor Thomson's te way the city worked from nd Campbell since the city used a :ailway lands purchase and Hockey could hardly be :dless of ward divisions. The ~ecific to any single ward. ~ment, is characterized by an the examples offered by [dermen are selfishly voting solely ~'ing should be congratulated for >-date with events at city hall. e ward system are two sep, arate ncil, she told the Review, 'any elected body can choose to do things the easy way or tl~e fight way. Maybe there are more people not afraid to do things the right way this ti~ne.''34 ! Conflict is inherent in any form of political dec~sion-making. No electoral system can eliminate conflict and there is no evidence that at-l~g, e elections can even mitigate against it. Conflict plays a very important role in our p >litical system because it helps ensure that opposing arguments are aired and dealt witlt rather than ignored under a veil of unity. THE CREAM RISES TO THE TOP In a 1995 public meeting dealing with the ward system, Aid. Volpatti told a Chippawa audience, "With no disrespect to aldermen fi.om smaller wards, you really do get a better quality of representation" in an at-large syslem.35 Aid. Volpatti reasoned that when voters have a wider candidate pool to choose frogt, the best qualified can,d, idates will emerge su,c, cessful. Ald. Volpatti and Mayor Thon~son like to say that the cream rises to the top under an at-large system, but there is s mply no evidence to suggest that a change in the electoral system will result in better politicians. In an opinion piece, Niagara Falls Review repe new ward system against criticism that it would produt asked "has the cream risen to the top under the current which elected 8 aldermen at-large in Ward 1]? No. W yourself.., you'll see which members make a differenc, the new wards might lead to some new blood being cie always good.''36 Bad politicians, good politicians, and' emerge in either system because an alderman's perforr subjectively by voters with different priorities and pret rter Gord Howard defended the e worse politicians. Howard set-up [the pre- 1997 ward system atch city council for and which don't. If nothing else, xed to council, which is almost etter politicians will undoubtedly lance will always be judged ~rences. Although there is no evidence to suggest that' the cream rises to ihe top in at'-l~rge elections, there is evidence to suggest that only the most well-fihanced candidates were able to break through under the olit SYstem ofe~lecting aldermen. Alderman Selina Volpatti proved this point in 1994 y~hen sh~ spent nearly $10~000, thousands more than any other candidate, to capture~ Jsedt)oncct~ncil. ¥olpatti even conceded to the media that her capital-driven campaign waSi~e[ key to he,?icto.[y., In July 1995, she told the Niagara Falls Review "It's,3? th,~ name. ¥~9 _g~.~ition. . that~.~ ~o d'..~cult to achieve' w~thout' spending all the money. In an 'opinion.piece: for tlxe~Niggara Falls Review, reporter Gord Howard wrote, "There's nothing wrong with what Volpatti did. But a citizen shouldn't have to go through all that just to crack the council lineup.''as The political reality of Volpatti's breakthrough encourages us to reconsider the democratic process at the local level. If spending large amounts of money is the only way to win, then democracy is transformed from a community-based, participatory system, to a remote system, which relies on advertising and glitz. Once elected under the city's old ward system, (which essentially elected eight aldermen at-large in the city proper) it was virtually impossible to be defeated. Apart from a major council turnover in 1972, only two incumbent aldermen from the city proper were ever defeated between 1972 and 1994.39 In the other, smaller, city wards covering Chippawa, Willoughby, and Crowland, election defeats were much more common. Seven incumbents were defeated between 1972 and 1994. As was previously stated, money and name recognition were the keys to success under the old system in the city proper. Because the old Ward 1 elected eight aldermen at-large, election ballots were very long.4° As a result, citizens often voted according to name recognition alone since it was impossible to meet and discuss the issues with each candidate. Many hard working, but under-funded aldermanic candidates simply could not afford the cost of producing lawn signs or printing out campaign brochures, let alone the cost of distributing them to the 50,000 voters in the city. Under the ward system, it is entirely possible to run a successful labour intensive campaign. Political newcomer Janice Wing won her council seat in 1997 without the use of lawn signs or a party machine. Instead she spent only $300 on brochures and wore out two pairs of shoes visiting Ward 2 voters on their doorsteps. Wards are small enough to allow candidates to meet with most voters and ensure that a citizen's vote carries much more weight. The smaller number of candidates in each ward also brings the democratic process closer to the people since citizens are better able to evaluate each and every candidate on the basis of where he or she stands on the issues. THE WARD SYSTEM AND VOTER CHOICE Perhaps the most convincing argument put forward by proponents of at-large elections is that citizens ought to be able to vote for the entire council since decisions made at city hall affect the entire city. However, there are still a number of flaws with this line of argumem. Suppose for a moment that elections to Niagara Regional government were held at-large. Niagara Falls is currently guaranteed three cot ncillors to represent the city's concerns. However, if the Region were to adopt an at-I arge method of election, there is good chance that Niagara Falls would lose all its representatives simply because most of the voters live in St. Catharines and are more likely to ~, upport candidates from St. Catharines. Regional Councillors from Welland, Thor{ ,ld, Wainfleet, Port Colborne, and other communities in the region constantl3 make decisions on behalf of Lincoln, voters living in Niagara Falls, but nobody expects to vc~te~ for all of the representatives on Regional Council. / Extending the argument to provincial and feder: make practical sense to expect to elect every single per power on behalf of voters in Niagara Falls. A federal r Parliament, but voters don't get to choose the other 30( them in the House of Commons. Our system of represe perfect, but it simply does not make sense, even at the'~ aldermen at large. i1 elections shows why it does not on who has decision making [ding elects one Member of , MPs who make decisions for atative democracy may not be ocal level, to elect twelve ~f interest based on population and thole, other issues are specific to s" in Niagara Falls' Ward 1 are At-large elections allow politicians to pass the! everybody in theory, means that you are accountable t~ diverse as Niagara Falls, at-large politicians run the ds touch with neighbourhood problems. At-large politici~ re-election and they feel more comfortable ignoring th :e lamented that, under the old resenting a heterogeneous city.''4t nan to run for city council in 1997 ~1 politics was sparked by a n's own words, "I ended up cl .out he wasn't so local...the ,tmportant that someone is In the fifteen years before the QEW was elected to council.43 ces the city's diversity by all areas of the city are ~uck. Being accountable to nobody in practice. In a city as ~ of becoming remote and out of Lns rely on name recognition for issues of large groups of voters east end of the city. Former Aid. David Mackenzie on, system, "you have a homogeneous group of people rep Alienation from city hall is what prompted Daryl Hoffi under the new ward system. Hoffman's interest in loc~ development dispute in the city's west end. In Hoffma calling what I thought was my local alderman. It turne person wasn't really familiar with the area... I think it' elected who knows about this part of the community.'" 1997 election, only one city alderman living west of th He only served one term. The new ward system embr~ guaranteeing that no community is left behind and that represented equally, based on population. Wards divide municipalities into communities ~ geography. Although some issues affect the city as a v certain communities within the city. "Downtown issue different from the "rural issues" in Ward 5. Drainage may be a major problem in Ward 6, but a non-issue in Ward 4. It simply makes sense to h~ve city politicians take responsibility for neighbourhood problems through a v~ard system. / Under the old system, where politicians runninl~ in the city proper were elected at- large, very large sections in the south and west ends of the city went underrepresented because nearly all the victorious candidates lived very :lose to one another in the north- who have minority opinions. Under a ward system, politicians running for re-election could not get away with saying, "Gee, I was busy securing by-law amendments for land developers, so I didn't have time to take care of the drainage concerns of people in this neighbourhood." Instead, ward politicians would be expected to mn on a record of local accomplishments. This type of performance-based accountability makes ward politicians closer to the electorate and more aware of neighbourhood concerns. ELECTORAL REFORM AND ELECTORAL SELF-INTEREST In April 1998, Mayor Wayne Thomson told the St. Catharines Standard that the ward system was adopted simply to facilitate the election of political wannabees. Thomson said "we had a couple of people, in my opinion, who were potential candidates for election, couldn't get elected at large and wanted to have a ward system to make it easier for them to be elected",n4 The Mayor's analysis of the situation was patently unfair. Although John Ross, the man whose petition triggered the OMB hearing, did run for aldem~an under the new system, he was the only non-aldemian in attendance at the hearing who ran for elected office in the 1997 municipal election. If anything, one could argue that there were a couple of people on city council who wanted to run for re- election, but could not win under a new ward system and therefore wanted to keep the status quo. In his quest to abolish the ward system, the Mayor has refused to acknowledge that there is no public outcry to return to at-large elections. In fact, the only people who are pushing for a return to at-large elections happen to be politicians at City Hall. That should make voters more than a little skeptical about their motives. After city council abandoned its ward study in the fall of 1995, Niagara Falls Review reporter Gord Howard wrote, "can't you just hear the sighs of relief emanating from city hall?''4~ Howard recognized that self-interest and self-preservation were front and centre in the minds of aldermen concerned about increased competition under a new, equalized ward system. Past practice has demonstrated that in Niagara Falls, incumbent aldermen' are less likely to be defeated in at-large elections. The present ward system makes it easier for new candidates to win a seat on council, therefore making incumbents more vulnerable to defeat. However turnover in elections is a healthy part of the democratic process. When re-election is assured, politicians are no longer motivated to win over the public; they become stagnant and distant. The ward system forces aldermen to stay open, accessible, alert, and on their toes. CONCLUSION In August 2000, Ald. Norm Puttick complained, "I find this amazing. We spend more time on this than we do on the city budget in open council.''46 The issue of ward versus at-large elections is far from over. However, renewed debate of the issue has focused primarily on a potential reduction of aldermen as part of an overall push to dump the ward system. The method of electing aldermen am elected are two completely separate issues. Although ! legitimate, it would be completely wrong to make one elections do not mean fewer politicians and ward electi A ward system could operate just fine with fewer polit: operate efficiently with an even greater number of poli the method of election should never be combined into. issues should be dealt with separately. To put it simply, proposals to reduce the numb~ have merit, but what must be stressed is that a reduced electoral system. Although most politicians recognize number of politicians to be elected are two separate iss undoubtedly continue using their support for a reducti¢ order to gain support for abolishing the ward system. ' modem politics based on perception rather than on rea far less susceptible to such political posturing when it, The trend in Ontario, in Canada, and across Nc ward systems. There is not a single municipality in Ot does not use a ward system. In terms of similar sized n Bay and Newmarket elect their entire councils at-large Victoria British Columbia are the only two big munici] (Vancouver residents voted to adopt a ward system in. the result). According to John Pionke, spokesperson fl of Cities, "Most everybody has gone to some kind ofv evolved, and technology and communication have got~ gone to wards because they're more efficient and they layers between people and their government.''4g If at-large elections were the key to unity and politicians, then why have North American cities bee~ Perhaps it is too early to tell if the ward system can iiv at-large system is not an attractive alternative. Niagar~ system that fosters equality, accessibility and accounta ward system will jeopardize these goals. ENDNOTES ~ For the purposes of this study, small mumcipalities have popula mumcipalities have populations of between 10,000 and 100,000. over 100,000. 2 OMB decision (December 6, 1996), 3. 3 Interestingly, aldermen Wayne Thomson and Norm Putlick botl 4 Niagara Falls Review "City to vote at-large" JanuaD' 22, 1974. the number of aldermen to be ,oth proposals for reform are :ontingent upon the other. At large ons do not mean more politicians. cians and an at-large system could :icians. The size of council and single proposal for reform; both r of aldermen on council may :ouncil could operate with either that the method of election and the wes, some of them will ,n in aldermen as a red herring in ['his simply reflects the reality of a ity. However, an aware public is :an be recognized for what it is. rth America is towards adopting ttario larger than Niagara Falls that mnicipalities, only Sarnia, North 47 Across Canada, Vancouver and ~alities that use at-large elections t referendum, but Council ignored ~r the American National League ,ard system... As cities have en more advanced, the cities have work better. There are fewer !they always produced the best moving towards ward elections? ~ up to its potential. However, the L Falls voters deserve an electoral bility. Any attempt to abolish the tions of under 10,000. Middle-sized Large municipalities have populations of voted against adopting at-large elections. 5 According to the Niagara Falls Review, "the government advised the city that the requested amendment to create an at-large system would not be allowed because the government's policy is to establish ward systems for all cities included in regional governments." Niagara Falls Review "At-large city elections vetoed" (May 28, 1974). 6 Annual Report, OMB 1998-2000, 2. 7 Voter turnout in 2000 was 40% a OMB decision (December 6, 1996), 4. 9 Less than two weeks after releasing its decision, the OMB slightly amended the ward map at the request of council. In a politically-motivated move, council members voted to, in effect, punish Ald. Craitor for his handling of the ward issue by redrawing the map in such a way that moved Craiter's south end urban neighbourhoed into the primarily rural Ward 6. There was a certain logic to the amendment since it equalized the number of voters in the two wards affected by the change, but it is unlikely that the motion to amend the boundaries would have passed had two aldermen from the affected areas been present to vote. Mayor Thomson cast the tie breaking vote in favour of the amendment The next day, Craitor told the newspaper "I think it was a slap aEainst me as a member of council" Niagara Falls Review "Ward boundaries change again; alderman miffed (December 20, 1996). ~o St. Catharines Standard (April 29, 1998). ~ Niagara Falls Review "Ward system may be axed" (February 24, 1995) ~2 Niagara Falls Review "Council abandons ward study" (September 26, 1995) ~3 OMB decision (December 6, 1996), 6. 14 OMB decision (December 6, 1996), 7. is ibid. ~6 ibid. ~7 ibid. ~8 Craitor was the only alderman who voted against canceling public meetings on the ward system. ~9 Niagara Fails Review "Public is the real wianer says ward change fighter" (December 12, 1996). 2o loannonl was later appointed to council at~er the death of alderman Pat Cummings. 2~ Thomson, Puttick and Janvary would probably have opposed Wing's motion. 22 Voters in Ward 6 were also numerically the most suppo~ve of the status quo option. :3 For example alderman Janvary told a municipal election candidates forum that she would vote against the ward system because "six wards are too many." Niagara Falls Review (November 2, 2000). 2n This was undoubtedly the case for residents of the city proper living south of McLeod Road. These citizens were upset that they were in the same ward as residents of Chippawa, Willoughby and Crowland. Polls 1 and 2 in Ward 6 cover the portion of the city in question. Although the Ward as a whole voted 61% ~gainst changing the existing ward system, voters in polls 1 and 2 voted 59% in favour of changing the ~stem. YES and NO votes were fairly even in all the other wards. Niagara Falls Review "Ward debate tonight" (August 31, 1998) 26 Niagara Falls Review "Ward changes reopen old wounds at council" (December 13,1996). 27 Niagara Fails Review '°l'homson renews call to cut council size" (January 16, 2002). 28 Niagara Falls Review editorial "Enforced Democracy" (September 16,1998). ~9 Niagara Falls Chronicle "Aldermen take sides in ward debate" (July 17, 1998). 3o Niagara Falls Review "Debating worth of wards" (April 5, 1995). 3~ Niagara Falls Review "Wards under attack" (June 8, 1995). 32 Ward 2 newsletter, (October, 2001). 33 Niagara Falls Review "Infighting frustrates Thomson" (November 7, 2001). 3~ ibid. 35 Niagara Falls Review "Wards under attack" (June 8, 1995). 36 Niagara Falls Review "A difference of opiinon over new wards" (December 16, 1996). 37 Niagara Fails Review "In elections it helps to have a familiar name" (September 25, 1995). 38 ibid. ~9 Alderman Anthony Fera was defeated in 1982 and Alderman Ed Sherar was defeated in 1994. Sherar, an outspoken opponent of casino gambling, was probably defeated because of his opposition to building a casino m the city. ~o For example, in 1994 there were 24 candidates running m the "at-large" Ward I. Under the new ward system, between 3 and 8 candidates have rm~ m each ward. 4~ Niagara Falls Review "Keep our voice at city hall is plea of Ch ppawa people" 0Vlarch 13, 1981). 42 Niagara,'ails Review "West end needs voice on council: Hoffi~ tan" Municipal Vote '97 coverage. 43 Ji~flt 1985 ~ S~.~atharines Standard (April 29, 1998). i 4~ Niagara Falls Review "Why did Ward I aldermen suddenly end w~d debate?" (October 2, 1995). 46 Niagara Falls Review "Election will see ward referendum on b~lot (August 11, 2000). 47 In the 2000 municipal election, voters in Newmarket voted roughly 2/3 in favour of implementing a ward system. 1 48 The Detroit News "Largest U.S. cities use ward system: represe atatives elected by districts more responsive, government experts say" (October 28, 2001) www.de~ news.eom