Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01/29/2019
City of Niagara Falls Agenda City Council Meeting Tuesday, January 29, 2019 @ 5:00 PM Council Chambers Page 1. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL 4:30 p.m. Canceled .... There is no reason to meet In-Camera 1.1. Property Matter See Report PBD-2019-04 listed below. 2. CALL TO ORDER - 5:00 P.M. Playing of "O Canada" 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Council Minutes of January 15, 2019 3.1. City Council - 15 Jan 2019 - Minutes - Pdf 8 - 18 4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be made for the current Council Meeting at this time. 5. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. APPOINTMENTS / PRESENTATIONS 6.1. Women's Place of South Niagara Amanda Braet, Development Director with Women's Place, will present to Council an update on the Annual Book Riot taking place in June of 2019, and is requesting a waiver of fees for he use of the Gale Centre. 19 - 41 Page 1 of 450 RECOMMENDATION: That Council hear the APPOINTMENT/PRESENTATION and defer the request pending a report from staff regarding a fee waiver policy. City Council - Book Riot 6.2. Appointments to Various Boards, Committees and Commissions Council Members are provided with ballots for the selection of citizen appointments to various Committees, etc., for the current term. Please take a few minutes to make your selections. Upon completion, Clerks staff will tally the votes and the results will be read aloud later in tonight's agenda, after which Council may wish to approve their appointments. 7. REPORTS 7.1. CAO-2019-02 Response to Comments/Questions - NPCA Auditor Generals Report CAO-2019-02 Response to Comments Questions ... 42 - 47 8. PLANNING MATTERS - 6:00 P.M. 8.1. Public Meeting AM-2018-004, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 5873 Brookfield Avenue Proposal: 3 storey, 18 Unit Apartment Building Applicant: 1962863 Ontario Inc. (Frank LaPenna) Background Report: PBD-2019-01 PBD-2019-01, AM-2018-004, 5873 Brookfield Ave, Zoning By-law Amendment 48 - 55 8.2. Public Meeting AM-2018-018, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 7373 Niagara Square Drive Applicant: R.E.Y. Investments Inc. Agent: David Yip Proposal: Conversion of Existing Hotel into a Retirement Home PBD-2019-02, AM-2018-018, 7373 Niagara Square Drive, Zoning By- law Amendment 56 - 63 9. ADDITIONAL REPORTS Page 2 of 450 9.1. MW-2019-02 - Glengate Park Petition PIC MW -2019-02 - Glengate Park Petition PIC MW -2019-02 - Attachment 1 MW -2019-02 - Attachment 2 MW -2019-02 - Attachment 3 MW -2019-02 - Attachment 4 MW -2019-02 - Attachment 5 MW -2019-02 - Attachment 6 - Glengate Park - 2019 Capital Budget Sheet 64 - 86 9.2. MW-2019-04 - Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) Update MW -2019-04 - Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program WRAP - Update MW -2019-04 - Attachment 1 - MW -2012-03 Final 87 - 99 9.3. PBD-2019-04 Sale and Transfer of Property Known as 6880 Stanley Avenue, Niagara Falls PBD-2019-04, Sale & Transfer of Property - 6880 Stanley Avenue 100 9.4. TS-2019-01 School Crossing Guard - Hourly Wage Adjustment & Staffing Levels TS-2019-01 School Crossing Guard – Hourly Wage Adjustment and Staffing Levels 101 - 103 9.5. R&C-2019-01 - Gale Centre Emergency Repair R&C-2019-01-Gale Centre Emergency Repair 104 - 105 10. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda is a set of reports that could be approved in one motion of council. The approval endorses all of the recommendations contained in each of the reports within the set. The single motion will save time. Prior to the motion being taken, a councillor may request that one or more of the reports be moved out of the consent agenda to be Page 3 of 450 considered separately. F-2019-04 Tax Receivables Monthly Report - December F-2019-04 - Tax Receivables Monthly Report December F-2019-04- Attachment 106 - 109 L-2019-02 Declare Surplus of Lands, 4840 Willmott Street L-2019-02 Report Declare Surplus (with Schedule) 110 - 112 L-2019-03 - Amendments to Anti-Smoking By-laws L-2019-03 - Amendments to Anti-Smoking By-laws 113 - 115 MW-2019-03 Recreational License Agreement Renewal with Hydro One for E.E. Mitchelson Park Hydro Corridor Crossing MW -2019-03 - Recreational Licence Agreement Renewal - Hydro One Corridor crossing E. E. Mitchelson Park MW -2019-03 - Attachment 1 - 2019 Recreational Licence - Niagara Falls C 632.1-694 - City of Niagara Falls 116 - 128 CAO-2019-03 - NRBN Lease - 4343 Morrison Street CAO-2019-03-NRBN 129 - 130 11. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 11.1. Niagara Regional Housing NRH Quarterly Report RECOMMENDATION: That the 3rd Quarter Report from Niagara Regional Housing be received for Council's Information NRH Report - 3rd Quarter NRH 15-2018 NRH 3rd Quarter Report 131 - 146 11.2. Knights of Columbus Requesting a Flag Raising at City Hall to kick off the "Knights of Columbus Week", April 23 to May 1, 2019 RECOMMENDATION: For the Approval of Council Knights of Columbus 147 11.3. Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing 148 - 154 Page 4 of 450 Proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe RECOMMENDATION: That the matter be referred to Staff to provide regular reports back to Council when applicable. MAH Email Regional Gov't Review AMO Regional Review 11.4. Proclamation Request The National Eating Disorder Information Centre is requesting that Council proclaim the week of February 1, 2019 to February 7, 2019 as Eating Disorder Awareness Week. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the reqeust Proclamation - Eating Disorder Awareness Week 155 - 156 11.5. Town of Oakville, Town of Orangeville & Town of Georgina - Bill 66, Restoring Ontario's Competitiveness Act The Town's of Oakville, Orangeville and Georgina request that Council consider the attached resolutions indicating their position to recommend that Schedule 10 of Bill 66 be withdrawn by the Ontario Government. RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive the correspondence for information. Oakville - Bill 66 Resolution Orangeville - Bill 66 Resolution Georgina - Bill 66 Resolution LetterTo Council RE Billl 66 TWF 157 - 166 11.6. City of St. Catharines Ban on Plastic Straws The City of St. Catharines has requested that their resolution listed below regarding the ban of plastic straws and plastic stir sticks in City facilities be circulated to Niagara area municipalities. RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive the correspondence for information. St. Catharines - Motion to ban plastic straws and stir sticks 167 - 168 11.7. Niagara Region Waste Management- Public Works - Proposed Base Services for Next Collection Contract 169 - 381 Page 5 of 450 The attached report and the excerpt of the Region's Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes, with the amendments, are being provided to the Local Area Municipalities for review and comment. RECOMMENDATION: That Council refer the correspondence to staff for a report. Regions Public Works Email Regions Public Works Minutes Excerpt Regions Public Works Report 11.8. Regional Niagara's Amended Smoking By-law Regional Council has asked that this matter be circulated to Local Area Municipalities to consider a resolution consenting to an updated Regional by-law to protect children and vulnerable persons from exposure to outdoor second-hand smoke. RECOMMENDATION: That Council refer the matter to staff for a report. Region's Amended Smoking By-law 382 - 401 11.9. National Poetry Month Jordan Fry, owner and publisher of Grey Borders Books, is requesting that Council support National Poetry Month, April 2019, by opening council meetings throughout April with a poem read by a local author. RECOMMENDATION: For Council's consideration Poetry in NF 402 - 406 11.10. Trail Cameras in City Parks for Coyote Research Lauren Van Patter, a student at Queen's University, is requesting the City's permission to mount cameras in city parks for the purpose of collecting data images of coyotes. RECOMMENDATION: That Council refer the request to staff for a report. Coyote trail cameras_Van Patter 407 - 409 11.11. Niagara Region - Interim Levy Dates & Amounts Regional Council recently passed a report dealing with the approval of Interim Levy Dates and Amounts. The report also asked that the correspondence be circulated to the Councils of the local area municipalities for information. RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive the correspondence for information. Region - Interm Levy 410 - 416 Page 6 of 450 11.12. Niagara Region - Vacancy Program Regional Council recently passed a report dealing with the approval of their Commercial/Industrial Vacant Unit Rebate and Vacant/Excess Land Subclass property tax rate reductions programs. The report also asked that the correspondence be circulated to the Councils of the area municipalities for information. RECOMMENDATION: - That Council receive the correspondence for information. Region - Vacancy Program 417 - 445 12. RESOLUTIONS 12.1. Resolution to go "In Camera" prior to the February 12, 2019 meeting. Resolution for Feb 12th 446 13. BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by-law listed for Council consideration. 2019-12 - A by-law to declare Lot 228 on Plan 316, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara and municipally known as 4840 Willmott Street, as surplus. By-law - Declare Surplus 447 2019-13 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 87-143, being a by-law respecting smoking. Amendment 87-143 - January 2019 - Vaping and E-Cigs 448 2019-14 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 2011-51, being a by-law to prohibit the smoking of tobacco and other substances upon or within any land of buildings owned by The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. Amendment 2011-51- January 2019 - Vaping and E-Cigs 449 2019-15 - A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 29th day of January, 2019 01 29 19 Confirming By-law 450 14. NEW BUSINESS 15. ADJOURNMENT Page 7 of 450 MINUTES City Council Meeting Tuesday, January 15, 2019 Council Chambers 5:00 PM COUNCIL PRESENT: Councillor Wayne Campbell, Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Councillor Vince Kerrio, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Councillor Mike Strange, Councillor Wayne Thomson, Councillor Chris Dabrowski, and Councillor Lori Lococo COUNCIL ABSENT: Mayor Jim Diodati COUNCIL LATE: 1 CALL TO ORDER a) O Canada sung by Isabella Milano. 2 ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) Council Minutes of December 11, 2018 ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell that the minutes of December 11, 2018 be approved. Carried Unanimously 3 DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof were made for the current Council Meeting. a) Councillor Strange indicated a conflict with agenda section 6.5 (L -2019- 01 - Permanently Close and Declare Surplus Road Allowance between Warner Road and QEW); His brokers land abuts that property. b) Councilor Lococo indicated a conflict with cheque numbers 421006, 421812, 422286, 422789, and 422875, made payable to Project Share, she is a board member. c) Councillor Pietrangelo indicated a conflict to cheque numbers 00192- Page 1 of 11 Page 8 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 0004, 0004-0002, and 00187-0006 made payable to Niagara Catholic District School Board, his employer. d) Councillor Ioannoni indicated a conflict with cheque numbers 422478 made out to herself, and 422726 made out to a member of her family. 4 MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Acting Mayor Pietrangelo welcomed John Hilts as the Sergeant-at-Arms for the Council Meeting. b) Acting Mayor Pietrangelo offered condolences on the passing of Kenneth Heaslip, retired City employee from our Cemetery Department; Jackie Henry an employee of Library Services; and Leona Marie Thibodeau, grandmother of Councillor Pietrangelo. c) Acting Mayor Pietrangelo recognized Councillor Strange for offering greetings at the Canada Day and Santa Claus Parade Volun teer Appreciation and at the 2019 Police Association of Ontario Winter Conference. d) Acting Mayor Pietrangelo recognized Councillor Thomson for attending the Annual New Year's Levee at the Armoury. e) Acting Mayor Pietrangelo advised of the upcoming Sports Wall of Fame Induction Ceremony on Sunday, January 27th at the Gale Centre Arena, 2PM. f) Acting Mayor Pietrangelo wished everyone a Happy New Year. g) The next meeting of Council is scheduled for Tuesday January 29, 2019. 5 DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS a) Niagara Region Waste Management Catherine Habermebl, Acting Commissioner, Public Works and Brad Whitelaw, Program Manager, Policy Planning made a presentation to Council with regards to Niagara Region Waste. Acting Mayor Pietrangelo indicated that a report from staff will be coming back to Council within two weeks and that the City will be able to Page 2 of 11 Page 9 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 make the February 1st, deadline to submit the recommendations. b) Winter Maintenance Policy Marianne Tikky, Manager of Municipal Roadways made a presentation to Council. -AND- MW-2019-01 - Winter Maintenance Policy Plan Update The report recommends the following: a) That Council approve the updated Winter Maintenance Policy Plan and, b) That staff be directed to incorporate this plan into it standard operating procedures and Operating Budgets. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo approving the recommendations to the updated Winter Maintenance Policy Plan and that staff be directed to incorporate this plan into its standard operating procedures and Operating Budgets. Carried Unanimously c) Review of the Provincial Cannabis Licensing Act PBD-2019-03 - Addendum to Report PBD-2018-76, Review of Provincial Cannabis Licencing Act, 2018 and Ontario regulations 468.18 The report recommends the following: 1. That City Council harmonize its anti-smoking by-law with amendments to the Regional anti-smoking by-law and work with Regional Health in public consultation regarding additional public areas where tobacco, cannabis and related products can be smoked or consumed. 2. That City Council send a resolution to the Province requesting that municipalities in Ontario be given greater regulatory controls over the location, distance separations and numbers of Retail Cannabis Stores within a municipality Page 3 of 11 Page 10 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building and Development gave an overview on the background of the Provincial Cannabis Licensing Act. • Nathan Warner from 6370 High Street, representing Niagara Cannabis Company spoke in favor of Cannabis sales. • Hugo Chessire of 80 King St, St. Catharines, spoke in favor of Cannabis sales. • Charlie Burland of 4943 Clifton Hill, spoke in opposition of Cannabis sales. • Marco Pingue of 6959 Crescent Road, spoke in opposition of Cannabis sales. • Brett Bell of 160 Bloor Street, Toronto, represented the Firing Flower Company spoke in favor of Cannabis sales. • Felix Pingue of 6440 Montrose Road, spoke in opposition of Cannabis Sales. • Shawn Tetter of Lundys Lane spoke in favor of Cannabis sales. • Robert Davis, City of Niagara Falls Municipal Enforcement Officer provided clarification in regards to the municipal smoking by-laws. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell that Council opt in to the Provincial Retail Cannabis Store program; that Council adopt the attached Municipal Policy Statement on Cannabis for the purpose of reviewing and commenting on licence applications; that City Council harmonize its anti- smoking by-law with amendments to the Regional anti-smoking by-law and work with Regional Health in public consultation regarding additional public areas where tobacco, cannabis and related products can be smoked or consumed; that City Council send a resolution to the Province requesting that municipalities in Ontario be given greater regulatory controls over the location, distance separations and numbers of Retail Cannabis Stores within a municipality; that a copy of this motion of Council be sent to all municipalities in Ontario. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Ioannoni that a recorded vote take place. CARRIED with Councillor Kerrio opposed, Opposed Councillor Vince Kerrio 6 REPORTS a) CD-2019-01 New Council Procedural By-law Page 4 of 11 Page 11 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 The report recommends the following: 1. That the City of Niagara Falls Standing Rules of the Council (By-law No. 89-155 as amended by: By-law 91-02, By-law 91-25, By-law 99-01, By-law 2000-152, By-law 2000-219 and By-law 2001-279), be repealed; 2. That the By-law regarding the new "City of Niagara Falls Procedural Bylaw" appearing in tonight's agenda, be read and passed; and 3. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute all documents related to this matter. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Campbell, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that the report be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously Councillor Ioannoni was absent from the vote. b) F-2019-01 Monthly Tax Receivables Report – November The report recommends that Council receive the Monthly Tax Receivables report for information purposes. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo that report F-2019-01 be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously Councillor Ioannoni was absent from the vote. c) F-2019-02 Municipal Accounts The report recommends that Council approve the municipal account totaling $39,495,753.50 for the period of October 25, 2018 to December 31, 2018. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo that the report be approved as recommended. Page 5 of 11 Page 12 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 Carried Unanimously Councillor Ioannoni was absent from the vote. d) F-2019-03 2019 Interim Tax Levy The report recommends that Council approve the 2019 Interim Tax Levy calculation and by-law providing for the 2019 Interim Tax Levy. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that the report be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously Councillor Ioannoni was absent from the vote. e) L-2019-01 - Permanently Close and Declare Surplus Road Allowance between Warner Road and QEW The report recommends the following: 1. In the event that Council determines that it is in the public interest to do so, that Part of the Road Allowance between Township of Niagara of Niagara & Stamford lying between Part 2 on 59R10127 and Part 19 on 59R4249, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Lands") as shown in red on the attached lo cation map, be permanently closed and declared surplus to the City's needs. 2. That any sale of the Subject Lands be conditional upon the lands conveyed being merged in title with the abutting lands as well as upon any purchaser acknowledging the existence of the pond and accepting title subject to any potential claim relating to same. 3. That the Mayor and Clerk and City Solicitor, be authorized to take whatever steps and sign whatever documents are required to carry out Recommendations 1 and 2 above. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that the report be approved as recommended. Motion Carried Page 6 of 11 Page 13 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 with Councillor Ioannoni was absent from the vote. Councillor Strange declaring a conflict. 7 COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK a) Crime Stoppers of Niagara - Would like to request a flag raising in honour of Crime Stoppers Awareness Month, January 2019 at Niagara Falls City Hall. Recommendation: For the Consideration of Council ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Chris Dabrowski, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that a flag raising be held in honour of Crime Stoppers Awareness Month, January 2019 at Niagara Falls City Hall. Carried Unanimously Councillor Ioannoni was absent from the vote. b) Bell Let's Talk - 9th Annual Bell Let's Talk Day, a Flag Raising has been requested for January 30th, 2019. Recommendation: For the Consideration of Council ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Lori Lococo, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell that a Flag Raising be held for the 9th Annual Bell Let's Talk Day on January 30th, 2019. Carried Unanimously Councillor Ioannoni was absent from the vote. c) Kenneth Westhues- has submitted the attached correspondence regarding the Forme Development & River Road High-Rise Proposal. Recommendation: For the Information of Council ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski to receive and filing the communication. Motion Carried with Councillor Campbell and Councillor Ioannoni opposed. Page 7 of 11 Page 14 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 d) Niagara Health Foundation - Invitation to their Elimination Draw taking place on Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at the Croation National Home, 6 Broadway, Welland, ON at 5:30 p.m. Recommendation: For the Information of Council ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Vince Kerrio, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange to receive and file the communication. Carried Unanimously e) Tourist Exemption for Retail Holiday Openings – The Regional Clerks Office is looking for the City to offer its comments on the current application for both Food Basics Stores to open in the future on New Year’s Day as well as Good Friday. RECOMMENDATION: That Council support the Request. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni that Council support the request made from both Food Basics Grocery Stores at 3770 Montrose Road and 6770 McLeod Road, Niagara Falls, for the tourist exception for retail holiday openings on future New Year's Days and Good Fridays. Carried Unanimously f) Police Services Board - Update on the Transition of the Administration and Enforcement of the Adult Entertainment Industry. RECOMMENDATION: For the Information of Council ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio that Council refer the matter to staff and indicate that there has to be dialogue and input from the stakeholders, with the Region and the Police Services Board to come back with a satisfactory resolution with this whole matter. Carried Unanimously g) Niagara Parks Commission – Appointment of a Member of Council to the NPC Board. Page 8 of 11 Page 15 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 Recommendation: That Council vote on a representative to the Niagara Parks Commission for the current term of Council. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson that Council appoint Councillor Vince Kerrio as a representative to NPC Board. CARRIED Councillor Campbell was opposed h) Riverfront Community / Thundering Waters Correspondence Regarding the Notice of Violation Issued by the NPCA ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell to defer the correspondence from the Riverfront Community/Thundering Waters to a future meeting of Council when the Mayor Is present and that a written staff report be provided. Carried Unanimously i) Additional Riverfront Community/ Thundering Waters Correspondence j) Town of Wainfleet – Decision to Opt Out of cannabis retail stores being located within the municipality. RECOMMENDATION: For the Information of Council ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange to receive and file the decision of the Town of Wainfleet to Opt Out of cannabis retaIl stores being located within the municipality. Carried Unanimously k) Rotary Club - The Rotary Club of Niagara Falls is having their 21st Annual Trivia Night at Club Italia on February 20, 2019 and are asking for Council’s support through the purchase of a table. Page 9 of 11 Page 16 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 Recommendation: For the Consideration of Council ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Vince Kerrio, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell to defer to a future meeting of Council. Carried Unanimously BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by- law listed for Council consideration. 2019-01 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, in accordance with an Order issued by the Ontario Municipal Board dated November 28, 2018, to permit the use of the Lands for a townhouse dwelling, group dwellings, a community centre, and accessory buildings and structures (AM-2015-011). 2019-02 A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 133 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2018-005). 2019-03 A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to regulate the Forestview plan of subdivision on the Lands (AM-2018-005). 2019-04 A by-law governing the calling, place and proceedings of Meetings 2019-05 A by-law to authorize the payment of $39,495,753.50 for General Purposes. 2019-06 A by-law to provide an interim levy of realty taxes. 2019-07 A by-law to permanently close part of a highway. 2019-08 A by-law to declare Part of the Road Allowance between Township of Niagara & Stamford lying between Part 2 on 59R10127 and Part 19 on 59R4249, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, as surplus. 2019-09 A by-law to authorize the execution of an Extension and Amendment of Lease with 2030688 Ontario Ltd., respecting an extension and amendment to the Lease between the City and 2030688 Ontario Ltd. Page 10 of 11 Page 17 of 450 City Council January 15, 2019 2019-10 A by-law to amend By-law No. 89-2000, being a by-law to regulate parking and traffic on City Roads. (Stopping Prohibited, Parking Prohibited, Standing Prohibited, Designated Lanes) 2019-11 A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 15th day ofJanuary, 2019. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that the by-laws be read a first, second and third time and passed. Carried Unanimously 8 NEW BUSINESS 9 ADJOURNMENT ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that the Council meeting be adjourned. Carried Unanimously Mayor City Clerk Page 11 of 11 Page 18 of 450 Help for women and children experiencing abusePage 19 of 450 Why what we do is important Page 20 of 450 Page 21 of 450 Why what we do is importantDomestic violence continues Page 22 of 450 Page 23 of 450 Page 24 of 450 Why what we do is important Page 25 of 450 Page 26 of 450 Page 27 of 450 Page 28 of 450 Page 29 of 450 Page 30 of 450 Page 31 of 450 Page 32 of 450 “The staff at the Gale Centre enjoyed hosting the Women’s Place Book Riot for the first time in 2018 in our facility.The staff and volunteers that work on this event were great to deal with, very dedicated and appreciative of the space provided.We are very proud that we were able to be a small part of them raising $70,000 towards the programs and services they offer.” Rob McDonald, Manager of Recreation & Customer Service, City of Niagara Falls Page 33 of 450 •142 Volunteers •1,491 Volunteer Hours •2,113 Boxes of Books saved from the landfill •4,000+ people attended the event Page 34 of 450 MISSION To stop abuse and violence against women and children by providing safety through shelter, counselling, education, advocacy and community partnerships.Page 35 of 450 Nova House Niagara Falls Serenity Place WellandPage 36 of 450 Last year, 310 women and children stayed in Women’s Place shelters in Welland and Niagara Falls.Page 37 of 450 Last year, 2,558 calls were received on our support lines.Page 38 of 450 Hundreds more looked to Women’s Place for legal, housing and counselling support to end the cycle of family violence.Page 39 of 450 Women’s Place services are available 24 hours/day, 365 days per year. Whenever you call, someone is here to listen.Page 40 of 450 Nova House 905-356-5800 (Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and surrounding areas) Serenity Place 905-788-0113 (Welland, Port Colborne, Wainfleet, Pelham and surrounding areas) www.womensplacesn.org Support Lines: @WomensPlaceSNPage 41 of 450 CAO-2019-02 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: CAO-2019-02 Response to Comments/Questions – NPCA Auditor Generals Report RECOMMENDATION That the report CAO 2019-02 be received and filed. BACKGROUND At the Council meeting held on January 15, 2019 council passed a motion requesting that staff provide a report with answers to the questions submitted by Councillor Ioannoni by way of email on December 21, 2018, regarding the Auditor General’s Report on the NPCA. Chronology: The following is a chronology of events related to the Paradise Development (Thundering Waters) as it relates to the issue of biodiversity off-setting: July 27, 2015 The Province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, released Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper. The MNR reached out to all conservation authorities and municipalities in the Province requesting input on topics including a No Net Loss Policy for Ontario that involved creating or restoring new habitat to compensate for loss that could not be avoided, minimized or mitigated. January 27, 2016 NPCA Public Forum on Biodiversity Offsetting March 30, 2016 Niagara Region Planning and Development Committee motion “to support a pilot project and asked the Province to allow for biodiversity offsetting of wetlands for the development In Niagara Falls known as Paradise Development to facilitate the proponent’s proposal that increases the net area of wetland and supports and encourages significant foreign investment being offered.” April 12, 2016 NPCA staff and board representatives address Niagara Falls Council about Thundering Waters becoming a potential biodiversity offsetting Page 42 of 450 2 CAO-2019-02 January 29, 2019 pilot project. City Council deferred a decision on the matter until there was an appropriate planning application submitted by the developer. April 26, 2016 Report PBD-2016-22 Thundering Waters Secondary Plan – Endorsement of Draft Secondary Plan Principles and Objectives, clearly states that “biodiversity offsetting of PSWs was not currently permitted by the Provincial Policy Statement” and would therefore not be part of the GR Canada development application. December 2, 2016 Letter from Mayor Diodati to the Premier requesting a Provincial Development Facilitator to ensure timely review of the project and address the competing and conflicting interests of various Provincial and other regulatory agencies. January 12, 2017 Letter from Mayor Diodati to the Premier regarding MNR changing their environmental characterization of the site, and requesting the appointment of an independent third party Provincial Development Facilitator. May 8, 2018 The developers’ Official Plan Amendment Application AM-2017-015, Proposed Riverfront Community Plan is approved and did not include any biodiversity offsetting. The application was approved on the merits of the plan and on the information provided in the extensive studies undertaken over a 3-4 year period, subject to 27 recommendations being incorporated into the Official Plan amendment. Response to Councillor Ioannoni’s Questions Question 1. AG report pg 9: NPCA senior management proposed a project to allow wetland destruction in Thundering Waters. In 2015, the NPCA proposed a pilot project to the provincial government to allow wetlands in Thundering Waters to be destroyed to facilitate the development of a multi -use residential, commercial and entertainment community. In compensation, the proposal was that new wetlands (three times as large in area as those that would be destroyed) would be recreated elsewhere. The NPCA had not studied the site’s ecosystems to determine if they contained unique features that cannot be replicated and an NPCA staff member expressed concerns to senior management that there was no scientific analysis to support the proposal. Questions from this info: What was Jim’s role in this? As the representative for Niagara Falls on the NPCA, why did the Mayor not come back and update the council on the direct ion the NPCA was taking for Page 43 of 450 3 CAO-2019-02 January 29, 2019 a major wetland in our city? We now have the Auditor General of Ontario telling us that there were no studies done to see if the site was even practical for biodiversity offsetting and that NPCA staff was telling management this. Why did the Mayor allow Carmen D’Angelo and Bruce Timm’s to lie to council during their presentation on biodiversity and then speak on behalf of the presentation and endorsed biodiversity himself when he knew there were no studies done and NPCA staff were concerned about this? Response The Mayor’s role was that of an NPCA Board member. When sitting as board member at NPCA meetings, his fiduciary responsibility was to that board. The Mayor supported NPCA staff’s investigation of an opportunity MNR requested in their Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper for No Net Loss Policy for Ontario that involved creating or restoring new habitat to compensate for loss that could not be avoided, minimized or mitigated. A number of potential sites in Niagara were being considered by NPCA as potential pilot projects, however biodiversity offsetting of PSWs was not permitted by the Provincial Policy Statement” and would therefore not be part of the GR Canada development application. D’Angelo and Timms presented at the April 12, 2016 City of Niagara Falls Council meeting and identified Thundering Waters as a potential pilot project for biodiversity offsetting. The Province did not proceed with this initiative. Question #2. AG report pg 20: For example, in 2015, one Board member expressed concerns about the NPCA’s proposed pilot project to create wetlands elsewhere to compensate for those that would be destroyed in a Niagara Region site called Thundering Waters (described in Section 6.2.2) and about which staff had also expressed concerns. The Board member stated that the proposal would create a “conflict of interest” for Board members from the Niagara Region because those Board members would benefit from the development being facilitated by t he proposed pilot project. Questions from this info: This shows that at least one Board member clearly saw the conflict involved and that Board member raised those concerns. What was Jim’s response to this? In 2016 the Mayor was on the radio saying that a special interest group was trying to block this project and that the developer was offering 10-1 offsets . Do you believe that by Jim being on the Board there was a clear conflict of interest? He was unable to separate his duties as Mayor, and failed to report to his council about the Page 44 of 450 4 CAO-2019-02 January 29, 2019 issues going on at the NPCA in regard to TW and protect PSW’s in our community from his duties as an NPCA board member. Response As a board member, the Mayor has a fiduciary responsibility to that board. There was no pecuniary interest on the Mayor’s part. The Mayor sits on many boards and committees, and does not report back to Council on a regular basis on any of them – nor do other Councillors (NPC, Library Board etc.) All Niagara representatives are from municipalities and the Mayor is only one vote on that board Municipal Conflict of Interest legislation exempts members when a matter is of interest in common with electors generally. The Board was dealing with biodiversity offsetting policy for the Region, which would impact everyone in the Region, and be of common interest to every property owner in the Region. Question #3. AG report pg 32 In March 2015, NPCA staff began attending consultation meetings with representatives from the City of Niagara Falls, Niagara Region and the developer to discuss the development proposal. Minutes from these meetings indicate that NPCA senior management informed the developer that it was working on an alternative way to address the obstacle posed by the wetlands within the land proposed for development. In May 2015, the NPCA retained the services of a registered lobbyist firm to “advance key issues amongst senior levels of government.” The firm was involved in organizing meetings between the NPCA and senior provincial government officials about “biodiversity offsetting” in Thundering Waters. Biodiversity offsetting is the practice of recreating an ecosystem, such as a wetland, elsewhere to compensate for one that is destroyed due to development. Questions from this info: Why did Jim vote for this as a board member and not inform the council? Why was he lobbying the Premier on an issue that council had no knowledge of and had not been approved by council and then state he was not lobbying? Who were the representatives from Niagara Falls who were meeting with NPCA (as indicated above) and what direction were they given? Why did our CAO not report these meetings to the council? Who gave the CAO direction to any of our staff working on moving the TW project, or issue of biodiversity forward? At this point, council knew nothing about it. Page 45 of 450 5 CAO-2019-02 January 29, 2019 Response The Mayor sits on many boards and committees, and does not report back to Council on a regular basis on any of them – nor do other Councillors (NPC, Library etc.). The Mayor sent letters to the Premier requesting a Provincial Development Facilitator to ensure timely review of the project and address the competing and conflicting interests of various Provincial and other regulatory agencies, and MNR changing their environmental characterization of the site. In March 2015, discussions at a staff level were part of a normal pre-consultation process that involved staff from Planning, Municipal Works, Transportation etc. Other members of the pre-consultation team are from various agencies like the Region and NPCA. It was part of the normal planning process for new applications or proposals. These meetings are held on a biweekly basis and involve dozens of applications, moving through the process at the same time. Question #4 AG report pg 82 December 2015, the NPCA CAO, staff and a Board member met with an MPP and an advisor to the Premier to obtain approval for a biodiversity offsetting project involving Thundering Waters. The Province did not approve the project. See Section 6.2.2 for details Question: Who was the NPCA board member who attended that meeting? Was it the Mayor?’ Response On December 4, 2015 the Mayor attended a meeting with several NPCA board members and the NPCA CAO at MPP Eleanor McMahon’s office, then , Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources to discuss the Conservation Authorities Act review and the Province’s position on biodiversity offsetting in general. The meeting was not specific to any one project, but a discussion on Provincial policy. The meeting resulted from an NPCA Board decision to send a delegation of board members to meet with the Province. Question #5 AG report pg 83 The report finds examples where the NPCA appeared to support development projects. The NPCA’s proposal for biodiversity offsetting in Thundering Waters was not based on scientific analysis; there are noted examples of some NPCA Board members being involved in NPCA staff’s review of some development proposals and permit applications; and staff have been instructed to be more flexible in reviewing development applications. See Sections 5.1.3 and 6.2 for details Page 46 of 450 6 CAO-2019-02 January 29, 2019 Questions from this info: Was the Mayor one of the board members involved in the NPCA staff review of TW? If he was, why did he not inform council of this? Response The Mayor was not involved in a review of any development application at the staff level. Question - AG report pg 90 December 4, 2015 Thundering Waters, NPCA CAO, staff and a board member meet provincial politicians to discuss a pilot project to allow the NPCA to experiment with biodiversity offsetting on the Thundering Waters site. See Section 6.2.2 for details. Question: Who was the board member at these meetings? Did Niagara Falls council authorize the city to explore ways around provincial polic y that protects wetlands in order to facilitate this development? Under who’s authority and request were our city staff participating in this and who were the staff members involved. Response • The Mayor supported staff’s investigation of an opportunity MNR put on the table in their Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper for No Net Loss Policy for Ontario that involved creating or restoring new habitat to compensate for loss that could not be avoided, minimized or mitigated. A number of potential sites in Niagara were being considered by NPCA as potential pilot projects, however biodiversity offsetting of PSWs is not currently permitted by the Provincial Policy Statement” and would therefore not be part of the GR Canada development application. The Mayor did write to the Premier to encourage the appointment of an independent third party Provincial Facilitator to review the facts and facilitate a third party resolution on the PSW process. It is not unusual for the Mayor to write to senior levels of government to resolve differences in the interpretation of policy matters. (GO train, gaming revenue, two casinos etc.) Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 47 of 450 PBD-2019-01 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2019-01 AM-2018-004, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 5873 Brookfield Avenue Proposal: 3 storey, 18 Unit Apartment Building Applicant: 1962863 Ontario Inc. (Frank LaPenna) RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the lands a site specific Residential Apartment 5B Density (R5B) zone to permit a 3 storey, 18 unit apartment building, subject to the regulations outlined in this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1962863 Ontario Inc. (Frank LaPenna) has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land known as 5873 Brookfield Avenue. The applicant requests the property be rezoned to a site specific Residential Apartment 5B Density (R5B) zone to permit the construction of a 3 storey, 18 unit apartment building. The amendment is recommended for the following reasons: The proposed development conforms to Provincial and Regional policies as it intensifies the use of land within the Built Up A rea of the City and will provide additional housing choices for residents; The proposed development conforms with the City’s Official Plan with respect to residential development permitted on Tourist Commercial designated lands; The development is compatible with adjacent residential development in terms of building height, setbacks and the provision of landscaping; and The requested R5B zone permits an apartment building and existing and requested regulations are appropriate to ensure the development will be compatible with surrounding properties. BACKGROUND Proposal 1962863 Ontario Inc. (Frank LaPenna) has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a 2340 square metre (0.57 acre) parcel of land known as 5873 Brookfield Avenue. Refer to Schedule 1 to locate the land. The zoning amendment is requested to permit the development of a 3 storey, 18 unit apartment building on the land. Schedule 2 shows details of the proposed development. The land is zoned Tourist Commercial (TC), in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79- 200. The applicant is requesting the land be rezoned to Residential Apartment 5B Density (R5B) with site specific lot area, rear yard depth and landscaped open space regulations, and to permit a waste disposal enclosure in the front yard. Page 48 of 450 2 PBD-2019-01 January 29, 2019 Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The property was formerly occupied by the Broadway Motel, which was demolished approximately 2 years ago. The property is now vacant, with some remnant asphalt paving. The property is surrounded by single detached dwellings to the south, tourist commercial uses including motels and a restaurant to the east and west, and a vacant property to the north. Circulation Comments Information about the requested Zoning By-law amendment was circulated to City divisions, the Region, agencies, and the public for comments. The following summarizes the comments received to date: Regional Municipality of Niagara No objections from a Provincial or Regional perspective. The proposal utilizes existing services and provides an alternative form of higher density housing in a neighbourhood dominated by low density dwellings, and therefore conforms to the Regional Policy Plan. Given the conversion of the land from a commercial use to a more sensitive residential use, a Record of Site Condition is required to be filed with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. This may be addressed through a holding (H) regulation in the amending by-law, or through the subsequent site plan process. The site qualifies for curbside pickup of waste. On site collection may be possible under the Enhanced Waste Collection service if access to the enclosure is provided in accordance with Regional standards. Municipal Works No objections to the rezoning. The applicant’s engineer has demonstrated stormwater and sanitary flows from the site can be accommodated by the City’s infrastructure. Fire Services, Building Services No objections to the rezoning. The provision of fire access and hydrants in accordance with the Ontario Building Code will need to be demonstrated at the site plan stage. Parks Design No objections to the rezoning. Through the future site plan approval process a landscaping plan will be reviewed. Cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of 5% of the property value will need to be paid at the Building Permit stage. Legal Services, Transportation Services No objections. Page 49 of 450 3 PBD-2019-01 January 29, 2019 Neighbourhood Open House A neighbourhood open house was held on December 10, 2018 and was attended by 7 neighbours. The neighbours asked questions about windows on the south elevation of the building, if there would be underground parking and the size and tenure of the units. The applicant noted that the side (south) elevation of the building would have small windows or no windows. The applicant advised that underground parking was cost prohibitive and surface parking would be provided. The applicant also stated that the unit s would be rental and would mainly have two bedrooms. ANALYSIS 1. Provincial Policies The Planning Act requires City planning decisions to comply with Provincial policies. The Provincial Growth Plan requires that a minimum of 40% of all residential development occurring annually be in Built-up Areas. The subject lands are located within the City’s Built-up Area as shown on Schedule A-2 to the Official Plan. Also, an appropriate range and mix of housing types are to be provided to meet the requirements of residents. The proposed apartments are a form of residential intensification promoted by the Province. The proposal will provide an additional rental housing option for residents, which is needed as the City is currently experiencing a shortage of rental housing. Land use conversions from commercial uses to more sensitive land uses such as residential require, under Provincial regulations, the submission of environmental studies and the filing of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) to ensure the land is sufficiently free of contamination for the intended use. The applicant has completed the studies and has submitted a RSC to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP). To date the MOECP has not acknowledged the filing of the RSC, however they anticipate completing their review of the RSC by the end of this month. The Region has noted the option of either dealing with this requirement by either placing a holding (H) regulation in the amending by-law until acknowledgement of the filing is received, or through the subsequent site plan process. It this therefore recommended site plan approval not be granted until this acknowledgement is received. 2. Official Plan The subject land is designated Tourist Commercial in the City’s Official Plan and is part of the Lundy’s Lane Satellite District. Although Tourist Commercial lands are primarily intended to be developed for tourist serving commercial uses, they may also be developed for residential purposes. Such developments are to have densities between 75 and 100 units per hectare. Building heights up to 8 storeys may be considered along the Lundy’s Lane corridor. The proposal is within the intent of the Official Plan as follows: Although the land is currently permitted to be used for commercial purposes, development of the land for an appropriately scaled apartment building is recommended as it would be more compatible with the residential neighbourhood to the south. The apartment building is proposed at a density of 76 units per hectare, which is within the density range expected for the property; Page 50 of 450 4 PBD-2019-01 January 29, 2019 The height of the building (3 storeys) provides an appropriate transition from taller buildings that may be permitted along Lundy’s Lane to detached one and two storey dwellings to the south; The provision of ample landscaped side yards, and a landscaped strip in front of the parking along Brookfield Avenue, will assist in making the development compatible with adjacent residences. Fencing and tree planting along the south lot line will further buffer the adjacent residence; and The Official Plan seeks to maintain a rental vacancy rate of 3%; however recent Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation statistics show the City’s vacancy rate has dropped to 2.2%. The provision of additional rental housing will assist in addressing this shortage. 3. Zoning By-law The property is currently zoned Tourist Commercial (TC) in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200. The requested Residential Apartment 5B Density (R5B) zone permits an apartment building with a maximum height of 10 metres (3 storeys). The departures requested from the standard R5B regulations are summarized in the following table: R5B ZONE STANDARD REGULATION PROPOSED REGULATION Minimum lot area 133 sq. m./unit 130 sq. m./unit Minimum rear yard depth 10 metres 4.4 metres Minimum landscaped open space coverage 35% 31% Waste disposal enclosure permitted in front yard no yes The departures from the standard regulations can be supported for the following reasons: The current density regulations would permit between 17 and 18 units on the property; the lot area reduction rounds out the density to permit 18 units; The reduction in rear yard depth is acceptable given the land abuts tourist commercial uses to its rear that will not be impacted by the lesser setback. In addition ample landscaped amenity area is provided along the sides of the proposed building to compensate for the loss in rear yard amenity area . The reduction in landscaped open space is minor and will not impact on adjacent residential uses; and Given the orientation of the site and the proposed building , it is not possible to locate the waste disposal enclosure anywhere else except the front yard. Through the site plan process appropriate cladding and/or plantings will be employed to give the enclosure an attractive appearance. Page 51 of 450 5 PBD-2019-01 January 29, 2019 4. Site Plan The development will be subject to site plan control. At the site plan stage detailed servicing and grading plans, landscape plans (showing wood fencing along the south lot line and tree planting) and lighting plans will be reviewed and approved. In addition, it will be necessary to complete the Record of Site Condition (RSC) process by obtaining an acknowledgement letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP) prior to site plan approval. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed development will provide Development Charges and new tax assessment to the City. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT This proposal does not impact any of the City’s strategic commitments. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Schedule 1 – Location Map Schedule 2 – Site Plan Schedule 3 – Front Elevation Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A.Bryce:mb Attach. S:\PDR\2019\PBD-2019-01, AM-2018-004, 5873 Brookfield Ave, Zoning By-law Amendment.docx Page 52 of 450 6 PBD-2019-01 January 29, 2019 SCHEDULE 1 Page 53 of 450 7 PBD-2019-01 January 29, 2019 SCHEDULE 2 Page 54 of 450 8 PBD-2019-01 January 29, 2019 SCHEDULE 3 Page 55 of 450 PBD-2019-02 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2019-02 AM-2018-018, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 7373 Niagara Square Drive Applicant: R.E.Y. Investments Inc. Agent: David Yip Proposal: Conversion of Existing Hotel into a Retirement Home RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the lands to a site specific Tourist Commercial (TC) zone to allow the conversion of the existing 5 storey hotel (Peninsula Inn) into a retirement home with 85 private living units, maintain the current regulations for a 13 storey hotel and recognize the existing building height of 19.5 metres, and the accessory buildings and structures (pergola and gazebo) located on the subject lands; and 2. That the site specific by-law exclude a holding (H) regulation for the proposed conversion of the existing hotel into a retirement home, as the City has received confirmation from the Trustee of the QEW/McLeod Road interchange improvements that a contribution would only be required for any new buildings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY R.E.Y Investments Inc. has submitted a Zoning By-law amendment application for the property known as 7373 Niagara Square Drive. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing 5 storey hotel (Peninsula Inn) into a retirement home with 85 private living units. The lands are currently zoned Tourist Commercial (TC-276(H)), in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2010-102. The site specific regulations allow a 13 storey, 240 room hotel. The holding regulation (H) is to ensure funds are contributed for the improvements to the QEW and McLeod Road interchange. A new site specific Tourist Commercial (TC) zone is requested to be placed on the lands which would add a retirement home as a permitted use, maintain the current regulations for a 13 storey hotel and recognize the existing building height of 19.5 metres, and the accessory buildings and structures (pergola and gazebo) located on the subject lands. The applicant is also requesting the new TC zone without a holding regulation for the proposed conversion. The amendment is recommended for the following reasons: The retirement home will assist the City in meeting its intensification targets set by the Province for the Built-up Area and provide an additional housing choice for seniors; Page 56 of 450 2 PBD-2019-02 January 29, 2019 The retirement home will complement and enhance the Niagara Square Retail District as envisioned by the City’s Official Plan; The conversion is an adaptive reuse of an existing building and infrast ructure; The density of the retirement home is comparable to a low rise apartment building; The applicant has demonstrated through a Noise Study and Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that the property is suitable for residential use; The existing hotel building (5 storeys and19.5 metres) and accessory structures (gazebo and pergola) have existed for a number of years and a measure of land use compatibility has evolved; The existing infrastructure can support the proposed conversion; The retirement home is not expected to generate significant traffic; Maintaining the existing approvals for a 13 storey hotel will provide future redevelopment options; and The City has received confirmation from the Trustee of the QEW/McLeod Road interchange improvements that financial contributions are not required for the conversion and that the holding (H) regulation is only necessary for new buildings. BACKGROUND Proposal The applicant has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a 1.88 hectare parcel of land known as 7373 Niagara Square Drive, shown on Schedule 1. The amendment is requested to permit the conversion of the existing 5 storey hotel (Peninsula Inn) into a retirement home with 85 private living units. Schedule 2 shows details of the proposal. The lands are zoned Tourist Commercial (TC-276(H)), in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2010-102. The site specific regulations allow a 13 storey, 240 room hotel. The holding regulation (H) is to ensure funds are contributed for the improvements to the QEW and McLeod Road interchange. The site specific TC- 276 zone does not permit a retirement home. The lands are requested to be rezoned to a new site specific Tourist Commercial zone to permit a retirement home and maintain the current regulations for a 13 storey hotel and to recognize the existing building height of 19.5 metres, and the accessory buildings and structures (pergola and gazebo) located on the subject lands. The applicant is also requesting the new TC zone without a holding regulation (H) for financial contributions for the QEW /McLeod Road interchange improvement for the retirement home. Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses Page 57 of 450 3 PBD-2019-02 January 29, 2019 The subject lands currently contain a 5 storey hotel (Peninsula Inn). To the west are three vacant parcels. The McBain Community Centre is located to the north and Niagara Square is located south of the subject lands. Circulation Comments Information regarding the requested Zoning By-law amendment was circulated to City divisions, the Region, agencies and the public for comments. The following summarizes the comments received to date: Regional Municipality of Niagara No objections from a Provincial or Regional perspective. The proposal will assist the City in meeting its intensification target and will provide housing opportunities for seniors. The Noise Feasibility Study prepared by J.E Coulter Engineering (dated May 2, 2018) concluded that the dominant source of noise is the road traffic from the QEW and McLeod Road and Niagara Square Drive. Rooftop mechanical equipment at Niagara Square and Walmart superstore site were also identified as potential stationary noise sources. The QEW Highway is the dominant transportation noise source, with sound levels from the surrounding rooftop mechanical equipment being well below the ambient traffic noise at all times. The Study concluded that the existing exterior façade (windows, walls and thru-wall HVAC units) of the building are sufficient to attenuate the sound levels to meet Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) NPC-300 noise criteria. The Study has recommended a number of measures to satisfy MECP minimum requirements, which shall be confirmed and implemented at the Building Permit stage. The property is currently used for commercial purposes (i.e., the hotel). As the applicant is proposing to change the use to residential (i.e., the retirement home), a mandatory filing of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is required in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04 under the Environmental Protection Act. Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) reports, prepared by Hallex Environmental Ltd., were submitted with the application in support of filing the RSC. The Phase 1 ESA report (dated June 4, 2018) identified three Potentially Contaminating Activities (PCAs) and associated Areas of Potential Environmental Contamination (APECs) on, or near the subject property. Based on the Phase 1 research and findings, a Phase 2 ESA was recommended and carried out by the consultant, to investigate the site’s soil and groundwater conditions. The Phase 2 ESA revealed that soil and groundwater samples meet applicable MECP site condition standards. The consultant considers the site suitable for residential purposes, and filing the Page 58 of 450 4 PBD-2019-02 January 29, 2019 RSC. In accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, the RSC shall be filed prior to the change in land use. Regional staff will require that the RSC be filed as a condition of issuance of Building Permits. Municipal Works/ Parks Design Transportation Services, Building Services and Fire Services No objections. Ontario Building Code matters and fire safety can be addressed at the Building Permit stage. Legal Services No objections to the rezoning. Neighbourhood Open House A neighbourhood open house was held on November 14, 2018. No area property owners attended the meeting. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE 1. Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan Provincial policies require 40% of all residential development to occur through intensification within the City’s Built-up Area. The proposed retirement home will assist the City in meeting its intensification targets and will provide an additional housing choice for seniors. 2. Official Plan The lands are designated Major Commercial in the Official Plan and are located in the Niagara Square Retail District. The District is to be a regional shopping area comprised of three shopping centres, namely, Niagara Square, Lowe’s Plaza and Walmart Plaza. The Plan allows the balance of the lands in the district, which includes the subject lands, to be developed for accommodations, mixed use commercial/residential, service commercial; and personal service facilities to complement and enhance the function of the district. The lands are also subject to Special Policy Area No. 63 which allows holding (H) regulations to be applied in the zoning of lands to provide for contributions to fund the QEW/McLeod Road interchange improvements. Holding regulations have been applied to a number of properties in proximity to the interchange through site specific by-laws. The holding regulations can only be lifted or removed after a landowner has provided their proportionate share of the cost of the road improvements or the Trustee confirms none are required . These policies are in effect until July, 2020. The proposal meets the requirements of the Official Plan as follows; Page 59 of 450 5 PBD-2019-02 January 29, 2019 The retirement home will complement and enhance the Niagara Square Retail District as envisioned by the City’s Official Plan; The conversion is an adaptive reuse of an existing building and infrastructure; The density of the retirement home is comparable to a low rise apartment building; As the retirement home will not generate excessive traffic, there will be no adverse impact on the commercial traffic patterns; and The City has received confirmation from the Trustee of the QEW/McLeod Road interchange improvements that financial contributions are not required for the conversion and that the holding (H) regulation is only necessary for new buildings. 3. Zoning By-law The lands are zoned Tourist Commercial (TC-276(H)), in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2010-102. The site specific regulations allow a 13 storey, 240 room hotel. The holding regulation (H) applies to the land to ensure funds are contributed for the improvements to the QEW and McLeod Road interchange. The site specific TC-276 zone does not permit a retirement home. The lands are requested to be rezoned to a new site specific Tourist Commercial zone to permit a retirement home and maintain the current regulations for a 13 storey hotel and to recognize the existing building height of 19.5 metres, and the accessory buildings and structures (pergola and gazebo) located on the subject lands. The applicant is also requesting the new TC zone without a holding regulation (H) for the retirement home. The requested zoning amendment is recommended for the following reasons: A retirement home would provide an additional housing choice in the area; Maintaining the existing approvals for a 13 storey hotel will provide future redevelopment options; The existing hotel building (5 storeys and19.5 metres) and accessory structures (gazebo and pergola) have existed for a number of years and a measure of land use compatibility has evolved. The pergola and gazebo provide an amenity area for the future residents; and The City has received confirmation from the Trustee of the QEW/McLeod Road interchange improvements that financial contributions would only be required for new buildings. Page 60 of 450 6 PBD-2019-02 January 29, 2019 4. Site Plan Control Currently a site plan agreement is registered over the subject lands. As the proposal to convert the existing hotel into a retirement home does not increase the usability of the site and there are no proposed changes to the building footprint or the site layout, an amendment to the site plan agreement is not required. CITY’S STRATEGIC INITIATIVE The application does not affect any of the City’s strategic commitments. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Schedule 1 – Location Map Schedule 2 – Site Plan Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A.Dilwaria:mb Attach. S:\PDR\2019\PBD-2019-02, AM-2018-018, 7373 Niagara Square Drive, Zoning By-law Amendment.docx Page 61 of 450 7 PBD-2019-02 January 29, 2019 SCHEDULE 1 Page 62 of 450 8 PBD-2019-02 January 29, 2019 SCHEDULE 2 Page 63 of 450 MW-2019-02 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW-2019-02 Glengate Park Petition Public Information Centre Results RECOMMENDATION That the report to improve Glengate Park be referred to the 2019 Capital Budget process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to a petition received at the June 19, 2018 Council meeting, staff were directed to conduct a public consultation process with the neighbours of Glengate Park. The purpose of this report is to state the results of the consultation process and make a recommendation for actions that respond to both City policies and consultation outcomes. Staff found that residents desired the refurbishment of a tennis court, the creation of a new multi-purpose basketball court, the refurbishment of the existing playground area and the establishment of a new hard surface trail with fitness stations. These improvements could be supported within Glengate Park. Other improvements were asked for by residents including a spray pad, skateboard park and off-leash dog park. Unfortunately these amenities cannot be supported within Glengate Park. BACKGROUND Glengate Park is a 1.82ha (4.49ac) neighbourhood park located at 4190 Pettit Avenue within the Stamford community planning district. The park contains an older playground area, a double tennis court, baseball diamond, signage, waste receptacles and mature trees. The playground area is nearing the end of the lifecycle and has been identified as a priority candidate for replacement. The double tennis court is in poor condition and currently closed due to public safety concerns. The baseball diamond is in fair condition and is not regularly used by organized leagues. The approved 2017 City of Niagara Falls Tennis and basketball Service Delivery Review recommended that the existing tennis courts at Glengate Park be removed and that the City of Niagara Falls seek further community input on what other recreational opportunities may service the neighbourhood. This recommendation was made because upon implementation of the approved 2017 Tennis and Basketball SDR the Glengate Park users would have four (4) tennis courts and four (4) multi -purpose basketball courts within close proximity to use. These courts would be located at: Lind Page 64 of 450 January 29, 2019 - 2 - MW-2019-02 Somerville Park (8225 Orchard Grove Parkway), Cherry Hill Park (6820 Cherry Hill Drive), Meadowvale Park (7148 Briarwood Avenue) and E.E. Mitchelson Park (3750 Springdale Avenue). See Attachment #1. At the June 19, 2018 meeting, City Council received a petition signed by thirty -five (35) Glengate Park users requesting the following. “We, the neighbourhood residents of Glengate Park would like to make sure that either our tennis courts are repaired or replaced with a multipurpose court.” See attachment #2. At the same meeting, Council directed staff to conduct a neighbourhood meeting with residents and report back with recommendations (New Business item g). On September 4, 2018 City Staff commenced with a public consultation process that included a neighbourhood mailing of approximately 700 households, on-line webpage with survey and on-site pop-up public information centre (PIC.) The PIC was conducted on Thursday September 27, 2018 from 3pm to 5:30pm. The public consultation process concluded on Friday October 5, 2018. See attachment #3 ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The neighbourhood resident participation in the public consultation process was generally as follows; 21 neighbourhood residents attended the pop-up PIC. See attachment #4 14 written responses were received at the PIC. 16 responses were received through our web survey or email. 1 response was received by phone call. Nearly all responses had multiple comments. The main comments are generally summarized in the following chart. Staff found that residents generally wanted; at least one (1) tennis court refurbished, a new basketball/multi-purpose court, the existing playground refurbished with artificial turf, 2 2 2 3 3 4 6 6 7 9 13 14 Off-Leash Dog Park More Trees and Landscaping Do Nothing More Benches and Picnic Tables Baseball Diamond Skateboard Park Spray Pad Outdoor Equipment/Fitness Equipment Paved Walkway through Park Playground Equipment Basketball/Multi-purpose Court Tennis Court(s) Summary of Resident Requests through Comments Page 65 of 450 January 29, 2019 - 3 - MW-2019-02 a paved walkway through the park (Pettit Avenue to Crawford Street) and outdoor fitness equipment. These amenities could be supported within Glengate Park. Other requested amenities including a spray pad, skateboard park and off -leash dog park cannot be supported within Glengate Park. The unsupportable amenities are being provided in other park locations in accordance with existing City policies. To accommodate the resident requests staff are suggesting that the existing double tennis court be converted to a single premium level tennis court with a full multi -purpose basketball court. The existing playground may be replaced with a new accessible playground with artificial turf. Furthermore a trail with benches and bench-fit exercise stations can be constructed through the park from Pettit Avenue to Crawford Street. Staff believe that this suggested work plan would also address the stated request of the petition submitted to Council on June 19, 2018. See attachment #5 FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The budget required for the requested park improvements at Glengate Park are estimated at; Tennis and multipurpose basketball courts $200,000 Accessible playground with artificial turf surfacing $187,000 Paved trail with benches and bench-fit stations $75,000 No staffing or legal implications are anticipated. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The recommendation is consistent with Council’s Strategic Priority to ensure that investments in infrastructure maximize benefits, reduce risk, and provide satisfactory levels of service to the public. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. 2017 Tennis and Basketball SDR Implementation Schedule 2. Glengate Park Resident Petition 3. Glengate Park Public Consultation Notice Letter 4. Glengate Park PIC Sign-in Sheet 5. Glengate Park Concept Sketch 6. 2019 Capital Budget Sheet Recommended by: Kent Schachowskoj, Acting Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer D. Antonsen Page 66 of 450 Page 67 of 450 Page 68 of 450 Page 69 of 450 Page 70 of 450 Page 71 of 450 Page 72 of 450 Page 73 of 450 Page 74 of 450 Page 75 of 450 Page 76 of 450 Page 77 of 450 Page 78 of 450 Page 79 of 450 Page 80 of 450 fir -X Niag araj1alls September 4, 2018 Dear Neighbour Re: Glengate Park Future Recreational Amenity- Public Consultation The City Council approved 2017 Niagara Falls Tennis and Basketball Service Delivery Review recommends that the tennis courts at Glengate Park be replaced with a new recreational amenity. Other tennis courts nearby at; E.E Mitchelson Park, Lind Sommerville Park, Meadowvale Park and Cherry Hill Park are slated for future refurbishment. Before any plans for a future recreational amenity can be made, we need to hear your thoughts on this matter. What new amenity would you, your family and/or your neighbours enjoy at Glengate park? Feel free to give us multiple suggestions! Visit www.Ietstalk.niagarafalls.ca for more information and to provide your opinion on Glengate Park. An attendance optional pop-up public meeting will be held to hear from you. Glengate Park 4190 Pettit Avenue, Niagara Falls Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:OOpm to 5:30pm Rain Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 — Same location and time) Other ways to contact us... Municipal Works Department Niagara Falls City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls ON. L2E 6X5 Phone: 905-356-7521 ext 4211 Fax: 289-296-0048 Email: mwcomments@niagarafalls.ca We request that all feed -back be provided by Friday, October 5, 2018. The timing of any work at Glengate Park will be subject to future budget approval by Niagara Falls City Council. Yours truly, Orr sa:" onsen, Landscape Architect Working Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works Ext 3335 Fax 289-296-0048 dantonsen@niagarafal Is.ca 4310 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1023, Niagara Falls, ON, Canada L2E 6X5 905-356-7521 www.niagarafalls.ca Page 81 of 450 Glengate Park Future Improvements Public Consultation Glengate Park Location Map Location Map a-THOR°1 ^9Nk-too 6850 6824' 6816 I 6754-6788 1056 6773576767596375 151743573 5 rn 6714. 6704 667,666 6642 6725 6622 6586 155693565/ 56391562.7561j8e 016591 c-aAW PORa 6638 562661G6594 skihs\ 4100 1 65786/ RAWFORD -ST 6795 LS 6807 if) 6817 6827 6768' 6740 6711670 6 6837 pflT-AV 6788 6812 4136.4126 4116 C.,„ 6826 4124 r 41364150 4111 6800 4125 'LP 3' 41 16514063110751 187 40994117 4131 68935884 6876 4143 50 6668 4155 6885 4167 72 6768 6875 6840 6826 6796 4 127 4141 4153 1 4146 4171 4 4158 4183 4195 4110 1 4113 4( 41221 4121 4134 4133 41: 4144 41364128 1 4170 4193 4187 41, - s 4182 4201 4213 t 4225 to 6371241 84 196 6865: 208 6855 6847 5837 rj82758155X863 6793 rjer_ 4 Niagaralalf17 CAA'ADA 228 ALIS -C-R 4216 4226 4238 665 4203 4215 4238 6669 vi: 4227 4238 6681 \e:913 6783 4249 1 6674 41 4204 4214 4226 4238 6595 _l SP -LE DC is 1 [6751 6771 ere 4302 4320 6593 5582 4285 die 4332 13011_013K 013 - City43461Faa Falls August 2018 Subject Land Page 82 of 450 Page 83 of 450 Page 84 of 450 Page 85 of 450 Department CEMETERIES & PARKS Priority (1-3)1 Project Name Glengate Park Improvements - Trails Included in 10 year y Capital Plan (y/n) Project I.D. #New Project Description Improvements in response to petition for Glengate Park located at 4190 Pettit Avenue. Work to include hard surface paved trails with benches and bench-fit outdoor fitness stations constructed throughout the park from Pettit Avenue to Crawford Street. Projected Start Date: YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Opening Balance-Jan 01 (surplus)/deficit - - - - EXPENDITURES Engineering Fees/Design/Studies Land/Building/Furniture/ Equipment Construction Roads Storm Sewers Water Sanitary Sewers Sitework/Landscaping 75,000 Contingency Other Interest Expense TOTAL EXPENDITURES 75,000 - - - - FUNDING SOURCES Special Purpose Reserves Capital Holding Reserve Reserve Fund Transfer from Operating Development Charges Debentures Gas Tax Provincial/Federal Grants External Contributions Interest Earned Other TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - - - - - Closing Balance-Dec 31 (surplus)/deficit 75,000 - - - - Capital Budget Worksheet 2019 MW-2019-02 - Attachment #6 Page 86 of 450 MW-2019-04 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW-2019-04 Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) Update RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize the following list of recommendations related to the City’s WRAP program: 1. That the current funding limit amounts on individual applications be increased from $3,000 to $4,000 for the installation of a sump pump with backup system, and from $900 to $1,200 for the installation of a backwater valve, and that the amount for unique nonstandard installations that are authorized from time to time by the program administrator be increased from $5,000 to $10,000. 2. That the annual budget amount for the Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program remains at the current $500,000. 3. That the application process be simplified and streamlined by revising and updating the forms and terms of conditions, and by producing an up to date information package for the program to ensure consistency and clarity for homeowners, and that all be made digitally available on the City’s website. 4. That a Qualified Contractors List is generated based on approval by the program administrator or designate, and that the list is included in the WRAP program information package. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Niagara Falls has implemented several long term strategies to address wet weather impacts to the City’s sewer collection system, sewer overflows to the natural environment, and the elimination of chronic basement flooding due to wet weather related events. The Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) was implemented and designed to divert ground water from entering the sanitary sewer system by removing foundation weeping tile connections from to the sanitary sewer system, and also providing homeowners with an added level of protection against basement flooding by installing a backwater valve device. The purpose of this report is Page 87 of 450 2 MW-2019-04 January 29, 2019 to request Council’s approval and support to implement enhancements to the existing WRAP program in order to improve: public awareness, administration of the program, incentives to increase participation, and ultimately free up capacity within the existing sanitary sewer system to increase resiliency against potential basement flooding. BACKGROUND The City completed a Pollution Prevention and Control Plan Update Study (PPCPUS) in 2017. The purpose of the study was to provide a strategic plan to improve the operation, maintenance, and long term growth and sustainability of the City’s Wastewater collection system infrastructure. Outcomes from the study were aimed at reducing wastewater overflow to limit environmental impacts, meet current Ministry of Environment procedural requirements, mitigate and eliminate basement flooding, and accommodate future growth. One of the recommendations resulting from the study was to expand extraneous flow reduction measures to private property sources and have staff examine the current WRAP program funding, eligibility, subsidies and delivery method. The incentive in the WRAP subsidy program is to assist residents in achieving compliance with the provisions of City By-law 2010-61, which prohibits the connection of weeping tile (foundation drains) to the City’s sanitary sewer collection systems. Although weeping tile connections to the sewer system have been prohibited since 1989 through provisions in the Ontario Building Code, homes built from the mid 1940’s to the late 1980’s most likely have weeping tile connected to the sanitary sewer. While the impacts from residential weeping tile connections are only a part of the City’s strategy to address these issues, it is a critical and cost effective part of the overall Pollution Prevention Control Plan. The current program allows eligible homeowners a financial subsidy in the amount of up to $3,000 for the disconnection of weeping tile and installation of a sump pump, and $900 for the installation of a backwater valve, subject to application approval and budget availability. Due to the nature of the work involved, the program administrator is also permitted to approve additional funding to address unique non -standard installations that arise from time to time. Although the current program is operative, upon staff’s review and assessment, a number of enhancements are being proposed in order to achieve the following goals: 1. Increase participation and awareness of the program; 2. Increase subsidy amount to reduce potential out of pocket costs to homeowners 3. Update and improve application forms, and permit on-line application; 4. Update and improve the current process and subsidy requirements to increase consistency and clarity; 5. Produce and provide homeowners with an “information package” that clearly describes program details and benefits. Page 88 of 450 3 MW-2019-04 January 29, 2019 The enhancements to the WRAP program, described in this report, align with the recommendations of the 2017 PPCPUS report to focus on reducing sources of inflow and infiltration from private infrastructure, and thereby reducing the risk of wet weather related basement flooding to residents. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The City’s current WRAP program is operative. However, analysis has revealed that approximately 9,000 land parcels are still likely to have weeping tile connections to the City’s sanitary sewer collection system. Funding for the program is currently set at $500,000 per year, and the average current cost for installation of a backwater valve and sump pump is approximately $5,000. For a number of reasons including allowing currently voluntary disconnection, a lack of public awareness and knowledge of the program, eligibility for and clarity of the program, the City in recent years has only spent approximately $350,000 per year which amounts to approximately 70 disconnections annually. Since the inception of the program in 2010, the number of applicants typically spike after extreme wet weather events which caused sanitary sewer system surcharging. Modifications to improve the program were made in 2012 as identified in staff report MW -2012-03 (copy attached). However since then very few additional changes have been implemented. Upon review of the program’s completed works in recent years and current challenges faced by staff, contractors, and homeowners, it is evident that in order to consistently increase participation and continue to reduce wet weather flows from entering the sanitary sewer system, enhancements to program are necessary. Staff have also verified that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of homes requiring additional funding beyond the current eligible limits in order to complete the required works in accordance with today’s standards. Furthermore it was confirmed that many applicants opt out of the program after making the initial application and being approved for subsidy. In 2018 alone, the City received approximately 200 applications, however only 95 homes actually had eligible works completed. Additionally, over 30% of the homes that had eligible works completed, exceeded the current funding limits. In order to improve participation and maximize the benefits of the program, City staff have reviewed and analyzed the current process. During staff’s review the following challenges were identified: - Further promotion of the program to the general public is necessary; - Lack of clarity and understanding of the application and program process; - Homeowners are often unsure of the nature and extent (coverage) of program subsidies, and the benefits it is intended to provide; Page 89 of 450 4 MW-2019-04 January 29, 2019 - Application availability and tracking needs improvement to provide a higher level of customer service; - The subsidy process needs to be clearly defined to ensure homeowners and contractors are aware of eligible works and payment process; - Once approved, homeowners are often unsure of how to proceed with implementation; - Sump pump discharge locations can often lead to drainage ponding issues or slip hazards during cold weather months. Upon implementation of the enhancements, it is staff’s intention to review and assess the effectiveness of the program, including analyzing sewer flow monitoring data in areas that show high rates of inflow and infiltration. A follow up report will be prepared for Council’s review in the fall of 2019 showing outcomes of the enhancements implemented, with recommendations regarding potential additions, if necessary. There will also be recommendations provided regarding longer term program outcomes and direction. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Based on the analysis of the WRAP program to date, it is recommended that the annual budget amount remain at $500,000. Upon implementation of the enhancements and potential increase in applications and participation, staff will monitor and update Council should additional funding be required. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT This project and recommendation are in keeping with Council’ Strategic priorities for: Infrastructure Sustainability (system capacity to accommodate growth, addressing basement flooding issues); Financial Stability (Asset Management plan priorities based on need, long term Infrastructure sustainability investment, risk management frameworks) LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Report: MW -2012-03 Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) Update Recommended by: Kent Schachowskoj, Acting Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 90 of 450 MW- 2012 -03 Niagaraialls March 27, 2012 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW- 2012 -03 Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) Update RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize staff to continue with implementation of the Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP), including the modifications as recommended in this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Niagara Falls is committed to the elimination of chronic basement flooding and combined sewer overflows (CSO) into the natural environment. It has adopted a two pronged strategy that addresses both source control and end -of -pipe initiatives. The WRAP program is designed to divert ground water from the sanitary sewer system by encouraging the removal of weeping tile connections. The purpose of this report is to recommend some modifications to the program that will provide additional incentives and raise the public awareness of this progressive strategy. BACKGROUND The City of Niagara Falls Pollution Control Plan (2008) identifies the need to mitigate wet weather impacts to the City Sewers systems and the environment through City Wide source control initiatives. The Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) has been in place in its current form since April of 2010, as per the recommendations approved by Council in Report MW- 2010 -24 (attached). The WRAP program is one of the components of the City's ongoing efforts to reduce or eliminate extraneous flows (such as stormwater runoff inflow and groundwater infiltration flow) from entering the sanitary sewer system. The program is designed to assist residents in disconnecting existing Weeping Tile connections to the Sanitary sewer as a method of source control to limit the amount of stormwater runoff and collected groundwater entering the sewer system. Also, on April 26, 2010, City By -Law 2010 -61 was passed which prohibits the connection of Weeping Tile (foundation drains) to the Sanitary sewer system. The incentives in the WRAP program are to aid residents in complying with the provisions of this by -law. Enforcement of the By -law is subject to the discretion of the Director of Municipal Works and at this time the focus is voluntary compliance due to the City's limited resources. The WRAP program is a proactive tool providing residents technical assistance and a financial incentive (in the form of a monetary subsidy) when they disconnect existing private weeping tile connections to the sanitary sewer system. This will reduce the potential for sewer surcharging within the existing wastewater infrastructure network and, in turn, lower the risk of combined sewer overflows (CSO's) into basement flooding and Page 91 of 450 March 27, 2012 the natural environment. 2 - MW- 2012 -03 Another component of the WRAP program is a public awareness campaign to inform residents of both the direct and indirect long term benefits of removing weeping tile connections to the sanitary sewer system. The City budgeted $930,000 in 2010 and $760,000 in 2011 to fund this program. Starting in April of 2010, the following is a summary of installations undertaken with respect to Weeping Tile Disconnections and Backwater Prevention Valve installations: Date Range Number of Installations Funding from City April to July 2010 (pre -WRAP) 18 $ 41,755 WRAP Program (2010) 29 $ 92,244 WRAP Program (2011) 59 $ 196,966 Public Awareness efforts include a dedicated web -page on the City of Niagara Falls web - site. Additionally, two (2) Information Sessions were held on July 13, 2010 for the residents of Chippawa (one of the targeted areas for the WRAP program) and for licensed plumbers interested in participating in the program. The public information sessions were very heavily attended, but the feedback was largely negative against the program. There was only a handful of inquiries requesting additional information on the program or an application for subsidy. ANALYSIS /RATIONALE The current program has had some challenges that require modifications to improve its effectiveness. The program application and the implementation process are somewhat confusing and difficult to understand. The terms and conditions need to be expressly spelled out for all the involved parties as the City is to act only as the facilitator, providing technical and monetary assistance. The contractual relationship is to be between the applicant (homeowner) and the contractor (plumber), but the strong prevalent perception is that the City is responsible for all aspects of the program, including liability for and maintenance of the installed equipment in perpetuity. This is despite the applicants signing an acknowledgement and release regarding the City's liability and responsibilities. Although it is clearly spelled out in the terms and conditions that interior and exterior restoration and landscaping is not considered as eligible costs under the program, extensive staff time is devoted to dealing with these and system performance complaints, in some cases several years after the installation. This has resulted in multiple site visits by staff both prior to and following installation and extensive consultation with applicants both in- person and over the telephone in regard to the rules and details of the program. Efforts to target problematic areas through the use of the adopted by -law prohibiting weeping tile connections to the sanitary sewer system have not been effective on an area - specific basis. The original WRAP reports reference studies that detail the potential cost - effective benefits realized through source controls -in reducing extraneous flows entering the sanitary sewer system. In order to properly quantify the effectiveness of the program, field monitoring and assessment is required. The voluntary nature of the program and lack of ability to target problem areas has resulted in a scattered pattern of installations over the years. (See Page 92 of 450 March 27, 2012 - 3 - MW- 2012 -03 attachment 2 to 6). Based on all the above, it is our conclusion that in order to achieve the originally envisioned desired outcomes from this program, the scope and magnitude of the program and associated resource commitments need to be modified. Staff is not currently positioned to conclude that the potential benefits gained are commensurate with the program costs. Further research, monitoring and assessment, along with extensive public education and the development of more effective implementation tools is required before we can reach that point determining the ultimate fate of this program. As such, it is recommended that the current program continue at a reduced scale, and that the program rules, terms and conditions and procedures be modified to give staff more flexibility in administering and coordinating the program. The following are the recommended revisions and adjustments to the WRAP program for 2012: 1. The program application and approval forms be streamlined and made more user - friendly. 2. That funding limits on individual applications be adjusted as follows: Weeping tile disconnection and sump pump installation - $3,000 Weeping tile disconnection, sump pump installation and backwater prevention valve installation - $3,900 Backwater valve installation - $900 3. That the program administrator be granted the authority to approve additional funding up to a maximum of $5,000 per application to address unique nonstandard installations that arise from time to time. Any funding over this limit would be subject to approval from the Director of Municipal Works. 4. That the program administrator be granted the authority to approve funding for remedial sump pump discharge relocation redirection works where the standard or existing discharge location is creating what the administrator deems to be a safety or flooding hazard. These measures could consist of direct connection to the municipal storm sewer system or a private soak away pit, or redirection of the current discharge. 5. That the Terms, Conditions, Procedures, Liabilities and Responsibilities of the program be revisited and clearly delineated to promote better understanding by all participants in the program, including signed acknowledgements from both the applicants and the contractors in regard to adhering to the program rules. 6. That the overall scope of the funding for the program be reduced to fall in line with the average installation rates currently being experienced and described more fully in the Financial Implications section of this report. 7 That a more aggressive Public education campaign be developed and implemented. 8. That staff conduct wet weather flow monitoring and analyse basement flooding and sewer surcharge histories. To monitor the effectiveness of the diversion efforts of the WRAP program and identify candidate areas for future pilot test program implementation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2011 Municipal Utility Budget had funding in the amount of $760,000 set aside for the implementation of this program. Based on the analysis of the WRAP program to date, the average is 67 installations at an average cost to the City of $3,250. Allowing for a 10% increase in applications or costs, and including an allowance for Public Awareness Page 93 of 450 March 27, 2012 4 - MW- 2012 -03 spending, a more realistic funding level for this program in 2012 should be $260,000. STAFFING IMPLICATIONS Based on the recommendations contained in this report, the proposed revisions to the WRAP program will not pose any staffing implications. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Based on the recommendations contained in this report, the current proposed revisions to the WRAP program should not pose any legal implications. It is recommended that a risk management analysis be undertaken for the consideration to have the City contract this program's activities out in future years. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT This recommendation is consistent with Council's strategic priorities to undertake reviews to improve infrastructure sustainability and to continue to enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Report MW- 2010 -24 2. Sump Pump Parcels Map - Quadrant 1 3. Sump Pump Parcels Map - Quadrant 2 4. Sump Pump Parcels Map - Quadrant 3 5. Sump Pump Parcels Map - Quadrant 3S 6. Sump Pump Parcels Map - Quadrant 4 Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: Kent Schachowskoj /Geoff Holman ci l (i Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 94 of 450 r- Niagararqps REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair Members of the Community Services CommiittPP City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Community Services Department MW- 2010 -24 April 26, 2010 The recommendation(s) contained in this report were adopted in committee and ratified by City Council SUBJECT: MW- 2010 -24 Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) & Weeping Tile Removal By -Law RECOMMENDATION 1. That Committee authorize staff to proceed with Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) as set out in this report. 2. That Committee recommend Council receive the report and approve the Weeping Tile Removal By -law listed later on the agenda. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The storm water and wastewater infrastructure that serves the City of Niagara Falls has been under increasing stress in recent years due to new development, climate change and aging infrastructure. This stress has contributed to more frequent combined sewer overflows (CSO's), basement flooding and costly premature capital investments. Efforts to treat and intercept storm water before it reaches the Stanley Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant have been slow and expensive. Sewer separation projects, High Rate Treatment and in -line storage strategies have proven to be helpful but capital intensive initiatives. Studies have shown that the most cost effective solution to the problem is to eliminate the problem at its source. To achieve this, the City needs to redirect any connection that allows the inflow of surface drainage and groundwater into the sanitary sewer system. While the impacts from residential weeping tile connections are only part of the City's strategy to address these issues, it is a critical and cost - effective part of the overall Pollution Control Plan. Although these weeping tile connections have been prohibited since 1989 through provisions in the Ontario Building Code, there were approximately 19,500 homes built in Niagara Falls between mid 1940's and late 1980's that may have weeping the connected to the sanitary sewer system. The proposed City's Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) has been planned to achieve five specific goals; 1. Raise the awareness and inform residents of the long term benefits of removing weeping tile connections to the sanitary sewer system; and, Page 95 of 450 April 26, 2010 MW-2010-24 2. Provide a financial incentive to assist residents to comply with this new standard which is being implemented retroactively; and, 3. Confirm the City's ongoing commitment to the Ministry of the Environment to protect the natural environment from the downstream impacts of CSO's and sewer bypasses; and, 4. Reduce the volume of clean water entering the sanitary sewer using capacity that otherwise could be utilized for future development; and, 5. Reduce the City's sewage treatment costs by removing the sources of clean water prior to its arrival at the Region of Niagara's Sewage Treatment Plant. BACKGROUND Many areas of the City are serviced with separated storm and sanitary sewers however homes built prior to the 1980's were permitted to connect the weeping tile (external foundation drain that collects subsurface water from around the basement footing) directly into the sanitary sewer lateral (piping that discharges sanitary effluent from the home to the sewer main out in the municipal road allowance). This connection becomes problematic during wet weather conditions when ground water can outlet to the sewer system at an uncontrolled rate. These large volumes of clean water entering the sanitary sewer system overload the downstream sewer network causing surcharging (i.e., backups) in the system. Those areas that have deep basements or are serviced with shallow sewers often are prone to sewer lateral backups and basement flooding. During storm events of abnormal intensity or duration staff conduct emergency pumping from the sanitary sewer either directly into the natural environment or into a local storm sewer system to minimize damage to public and private property. The Niagra Falls Pollution Control Plan Update (June 2008) identified this problem as having detrimental effects on property values and recommended action to regulate and remove all sources of storm water from the sanitary sewer system. In 2007 the City of Niagara Falls participated in a joint study with the Town of Fort Erie in an effort to "supplement anecdotal evidence concerning the efficacy and financial impact of weeping tile disconnection as part of an overall extraneous flow removal program." This report published in March 2008 concluded that; The average yearly discharge from weeping tile sources per residence in the City of Niagara Falls ... averages 114.5m3. This equates to 0.0036 I/s .. . on a yearly basis. In terms of system capacity this is equivalent to the base flow from 4 -5 new homes. From these conclusions it is evident that a program targeting the removal of weeping tile would be worthy of consideration. On December 24, 2008, the City experienced basement flooding due to a number of operational and wet weather - related problems. Council considered the information provided by staff in Report MW- 2009 -03 and passed a resolution directing staff to prepare a report on Weeping Tile Disconnection Program and a Comprehensive Sewer Use By- Page 96 of 450 April 26, 2010 Law. 3- MW- 2010 -24 The City has a Down Spout Disconnection By -law (By -law #83 -254) that prohibits the connection of roof leaders (down spouts) to the sanitary sewer system. Efforts to enforce this matter more aggressively will help to mitigate the impacts of extreme storm events. However, a more comprehensive approach targeting weeping tile connection is more likely to produce better results. ANALYSIS /RATIONALE Under the current Residential Flood Relief Program Municipal Works staff; 1. Complete the initial investigations, 2. Obtain permission to access private property, 3. Engage and direct contractors in the installation of the sump pumps and backwater valves, and, 4. Complete follow up inspections. This process has worked but, the process is very labour intensive and has led many property owners to perceive that our staff will clean and maintain the sump pumps and backwater valves on an ongoing basis. There is also the perception that the City is liable when these devices do not function as they are intended. The Infrastructure section of the Municipal Works department does not have sufficient staff to implement this process on a larger scale. In the past they have accommodated 20 -30 requests each year. The proposed WRAP program is targeting 300 homes per year. Therefore, staff recommend that the subsidy be offered through a rebate program, rather than having staff directly involved in the installation. City staff will provide initial consultation lo the property owners and TV inspect their internal sanitary sewer to determine, where possible, the location of their weeping tile disconnection. The property owner and/or their contractor will be responsible to locate their weeping tile connection point. Staff has experienced several homes where sump pumps have been installed, not under the City's direction that have experienced basement flooding as a result of the installation of a sump pump or sump pump pit of an insufficient size or lack of a backwater valve in areas that experience basement flooding. These minimum material standards and this procedure will reduce the potential of future basement flooding. In most cases, the weeping tile disconnection will involve property owners that have never experienced basement flooding but contribute significantly to the wet weather problems. As a result, staff is recommending that we take the following actions; 1. Prepare an education program informing the public of the City's intentions to proceed with this new policy and prepare an effective information campaign highlighting the benefits of this initiative and the importance of the maintenance of this equipment. 2. Prepare a Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer By -law that targets all technical and administrative aspects of the Sanitary Sewer system. Page 97 of 450 April 26, 2010 4- MW- 2010 -24 3. Provide an Annual Weeping Tile Disconnection Program update report on the effectiveness of the Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program for Community Services Committee. To assist in the public awareness campaign the details of the Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program or WRAP program will be communicated using; Letters Newspapers Ad Website Link Radio Sound Bites Brochures Open House Staff is proposing the adoption of this by -law that makes disconnection of all weeping tile mandatory subject to the discretion of the Director of Municipal Works. This flexible approach is needed so that problematic areas like Chippawa and the Kalar Road Pumping Station drainage areas can be targeted more aggressively with the WRAP program. A more comprehensive by -law is needed to address issues such as; Right of entry Owner responsibility to maintain private works Right to connect Obligation to connect Backflow prevention Abandonment of service laterals Swimming Pool discharge Effluent quality standards. These matters will require more extensive public feedback. Staff is aware that the Provincial government is currently proposing new effluent quality standards and requirements for bypass monitoring which will affect the City's approach. There is also discussion regarding the implementation of new quality management standards similar to those imposed for the Drinking Water System (DWQMS). FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The approved 2010 Utility Budget has funding in the amount of $1,000,000 set aside for this program and will utilize these funds on average up to $3,000 per household. Up to 50,000 will be earmarked for the education /awareness component of this program. An ongoing monitoring report will be provided to help analyse the effectiveness of the program and assist Council in allocating funding in subsequent years. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS In the past the City has offered the Residential Rood Relief Program on a voluntary basis which achieved a success rate of approximately 600 homes. The need to make weeping tile connections into the sanitary sewer system illegal under a local by -law is necessary to force compliance. Page 98 of 450 April 26, 2010 COUNCIL'S STRATEGIC PRIORITIES S- MW- 2010 -24 This recommendation is consistent with Council's strategic commitments to establish infrastructure investment priorities and to continue to monitor and improve the efficiency of the organization. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of presentation - City of Niagara Falls WRAP Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Ken Tbdd, Chief Administrative Officer S:'REPORTS`2010 Reports\MW- 2010 -24 - Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (Wrap) Report_wpd Page 99 of 450 PBD-2019-04 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2019-04 Sale and Transfer of Property Known as 6880 Stanley Avenue, Niagara Falls RECOMMENDATION That the City of Niagara Falls consent to the three (3) transfers of title for properties known collectively as 6880 Stanley Avenue pertaining to the respective Section 37 Agreements. BACKGROUND The property known as 6880 Stanley Avenue was the former Loretto lands. In 2012 the lands were severed and rezoned to provide for three (3) hotel, residential or mixed tower developments. Each parcel is subject to a Section 37 Agreement under the Planning Act which, among other things, provides that certain payments be made to the municipality. The Agreements include a clause which requires written consent of the City before any transfer of land can occur; consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. The Section 37 Agreements are now registered on title and would be binding against all future purchasers. Obligations under Clause 2 of the Agreements have been met; all other outstanding matters need to be satisfied as outlined in the Agreements. The intended purchaser is aware of these agreements. Therefore, the City’s interests will be protected and the consent to the intended sale of property can be given by the City. An additional matter of development agreements between the current owner and the City requires that prior to the issuance of any building permit, a Site Plan Agreement is required and such Agreement must address any wind control issues and mitigation and that development must comply with the zoning by-laws affecting each parcel. The vendor’s solicitor has confirmed that the aforementioned development agreement has been disclosed and provided to the purchaser. Staff is satisfied the requirement(s) of Site Plan Approval, as provided by the Planning Act, will be met. Accordingly, consent to the sale/transfer of lands by the City can be issued. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS No attachments. Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A.Herlovitch:gd S:\PDR\2019\PBD-2019-04, Sale & Transfer of Property - 6880 Stanley Avenue.docx Page 100 of 450 TS-2019-01 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services SUBJECT: TS-2019-01 School Crossing Guard – Hourly Wage Adjustment and Staffing Levels RECOMMENDATION 1. That the hourly wage for the School Crossing Guards be increased to $17.34/hour and the associated requested be approved in the 2019 Operating Budget effective February 1, 2019. 2. That Staff conduct a review of all crossing locations and report back to Council in May 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The School Crossing Guard Program is currently facing a staffing recruitment and retention crisis. At this time, the program is understaffed by nine (9) guards; resulting in understaffed and/or temporary closure of a school crossing location. Both Human Resources and Transportation Staff have been activity advertising the School Crossing Guard position; however few applicants have come forward. The limiting factor for the attraction of new Staff has been the hourly wage for the position. Transportation Staff will be reviewing all existing school crossing locations to determine if the crossing guards are still warranted and that the location continues to meet the needs of the community. Staff will conduct the necessary studies during the Spring and report back to Council in May 2019. Should locations be identified for closure or relocation, all of the affected stakeholders will be advised before the end of the current school year. BACKGROUND The School Crossing Guard Program is currently facing staffing recruitment and retention crisis. At full complement, the program should have sixty-two (62) part-time staff members, including six (6) dedicated ‘roving’ guard positions to supervise forty-four (44) locations throughout the City. The duty of the roving guards is to accommodate absences related to sick time and short-term leaves. Page 101 of 450 2 TS-2019-01 January 29, 2019 The program has benefited from years of dedicated Staff who have been employed for a long duration. In recent years, these Staff members have been retiring, resigning or moving to other employment opportunities with greater wages and/or hours of work. At this time, the program is understaffed by nine (9) guards. This has resulted in splitting locations which warrant two guards in order to fill vacancies, and/or temporarily closing of a school crossing location. Both Human Resources and Transportation Staff have been activity advertising the School Crossing Guard position; however few applicants have come forward. New methods of attracting Staff have been explored; such as: Social Media Campaigns (Facebook); Print ads in the Niagara Falls Review; Employment booths setup at the Coronation Centre and Gale Centre, targeting residents utilizing these facilities; and Encouraging existing Guards and City Staff for referrals ANALYSIS/RATIONALE Moving forward, the focus of Staff’s advertising efforts will be on attracting a new demographic of Staff, targeting the following groups: College and University students; and Parents at schools in areas requiring guards. Advertising for both of these potential groups will be done through social media, City’s website, newspapers, reaching out to affected schools and Parent Associations within the schools, hand-delivered flyers to neighbourhoods, sign-board adverting in and around vacant locations and word-of-mouth opportunities from existing guards with incentive rewards for those who provide leads to new hires. Furthermore, it is proposed that a ‘Pilot Study’ be conducted to test flexible work schedules where Staff can request to work during specific periods (AM, PM or both) and/or days of the week. The goal of the flex program is to attract Staff who may have not been previously able to commit to the shift times due to conflicts with other employment or family obligations. In addition to the proposed flex program, the other limiting factor for the attraction of Staff has been the hourly wage for the position. Prior to the increase in minimum wage in 2018, the school crossing guards have historically been paid a higher rate than the minimum wage. For example, in 2017 the minimum wage was $11.60/hour and the school crossing wage was $14.94/hour, representing a $3.34/hour increase. Page 102 of 450 3 TS-2019-01 January 29, 2019 Therefore, it is recommended that the hourly wages for the program are increased to reflect the new minimum wage ($14.00/hr) and the intended higher wage for the program. Based on this, the new wage for a full time guard should be $17.34/hour. Finally, Transportation Staff will be reviewing all existing school crossing locations to determine if the crossing guards are still warranted. The needs of the community change over time and locations that have historically experienced a larger number of students crossing have decreased. Similarly, changes in traffic volumes and travel patterns have been changing in the City with the addition of new neighbourhoods being developed. Staff will conduct the necessary studies during the Spring and report back to Council in May 2019. Should locations be identified for closure or relocation, all of the affected stakeholders will be advised before the end of the current school year. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The change in wage for the school crossing guards from $15.40/hour to $17.34/hour will increase the operating labour budget by approximately $55,872 from the 2018 approved budget amount. The total labour cost for the program in the 2019 Operating Budget will be $499,392. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Encourage multi-modal travel and active transportation initiatives, and enhance motorist, cyclist and pedestrian safety. Recommended by: Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 103 of 450 R&C-2019-01 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: R&C-2019-01 Gale Centre Emergency Repair RECOMMENDATION 1. That staff be authorized to undertake the emergency repairs required for the Gale Centre compressor. 2. That staff be authorized to have the existing compressor inspected to determine if it can be repaired and kept on site for redundancy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Gale Centre opened in 2010, with 3 – 4 pads of ice operating year round. The refrigeration plant operates with two Frick screw compressors for the four pads of ice. CIMCO Refrigeration maintains all of the refrigeration equipment at the Gale Centre and Chippawa Arena. CIMCO recently reported that one of the compressors should be re- conditioned or replaced. BACKGROUND To ensure the facility remains in excellent condition, annual preventative maintenance is performed on all refrigeration equipment by CIMCO Refrigeration. CIMCO Refrigeration staff specializing in compressors recently carried out an annual inspection of all compressor units and determined that replacement was required. To inspect the existing compressor it has to be shipped to the manufacturer to determine th e severity of the repair. This cannot be done without losing the ice as the facility operates on two compressors. The compressor is currently operational but it cannot be determined how long it will last. To keep ice in all four pads, a compressor replacement is recommended. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The new compressor will ensure that the City can continue to provide ice in all four pads, year round at the Gale Centre. If the existing compressor can be repaired, it will be packaged and stored on site to be available in the future when replacement is Page 104 of 450 2 R&C-2019-01 January 29, 2019 required. This compressor will then serve as on-site redundancy should a future failure of either compressor occur ensuring a seamless operation at the Gale Centre. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The cost to replace the existing compressor is $110,000 + HST. The project will be funded from a Facilities Special purposes reserve . The cost to repair the existing compressor is unknown at this time. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Strategic Priority, Economic Vitality, directs staff to, ensure efficient and effective delivery of the core municipal facilities. Recommended by: Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation and Culture Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 105 of 450 F-2019-04 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Finance SUBJECT: F-2019-04 Monthly Tax Receivables Report – December RECOMMENDATION That Council receive the Monthly Tax Receivables report for information purposes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is prepared monthly to provide Council with an update on the City’s property tax receivables. Outstanding taxes as of December 31, 2018 were $14.3 million compared to $12.8 million in 2017. During December, tax receivables as a percentage of taxes billed increased slightly from 6.8% in 2017 to 7.3% in 2018. The City’s finance staff has had continued success in resolving properties that are subject to registration for 2018. At this stage 94.0% of properties have developed payment arrangements or have paid in full. There are currently thirteen properties scheduled for tax sale in the next two years. BACKGROUND This report is being provided as part of the monthly financial reporting to Council by staff. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE Tax collection for 2018 lags slightly behind the collection history for 2017. Table 1 shows that taxes outstanding at December 31, 2018 are $14.3 million. This represents an increase from $12.8 million in arrears for the same period in 2017. Finance staff continues to actively pursue property owners in arrears. Table 2 provides the breakdown of outstanding taxes by assessment class. The majority of outstanding taxes are for residential and commercial properties. The chart shows that the taxes owing from the residential property class has decreased slightly from a year ago, whereas the commercial property class has increased slightly. Finance staff takes specific collection actions for properties that are subject to registration. These action steps have been outlined in previous reports. At January 1, 2018, 249 properties were subject to registration. Table 3 summarizes the progress of these actions after twelve months of activity. This table shows 94.8% of the tax accounts or 236 properties have been paid in full or the owners have made suitable payment arrangements. During December, five accounts were paid in full. In addition, the number Page 106 of 450 2 F-2019-04 January 29, 2019 of accounts with suitable payment arrangements including full payments increased slightly from 94.3% (November) to 94.8% (December). Finance staff continues to make every effort to have accounts paid in order to avoid the registration process and the associated costs related to that process. Table 4 identifies the properties and associated tax arrears scheduled for tax sales in the future. During the month of December four properties were registered. The outstanding taxes for registered properties represents 1.6% of the total taxes to be collected. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Tax arrears as a percentage of taxes billed in a year is a performance measure that stakeholders utilize to analyse an organization’s financial strengths. Niagara Falls, due to its high reliance on commercial assessment, is traditionally higher compared to municipalities of similar size. The percentage of taxes outstanding to taxes billed as at December 31, 2018 is 7.3% which is a decrease of the 2017 value of 6.8%. The municipality has a record of full collection and earns significant penalty revenues to offset the higher measure. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Table 1 Taxes Receivable at December 31, 2018 Table 2 Taxes Receivable by Property Class at December 31, 2018 Table 3 Number of Properties Subject to Registration Table 4 Scheduled Tax Sales Dates for Registered Properties Recommended by: Tiffany Clark, Acting Director of Finance Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A. Ferguson Page 107 of 450 TABLE 1 Taxes Receivable at December 31, 2018 2018 2017 Outstanding Taxes @ November 30, 2018 21,105,896$ 18,261,860$ Supplemental Due December 28, 2018 858,405$ 2,338,500$ Taxes Collected during November 7,641,535$ 7,823,112$ Outstanding Taxes @ December 31, 2018 14,322,766$ 12,777,248$ TABLE 2 Taxes Receivable by Property Class at December 31, 2018 2018 % of Class 2017 % of Class Taxes Owing Taxes Owing Residential 8,484,044$ 59.23%7,752,991$ 60.68% Multi-Residential 128,327$ 0.90%284,697$ 2.23% Commercial 5,234,366$ 36.55%4,232,950$ 33.13% Industrial 466,100$ 3.25%466,968$ 3.65% Farmlands 9,929$ 0.07%39,642$ 0.31% Total Receivables 14,322,766$ 100.00%12,777,248$ 100.00% Page 108 of 450 TABLE 3 Number of Properties Number of Properties Subject to Subject to % Registration Registration as at November 30, 2018 as at December 31, 2018 Initial Amount (January 1, 2018)249 249 Paid in Full 91 96 38.6% Payment Arrangements 144 140 56.2% Ongoing Collection 10 5 2.0% Action Registered 4 8 3.2% 249 249 100.0% TABLE 4 May 2019 4 71,525$ November 2019 2 56,673$ May 2020 7 104,300$ Totals 13 232,499$ Scheduled Tax Sales Dates for Registered Properties Number of Properties Taxes Outstanding Amount Page 109 of 450 L-2019-02 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Legal Services SUBJECT: L-2019-02 Declare Surplus of Lands 4840 Willmott Street – Lot 228 on Plan 316 Our File No. 2016-127 RECOMMENDATION 1. That in the event Council determines that it is in the public interest to do so, 4840 Willmott Street being legally described as Lot 228 on Plan 316, (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Lands”) as shown in red on the attached location map, be declared surplus to the City’s needs. 2. That the Mayor and Acting City Clerk and Solicitor acting for the City, be authorized to take whatever steps and sign whatever documents are requi red to carry out Recommendation 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Description: Lot 228 on Plan 317 Town of Niagara Falls; City of Niagara Falls being all of PIN 64335-0110 (LT) in the Land Registry Office for the Land Registry Division of Niagara South (No. 59). Total Area: 34 ft. x 118.5 ft. (approximately 4,058 sq. ft.) Zoning: R2 – Single Family and Two Family Zone Type of Property: Vacant Residential Building Lot Location: South Side of Willmott Street and West of Victoria Avenue Prior to any conveyance, the Subject Lands must be declared surplus to the City’s needs. BACKGROUND A two (2) storey single family house had been located on the Subject Lands prior to a structure fire on March 27, 2005 after which the house was demolished. The City attempted to sell the lands back in November, 2009 under the Municipal Tax Sales Rules Page 110 of 450 2 L-2019-02 January 29, 2019 and the Municipal Act, 2001, by Public Tender. An Application General was registered on title on May 31, 2010 vesting the lands in the name of the City. An appraisal of the Subject Lands was commissioned by the City from Ridley & Associates Appraisal Services Limited in July, 2016. Public notice of the permanent closure and declaration of surplus of the Subject Lands was given in the January 18, 2019 issue of the Niagara Falls Review in accordance with the City’s By-law No. 2003-02. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS In the event that the Subject Lands are sold at its appraised value, the City will recognize a return in the amount of the sale price. Further, the Subject Lands will immediately start generating tax revenue. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The proposed transaction is in keeping with Council’s commitment to customer service excellence, organizational efficiency and effectiveness, and the creation of a well-planned City. ATTACHMENT Schedule “A” – Location Map Recommended by: Tom Halinski, Solicitor, Aird & Berlis LLP Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Attachment Page 111 of 450 3 L-2019-02 January 29, 2019 SCHEDULE “A” – LOCATION MAP Page 112 of 450 L-2019-03 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Legal Services SUBJECT: L-2019-03 Amendments to Anti-Smoking By-law Nos. 87-143 and 2011-51 Our File No. 2011-86 RECOMMENDATION 1. In the event that Council determines that it is in the public interest to do so, that By-law No. 87-143 and By-law No. 2011-51, both as amended, be further amended to include the consumption of tobacco and other substances by vaping and electronic cigarettes. 2. That the Mayor and Acting City Clerk be authorized to sign by-laws amending By-law No. 87-143 and By-law No. 2011-51, as set out in Recommendation 1. 3. That Council approve the related by-laws, later in the Agenda. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY By-law No. 87-143 and By-law No. 2011-51, prohibiting smoking in public spaces and on property owned by the City, with the exception of public streets, are proposed to be amended to include vaping and the use of electronic cigarettes. BACKGROUND At its meeting of January 15, 2019, Council adopted the following Staff recommendation: That Council harmonize its anti-smoking by-law with amendments to the Regional anti-smoking by-law and work with Regional Health in public consultation regarding additional public areas where tobacco, cannabis and related products can be smoked or consumed. As present, the Region’s review of its anti-smoking by-law is ongoing. The results of that review will be the subject of a future Report to Council. In the meantime, the Region’s existing by-law prohibits not only the holding of tobacco but also other lighted smoking material or equipment while the product is alight or emitting smoke. Page 113 of 450 2 L-2019-03 January 29, 2019 As part of the undertaking to harmonize the City’s by-laws with the Region’s by-laws, it is therefore proposed that the City’s by-laws be amended to include vaping and e- cigarettes. The following amendments are proposed: 1. To By-law No. 87-143, as amended: The definition of “second-hand smoke” in section 1 of the by-law be deleted and the following substituted: (m) “second-hand smoke” means, (i) exhaled smoke or vapour from any of the devices listed in (ii); (ii) smoke from tobacco or any other substance from an idling, A. cigarette; or B. cigar; or C. pipe; or D. any other tobacco-using device; or E. electronic cigarette, vape pen or personal vaporiser; but does not include smoke that has drifted into a place or an area in which smoking is prohibited from a place or area in which smoking is not prohibited; 2. To By-law No. 2011-51, as amended: Section 2.1 be deleted and the following substituted: 2.1 No person shall smoke tobacco or any other substance, including the use of an electronic cigarette, vape pen or personal vaporiser, upon or within any lands or buildings owned by The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The proposed amendments constitute the first phase of harmonizing the City’s anti- smoking by-laws with the Region’s by-law. Page 114 of 450 3 L-2019-03 January 29, 2019 FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The amendments would widen the scope of both by-laws, resulting in enforcement with respect to vaping and electronic cigarettes. However, that enforcement would take place within the existing framework and, therefore, no additional costs are expected. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The proposed amendments are in keeping with Council’s commitment to a healthy and safe community, economic growth and prosperity, as well as a vibrant and well-planned City. Recommended by: Tom Halinski, Solicitor, Aird & Berlis LLP Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 115 of 450 MW-2019-03 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW-2019-03 Recreational Licence Agreement Renewal with Hydro One – for E. E. Mitchelson Park Hydro Corridor Crossing RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize the renewal of a lease agreement with Hydro One Networks Inc. on behalf of Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation for the use for recreational purposes of lands within E. E. Mitchelson Park crossing the existing hydro one corridor. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A portion of the lands for E. E. Mitchelson Park are crossed by an existing Hydro One power line corridor. This includes a number of the actively used playing fields. City Council entered into a Licence Agreement with then Ontario Hydro in 1994 that is due to expire on March 31, 2019. The City recently received an offer to renew the Licence agreement for a further 5 years. An updated Public Recreational Licence Renewal Agreement was provided for execution by the City, along with a request for a nominal Licence Fee similar to the previous agreement. The purpose of this report is to authorize the execution of the Renewal Agreement by the Mayor and Clerk for the continued use of the lands within the park crossing the Hydro One corridor for the stated purposes. BACKGROUND Since 1994 the City and its residents have made use of a portion of the lands within E. E. Mitchelson Park that cross an existing Hydro One power line corridor for Public Recreational purposes. The City executed a 25 year licence agreement at that time with then Ontario Hydro that is due to expire on March 31, 2019. Hydro One Networks Inc., on behalf of Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation, has recently sent the City an offer to renew the Public Recreational licence along with an updated Renewal agreement for execution by the City (attached). Schedule “A” of the agreement includes a location plan illustrating the lands in question that would be subject to the Licence. The licence Page 116 of 450 January 29, 2019 - 2 - MW-2019-03 renewal is for five (5) years effective April 1, 2019 and there is a nominal fee of $5.00 ($1 per annum) required. The original Licence contained a similar annual fee. The portion of the park in question contains actively used playing fields. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The Licence Renewal Agreement proposes another 5 year term for the licence for the same Public Recreational purposes as the original agreement. FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Financial terms in the Licence Renewal Agreement are for nominal consideration. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The recommendation is consistent with Council’s Strategic Priorities of financial sustainability and the creation of a well-planned City. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Hydro One Networks offer of Licence Renewal and Agreement, including Location Plan Recommended by: Kent Schachowskoj, Acting Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer K. Schachowskoj Page 117 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 1 HYDRO CORRIDOR Licence Recreational March 2019 LICENCE OF LAND FOR PUBLIC RECREATIONAL PURPOSES BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by THE MINISTER OF GOVERNMENT AND CONSUMER SERVICES (hereinafter called the "Licensor") - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS (hereinafter called the "Licensee") RECITALS: A. The Licensor is the owner in fee simple of certain lands located in the City of Niagara Falls described as Part of Lot 72, Registered Plan 876, Geographic Township of Stamford and as shown hatched on the sketch attached hereto as Schedule “A” (hereinafter referred to as the “Lands”), comprising an approximate area of 3.27 acres. B. The Licensee acknowledges that the fee simple interest in the Lands was transferred to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario pursuant to section 114.2(1) of the Electricity Act (Ontario) (the “Electricity Act”), and that pursuant to section 114.5(1) of the Electricity Act, Hydro One Networks Inc., being a subsidiary of Hydro One Inc. has the right to use the Lands to operate a Transmission System or Distribution System. C. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario confirms that an authorized signing officer of Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (“OILC”) has the authority to execute this Licence on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario and OILC are and shall be bound by all the Licensor’s covenants, representations and warranties as provided herein. D. The Licensee has offered to purchase for consideration a Licence to use the Lands for public recreational purposes only. IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the Licensor and Licensee hereto agree as follows: Definitions 1. As used in this Licence, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (a) “Authority” means any governmental authority, quasi-governmental authority, agency, body or department whether federal, provincial or municipal, having jurisdiction over the Lands, or the use thereof. Page 118 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 2 (b) “Business Day” means any day on which the Government of Ontario normally conducts business. (c) “Distribution System” shall have the same meaning as defined in the Electricity Act and for the purpose of this Licence includes any part of a Distribution System located on the Lands. (d) “Environmental Contaminant" means (i) any substance which, when it exists in a building or the water supplied to or in a building, or when it is released into a building or any part thereof, or into the water or the natural environment, is likely to cause, at any time, material harm or degradation to a building or any part thereof, or to the natural environment or material risk to human health, and includes, without limitation, any flammables, explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos, lead paint, PCBs, fungal contaminants (including stachybotrys chartarum and other moulds), mercury and its compounds, dioxans and furans, chlordane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydro- chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), urea formaldehyde foam insulation, radon gas, chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes, toxic or noxious substances or related materials, petroleum and petroleum products, or (ii) any substance declared to be hazardous or toxic under any Environmental Laws now or hereafter enacted or promulgated by any Authority, or (iii) both (i) and (ii). (e) “Environmental Laws" - means any federal, provincial or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, policy, guideline or order and all amendments thereto pertaining to health, industrial hygiene, environmental conditions or Environmental Contaminants, including, without limitation, the Environmental Protection Act (Ontario), the Environmental Assessment Act (Ontario), the Ontario Water Resources Act (Ontario), the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Ontario), the Safe Drinking Water Act (Ontario), and applicable air quality guidelines, as such statutes, regulations and guidelines may be amended from time to time. (f) “Licensee” includes the successors and permitted assigns of the Licensee. (g) “Licensor” includes Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation and the successors and permitted assigns of the Licensor. (h) “Open Data” means data that is required to be released to the public pursuant to the Open Data Directive. (i) “Open Data Directive” means the Management Board of Cabinet’s Open Data Directive, updated on April 29, 2016, as amended from time to time. (j) “Permittee” means any existing or contemplated tenant, subtenant, invitee, licensee, permittee, grantee, mortgagee, security holder or other person including any competent authority. (k) “Transmission System” shall have the same meaning as defined in the Electricity Act, as amended and for the purpose of this Licence includes any part of a Transmission System located on the Lands. All references to a statute or regulation includes all amendments, re-enactments or replacements of the statute or regulation. Grant of Licence, Term, Fee 2. The Licensor hereby grants permission to the Licensee on a non-exclusive basis, to use the Lands for recreational purposes only, for a term of five (5) years commencing on the first day of April, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Term”), and subject to the terms Page 119 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 3 and conditions set out in this Licence and which the Licensee hereby accepts and agrees to perform and abide by. 3. For the permission granted herein, the Licensee shall pay to the Lic ensor a fee in the sum of FIVE Canadian Dollars ($5.00) and the taxes set out in clause 4 below (the “Fee”) as good and valuable consideration, which Fee the Licensor acknowledges it has received. 4. The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor within thirty (30) days of written demand, in addition to any other monies payable hereunder during the Term of this Licen ce or any extension thereof, 50% of all taxes, rates or grants in lieu thereof assessed or levied against the Lands in each and every year during the Term or pay to the Licensor an amount equal to 50% of the amount of the annual taxes, rates or grants in lieu of taxes paid by the Licensor in each and every year of the Term for the Lands. 5. The Licensee shall also pay to the Licensor within thirty (30) days of written demand, in addition to any other monies payable hereunder during the Term of this Licence or any extension thereof, any additional taxes, grants, rates, fees or other assessments or payments in lieu thereof that the Licensor, in its sole and absolute discretion, but acting reasonably, determines represents the reasonable allocation or assessment of such charges or levies applicable to the Lands as owned by the Licensor and used by the Licensee pursuant to this Licence for the purposes stated herein. 6. The Licensee shall pay all applicable taxes on any and all payments, if required by law. Use of Lands 7. The permission granted herein does not confer any rights in regard to any lands and roadways which are not under the Licensor’s jurisdiction and control. 8. (a) The Licence is subject to the primary right of Hydro One Networks Inc. to use the Lands to operate a Transmission System or Distribution System pursuant to section 114.5(1) of the Electricity Act, to the subsurface easement in favour of Hydro One Telecom Inc. and to all leases, subleases, easements, licences, permits, rights of use or occupation, secondary uses or other rights now existing or hereafter renewed or extended or entered into by the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc., and despite anything to the contrary, it is agreed that the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. hereby reserve the unrestricted right in their sole discretion without any claim or compensation to the Licensee, to renew, extend, issue or grant such rights aforesaid on terms and conditions entirely satisfactory to the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc. (b) For the sake of clarity, and in no way limiting anything in clause 8(a), the Licensee explicitly acknowledges and agrees that Hydro One Networks Inc. has first priority to use the Lands for the purposes of transmission and/or distribution and that this Licence is subordinate to that prior and primary right of Hydro One Networks Inc. 9. The Licensee acknowledges that no representations or warranties have been made by the Licensor, or anyone acting on its behalf, as to the condition of or title to or the use or zoning of or with respect to any other matter or thing in connection with the Lands or as to the performance of any parts thereof or as to the presence or absence of hazardous substances on the Lands including, without limitation, urea formaldehyde foam insulation and any Environmental Contaminant. The Licensee acknowledges that the Lands are licensed on an “as is, where is” basis and without any representation, warranty, covenant or condition as to title, description, fitness for purpose, or use, zoning physical condition, environmental condition, soil condition, quantity or quality thereof or in respect of any other thing whatsoever and the Licensee shall complete the term of this Licence or an y extension thereof without abatement of the Licence Fee or any other claim in respect of the Lands or the use thereof. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the Licensor shall not be required to undertake any work whatsoever with respect to the Lands. 10. The location and plans of any area or areas for the parking of motor vehicles must have the prior approval of the Licensor in writing and unless otherwise stipulated herein must not exceed 10% of the area of the Lands. Except for the parking of motor v ehicles in Page 120 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 4 such designated areas, all motorized vehicles and equipment other than those of the Licensee used for maintenance purposes shall be prohibited. 11. The construction or reconstruction or location of all initial and future improvements, buildings and structures and the grading and planting of trees on the Lands is subject to the prior written approval of the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. Licensee’s Covenants 12. The Licensee shall, except in the case of emergency, before commencing any work authorized by this Licence or intended so to be, give to the Licensor 3 Business Days prior written notice, and in cases of emergency such previous notice as is reasonably possible, and during any construction work, repair and maintenance, the Licensor and/or Hydro One Networks Inc. may have its/their representatives present, for whose time and necessary expenses the Licensee shall pay on presentation of invoices therefor. 13. The Licensee shall comply with all provisions of law, including, without limitation, all federal and provincial legislative enactments, municipal by-laws and any other governmental or municipal by-laws, regulations and orders, that relate to the Lands, the Licence or the exercise of any of the rights or obligations in the Licence herein granted. 14. The Licensee shall comply with the design standards of Hydro One Networks Inc., Canada Standards Association Standard C-22.3, the ‘Safety Rules and Standards Protection Code’ of Hydro One Networks Inc., The Occupational Health and Safety Act (Ontario) and any amendments thereto and any regulations passed thereunder when using heavy equipment during any construction or maintenance. 15. (a) The Licensee shall use its continuing efforts to ensure that it shall not, except as expressly permitted by this License: (i) use or permit to be used any part of the Lands for any dangerous, noxious or offensive activity; and (ii) do or bring anything or permit anything to be done or brought on or about the Lands which the Licensor may reasonably deem to be hazardous or a nuisance to any other Licensee on the Lands, if applicable, or any other persons permitted to be on the Lands. (b) The Licensee shall not store, bring in or permit the presence of any Environmental Contaminant in or on the Lands except if such is required for the Licensee's use of the Lands as permitted by this License, and then only if the Licensee is in strict compliance with all laws and requirements of all relevant Authorities, including, without limitation, Environmental Laws, occupational health and safety laws, regulations, requirements, permits and by-laws. (c) If the Licensee shall bring or create upon the Lands, any Environmental Contaminant contrary to the terms of this Agreement, then such Environmental Contaminant shall be and remain the sole property of the Licensee and the Licensee shall remove same, at its sole cost and expense as soon as directed to do so by any Authority, or if required to effect compliance with any Environmental Laws, or if required by the Licensor and/or Hydro One Networks Inc. If any such Environmental Contaminant is not removed forthwith by the Licensee, the Licensor shall be entitled, but not required, to remove the same on the Licensee's behalf, and the Licensee shall reimburse the Licensor for the cost and expense thereof. (d) In addition to and without restricting any other obligations or covenants herein, the Licensee covenants that it will: (i) comply in all respects with all Environmental Laws relating to the Lands or the use thereof; (ii) promptly notify the Licensor in writing of any notice by any Authority alleging a possible violation of or with respect to any other matter involving any Environmental Laws relating to the Lands, or relating to any person on or about the Lands for whom the Licensee is in law responsible, Page 121 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 5 or any notice from any other party concerning any release or alleged release of any Environmental Contaminant from the Lands; (iii) promptly notify the Licensor of the existence of any Environmental Contaminant on the Lands to the extent released, deposited, placed or used upon the Lands by the Licensee or any person for whom the Licensee is responsible in law; and (iv) provide the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. with copies of all environmental studies and reports that it possesses or enters into respecting the Lands. 16. In addition to and without restricting any other obligations or covenants contained herein, the Licensee shall indemnify and hold the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. harmless at all times from and against any and all losses, damages, penalties, fines, costs, fees and expenses (including legal fees on a solicitor and client basis and consultants' fees and expenses) resulting from: (a) any breach of or non-compliance with the foregoing environmental covenants of the Licensee; and (b) any legal or administrative action commenced by, or claim made or notice from, any third party, including, without limitation, any Authority, to or against the Licensor and/or Hydro One Networks Inc., arising from the introduction of Environmental Contaminants onto, or the release of Environmental Contaminants from, the Lands by the Licensee or those for whom it is responsible in law, including any and all costs associated with air quality issues. 17. The Licensee shall not in any way use or trespass on any lands adjoining the Lands. 18. The Licensee shall not pile snow on the Lands or on any of the Lands adjoining the Lands which would result in piles exceeding two metres (6.5 ft.) in height or being closer than eight metres (26.2 ft.) from any of Hydro One Networks Inc.’s Transmission System or Distribution System. In the event of the Licensee acting in breach of this condition, the Licensor may remove any such pile, and the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor forthwith upon demand all costs of the Licensor for the removal of any such pile of snow. 19. The Licensee, at its own expense, shall remove snow and ice from any public walkway abutting or included in the Lands, if such removal is required by any municipal by-law. 20. The Licensee shall prohibit kite flying and model airplane flying and any other activities which in the opinion of the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc. might interfere with the safe and efficient operation of its works or Hydro One Networks Inc.’s Transmission System or Distribution System or be offensive, annoying or dangerous and at its expense shall post signs in suitable locations on the Lands stating that kite flying and model airplane flying and other activities are prohibited. 21. The Licensee shall maintain the Lands and any of the Licensee’s installations thereon in a good and substantial state of repair and in a neat and tidy condition satisfactory to the Lessor. In the event the Licensor and/or Hydro One Networks Inc., in its or their absolute discretion, consider it necessary that anti-climbing devices must be installed on its or their equipment, facilities or structures, this work shall be carried out by Hydro One Networks Inc. or its contractor(s), at the Licensee’s expense and the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor forthwith upon demand all costs of the Licensor in installing any such fences or barriers. 22. The Licensee covenants and agrees that the Licensee, its uses, works, installations, equipment, improvements, property and Permittees shall not in any way interfere with, obstruct, delay or cause any damage or inefficiencies to any works of the Licensor or of the Licensor’s Permittees, or to the Transmission System or Distribution System of Hydro One Networks Inc. now or hereafter constructed or contemplated on, in or in respect of all or any portion of the Lands from time to time, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Licensee shall ensure that the height of any vehicle, load or other object, including attachments, or people standing thereon near Hydro One Page 122 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 6 Networks Inc.’s Transmission System or Distribution System does not exceed 4.115 m (13.5 ft.) above the existing grade. 23. In the event the Licensor considers it necessary that fences or barriers be installed or any part or parts of the perimeter of the Lands or around any of the Licensee’s installations, the Licensee shall install such fences or barriers at its expense according to the specifications of the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc. 24. Upon termination of this Licence, the Licensee, at its own expense, shall remove any of its installations and facilities from the Lands and restore the Lands to a condition satisfactory to the Licensor, unless notified in writing by the Licensor to the contrary. If the Licensor provides such written notice to the Licensee, all improvements to the Lands shall become the property of the Licensor without costs. Default 25. If at any time the Licence Fee or any other amount payable hereunder is not paid when due, the Licensor shall provide written notice to the Licensee of such arrears and the Licensee shall have ten (10) consecutive days from the delivery of such notice within which to pay such arrears, failing which the Licensor may terminate this Licence without any further notice. 26. In the event of default in payment of any amount due by the Licensee hereunder, interest shall accrue and be payable on such amount at that rate of interest per annum posted and charged from time to time by the Minister of Finance, compounded monthly until paid. Acceptance of any overdue payment or interest shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies that the Licensor may have hereunder or at law. 27. In the event of default of any of the terms or obligations in this Licence by the Licensee other than payment of any amount due hereunder, the Licensor may provide written notice to the Licensee specifying the failure, and if the failure is not remedied or if adequate and sufficient measures are not being taken to satisfactorily remedy the same within ten (10) consecutive days of the delivery of the notice, the Licensor may terminate this Licence immediately upon the expiration of the ten-day period aforesaid without any further notice. 28. In the event of any default of the Licensee in performing any work, repairs, or other obligations of Licensee under this Licence or making any payments due or claimed due by the Licensee to third parties, the Licensor may perform any such work, repairs, or other obligations of Licensee or make any payments due or claimed to be due by the Licensee to third parties, and without being in breach of any of the Licensor's covenants hereunder and without thereby being deemed to infringe upon any of the Licensee’s rights pursuant hereto, and, in such case, the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor forthwith upon demand all amounts paid by the Licensor to third parties in respect of such default and all costs of the Licensor in remedying or attempting to remedy any such default. Right to Enter or Terminate 29. The Licensor reserves the right to inspect the Lands at any time. If in the opinion of the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc. the Licensee does anything or permits anything to be done on the Lands or the adjacent lands of the Licensor which may be a nuisance, cause damage, endanger or interfere with access for the Transmission System or Distribution System of Hydro One Networks Inc. or be considered dangerous or offensive by the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc. acting reasonably, the Licensor may at the Licensee’s expense, forthwith remove, relocate or clear the offending work from the Lands and/or the Licensor’s adjacent lands without being liable for any damages caused thereby and the Licensee shall reimburse the Licensor for all expense to the Licensor in so doing or the Licensor may require the Licensee to immediately remove, relocate, clear or cease such activity. 30. The Licensor, Hydro One Networks Inc. and anyone acting pursuant to its authority may at any time upon twenty-four hours’ prior written notice to the Licensee or at any time without notice in case of emergency enter on the Lands and inspect, operate maintain, Page 123 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 7 repair, re-arrange, add to, upgrade, reconstruct, replace, relocate and remove any of the Licensor’s works or equipment or the Transmission System or Distribution System of Hydro One Networks Inc. and further may construct, add, inspect, maintain, repair, alter, re-arrange, relocate and remove such new works or equipment or new Transmission System or Distribution System as the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc. determines necessary or desirable and the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. shall not be liable for and are hereby released from all damages, losses, injuries, costs, charges, expenses, suits, proceedings, claims and demands arising in connection with carrying out the work aforesaid, including, without limitation, all claims for damages, indemnification, reimbursement or compensation by reason of loss, interruption or suspension of business or interference or inconvenience howsoever caused or physical damage to the Lands. 31. Despite anything to the contrary in this Licence and without prejudice to the rights of the Licensor hereunder or otherwise, the Licensor shall have the option in its sole discretion at any time(s), to be exercised in each instance by at least ninety (90) days’ prior written notice to the Licensee, to terminate this Licence in whole or in part, as the case may be, if (a) the Licensor considers all or any portion(s) of the Lands to be necessary or desirable from time to time for the works of the Licensor or the Licensor’s Permittees or the Transmission System or Distribution System of Hydro One Networks Inc.; or (b) the Licensee, its permitted uses, works, installations, equipment, improvements, property and Permittees in any way interfere with, obstruct, limit or impede the right of Hydro One Networks Inc. to use the Lands to operate a Transmission System or Distribution System pursuant to section 114.5(1) of the Electricity Act, all without any claim by or compensation for the Licensee including without limitation for any inconvenience, interruption, nuisance, discomfort, relocation or removal costs caused thereby, but subject to an adjustment in the Licence Fee payable hereunder. 32. If the Licensor delivers notice of termination pursuant to this Licence, then all or such portion of the Lands suitable for existing or contemplated works of the Licensor or the Licensor’s Permittees or for the existing or contemplated Transmission System or Distribution System of Hydro One Networks Inc. shall be deemed deleted from this Licence effective on the date set out in such notice (the “Effective Date”) and the Licence shall be deemed to have been terminated or amended, as the case may be, i n respect of such specific area(s) as of the Effective Date. In the event of delivery of notice of termination aforesaid, the Licensee shall at its sole expense and without claim or compensation of any kind remove or cause its works to be removed from the Lands or such specific area(s) on or before the Effective Date in the manner set out in clause 31 herein. Without prejudice to the rights of the Licensor hereunder, the Licensor will consider any reasonable request from the Licensee to continue beyond the Effective Date the Licensee’s use of the Lands for recreational purposes. 33. The Licensor reserves the right to terminate this Licence in its entirety if the Licensor, in its sole discretion, determines that the Lands are no longer required for the Licensor’s purposes or if the Lands or any part thereof are required by any governmental authority. The Licensor shall provide the Licensee with six (6) months notice in writing and the Licensor shall not be obligated to pay the Licensee any compensation therefore subject to an adjustment in the annual Licence Fee payable hereunder. Indemnity and Release 34. (a) All persons and property at any time on the Lands shall be at the sole risk of the Licensee, and neither the Licensor nor Hydro One Networks Inc. shall be liable for any loss, damage, or injury, including loss of life, to them or it however occurring and the Licensee releases both the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. from all claims and demands in respect of any such loss, damage or injury. (b) The Licensee shall assume all liability and obligation for any and all loss, damage, or injury, including death, to persons or property that happens as a result of or arises out of the use and occupation of the Lands by the Licensee or members of the public and the Licensee shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the Licensor and its successors, administrators, permitted assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, representatives, appointees and all others the Licensor is responsible for in law and Hydro One Networks Inc. and its affiliates and their respective successors, administrators, permitted assigns, Page 124 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 8 directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, representatives, appointees and all others for whom Hydro Networks Inc. is responsible in law from and against all such loss, damage, or injury and all actions, suits, proceedings, costs, charges, damages, expenses, claims or demands arising therefrom or connected therewith. The Licensee expressly recognizes and acknowledges that Hydro One Networks Inc. has installed and maintained or has the right to install and maintain a Transmission System or Distribution System on the Lands, and willingly assumes any and all risks associated with its proposed activities in such close proximity to such systems. Notwithstanding the above, the Licensee shall not be liable hereunder for any loss, damage or injury to the extent that it arises from the gross negligence of the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc. (c) The Licensee shall at its own expense, arrange and maintain a liability insurance policy satisfactory to the Licensor in the minimum amount of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) dollars in order to indemnify the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. as provided in subsection 34(b) of this Licence. The Licensee shall pay any and all deductibles with respect to any claim arising thereunder. Such insurance shall (a) name Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, and OILC and Hydro One Networks Inc. as additional insureds, (b) contain a cross liability clause, and (c) specify that it is primary coverage and not contributory with or in excess of any insurance maintained by the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc. A certified copy of such policy or satisfactory certificate in lieu thereof shall be delivered to the Licensor prior to the commencement of the Term or any extension thereof. 35. In order to induce the Licensor to grant this Licence and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged), the Licensee on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby (a) releases and forever discharges the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. and each of their respective successors and assigns, from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands for damages, loss or injury, howsoever arising, which heretofore may have been and which may hereafter be sustained by the Licensee, its successors and assigns, in respect or in consequence of the termination of this Licence in whole or in part(s), as the case may be, including all damages above described as well as all damage, loss or injury not now known or anticipated but which may arise in the future and all effects and consequences thereof; (b) agrees not to make any claim or take any proceedings against any other person or corporation who might claim contribution or indemnity under the common law or under the provisions of the Negligence Act and the amendments thereto from the Licensor or Hydro One Networks Inc.; and (c) agrees that the Licensor and Hydro One Networks Inc. may plead this Licence as an estoppel. Assignment 36. The Licensee may permit members of the public to use the Lands for the purposes set out in accordance with the terms hereof, but the Licensee shall not assign, transfer, sublease, part with possession or dispose of all or any part of the Lands or this Licence or any privileges or interests hereby granted to it without the prior written consent of the Licensor, acting reasonably. General 37. The Licencee acknowledges that this Agreement and any information or documents that are provided to the Licensor may be released pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) or Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) and Open Data may be released pursuant to the Open Data Directive. This acknowledgment shall not be construed as a waiver of any right to object to the release of this Agreement or of any information or documents. Page 125 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 9 38. The failure of any party to exercise any right, power or option or to enforce any remedy or to insist upon the strict compliance with the terms, conditions and covenants under this Licence shall not constitute a waiver of the terms, conditions and covenants herein with respect to that or any other or subsequent breach thereof nor a waiver by that party any time thereafter to require strict compliance with all terms, conditions and covenants hereof, including the terms, conditions and covenants with respect to which the party has failed to exercise such right, power or option. Nothing shall be construed or have the effect of a waiver except an instrument in writing signed by a duly authorized officer of the applicable party which expressly waives a right, power or option under this Licence. 39. The Licensee and any of its successors, administrators, permitted assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, representatives, and appointees shall not engage in any activity where such activity creates a conflict of interest, actual or potential, in the sole opinion of the Licensor, with the Licence or the exercise of any of the rights or obligations of the Licensee hereunder. The Licensee shall disclose to the Licensor in writing and without delay any actual or potential situation that may be reasonably interpreted as either a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest. For clarification, a “conflict of interest” means, in relation to the performance of its contractual obligations pursuant to this Licence, the Licensee’s other commitments, relationships or financial interests (i) could or could be seen to exercise an improper influence over the objective, unbiased and impartial exercise of its independent judgment; or (ii) could or could be seen to compromise, impair or be incompatible with the effective performance of its contractual obligations pursuant to this Licence. 40. Where this Licence requires notice to be delivered by one party to the other, such notice shall be given in writing and delivered either personally, or by pre-paid registered post or by telecopier, by the party wishing to give such notice, or by the solicitor acting for such party, to the other party or to the solicitor acting for the other party at the addresses noted below. In the case of notice to the Licensor, to it in care of c/o Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation Sales & Acquisitions 1 Dundas Street West, Suite 2000 Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2L5 Attention: Patrick Grace Director, Land Transactions, Hydro Corridors and Public Works Telephone: (416) 327-2959 Facsimile: (416) 327-3942 and, in the case of notice to the Licensee, to it in care of: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Attention: Susan Daniels Telephone: (905) 356-7521 Telecopier: (905) 374-7500 41. The provisions of this Licence shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the Licensor and the Licensee. 42. No interest in the Lands is being conveyed by the granting of this Licence and the Licensee shall not register the Licence or any notice in respect thereof on title without the prior written consent of the Licensor, which consent may be arbitrarily withheld. 43. This Licence shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the rights of the parties shall be governed by, the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein and the Parties hereto irrevocably attorn to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario in the event of a dispute hereunder. Page 126 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Licence. Signed by the Licensee at this day of , 20 . THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Per: Name: Position: Per: Name: Position: I/We have authority to bind the Corporation. Signed by the Licensor at this day of , 20 . HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by, THE MINISTER OF GOVERNMENT AND CONSUMER SERVICES as represented by, ONTARIO INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDS CORPORATION Per: Name: Title: I have authority to bind the Corporation Page 127 of 450 HONI File #: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 11 Schedule “A” HONI File: NIAGARA FALLS C 632.1-694 Tenant(s): CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Legal Description: Part of Lot 72, Registered Plan 876 Geographic Township of Stamford, City of Niagara Falls Licensed Area: 3.27 acres Lands Owned by Hydro One Networks Inc. Licensed Area Page 128 of 450 CAO-2019-03 January 29, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: CAO-2019-03 NRBN Lease -4343 Morrison Street RECOMMENDATION 1. That the City of Niagara Falls enter into a lease with Niagara Regional Broadband Network (NRBN) at the property know municipally as 4343 Morrison Street, Niagara Falls, for the purposes of establishing their corporate offices. 2. The Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign any documents related to such lease on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND In November 2016, the City of Niagara Falls recommended the purchase of the former Niagara Regional Police building at 4343 for the purposes of establishing additional office facilities for various municipal departments. In addition , approximately 395 m² of the building was intended to be leased to Niagara Regional Broadband Network (NRBN) to be used as their corporate offices. The building is nearing completion and final lease terms have been negotiated. The terms are as follows: Term: 10 years plus options to re-sign Basic Rent: $63,600 per year plus HST Parking: 20 spaces for employee parking, shared visitor parking Utilities: NRBN to pay proportionate (square foot basis) share of utility costs on the property. Property Taxes: NRBN to pay proportionate share of property taxes on the property (Municipal uses will be exempt). Page 129 of 450 2 CAO-2019-03 January 29, 2019 Internet Services: during the term of the lease, NRBN will install and maintain a dark fibre optic network between City Hall and 4343 Morrison Street and make a publically accessible WiFi transport in the area surrounding City Hall. FINANCIAL/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The lease will generate $63, 600 per annum. This amount is to be indexed on an annual basis (CPI). In addition NRBN will pay a proportionate share of all utility costs and pay their share of property tax on the property. The funds will be used to offset the annual operating costs of the building. In addition, the lease currently occupied by the Information Systems department, in the Elgin Block building will be terminated. The annual lease payments are $51, 000 per year. These funds will be reallocated in the budget to help offset the operating costs at 4343 Morrison Street. Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 130 of 450 1 Bill Matson From:Amato, Virginia <virginia.amato@niagararegion.ca> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 2:28 PM To:'across@wainfleet.ca'; Amber LaPoint; Bill Matson; Bonnie Nistico-Dunk; City Clerk Welland (clerk@welland.ca); Clerks Office Wainfleet; cschofield@forterie.ca; Holly Dowd; Jugley, Adrienne; Nancy Bozzato; Susan Daniels; William Kolasa; jscime@westlincoln.ca Subject:NRH 3rd Quarter 2018 Report to Board and Council Attachments:NRH 15-2018 NRH 3rd Quarter Report to Council Revised NoCov.pdf Good day: Attached is the Niagara Regional Housing (NRH) Quarterly Report. The NRH Board of Directors has requested that Quarterly Reports be sent to Municipal Councils for information, to keep them apprised of the work of NRH and to assist with questions from constituents as they arise. Please distribute this report as appropriate. Regards, Virginia Amato EA to the CEO Niagara Regional Housing Campbell East 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way P.O. Box 344 Thorold ON L2V 3Z3 Fax: 905-682-4157 Phone: 905-682-9201 ext. 3930 Website: nrh.ca virginia.amato@niagararegion.ca The Regional Municipality of Niagara Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you. Page 131 of 450 18-176-4.2. November 16, 2018 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) to Board of Directors Recommendation: That Niagara Regional Housing Quarterly Report July 1 to September 30, 2018 be APPROVED and FORWARDED to the Public Health and Social Services Committee and subsequently to Regional and Municipal Councils for information. Directors: Henry D’Angela, Chair Regional Councillor Thorold James Hyatt, Vice-Chair Community Director St. Catharines Karen Blackley, Treasurer Community Director Thorold Betty Ann Baker - Secretary Community Director St. Catharines Betty Lou Souter Community Director St. Catharines Paul Grenier Regional Councillor Welland Tim Rigby Regional Councillor St. Catharines Walter Sendzik Regional Councillor St. Catharines Selina Volpatti Regional Councillor Niagara Falls Page 132 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 1 of 11 HIGHLIGHTS: Page 133 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 2 of 11 As the administrator of social housing for Niagara Region, Niagara Regional Housing (NRH) works to fulfill our vision and mission through six main areas of responsibility: 1. Public Housing (NRH Owned Units) 2. Non-Profit Housing Programs 3. Rent Supplement Program 4. Affordable Housing Program 5. Service Manager Responsibilities 6. Housing Access Centre and Centralized Waiting List 1 DAY-TO-DAY MAINTENANCE: In Q3, 3,216 work orders were issued, representing $1,004,192.35. $56,698.50 of this amount was charged back to tenants who were held responsible for damages. 2017-Q3 2017-Q4 2018-Q1 2018-Q2 2018-Q3 # of work orders issued 3,263 2,993 2,566 2,768 3,216 VISION That the Niagara community will provide affordable, accessible and quality housing for all residents MISSION To expand opportunities that make affordable housing an integral part of building healthy and sustainable communities in Niagara 1. Public Housing (NRH Owned Units) Page 134 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 3 of 11 CAPITAL PROGRAM: The Capital Program is responsible for maintaining the Public Housing (NRH Owned Units) asset and planning for future sustainability. In Q3, 40 contract orders were issued, six public tenders closed and purchase orders issued $4,157,787.68. This total includes the purchase order for Roach Avenue New Build. The Capital Program was responsible for 17 capital projects valued at $ 2,660,416.32 and 15 Social Housing Apartment Improvement Program (SHAIP) funded Capital projects valued at $1,606,976.65 including: Parking lot replacement – one project Installation of Heat Control System – eight projects Foundation repairs/Damproofing – three projects Design and preparation of tender for bathroom replacements – one project Balcony repair and railing replacement – two projects Design and Tender Domestic Hot Water replacements – five projects As of September 30, 2018, $3,500,000 of the $7,000,000 budgeted (excluding emergency) has been committed and or actually spent (50%). Reallocating SHAIP year two and three projects to be completed in year one funding. T ENANT MOVE OUTS: Move Outs By Reason Health 7 NRH Transfer 29 Long Term Care Facility 8 Moved to Coop or Non-Profit 1 Deceased 20 Bought a House 0 Private Rental 2 Left Without Notice 0 Voluntarily Left Under Notice 0 Other/None Given 14 Eviction – Tribunal 8 Cease to Qualify 0 TOTAL 89 In Q3, there were 89 move outs. Eight involved eviction orders granted under the Ontario Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) – arrears (six), impaired safety (one), harassment (one). Seven of the evictions were enforced by the Sherriff. 2017-Q3 2017-Q4 2018-Q1 2018-Q2 2018-Q3 # of move outs 75 81 67 83 89 Page 135 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 4 of 11 ARREARS: NRH Housing Operations actively works to reduce rent arrears and saw a decrease in Q3. Sept 30, 2017 Dec 31, 2017 Mar 31, 2018 Jun 30, 2018 Sept 30, 2018 Rent charges for the month $1,122,027.00 $1,150,372.27 $1,167,751.69 $1,136,607.00 $1,165,765.00 Accumulated rent arrears $44,326.67 $49,045.27 $48,660.91 $35,055.56 $23,378.86 Arrears % 3.95% 4.26% 4.17% 3.08% 2.01% INSURANCE: Nothing to report in Q3. COMMUNITY RESOURCES AND PARTNERSHIPS: In Q3, we had partnerships with 45 community agencies across Niagara. As a result of these partnerships, more than 200 support and enrichment activities were offered to tenants at NRH sites. Each partnership contributes to tenant lives and, in turn, the success of the Public Housing community as a whole: Once again this year, NRH partnered with the RAFT to provide summer camps in Manchester, Old Pine Trail and Rykert (St. Catharines) and Warden and Waters (Niagara Falls) and Faith Welland Church in McLaughlin (Welland). The cost and transportation required for summer camp is often out of reach for low- income families, so these camps provide workshops, sports, crafts and excursions they would not be able to access otherwise. In addition to offering constructive activities to keep youth occupied during the summer months, summer camps help youth to develop new interests, improve socialization and help partner agencies develop trusting relationships with tenants and their children. Also during Q3, NRH Community Programs Coordinators (CPCs) offered support to 240 new referrals of tenants in need of assistance. Of those new referrals, 54% were considered medium-high need. In particular, as the weather got warmer, there were more requests for help resolving social issues between neighbours. There was also an increase in the number of tenants needing help with clutter and bed bugs, as well as the number of tenants declining supports. Page 136 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 5 of 11 2 As administrator of social housing for Niagara Region, NRH provides legislative oversight for 62 Non-Profit Housing Programs (non-profit and co-operative). Operational Reviews are conducted to determine the overall health of each. 2017-Q3 2017-Q4 2018-Q1 2018-Q2 2018-Q3 Healthy 42 43 41 41 41 Routine Monitoring 18 18 18 18 18 Intensive Monitoring 2 1 1 1 1 Pre-PID (Project in Difficulty) 1 1 1 1 1 PID (Project in Difficulty) 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 64 64 62 62 62 NRH Housing Programs staff continue to work with Federal Housing Providers as they move toward End of Operating Agreements (EOA). 3 In Q3, there were 1,354 Rent Supplement/Housing Allowance units across Niagara. In the Rent Supplement program, tenants pay 30% of their gross monthly income directly to the private landlord and NRH subsidizes the difference up to the market rent for the unit. The Housing Allowance program is a short term program that provides a set allowance to help applicants on the wait list. 2017-Q3 2017-Q4 2018-Q1 2018-Q2 2018-Q3 Fort Erie 26 26 27 28 28 Grimsby 25 26 26 26 26 Lincoln (Beamsville) 2 2 13 12 12 Niagara Falls 200 219 228 229 230 Niagara-on-the-Lake -- - - - - Pelham 24 24 23 23 22 Port Colborne 44 47 51 53 51 St. Catharines 567 600 657 700 719 Thorold 24 29 32 37 54 Welland 189 199 202 201 197 West Lincoln 15 14 14 15 15 TOTAL 1,116 1,186 1,273 1,324 1,354 Variances in the number of Rent Supplement/Housing Allowance units reflects the general management of the program and required take-up/deletion of units due to End of Operating 2. Non-Profit Housing Programs 3. Rent Supplement Program Page 137 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Agreements (EOA), move out of tenants, and/or new units/landlords. Totals will be increasing in the future as some Non-Profit Housing Programs transition into a Rent Supplement agreement upon expiry of their operating agreement. It is unknown which areas will be affected. NIAGARA RENOVATES PROGRAM: The Niagara Renovates program provides assistance to low-to-moderate income homeowners for home repairs, accessibility modifications and the creation of secondary suites in single family homes. Niagara Renovates inspections for 2018-2019 funding are now underway. Inspections include all areas inside and outside of the home to ensure compliance with program guidelines. Issues are identified and a detailed Inspection Report is completed for review before a decision is communicated to the homeowner. NRH received $500,000 through the Investment in Affordable Housing - Extension (IAH-E) program for homeowner and secondary suite repairs and $626,300 for multi-unit repairs, totaling $1,006,300 for the 2018/2019 period. 49 homeowners were approved for funding in 2018. Repairs/renovations are underway. HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM – “WELCOME HOME NIAGARA”: The Homeownership program assists low-to-moderate income rental households to purchase their first home by providing a down payment loan. In Q3, 14 homeowners received assistance through Welcome Home Niagara. 2017-Q3 2017-Q4 2018-Q1 2018-Q2 2018-Q3 # of homeowners assisted 11 13 5 9 14 HOUSING FIRST PROGRAM: The Housing First program helps people move quickly from homelessness to their own home by providing supports to help difficult to house individuals find and keep housing. In Q3, nine individuals/families were housed through the Housing First program. Since 2012, Housing First has helped 344 individuals/families. 2017- Q3 2017- Q4 2018- Q1 2018- Q2 2018- Q3 # of individuals/families housed 10 22 17 14 9 # of Housing First units (at quarter end) 131 148 165 170 178 4. Affordable Housing Program Page 138 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 7 of 11 RENTAL HOUSING (NEW DEVELOPMENT): NRH New Development Carlton Street, St. Catharines Amount Units Investment in Affordable Housing-Extension (IAH-E), Year 3 $5,806,000 45 Investment in Affordable Housing-Extension (IAH-E), Year 4 $2,888,000 23 Social Infrastructure Fund (SIF), Year 1 $2,387,817 17 Roach Avenue, Welland Social Infrastructure Fund (SIF), Year 3 $1,200,000 8 TOTAL $12,281,817 93 At the end of Q3: Carlton Street Envelope work – generally 70% complete. EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems) is in progress - 50% complete. Other components of the exterior envelope – no change. 1st floor – boarding started, mechanical and electrical rough-in of suite rooms 90% complete 2nd floor – interior drywall of rooms 95% complete, painting of rooms 95% complete, mill work delivered and installation started, flooring in rooms 80% complete, wall tiles installation started, electrical devices, switches, plugs, lights installation 70% complete, doors to suites 10% complete, door hardware installation started, hallways boarding 80% complete 3rd floor – 80% rooms boarded, 30% rooms taped 4th floor – interior drywall of rooms generally 95% complete, painting of rooms 75% complete, floor preparation - sanding is in progress, hallways boarded 5th floor – interior drywall of rooms 95% complete, painting of rooms 90% complete, flooring installation - 90% complete, wall tile installation started, hallways boarded Schedule delayed approximately two months due to the number of Change Orders & lack of performance of trades. Currently we have approximately $259,430 in changes out of cash allowance of $500,000. Overall progress – approximately 75% complete Roach Avenue Design build contract signed with T.R. Hinan Construction T.R. Hinan and architects Raimondo & Associates worked on the design drawings and applied for foundation permit Demolition to start in October Page 139 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Additional New Development Investment in Affordable Housing-Extension (IAH-E), Year 2 funding has been allocated to three non-profit organizations and will result in the creation of 40 units for seniors and mental health consumers in Niagara: Amount Units Gateway Residences of Niagara, Huron Street, Niagara Falls $720,000 9 Thorold Municipal Non-Profit, Ormond Street, Thorold $1,228,912 14 Stamford Kiwanis, Barker Street, Niagara Falls $1,089,088 17 TOTAL $3,038,000 40 At the end of Q3: Gateway Residence of Niagara and Thorold Municipal Non-Profit – complete and operational Stamford Kiwanis – approximately 60% complete. On hold pending financing. Construction to resume in 2019. 5 APPEALS: In Q3, 15 appeals were heard (same as in 2017-Q3). Five related to ongoing RGI eligibility Two for failure to provide information o One failed to report change in income that resulted in receiving RGI overpayment; must repay the amount. Upheld. o One given more time to supply missing information so RGI could be calculated. Tenant provided some information but not all; given more time, not received. Upheld. One where tenant disagreed with amount of former arrears. Committee allowed extra time to provide additional information. Upheld. One where overhoused tenant was denied request for additions to the household. Upheld. One related to review of balance owing for unreported income. NRH agreed to tenant's proposal to pay NRH the difference for only two months. Overturned. Nine for decisions made by Housing Access (e.g. requests for special priority status, urgent status, additional bedroom). Five upheld, four overturned. One from an overhoused tenant requesting the extra bedrooms due to health issues. Not eligible. Tenant decided to stay in current unit and pay market rent. 5. Service Manager Responsibilities Page 140 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov 16, 2018 Page 9 of 11 2017-Q3 2017-Q4 2018-Q1 2018-Q2 2018-Q3 # of appeals 15 9 19 9 15 INVESTMENTS: See Appendix A – Investment Report 6 APPLICATION ACTIVITY : # of Applications Received & Processed 739 # of Eligible Applications 713 # of Special Provincial Priority Status Applications 98 # of Ineligible Applications 26 # of Urgent Status Applications 128 # of Cancelled Applications 345 # of Homeless Status Applications 171 # of Applicants Housed 136 In Q3, 345 households were removed from the Centralized Waiting List because they were no longer eligible, they found alternate housing or we were unable to make contact. 6. Housing Access Centre & Centralized Waiting List Page 141 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov. 16, 2018 Page 10 of 11 CENTRALIZED WAITING LIST: 2017- Q3 2017- Q4 2018- Q1 2018- Q2 2018- Q3 # of households A Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) waiting list: Niagara resident RGI waiting list 4,282 4,344 4,287 4,562 4,642 Applicants from outside of Niagara 641 657 639 692 758 TOTAL RGI waiting list: 4,923 5,001 4,926 5,254 5,400 Housing Allowance: a set allowance to help applicants on the waiting list with affordability in the private market until housed in an RGI unit 428 505 569 605 618 A1 RGI waiting list demographics: Seniors 2,038 2,061 2,064 2,173 2,236 Adults no dependents 1,652 1,703 1,630 1,727 1,764 Adults with dependents 1,233 1,237 1,232 1,354 1,400 A2 RGI list further segmented (#’s included in A & A1): SPP – Special Provincial Priority (Ministry Priority): helps victims of violence separate permanently from their abuser 114 101 122 129 129 URG – Urgent (Local Priority): for applicants with mobility barriers and/or extreme hardship where their current accommodation puts them at extreme risk and/or causes hardship 105 99 104 120 123 HML – Homeless (Local Priority): provides increased opportunity for placement to homeless households 821 832 842 894 947 SUP – Supportive/Transitional: provides targeted, provisional services to assist individuals to transition beyond basic needs to more permanent housing 26 19 17 17 13 B In addition, NRH manages: Overhoused: households who are living in subsidized accommodation with more bedrooms than they are eligible for 111 143 152 167 171 Transfer: households who are currently living in subsidized accommodation and have requested a transfer to another provider 499 513 518 525 547 TOTAL RGI households on waiting list managed by NRH: 5,533 5,657 5,596 5,946 6,118 C NRH maintains a waiting list for market rent units (62 Non-Profit Housing Programs): Market: applicants who have applied for a market rent unit in the Non-Profit Housing Programs portfolio 592 591 578 597 629 TOTAL households on waiting list managed by NRH: 6,125 6,248 6,174 6,543 6,747 TOTAL individuals on waiting list managed by NRH: 10,217 10,449 10,380 11,052 11,496 Note: the above chart includes only those who apply to the Centralized Waiting List and does not capture the full number of those in need of affordable housing in Niagara. Page 142 of 450 Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2018) 18-176-4.2. Nov. 16, 2018 Page 11 of 11 ESTIMATED WAIT TIMES: CITY SENIORS Age 55 and older SINGLES Age 16-54 HOUSEHOLDS WITH DEPENDENTS Bachelor 1 Bed Bachelor 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 5 Bed Y E A R S Fort Erie - 9 2 8.5 2 1 5 - Grimsby - 4 - - - - - - Lincoln - 4.5 - 12 9 8 - - Niagara Falls 4 6 - 16 5 3 7 14 Niagara-on-the-Lake - 6.5 - - - - - - Pelham - 3.5 - - - - - - Port Colborne - 4.5 - 13 3 3 3 - St. Catharines - 6.5 9 13 3.5 3 9 12 Thorold - 6.5 - 10 6 8 - - Welland - 5 6 15 5 2.5 7 2 West Lincoln - 4 - - 5.5 7 - - - no units of this size available in this community January 2018 Please note: wait time information can fluctuate and is an approximation only wait times may not reflect the actual time one may wait for affordable housing Page 143 of 450 Page 144 of 450 Page 145 of 450 Page 146 of 450 $mw-$~-mE mo.£8_o_.§bo asa?oowemEm.EM253:0 bsmo?B?m Sm?obomE5 :s$.Eq .uo5Eo>:oo60:30.59» 3E05Emtom?mwarwemm?owu?mmsomm.8:9»£3»wcuoo?masw?uum3E§E£M0235 .wao_E2EuoowEam~o>wou:o w?mth?oH50weSEESmommo?maaEamo???~32BEEE5#003£58300momEmEv~ Qtw?h?3:96Sonmsou?mmonobgmwas$285EmE3oonommzmuixmomBobw?omo? dmsomm50%EH:9»5mm:.Eo>ob?co?zm?oo mm?mEH55.25.w:Eo>ox?ubzmmSoanm:£33Ew??waswants:9»E5ohmow35.m .m=amawmw?zEM003E58300momEm.EMHE32Imm:.E<moM003o5 PHEOOU:9»E5was$5.:mE56an308800m?taononntwasw?mu?wmumu:ot<.m dz?moum aon:u>:oUmsnaioomom?mmnvm2:SEuotom?on3B32uEo£o3mour/oiA uwcwsozomo5nwnou?m5£?H3OO momEw.EM05none;8:9»viabgtoommoaQ5.m=mmEww?zmo55o?moHO%d2m< .m:mmwamw?zEEm?zouSmwasm?w?m2:howno?m??33-8.3m 385E3n..:o>o.30Ho?mEHSE99%Butwants8mo???w?wmudoocu£05m?ussobsm 0%.wasmzmmmbww?Zwemzuo?oamoum?ms?nocanm=2ow_>awsohiisHown:oxoo>>wamub? H?do?oommm8wugioww:Eo2P3wasoo?muaotmEma?aco?Bm?ouqnP5biom?m .28“mm:on__a<£9.EmmezE232: :0aou?oam9%E=o_..:o>:oo?md??m?w?~:05w?z?o?Pam5n_P=.;OOwomEw.EMOMHSEO2:. #wmUO_QSE32avg 03m3zo£5asmez EohmE0050CaM? mam.3saunas25aaszwo55 umvoa85$.H932 mu.uv6v_o:mEo@wu_tow~mum mm$.wmm.momcammmmo.mmwoow.n$:=3HmR.mwm....omimp N>.n9320.:9__EmIJONSE.525?x_mE>mmm DB?mOENHCOIm5£E5—OU..wOB: ). SO Page 147 of 450 1 Bill Matson From:Minister Steve Clark <mah@ontario.ca> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:53 AM To:Bill Matson Subject:Proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe La version française suit. Dear Mayor Jim Diodati, Our government is committed to making it faster and easier for municipalities in the region to plan for growth, increase housing supply, attract investment, and create and protect jobs. That is why we are proposing changes to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 and its transition regulation. We encourage you to visit www.placestogrow.ca. Your municipality is invited to provide feedback by February 28, 2019. Given the rising number of people who will live and work in the Greater Golden Horseshoe in the next 20 years, the Growth Plan provides a long-term framework for growth. It aims to: Increase and promote economic growth, reduce congestion and provide residents easy access to businesses and services Build communities that maximize infrastructure investments, while balancing local needs for the agricultural industry and natural areas We have heard that planning for growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Region is needed. However, we have also heard that there are some issues with how best to implement the Growth Plan. The proposed changes build on feedback that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing heard from the business, research and development sectors, municipalities, and others during engagement sessions last fall. The proposed changes respect the ability of local governments to make decisions about how they grow. The province will maintain protections for the Greenbelt, agricultural lands, the agri-food sector, and natural heritage systems. Visit the Environmental Registry to read the proposed amendment and other changes, and provide feedback. I look forward to hearing your comments and advice. Sincerely, Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing c: Bill Matson Alex Herlovitch Kenneth Todd Page 148 of 450 2 Madame ou Monsieur Mayor Jim Diodati, Notre gouvernement s’engage à faciliter et à accélérer le processus pour les municipalités de la région afin qu’elles puissent planifier la croissance, augmenter l’offre de logements, attirer des investissements, créer des emplois et les protéger. C’est la raison pour laquelle nous proposons des changements au Plan de croissance de la région élargie du Golden Horseshoe, 2017 et à sa réglementation de transition. Nous vous encourageons à consulter le site www.placestogrow.ca. et nous invitons votre municipalité à fournir des commentaires d’ici au 28 février. En raison du nombre croissant de personnes qui habiteront et travailleront dans la région élargie du Golden Horseshoe d’ici les 20 prochaines années, le Plan de croissance offre un cadre pour la croissance à long terme, qui vise à : augmenter et à promouvoir la croissance économique, à réduire la congestion et à offrir aux résidents un accès facile aux entreprises et aux services bâtir des communautés qui maximisent les investissements dans l’infrastructure, tout en veillant à équilibrer les besoins de l’industrie agricole et les espaces naturels dans la région Nous avons été informés qu’une planification de la croissance était nécessaire pour la région élargie du Golden Horseshoe. Cependant, nous avons également été avisés de certains enjeux concernant la façon la plus appropriée de mettre le Plan de croissance en œuvre. Les changements proposés sont fondés sur les commentaires reçus par le ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement de la part des secteurs des affaires, de la recherche et du développement, des municipalités et des autres intervenants lors des séances de mobilisation de l’automne dernier. Les changements proposés respectent la capacité des administrations locales de prendre des décisions sur la façon d’assurer leur croissance. Le gouvernement provincial assurera le maintien de la protection de la ceinture de verdure, des terres agricoles, du secteur agroalimentaire et du patrimoine naturel. Consultez le Registre environnemental pour voir la modification et les autres changements proposés et fournir vos commentaires sur le sujet. J’espère avoir l’occasion de lire vos commentaires et suggestions sous peu. Veuillez agréer, Madame ou Monsieur, l’expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs. Steve Clark Ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement c: Bill Matson Alex Herlovitch Kenneth Todd Page 149 of 450 3 Page 150 of 450 1 Bill Matson From:Ploss, Diane (MMAH) <Diane.Ploss@ontario.ca> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 1:35 PM To:Nicole.Cooper@ajax.ca; tgettinby@townshipofbrock.ca; agreentree@clarington.net; ralph.walton@durham.ca; cschofield@forterie.ca; hsoady-easton@grimsby.ca; jkirkelos@lincoln.ca; Bill Matson; ann-marie.norio@niagararegion.ca; ptodd@notl.org; abrouwer@oshawa.ca; njbozzato@pelham.ca; cityclerk@portcolborne.ca; jnewman@scugog.ca; bdunk@stcatharines.ca; donna.delvecchio@thorold.com; dleroux@town.uxbridge.on.ca; clerk@welland.ca; jscime@westlincoln.ca; harrisc@whitby.ca; clerk@hamilton.ca; clerk@westlincoln.ca; William Kolasa; scassel@pickering.ca Subject:News Release: Special Advisors Appointed to Begin Regional Government Review Importance:High NEWS Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Special Advisors Appointed to Begin Regional Government Review Consultations to start in early 2019 January 15, 2019 1:00 P.M. TORONTO — The Ontario government is moving ahead with a review of regional government by appointing Michael Fenn and Ken Seiling as Special Advisors. The regional government model has been in place for almost 50 years in Ontario and we are taking steps to ensure that regional governments are working efficiently and effectively. These advisors will consult broadly over the coming months and provide recommendations to improve governance, decision- making and service delivery. The review will examine Ontario's eight regional municipalities (Halton, York, Durham, Waterloo, Niagara, Peel, Muskoka District, and Oxford County), the County of Simcoe, and their lower-tier municipalities. "Our government committed to improving the way regional government works and we will be looking at ways to make better use of taxpayers' dollars and make it easier for residents and businesses to access important municipal services," said Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. "Michael Fenn and Ken Seiling bring a wealth of experience that will help us examine if the way regions are governed is working for the people." The advisors will work with the province to explore: Opportunities to make it easier for residents and businesses to access municipal services; Page 151 of 450 2 Processes to deliver efficient and effective local services that respects taxpayers' money; Methods to make municipalities open for business; and, Possibilities to cut red tape and duplication, and save costs. Local residents and businesses will be consulted in spring 2019. QUICK FACTS In total, 82 upper- and lower-tier municipalities are included in the review. Julie O'Driscoll Minister’s Office Julie.O'Driscoll@ontario.ca 416-569-0569 Conrad Spezowka Communications Branch MMA.media@ontario.ca 416-585-7066 Available Online Disponible en Français Page 152 of 450 1 Bill Matson From:AMO Communications <communicate@amo.on.ca> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 1:58 PM To:Bill Matson Subject:AMO Policy Update - Province’s "Regional Review" to be Limited January 15, 2019 Province’s "Regional Review" to be Limited The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Steve Clark, announced today that this review is limited to nine (9) upper tiers and their constituent lower tiers in: Waterloo Region Niagara Region Halton Region Peel Region York Region Durham Region Oxford County Simcoe County Muskoka District The focus is to be on governance/decision-making and service delivery. The Province has appointed two advisors who are to provide advice/recommendations back to the province this summer. They are: Michael Fenn – a former Ontario Deputy Minister, previous municipal chief administrator in several Ontario cities, and founding CEO of Metrolinx. Ken Seiling – former Chair of Waterloo Region who held that position since 1985 and prior as a councillor and Mayor in Woolwich. Each jurisdiction is to receive information on the consultation. Last August, the Minister began informal discussions, wishing to hear from people about how this system of governance is working recognizing it was established in the 1970s. AMO will monitor the review process, which needs to be open and transparent. It is important that during the review process, the work of the affected municipal governments is not destabilized. While this review does not include any other municipal jurisdictions or structures, and AMO is not involved in the specific reviews, it will keep an eye on any potential sector wide implications that the advisors’ recommendations may have for service delivery generally. AMO Contacts: Page 153 of 450 2 Pat Vanini, Executive Director, pvanini@amo.on.ca, 416-471-9856 ext. 316. Monika Turner, Director of Policy, mturner@amo.on.ca, 416-471-9856 ext. 318. DISCLAIMER: Any documents attached are final versions. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with this electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record. OPT-OUT: If you wish to opt-out of email communications from AMO, please click here. Page 154 of 450 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada L2E 6X5 January 17, 2019 To whom it may concern: I am writing to request a proclamation from Niagara Falls to recognize the week of February 1st to February 7th 2019 as Eating Disorder Awareness Week (EDAW). EDAW has been commemorated across Canada since 1988 by established eating disorder organizations, education and public health institutions, and concerned members of the public. It draws attention to the causes, prevalence and impact of eating disorders. Eating disorders are the number one cause of death among all psychiatric illnesses and are the third most common cause of death in teenage girls. In fact, approximately 1,000,000 Canadians – almost the population of Saskatchewan – meet the diagnostic criteria for an eating disorder. Eating disorders can develop in anyone, regardless of age, ethno-racial background, socioeconomic status, gender or ability. Unfortunately, stigma and se crecy still surround eating disorders, causing many people who are suffering to refrain from seeking help, and to struggle in silence. We know that through open, supportive dialogue, we can help break the shame and silence that affect Canadians that are living with a diagnosed eating disorder and the millions of others who are struggling with unhealthy food and weight preoccupation. EDAW is a time to increase awareness about eating disorders, their impact and to shed light on the dangerous and pervasive myths that surround them. It is a time of year when Canadians can learn more about eating disorders and about the resources that are available for individuals and family members who are impacted by them. Municipal recognition of EDAW would help to affirm the experiences of those with a friend, family member, or important person in their life who is dealing with this life -threatening mental illness, and draw attention to the need for eating disorder prevention, research, treatment, and resources. Attached is a document outlining the stated goals of Eating Disorder Awareness Week 2019. Please proclaim EDAW in Niagara Falls and help raise awareness and hope among the many who are impacted by this illness. For more information about Eating Disorder Awareness Week and this request, please contact me. Thank You. Kind Regards, Nicolette Witherspoon Education & Outreach Team Member Page 155 of 450 Proclamation Eating Disorder Awareness Week (EDAW) February 1st- 7th 2019 WHEREAS: Eating Disorder Awareness Week will be from February 1 – 7, 2019; and WHEREAS: Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate among all psychiatric illnesses and can develop in anyone, regardless of age, ethno-racial background, socioeconomic status, gender or ability; and WHEREAS; Stigma, secrecy and stereotypes still surround eating disorders, causing many people who are suffering to refrain from seeking help; and WHEREAS; Open supportive dialogue can help break the shame and silence that affect nearly 1 million Canadians living with diagnosable eating disorders and the millions of others who are struggling with food and weight preoccupation; and WHEREAS; Eating Disorder Awareness Week seeks to raise awareness of eating disorders, shed light on dangerous and pervasive myths, and promote prevention. It is also a time of year for Canadians to learn about available resources and appropriate services for themselves and/or loved ones; and WHEREAS, Eating Disorder Awareness Week aims to teach Canadians that eating disorders are not a choice, and that eating disorders are a serious and dangerous mental illness. Page 156 of 450 O>_A<_Fm ._m:cm23.N03 m:E.mon_:..o..3m:o:W290:-w.__8->3>2.__O_.mm3_.mO:.8_..o.m oo3u.m=:<m:mwmUm3m:n=:0.._.m_uom=:3.49.:>o_w 2_a3835o:,_m::m23.N08.Omx<___m3530950..mE2o<mgEm..o__o<<_:m $mo_::o:2::qmmvmo?83mm:§.mo...63:28mco<m” Q.153$Eton.E3..S..os3m:.o:mmbo:Ima8->3>2,8wmmqowm O:_.m:.o.moo3bm:.:.<m:mmw3mEm:QS©oxambmmmsmom:.mS>03:om :m.o9.<mQ. N_\<Immm>m.Sm®o<m33m:~,anOE.m:.ormm§a%8qms8.m:>9.8smmwosmO:$:.o.moo3bm§.<m:mmm3m3m:Q3©oxwmbmmmsmom:.m=.:>29.mzq s\Immm>m.mozmqim32“Smbwobommq\m©\.m\m:.o:SBEQm3m:QSm \u\m::..:©>9.8maosx3:§.Q..om§.mm3bmmm..obm:-mow.u:m3mmmEm:§.:© Elms\m=..m:Q s\Immm>m.SmQ:SBEQm=os\26:Slmém8o<m3.Qm§to:.m:~ Em:§.:©.sxmmmnm©:.oSEB\msqm:S.3:3m:~.m\bsoxmouosmoo§.m:.:mQ3 SmQmm:_\<m$?>2..8%.3m®wmm:am=>Q..88.SmEmomm8GEE >3.88.93953b\0S.:Q.m\\mQ.m\m:.o:..m:Q s\Immm>mmormqimmo»Smnxobommq\m©..m\m:.o:SBEQmacaw: Sm?oiommmqcomos>3.88..Q3 s\Immm>m.SmoosombwoxSEmsEma:m<mxQaocmmmqQ::.:©Smxmomi §.OS.:Q.m\282.03..m:Q s\Immm>m.:0souom9.bags:mm:.:©EEQSEQbuds8Smb.mmm3©an mtgmElm_\<:9mwmSmwmmzkm.o.omm\:.©E_mSmxmmnmn.mzq _\_\Immm>m.Smmwmmzcmz...mm:\.:~m©>£oo3bo:m§.oxEsqcmmEm:§.:© 39.oo3Em3m:~mSmGEESEm:8mzoocxmmmm3m:.Emzizo.Sm 83.02.039.mbwmi.38.3.0:9.:mEwm\mzqE\Q8\o9.om\mmmacxmmmzq m©:.o§.:wm\\m:Qm..$5 492:9nOmw<___m _ Cmm3352wow?Om._A<:_m.03310E:QIW _ mom-m\G-mmE _ <<<<<<.om__A<:_m.8 Page 157 of 450 _ummmN ,_m::m_.<3.Noam m:E.mnn_:..o::m:o:wmuo:-w___2->3>23_.mm_no_.mO_:m_._o.m no3_um..=_<m:mmw3m_.:m:n_=m0..nmummzsmnm:m_:>o..m _\<Immm>m.mbm3$:m§,QsmmsumaRm:..:.Eo:.m:~am:9.SmEmsismwowm:,£.m=.:mEmoo3§::E.mm..m:Q s\Immm>m.SmwmRmwwmimsqotmmEo:§.owE39SoEQ..:©m3Eo<Bm§, Esqm.m§m%Emszmumzo.m<m=mEmSmxommm9.SmQm<m\ob3m§_smmqm Q.SmQ3»§,:.o:3mmtsqmwmozmm:S.8:3m§.m\m:Q§+mm:.:o_,:$ mmmmmm3m§.m§.SoS,Sm:938EmmxmzSmbwoamomosmbwosqmqExSm Qwmmiumnowm.4mo:.<m>\wm3o<mE30.#03R.33 s\Immm>m.bsoamouozm5%ScumSofqmqSSmQmm:_\_\m$w>2mam o:.u.om\8SmEma:Q...Om>S.=mwmm‘.Qm§.m.. Emmmmomm.mm:mmmotxmu. 1&5.mormqim33ms8Qomm:9.Sbxmmmi.30$Sm?oss9.Om><Sm mzqamzmmimimEmi8Q0u:.£.:mmm..m:Q .:...x:.Sm?oss9.Omxsamobbommmb3S.m..o:mSmommqim33msmm. SE.m3m:Q.smbmm:owo<m3.QmSmQmm:_\<m~mx>n__.88.msq Smmxmm:um:>S..88mzqomzmmosSm?$3o<m\‘+03Smms.93 d.$?Sm?ossoxOmxS.=mobbommmbSS..£.o:mSmormqimm2.ms8. S9.macaw:SmHoiommmqtouozLon.88..mzo. 1.3.‘.:o§:.S,£.m:§.:©Sm33$803.0:cmmsmm.SmH0339.Om>S.=m <3::8,935.3SmboémsmQxmimq8..~.3mgmqsm3exm5\mzoommmowmmnmozmowmoamqimm8bmmmmanyEm:§.:©ElmsxmsxrmwmSmkmsm oo:~.Ea\8SmSsswOE.Q.m\.059.mzo. 1.3HSmmbb~.O<m\9.mE:8ElmémowmEsxms2.23:E.Q.bmS.<$QS.wm Sm$S.ms\m:Qmbb3<m\owSmEobmw:23::§.Um=d\..93 iiiSmmE%o<m\9.mms8SlméQmmwcxEQSESm:Sm§.m©:.a\om Sm925:3:mzqmocsomEmwmw.c§.mou.o:cmmo§.m<mQ..msq .:.$HSEsmmoE:.o:umQ>£.:.oSmQ8..SmEmqma9.mabmwmmm §2.8m:aqSSm>m©‘.m\m:.:$..Sm>\=.:..m~.msQ.§:§.Q.bm\>5593 Io:.£.:©..Sm§§.m~.mxQ.Smm:S.3:§m:~.Ooammzxmmozm:Q\um:8..m: @332moimzIosmmmaom3:E.Q.bm§.mm.Imaos§u.Um.m:QSm >mmoQ.mu.o:Q"§:§.QUm§.mm2O:~,m:.o. jgmQB:6_oon3m<cm<38o:Em8,2:Emcmzmm?Em3__o<<_:@__%Ammm:9:my _u_m::_:magUm<m_o39:0950:>qqm:o_:3.Page 158 of 450 _ummmw ._m::m23.No3 m.._E.mnn_:ao..3m:o:W290:-m.___3->3>23_.mmno_.mO:.a:._o.m oo=,_cm::<m:mmm_u<m3m:n=:m0....m_umm=:mnm....m_:>05 m:o:E<0::m<mm:<ncmmmozm_1mnma_:m.36Bmzmqowm:o:_o_<0:«mgE_.mmao_Eo:m_ _:_no::m:o:._o_mmmmooimo?U_m:mO:__qm._<_m:mmm_.9._uo__o<_u_m::_:mm:o_Imqzmnm. 40,2:2Omw<___m_28m-m#..-mm3_mx.6:m_o:83.owm3m__Q_m:m.o:__a.m:@om_2___m.om. o.._.:mIo:oSmc_mUocmmoa._u~m3_mq20:320 >:Q$m_._o2<m.3._.mmn_m_..0:620292Umao?mao_um:< _<=xmmo_:m_:m_.__.mmQm:mama:_um:<o.“0:310 .63:_nBmm:rmmqm:0:320_.__om_.m_312._.:mIo:oEmc_mm6<mO_m:n_<__3m..ma9._<_::_o_um_>33magIocmim 3.:_mHmw3m:o:..m:o.om :5Io:oEmc_mm8._u:_____om__<=:_m$«o.”Emm:<_8_._3m:.pOo:mm_.<m:o:mag_um=_8 3_:_mHm:3mom®o3m:o.om ._.:mIo:oSm_o_m4mg>32..._<=u_u<<m_=:©.8:IIm_.8:I___m m?mvrmsO_.m<$oa___<__un_Omx<=_m ,_m:m_<_oXm::m._<=u_u__w:_,__:m8: >mmoo_m:o:9._<_::_o__um_:_mm20:520A>_<_OV m3m__”>__O?mm?m?moamsIoammzom3c:_o_nm__:mm ._m:mO_o:mo<.oo33_mmmo:mqo.“Oo33::=<_um<m_o_u3m3 _<_m:Am_3mo:_.U:mo.§9._u_m::_:mmm2_omm U_m:mO:__o_m__<_m:mmm«9“_uo__o<_u_m::_:mmagImammm Tmsom_u_mNNm._.m©_m_m:<mOoo&5m.8:_u_m::_:m_mmasomm Page 159 of 450 ^mffiæ'È.,,qr,g!]sHIII? wrüw.orangeville. ca Town of Orangeville 87 Broadway, Orangeville, Ontario, Canada L9W 1K1 Tel: 519-941-0440 Fax: 519-941-9569 Toll Free: 1-800-941-0440 Corporate Services January 17,2019 Via Email The Honourable Doug Ford, M.P.P., Premier of Ontario, doug.ford@pc.ola.org The Honourable Christine Elliott, M.P.P., Deputy Premier of Ontario, Minister of Health and Long Term Care, christine.elliott@pc.ola.org The Honourable Steve Clark, M.P.P., Minister of MunicipalAffairs and Housing, steve. clark@pc. ola. org The Honourable Sylvia Jones, M.P.P., Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, sylvia.jones@pc. ola. org Andrea Horwath, M.P.P., ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca Dear Sir/Madam At the Town of Orangeville Council Meeting on January 14,2019 Council passed the following resolution: Whereas the protection of the integrity of the Green Belt is a paramount concern for our residents; And whereas the continued legislative protection of our water - groundwater, surface water and waterways - is vitally important for the current and future environmental health of our community; And whereas significant concerns have been raised by residents, community leaders and environmental organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), that provisions within Bill 66 will weaken environmental protections as ff enable municipalities to pass "open-for busrness" zoning by-laws that do not have to comply with ..." important provincial e nv i ro n me nta I statute s; And whereas an "Open for Business" by-law may be approved without public consultation; And whereas provisions within Bill 66 may allow exemptions from municipal Official Plans; And whereas the Town of Orangeville's Official Plan represents not only a significant investment of taxpayer resources but reflects our community's collective vision for current and future planning; And whereas our Official Plan clearly designates land that is environmentally protected; And whereas our Official PIan also provides clearly designated land to meet future employment land needs; Visit our Website at y,tuw.orangeville.ca Page 160 of 450 1 2 3 4 Now therefore be it hereby resolved That Orangeville Town Council opposes planned changes to the Planning Act in the proposed Bill 66 that may allow for an "open for business" planning by-law. That the Government of Ontario be requested to reconsider the proposed changes to the Planning Act included in Bill 66 which speak to the creation of the open-for- business planning by-law. That notwithstanding the future adoption of Bill 66, the Town of Orangeville will not exercise the powers granted to it in Schedule 10 or any successor sections or schedules to pass open-for-business planning by-laws. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of MunicipalAffairs and Housing, the Honourable Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Sylvia Jones, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, MPP Dufferin-Caledon and Andrea Honruath, MPP, Leader of the New Democratic Party. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Association of Municipalities óf Ontario (AMO) and all Ontario municipalities for their consideration. ours truly, Susan Greatrix lClerk Town of Orangeville | 87 Broadway I Orangeville, ON LgW 1K1 519-941-0440 Ext. 2242 l Toll Free 1-866-941 -0440 lxt 2242 l Cell 519-278-4948 sqreatrix@oranqeville.ca I www.oranqeville.ca TM cc The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, M.P., Minister of lnfrastructure and Communities, Francois-Philippe.Champaqne@parl.qc.ca The Honourable Patricia A. Hajdu, M.P., Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Patty. Hajdu@parl. gc. ca The Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, M.P., Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, lawrence. macaulay@parl. gc. ca The Honourable Catherine McKenna, M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine. McKenna@parl. gc.ca The Honourable Amarjeet Sohi, M.P., Minister of Natural Resources, Amarjeet.Sohi@parl.gc.ca David Tilson, M. P., Dufferin-Caledon, david.tilson.cl @parl. gc. ca Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) All Ontario Municipalities 5 Visit our Website af www.orangeville.ca Page 161 of 450 26557 Civic Centre Road Keswick, Ontario L4P 3G'1 905-476-4301 GEORGINA Council Resolution Januarv 16,2019 Moved by Councillor Neeson, Seconded by Councillor Harding RESOLUTION NO. C -2019 -0021 WHEREAS the Provincial Government introduced Bil¡ 66 entitled "Restoring Ontario's Competitiveness Act" on the final day of sitting in the 2018 Ontario Legislature, December 6th, 2018 and; WHEREAS significant concerns have been communicated regarding schedule 10, among other schedulel contained therein by residents, community leaders, legal and environmental organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), EcoJustice, EÑ¡ronmental Defence Canada, Ontario Nature, South Lake Simcoe Naturalists, The Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition, The David Suzuki Foundation, AWARE-Simcoe, Lake Simcoe Watch and the North Gwillimbury Forest Alliance that provisions within Bill 66 will weaken environmental protection, undermine democratic processes and potentially endanger public health and; WHEREAS provisions of B¡ll 66 allow for an "Open for Business" bylaw, which may be approved without any public consultation of the citizens of the Town of Georgina and; WHEREAS provisions of Bill 66 allow an "Open for Business Bylaw" which would permit major development in the Town of Georgina which most notably would no longer have to have any legislative regard for certain sections of:o The Planning Act o The Provincial Policy Statement o The Clean Water Act o The Great Lakes Protection Act o The Greenbelt Act o The Lake Simcoe Protection Act . The Oak Ridges Moraine Conseruation Act and; WHEREAS the Town of Georgina remains committed to source water protection, The Lake Simcoe Protection Acf, the integrity of the Greenbelt and it understands the benefits for protecting these features in support of our local economy and quality of life, and WHEREAS notwithstanding the potential future adoption of Bill 66, that the Town of Georgina will continue to remain committed to making sound decision regarding resource and environmental preservation that remain consistent with the Glean Water Act, 2006, the provincial Policy Statement and other legislative tools which provide for good planning, while balancing the nêed for economic development and providing environmental and public health protection; georgina.ca nÐo@D Page 162 of 450 NOW THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED THAT the Town of Georgina strongly recommends that schedule 10 of Bill 66 be immediately abandoned or withdrawn by the Ontario Government and; BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT The Town of Georgina declares that notwithstanding the potentialfuture adoption of Bill66, the Town of Georgina's Councilwill not exercise the powers granted to it in schedule 10 or any successor schedules or sections to pass an "open for business planning bylaw" without a minimum of two (02) public meetings which shall be advertised twenty (20) days in advance in the Georgina Advocate or its successor, and also shall be advertised in any other local media resource that is widely available to the public in the Town of Georgina, by way of bylaw and; BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to draft such a bylaw for Council's consideration should Bill 66 be given royal assent and be given force and effect and; BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Town of Georgina requests the Province of Ontario to release draft criteria and draft regulations, and to provide a commenting period in advance of consideration by the legislature, and; BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this motion be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Andrea Honruath, MPP and Leader of the Official Opposition and the Ontario NDP Party, MPP John Fraser, lnterim Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, MPP and Leader of the Green Party of Ontario, Mike Schreiner, the Honourable Caroline Mulroney, MPP York-Simcoe, Attorney General and Minster Responsible for Francophone Affairs and; BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this motion be sent to the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO), all MPP's in the Province of Ontario and all Municipalities in Ontario for their consideration. A recorded vote was requested; the Deputy Clerk recorded the vote as follows: Mayor euirk F NAY Councillor Waddington X Councillor Neeson X Councillor Sebo X Councillor Harding X Regional Councillor Grossi X Councillor Fellini X Yea-S Nay-2 Carried. Page 163 of 450 January 27, 2019 TO: City Clerk Bill Matson; cc: City Councillors FOR: Inclusion in January 29, 2019 City Council Meeting — AGENDA Item 11.5 FROM: Linda Manson RE: Bill 66 ... Attached is my personal email of January 20th to the Ontario government in response to Bill 66. My reasons for sending it to you will be obvious upon reading and reinforced by the following. Albeit Schedule 10 was withdrawn from this proposed legislation on Wednesday, January 23rd (within three days of the deadline for public/municipal comments, due to massive negative outcry), my response raises other Bill 66 questions and concerns—upon reflection and going forward. Bill 66 was introduced on December 6, 2018, yet did not even appear as an item on City Council Meeting Agendas of Dec. 11th or January 15th. Why not? It was only added to the January 29th Agenda late Friday—even though the correspondence from Oakville, Orangeville and Georgina is dated January 16th / 17th and two of the letters (at least) were sent via email. Why was this important correspondence not on the Agenda when it was initially posted on Wednesday? The people of these three towns and countless others can be proud of their elected officials’ swift and stern rebuke of everything Schedule 10 represented—a blatant affront to democracy, rule of law, and the critical role of professional planners in building Ontario municipalities responsibly. By contrast, the silence by the City of Niagara Falls on this issue has been deaf ening. Was there any City response sent to the province RE: Bill 66 — independent of council? If so, the public and our elected representatives have a right to see it. Why the big deal over council being left out of this issue—to date? This quote from a statement issued by Ontario Headwaters Institute says it all: “The withdrawal of Schedule 10 is a victory for all those who spoke against it, including the municipalities who stated they were against it and would not use the bylaws if the Bill was passed. But let’s face it: those who thought Schedule 10 was in any way appropriate were willing to trash the environment, public health, democracy, and the judicial system - in one swoop.” I sincerely hope you do more than “receive the correspondence for information.” Linda Manson P.S. Please read my Bill 66 response ... on the following 2 pages. Page 164 of 450 January 20, 2019 BY EMAIL: michael.helfinger@ontario.ca Michael Helfinger, Intergovernmental Policy Coordination Unit RE: Bill 66 ... Environmental Registry No. 013-4293 (Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018) Environmental Registry Nos. 013-4125 and 013-4239 (Proposed Open-for-Business By-Laws (OFB-BL) Planning Tools) Dear Sir, Cut real red tape — to facilitate real businesses bringing real jobs to a community? Great! Trust/believe that Bill 66 (particularly schedule 10) will not be abused? Not for a second! Not in Niagara! The Ontario Auditor General’s Special Audit of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) of September 2018 is proof positive of what can happen when a big enough ‘jobs carrot’ — real or not — is dangled in front of elected officials. Thundering Waters / Paradise Niagara / Riverfront Community (re-named as realities were revealed, scaling-down became necessary, public opposition grew and potential investors bailed) by China-based GR (CAN) — to be built within a ~500-acre Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex— was backed by a Memorandum of Understanding promising “expediting applications and approvals procedures for investment,” signed by a mayor, witnessed by a premier, without city council consultation or public knowledge. Bottom line? The Auditor General revealed/confirmed that for the past four years, the City of Niagara Falls, Region of Niagara and NPCA secretly co-conspired to bypass Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) protection of PSWs via lobbying ministers of the provincial government. To his credit, the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs stood his ground, citing preservation of natural heritage and informed public input as key considerations— not red tape. Bill 66 would remove both—in the wrong hands. This development is currently under LPAT (not possible under Bill 66); Notice of Violation has been issued by the NPCA for extensive damage (clear-cutting) done to PSWs; and the developer is crying “foul” — wondering why all the delays, given the promise to expedite. The kicker? Having just been personally assured by our city planning department that this project would not meet the criteria of Bill 66 as drafted ... Up pops a letter to you from Rino Mostacci, Niagara Region’s Commissioner of Planning and Development Services, saying Bill 66 regulations “should clarify that OFB-BLs are available for large-scale tourism users.” Coincidence? Or a last-ditch attempt to circumvent the ‘red tape’ of environmental protection and public input on this ill-conceived project? (cont’d ... ) Page 165 of 450 Rino Mostacci has been a key player in the Thundering Waters PSWs saga of political steps to destroy what can NOT be replaced. On April 7, 2016, he submitted a report/proposal to Niagara Regional Council (2 hours prior to their meeting) requesting approval of a “pilot biodiversity offsetting project” on Thundering Waters site— in clear contravention of provincial policy. Approval of that request was not granted. But his letter to you adding “OFB-BLs for large-scale tourism users” WAS received by council. Forewarned and forearmed by this back-story, I urge you to consider the massive public backlash and bad press if Bill 66 was altered to become a last-ditch tool for the rogue players in this saga. Your government pledges to not use this ‘tool’ to circumvent environmental protection laws. If/when you receive an “Open For Business” By-Law for this or some other “large-scale tourist” project in the middle of a protected PSW complex ... will you have the courage to say “No!” ? I sincerely hope so, because environmental protections are not red tape. In the wrong hands, Bill 66 (particularly schedule 10 dealing with planning issues) is a dangerous piece of legislation—as it stands: Environmental trade-off (for jobs) loopholes need to be closed. Additional safeguards are required (as submitted by many others). And it puts too much power in too few hands, for ANY municipal or provincial government to be SURE it will not be abused. I hope you revise it—carefully. We the people are watching—closely. Respectfully, Linda A. Manson Page 166 of 450 Town of Fort Erie Town of Grimsby Town of Lincoln City of Niagara Falls Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Town of Pelham City of Port Colborne City of Thorold Township of Wainfleet City of Welland Township of West Lincoln Sent via email January 18, 2019 Re: Plastic Straw and Plastic Stir Stick Ban in City Facilities Our File No. 68.31.99 and 68.32.99 At its meeting held on January 14, 2019, St. Catharines City Council approved the following motion: WHEREAS environmental sustainability is one of the pillars of Council’s Strategic Plan with a goal to lead in the protection of our environment for future generations; and WHEREAS cities across North America have moved to eliminate plastic waste by banning plastic water bottles and plastic straws from city facilities; and WHEREAS the City has implemented a plastic bottled water ban in municipal facilities, and directed staff to implement a comprehensive plastic bottle ban; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Catharines ban plastic straws and plastic stir sticks for sale and use in City facilities, parks, city events and public spaces, and require that non-plastic, compostable alternatives be used when necessary; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that non-plastic, compostable alternatives that are AODA-compliant be used when necessary and that plastic only be used when a straw is required; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff work with festivals and events held in St. Catharines to encourage organizers to adopt environmentally-friendly alternatives to plastics where possible; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City submit this resolution to the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Cities Initiative’s Annual Policy Conference for adoption by the GLSLCI as a policy for member cities to adopt; and Page 167 of 450 Page 2 of 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff circulate this motion to area municipalities, Brock University, Niagara College, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and to Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). If you have any questions, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at extension 1524. Bonnie Nistico-Dunk, City Clerk Legal and Clerks Services, Office of the City Clerk :em cc: Gervan Fearon, President and Vice-Chancellor, Brock University - president@brocku.ca Dan Patterson, President, Niagara College - president@niagaracollege.ca Association of Municipalities of Ontario - amo@amo.on.ca Federation of Canadian Municipalities - info@fcm.ca Page 168 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 1 Subject: Proposed Base Services for Next Collection Contract Report to: Public Works Committee Report date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 Recommendations 1. That, based on the results of the stakeholder engagement process, the Request for Proposals for Niagara Region’s next garbage, recycling and organics collection RFP BE APPROVED to be issued with the following, subject to final comments from Local Area Municipalities: a) Pricing for the following garbage collection frequency options: i) Every-other-week (EOW) garbage collection for all residential properties and for those Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed -Use (MU) properties located outside Designated Business Areas (DBAs), as a base service (weekly recycling and organics to continue, and current garbage container (bag/can) limits would double for affected sectors, on an EOW basis), and ii) Status quo – weekly base garbage collection service. b) Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at Low-Density Residential (LDR) properties, as a base service. c) Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service. d) Change the weekly garbage container (bag/can) limits for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed-Use (MU) properties located inside Designated Business Areas (DBAs) from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service. e) Change the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service. 2. That Report PW 3-2019 and Council’s resolutions, along with the Metroline stakeholder consultation report, when finalized, BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities, for their review, and comments to be provided by February 1, 2019 or no later than February 20, 2019; and, Page 169 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ 3. That staff BE DIRECTED to provide a follow-up report on the position of the Local Area Municipalities on the base and enhanced services to be included in the next garbage, recycling and organics collection contract Request for Proposals. Key Facts Niagara Region’s next garbage, recycling and organics collection contract is set to begin by March 8, 2021. The preparation for the next collection contract provides an opportunity to complete a service delivery review to improve program effectiveness (i.e. increase diversion of waste from disposal) and efficiencies (i.e. mechanisms to reduce costs and changes to service to reflect usage). On April 12, 2018, Regional Council approved WMPSC-C 9-2018, which identified the proposed base collection services options to be included in the stakeholder consultation and engagement process. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of the proposed base collection services being recommended for inclusion in Niagara Region’s next collection RFP, based on the results of input received during the stakeholder consultation and engagement phase, subject to further input from Local Area Municipalities (LAMs). Niagara Region is consulting with LAMs on the proposed base collection service changes and to confirm which enhanced collection services they would like included in the next collection RFP. Financial Considerations It is estimated that without any changes to the existing collection service levels to be provided in Niagara Region’s next contract, the annual contract cost could be greater than $25 million in 2021. This is based on an average of the bids received for the current collection contract, plus annual escalation of 1.9%. Factors such as, but not limited to, the increase in minimum wage and driver shortages will more than likely impact pricing. The primary financial implications of implementing the proposed recommendations include: Final consideration of inclusion of EOW garbage collection in the next collection contract would occur after pricing is received for this option. As a point of reference: - In response to Niagara Region’s last collection contract RFP, excluding one submission anomaly, on average bidders priced a cost reduction of approximately $1.2 million annually for EOW garbage collection. - Region of Waterloo’s implementation of EOW garbage collection in their 2017 contract resulted in an annual contract savings of approximately $1.5 million. Page 170 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ Elimination of Niagara Region’s annual contract cost to provide appliance and scrap metal curbside collection, which currently is approximately $130,000. Incremental cost avoidance for the proposed weekly large item and garbage container limit changes, which would likely be offset by incremental increases in the organics and recycling collection costs, based on anticipated increased participation in diversion programs. Extended site life for open Regional landfills, and more revenue generating capacity from the reduction of divertible materials being landfilled by residents and other service users who are participating in the curbside recycling and organics collection programs. Cost avoidance/cost reduction in the landfill contract with Walker Environmental due to an increase in the diversion of waste from disposal. Increased tonnages of food and organic waste collected at the curb from improved participation and capture rates would result in increased processing contract costs, unless the tonnages are offset by food waste avoidance and other reduction initiatives. Reduced methane emissions due to the reduction of organics being landfilled will result in less leachate generated, thereby reducing costs associated with care and control of these landfill sites. Analysis A) BACKGROUND Current Collection Contracts: Niagara Region’s current collection contracts with Halton Recycling Ltd., doing business as Emterra Environmental, and Waste Connections of Canada Inc. expire March 7, 2021. Niagara Region recently awarded a new collection contract for the municipalities of Lincoln and West Lincoln to Canadian Waste Management Inc. from January 2, 2019 until March 7, 2021. These contracts include provision of base and enhanced collection services, which are defined as follows: i) Base Collection Services Niagara Region currently provides base collection services (i.e. weekly garbage, recycling, and organics) to all property types, including IC&I and MU properties located inside and outside DBAs, in all 12 Local Area Municipalities (LAM). Each LAM pays a proportional share of this cost, based on their total household units, as a percen tage of the Region’s total household units. Appendix 1 provides a comparison of the current vs. proposed base collection services for each property type. Page 171 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 4 ii) Enhanced Collection Services Niagara Region also provides enhanced collection services (i.e. street litter, front-end garbage, additional garbage container limits, increased garbage or recycling collection frequency, etc.), at the request of each LAM. Each LAM directly pays for the cost associated with providing their enhanced collection services. Each LAM was requested to verify which enhanced collection services they would like included as part of Niagara Region’s next collection RFP. Appendix 2 provides a detailed comparison of the current vs. previous enhanced collection services provided in each LAM. Current Residential Diversion Rate: Over the past seven years, Niagara Region’s residential diversion rate has increased from 42% (2010) to 56% (2017), however this rate may be plateauing. In preparation for the next contract, Niagara Region is investigating options to increase participation in the recycling and organics diversion programs, such as EOW garbage collection and mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Experience in other Ontario jurisdictions demonstrates that EOW garbage collection is an effective mechanism to increase diversion. It is a best practice in Ontario and the highest residential diversion rate primarily attributable to EOW was in York Region (66% in 2016). While Niagara has achieved its 2016 residential diversion target of 56%, additional mechanisms are needed to achieve the 2020 target of 65%. These mechanisms also include improved recognition of waste reduction and reuse efforts, which traditionally are more difficult to measure. Estimated Landfill Capacity: At the time of this report, approval for the Humberstone Landfill expansion is expected to be finalized before the end of 2018. This landfill expansion will provide capacity for an estimated 25 years or more, based on serving the southern Niagara municipalities. The current remaining capacity at the Niagara Road 12 Landfill is 48 years, based on serving the municipalities of Pelham, Grimsby, Lincoln and West Lincoln. Niagara Region’s current disposal contract with Walker Environmental for the remaining Niagara municipalities ends in February 2031, or just over 12 years. In order to ensure long term disposal capacity is available, Niagara Region staff are: i) Initiating the RFP for the Long Term Waste Management Strategic Plan in 2019- 2020. ii) Participating in the Municipal Mixed Waste Processing (MWP) Working Group, which has the objective to “identify collaboration opportunities and specific information needs, actions and timelines, in order to determine the feasibility of jointly implementing waste management policies, programs and/or facilities”, which includes alternative technology facilities. iii) Continuing to engage other neighbouring municipalities in discussions related to available capacity at their current/future alternative waste management technology Page 172 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ facilities and future needs that could be addressed by partnering on alternative technologies. B) PROPOSED BASE COLLECTION OPTIONS The following proposed base collection options were included as part of the stakeholder consultation and engagement phase for Niagara Region’s next collection contract: 1) Change the weekly garbage container (bag/can) limits for IC&I and MU properties located inside DBAs from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property. 2) Change the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property. 3) Every-other-week (EOW) collection for garbage only (weekly recycling and organics to continue) for all sectors outside DBAs: Current garbage container limits would double for all sectors (i.e. LDR properties would be allowed to set out two (2) garbage containers, on an EOW basis). and/or 4) Mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, with the option of allowing an opaque privacy bag to be placed inside the clear bag: The clear bag program will be for all sectors (both inside and outside DBAs). 5) Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at LDR properties, and, if requested by LAMs, as an enhanced collection service at eligible Multi-Residential (MR) and MU properties. 6) Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal collection at LDR properties. Rationale for Proposed Base Collection Options: The following rationale was taken into consideration when determining which collection options were recommended for consultation: 1) Increasing participation and capture rates in the Region’s recycling and organics diversion programs and extending existing landfill site capacity; Nearly 50% of low density residential garbage is organic waste and only 48% use the residential Green Bin program; IC&I and MU audits show diversion programs underutilized. 2) Benchmarking collection services, based on the best practices and/or major trends observed from the service levels provided at Niagara’s 13 municipal comparators that would result in financial, environmental and/or social benefit e.g. contract cost avoidance and increased diversion though the implementation of EOW garbage collection. 3) Reflecting actual service usage based on results of curbside audits and other collection monitoring/measurements and contract cost avoidance for services with limited usage: 99% of properties using the large item service set out 4 items or less and 92% of the total bookings were for 4 or less items. Appliances and scrap metal: – Tonnages have decreased by 94% since 2007; Page 173 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ – Items can be recycled, at no cost, at the Region’s Drop-off Depots, or by scrap metal haulers/dealers; – Only 6% of properties are using the service. 4) Standardizing base garbage collection limits across similar sectors to improve service delivery and program communication, increase participation and capture rates in diversion programs, potentially avoid contract costs for a service level which is not needed and reduce contract complexity – this specifically includes consistent base garbage collection container (bag/can) limits for the IC&I and MU sectors inside and outside DBAs; Average number of garbage containers placed out per week: – IC&I properties inside DBAs was 2.1; – MU properties inside DBAs was 2.0; – MU properties outside the DBA is 2.4. Proposed four (4) garbage container limit should meet the set-out needs of the IC&I and MU properties, based on these audit results, particularly if diversion services are utilized. IC&I properties outside DBAs already have a base four (4) garbage container limit in place. The associated rationale for each proposed base collection option and the curbside set- out audit data for the IC&I and MU sectors are included in more detail in Appendix 3. C) STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT PHASE The stakeholder consultation and engagement phase was referred to as “Let’s Talk Waste Niagara”. Stakeholder consultation and engagement began in May 2018 and was carried out in two phases: 1) Targeted Stakeholder Consultation 2) Broad-based Community Consultation 1) Targeted Stakeholder Consultation: Various stakeholder groups were targeted for consultation to provide input on the proposed collection options being considered for Niagara Region’s next contract. These stakeholder groups included: a) Regional Departments and Agencies, Boards and Commissions (ABCs) (i.e. Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services Department, Niagara Regional Housing, and Niagara Region’s Economic Development); b) Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC); c) Organizations Representing Businesses (i.e. Business Improvement Associations, Chambers of Commerce, Niagara Tourism Agencies, and Niagara Industrial Association); d) LAMs (i.e. municipal staff and Councillors). Page 174 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ The formal input on the proposed collection options was received from the following targeted stakeholder groups: a) Regional Departments and ABCs: i) Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services: Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services noted the proposed options align with and support policy 4.2.9.1 d) i) of the Growth Plan, which relates to waste management. Staff also reviewed the proposed container limit changes pertaining to MU properties inside and outside DBAs, to ensure alignment with broader Corporate initiatives, including the objectives of Growth Management policies. Based upon their review, it was anticipated that smaller MU developments would not be affected by the proposed change in container limits. ii) Niagara Regional Housing: Niagara Regional Housing reviewed the relevant proposed collection options and indicated they would not be in support of EOW garbage collection, or mandatory use of clear bags for garbage at their properties. iii) Niagara Region’s Economic Development: Niagara Region’s Economic Development indicated that their work generally revolves around larger industrial companies, which would not use the Region’s curbside garbage collection service, and would not be impacted by the proposed collection options. b) Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) A meeting was held with members of the WMAC on November 21, 2018 to discuss the proposed collection options and obtain their formal comments. The WMAC members voted all in favour or majority in favour of all of the proposed collection options. c) Organizations Representing Businesses (ORBs): Meetings were held with representatives from each of Niagara’s local Business Improvement Associations (including LAM staff), Chambers of Commerce, Niagara Tourism Agencies, Niagara Economic Development Corporation, and Niagara Industrial Association, during the months of July, August and September. The dates of these meetings can be found in Appendix 5. Page 175 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________ The purpose of these meetings was to: Discuss the proposed collection options; Obtain their preliminary input on these options; Obtain their input on how to further engage their members; and, Request their formal comments on the proposed collection options by November 30, 2018. The following ORBs provided formal comments on the proposed collection options for the next contract: Queen Street BIA, Niagara Falls Victoria Centre BIA, Niagara Falls St. Catharines Downtown Business Association Port Dalhousie Business Association Grimsby Downtown Improvement Association Pelham Business Association A copy of the ORB’s comments were provided to the respective LAM, for their consideration, and are included in Appendix 4. Based on the comments received, there was limited support for the mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, or the reduction in the garbage container limits for IC&I and MU properties inside the DBAs. d) Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) Correspondence on the proposed collection options and enhanced collection services was sent to LAM Clerks and Public Works Officials (PWO) in May 2018, for their review and comment. Niagara Region made presentations on the proposed collection options at several PWO meetings during 2018. In addition, Region staff offered to attend LAM Committee or Council meetings to make a presentation. As of December 19, Region staff were requested to present at the following LAM Committee or Council meetings: Grimsby Council (December 17, 2018) Niagara-on-the-Lake Council (January 7, 2019) Lincoln Council (January 14, 2019) Niagara Falls Council (January 15, 2019) Fort Erie Council (January 21, 2019) West Lincoln Council (January 21, 2019) Welland General Committee (January 22, 2019) Town of Grimsby Town of Grimsby Council, at its December 17, 2018 meeting, approved the eight recommendations, which were included in Report DPW18-42: Page 176 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________ 1) Implement EOW garbage collection for all residential properties and for those IC&I and MU properties located outside the Grimsby DIA area, as a base service. 2) Do not implement clear garbage bags. 3) Establish a four-item limit for large item collection, per residential unit. 4) Provide large-item collection at MR buildings with 7 or more residential units and MU properties with 1 or more residential unit. 5) Discontinue appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties. 6) Reduce the number of garbage bags/containers for IC&I and MU properties inside the DIA area from 7 to 4 per week, as a base service. 7) The Town’s enhanced service and extra payment for collection inside the Grimsby DIA area remain at two collection days per week but changed to Tuesdays and Fridays and that the number of garbage bags/containers be reduced from 12 per pick-up day to 6 per pick-up day (12 per week), resulting in the Town’s Enhanced service payment being reduced from 17 bags/containers per week to 8. 8) The number of garbage bags/containers for MU properties outside the Grimsby DIA area be reduced from 6 to 4 per week, or 8 containers under EOW garbage collection, as a base service. Formal comments from the remaining LAMs on the proposed base collection options and which enhanced services are to be included in Niagara Region’s next contract are requested by February 1, 2019 or no later than February 20, 2019. 2) Broad-based Community Consultation: In addition to targeted stakeholder consultation, a broad-based community consultation was undertaken with the following stakeholder groups: LDR households; MR property owners, groups and associations (i.e. property management companies); IC&I and MU property owners This broad-based community consultation included the following activities and approaches: a) Promotion & Outreach; b) Surveys; c) Public Open Houses and Community Booths; d) Social Media; and e) Waste Management Info-Line and Website. a) Promotion & Outreach: The following mediums were used during the last week of October and the entire month of November to promote community consultation on the proposed collection options: (i) Niagara Region’s Website Page 177 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 10 ______________________________________________________________________ (ii) Social Media (i.e. Facebook paid ads and posts and Twitter posts) wi th a link to the “Let’s Talk Waste” webpage; (iii) Letters sent to IC&I, MU and MR properties, which use Region’s curbside garbage; (iv) Newspaper Advertisements (i.e. print and on-line); (v) Media Coverage (i.e. Cogeco YourTV, 610 CKTB, newspaper articles); (vi) Postcards (Regional and Municipal offices) Details on each of the various promotional mediums can be found in Appendix 5. b) Surveys: A Request for Proposal was awarded to Metroline Research Group to undertake quantitative research to determine whether there was sufficient support for recommending the proposed collection options. The following surveys were completed: (i) On-line surveys were completed by 6,639 LDR households, 38 MR and 166 IC&I and MU properties (86 outside DBAs and 80 inside DBAs); (ii) Telephone survey of 1,253 LDR households; Based on preliminary results, as of December 17, 2018, strong support for the following options occurred: Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at LDR properties, as a base service. Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service. However, no clear LDR support for EOW garbage collection or mandatory use of clear garbage bags was demonstrated in the survey results: LDR households were roughly split on supporting EOW garbage collection with slightly more leaning towards continuing their weekly collection . Opposition to the mandatory use of clear garbage bags was apparent, particularly from the on-line survey (73% of LDR households opposed). In order to determine the order of preference for clear garbage bags versus EOW garbage collection (or both), all survey respondents were asked to make a program choice. The below table highlights the results from all stakeholder groups, with the exception of IC&I and MU inside DBAs who would not receive EOW garbage collection, and in many cases receive enhanced services. LDR MR IC&I and MU Outside DBAs Telephone On-line On-line On-line Clear Bag 33% 17% 29% 36% EOW 27% 33% 13% 15% Page 178 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________ LDR MR IC&I and MU Outside DBAs Both Clear Bag and EOW 21% 12% 18% 7% Neither1 19% 38% 40% 42% 1. In the telephone survey, LDR households could not see the option of ‘neither’ and the interviewer worked to obtain a choice, which is why this option has a much lower response than in the on-line surveys. In the case of the IC&I and MU sectors: Majority of those property owners (58% of 43 respondents) receiving base garbage collection inside the DBAs indicated they can manage if the container limit is reduced from seven (7) containers to four (4); Majority of those property owners (65% of 43 IC&I respondents and 74% of 35 MU respondents) outside the DBAs support continuing the current level of service. A more detailed description of results is provided below. (i) On-line Surveys: On-line surveys were developed to obtain formal input from various stakeholder groups (i.e. LDR, MR, IC&I and MU) on the proposed collection options. These on-line surveys were open to all residents and businesses receiving Niagara Region’s curbside garbage collection service. A total of 6,639 on-line surveys were completed by LDR households, 38 on -line surveys by MR households, and 166 on-line surveys by IC&I and MU properties. There were no controls to limit the regions or populations for survey participants. However, Metroline monitored and deleted any duplicate survey submissions. The highlights of the on-line survey results for each sector are included below. LDR: o 43% would be able to manage with EOW garbage collection; o 62% would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage; o 33% would choose the option of EOW garbage collection; 17% clear bags; 12% both EOW and clear bags; and 38% neither option; o 72% would not be impacted with placing a maximum limit of four large items per weekly collection; o 61% would not be impacted with the elimination of curbside collection of appliances/scrap metal MR: o 37% would be able to manage with EOW garbage collection; Page 179 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 12 ______________________________________________________________________ o 42% would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage; o 13% would choose the option of EOW garbage collection; 29% clear bags; 18% both EOW and clear bags; and 40% neither option IC&I and MU Inside DBAs (Base Collection): o 58% could manage if the weekly base container limit was reduced from seven to four containers; o 46% of IC&I and 49% of MU properties would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage IC&I and MU Inside DBAs (Enhanced Collection): o 66% feel they need to maintain their current container limits; o 87% feel they need to continue with their current frequency of collection IC&I and MU Outside DBAs (Base Collection): o 66% of MU properties could manage if the weekly base container limit was reduced from six to four containers; o 35% of IC&I and 26% of MU properties would be able to manage with EOW garbage collection o 38% of IC&I and 63% of MU properties would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage (ii) Telephone Survey: Metroline conducted a random telephone survey of residents living in LDR properties. In total, 1,253 surveys were conducted, which can be considered statistically accurate to within +/-2.8%, 19 times out of 20 (95% Confidence Interval). The sample was divided between the 12 LAMs, with minimum of 75 surveys was completed in each. The highlights of the telephone survey results are included below: LDR: o 46% would be able to manage with EOW garbage collection; o 38% would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage; o 27% would choose the option of EOW garbage collection; 33% clear bags; 21% both EOW and clear bags; and 19% neither option; o 89% would not be impacted with placing a maximum limit of four large items per weekly collection; o 75% would not be impacted with the elimination of curbside collection of appliances/scrap metal Additional details on the LDR on-line and telephone survey results can be found in Appendix 8. Page 180 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 13 ______________________________________________________________________ c) Public Open Houses and Community Booths: Niagara Region conducted one public open house and one community booth event in each of Niagara’s 12 LAMs during the month of November. The dates and locations of these events can be found in Appendix 6. The purpose of these events was to engage participants on the proposed collection options and request their input on the proposed collection options through completion of the on-line survey. There were over 500 participants that attended these various events held across the region. The majority of comments received were related to the options for EOW garbage collection and mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Participants attending the community booths and open houses were divided about every-other-week garbage collection. While approximately half of the participants expressed their support, there were some specific concerns that were repeated throughout the consultation process. There was less support for clear bags, with the majority of participants expressing opposition to this option. A minority of the feedback and conversations at these events dealt with the options to introduce a four-item limit on large item collection and the discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection, but of those commenting, there was a high level of support to implement these changes. Appendix 4 provides a summary of the more commonly-repeated concerns raised during these events. d) Social Media: Facebook was the primary social media platform used by stakeholders to comment on the proposed collection options for the next contract. The majority of comments were related to the proposed options for the mandatory use of clear garbage bags and every-other-week garbage collection. Of all the comments documented that were related to every-other-week garbage collection, 22% of comments were in support of this proposed option. For clear garbage bags, 10% of comments related to this option were supportive. Overall, the majority of commenters used this platform as a means of communicating their concerns. The comments posted on the Region’s paid Facebook advertisement were reviewed, categorized and tallied. As of November 30, 2018, there were 1,467 Facebook comments were posted. Appendix 4 provides a summary of the ten most frequently reported concerns, in order of the frequency that they appeared in the comments section. Page 181 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 14 ______________________________________________________________________ e) Comments from Niagara Region’s Waste Management Info-Line and Website: A total of 65 comments/inquiries on the proposed collection options were received and responded to by staff through Niagara Region’s Waste Management Info-Line, Website or by email in either June, October, or November. D) OVERVIEW OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Base Collection Service Changes As a result of the stakeholder engagement and consultation process, the following key recommendations are being made: a) EOW Garbage Collection Based on best practices and experience with EOW garbage collection in Niagara’s municipal comparator group (municipalities with populations greater than 300,000) and the potential for significant cost reduction, it is recommended that this option be included for pricing in the next collection contract RFP, for comparison with weekly garbage collection frequency. Although there was no clear stakeholder support and Niagara Regional Housing expressed opposition to this option, municipalities who have implemented this change note that residents do adapt and increase their diversion efforts, as a result. EOW garbage collection would apply to all residential properties and those Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed-Use (MU) properties located outside Designated Business Areas (DBAs), as a base service (weekly recycling and organics to continue, and current garbage container (bag/can) limits would double for affected sectors, on an EOW basis). b) Limit on Large Item Collection Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at LDR properties, as a base service is recommended, based on actual usage statistics and responses from a majority of survey respondents. c) Discontinuation of Appliances and Scrap Metal Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service is recommended based on actual usage statistics and responses from a majority of survey respondents. d) Weekly Base Garbage Container Limits Inside DBAs Changing the weekly garbage container limits for IC&I and MU properties located inside Designated Business Areas (DBAs) from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service, is recommended, based on actual usage statistics and responses from a majority of base service user on-line survey respondents. Although the base garbage container limit would decrease, eligible IC&I and MU properties inside the DBAs have unlimited organics and recycling collection once weekly, but currently Page 182 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 15 ______________________________________________________________________ these diversion programs are underutilized. It should be noted that of the six (6) ORBs that provided formal comment, only one (1) supported this change. e) Weekly Base Garbage Container Limits Outside DBAs Changing the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service, is recommended, based on actual usage statistics and to achieve a standardized base collection service across all similar sectors (in combination with option d) above). This will reduce service and contract complexity and improve program communication across the region. This change is also expected to result in increased diversion efforts, as the current unlimited recycling and organics program for all eligible IC&I and MU properties are currently underutilized. The IC&I sector outside the DBAs has had four (4) container limit per property, as a base service since March 2011. However, it should be noted that out of the 43 MU survey respondents, only one third felt they could manage if this change was made. While the initial list of all proposed options is supported by WMAC and Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services noted the options align with and support policy 4.2.9.1 d) i) of the Growth Plan, which relates to waste management, one of the options is not recommended for implementation based on the general lack of support from survey respondents. The use of mandatory clear garbage bags will continue to be monitored for potential future implementation but based on existing data from Ontario jurisdictions, EOW garbage collection is expected to have more of a positive financial and diversion performance impact. In order to address the concerns and comments received on the proposed options being recommended for inclusion in the next collection contract, Appendix 7 proposes potential solutions to minimize impact of the change(s) on the service user. This appendix will continue to be developed and expanded, as required. 2. Enhanced Collection Service Changes Niagara Region is requesting that LAMs confirm existing or new enhanced services that should be provided as part of the next collection contract. There are three areas that should be specifically addressed: a) In those LAMS that provide enhanced garbage collection service to DBAs, Regional staff have been engaged in discussions with Local Public Works Officials on one or more of the following proposals for the IC&I and MU sectors, based on usage of current garbage collection service and underutilization of the diversion programs: Reducing DBA garbage container limits; Reducing frequency of DBA garbage collection; and Increasing recycling and/or organics collection service to align with frequency of garbage collection. Page 183 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 16 ______________________________________________________________________ b) Provision of enhanced bulky goods collection to those households in MR buildings with seven (7) or more residential units (garbage limit of a maximum of 12 containers per week with no tags) and MU properties with one (1) or more residential unit (garbage limit of a maximum of seven (7) containers per week outside the DBA and a maximum of six (6) containers per week inside the DBA), that receive the Region’s curbside base garbage collection and/or to those MR building receiving enhanced Regional containerized front end garbage collection service: These properties must be participating in the Region’s diversion programs (i.e. recycling and organics) in order to qualify to receive this service. This service would be provided in a manner that is parallel to the approved service for the LDR sector. c) Verification if any municipality would like to include a per stop price for in -ground public space recycling and litter bins and/or for in-ground IC&I, MR and/or MU properties (all streams), as an enhanced service under provisional items. 3. Contract Service Improvements As outlined in Report WMPSC-C 9-2018, staff will be pursuing the following service improvements in the next collection contract RFP: a) Potential changes to how the Region collects leaf and yard waste (L&YW) and brush at LDR households, which would be a seamless change to residents: In addition to the current service level, the Region would obtain pricing to provide an additional four weeks of dedicated L&YW and branch collection in the spring and the fall seasons, in the urban areas only, or potentially expanding a dedicated L&YW and brush collection to approximately ten (10) months of the year in urban areas; This change would result in lower organics processing costs by separating L&YW material from green bin material, thereby removing this material from the GORE system; This change would result in increased organics collection costs associated with providing these additional L&YW and branch collection service; Staff will need to complete a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the organics processing cost savings outweigh the increased collection costs before determining whether to proceed with these changes. b) Elimination of a current restriction that impacts IC&I properties with private garbage collection. Currently, these properties, which would otherwise have been eligible to receive curbside garbage collection, are restricted from using this service. These properties must be participating in the Region’s diversion programs (i.e. recycling and organics), in order to qualify to receive the curbside garbage collection service. Page 184 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 17 ______________________________________________________________________ E) NEXT STEPS The Region is requesting receipt of the following from LAMs by February 1, 2019 or no later than Feb 20, 2019: Comments/position on proposed base collection service options ; Verification of current or additional enhanced services - this would include: - Services to IC&I and MU properties inside DBAs; - Provision of enhanced large item collection service to MR and MU residential units, in a manner parallel to the service provided to the LDR sector (i.e. if LDR has a 4 item limit per unit per collection day, this would also apply to MR and MU residential units); - Inclusion of a per stop price for in-ground public space recycling and litter bins and/or for in-ground IC&I, MR and/or MU properties (all streams), as an enhanced service under provisional items. The milestones for the collection contract RFP development are outlined below: Report to Public Works Committee (PWC) and Council on results of stakeholder consultation and engagement (PWC January 8, 2019 and Council January 17, 2019); Receipt of each LAM’s position on base and enhanced services (no later than February 20, 2019); Council approval of service levels to be included and RFP development initiated (Q2 to Q3 2019); RFP issuance (early Q4 2019); Award of new collection contract (Q1 2020); One year for successful bidders to order/receive their fleet of collection vehicles (Q1 2020 to Q1 2021); Start of new contract (March 8, 2021). Alternatives Reviewed Niagara Region investigated the option of switching over to cart-based collection for the next collection contract. Under the Province’s Environmental Plan, waste diversion programs, such as the Blue Box Program, may be moving to the producer responsibility model. As a result, Niagara Region would no longer be responsible for providing collection and processing of Blue Box materials. This would be the responsibili ty of the Blue Box industry stewards. Therefore, at this time, staff did not believe implementing major program changes was advisable. Also, based on the experiences of other municipalities that implemented a cart-based collection program, this option was not recommended for further consideration for the following reasons: 1) Significant capital costs to purchase and distribute the carts Page 185 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 18 ______________________________________________________________________ 2) On-going annual maintenance and replacement costs associated with the carts 3) Higher contamination rates of the recycling and organics streams associated with the use of carts. As a result, there would be a decrease in the Region’s revenues and difficulty with marketing the recyclables. 4) Additional costs associated with retrofitting Niagara Region’s Materials Recycling Facility from the current two-stream operation to a single-stream operation, if all recyclables are collected in one cart. Based on the results received during the stakeholder consultation and engagement phase, the following proposed collection option is not being recommended for implementation, as part of Niagara Region’s next collection contract: 1) Mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, with the option of allowing an opaque privacy bag to be placed inside the clear bag Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities The recommendation to approve the proposed base collection services for Niagara Region’s next collection contract supports Council’s Strategic Priority of Investment, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Other Pertinent Reports CWCD 357-2018 Let’s Talk Waste Niagara – Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Activities for the Proposed Waste Collection Options CWCD 216-2018 Fact Sheet – Consultation and Engagement Strategy for Proposed Service Level Collection Options Under Consultation WMPSC-C 9-2018 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement on Proposed Collection Service Changes for Next Collection Contract WMPSC-C 34-2017 Schedule for the Next Regional Waste, Recycling and Organics Collection Contract PW 42-2014 A Matter of the Security of the Property of the Municipality – Bulky/ White Goods Collection Service for Multi-Residential and Mixed-Use Properties WMPSC-C 44-2013 Bulky/White Goods Collection Service for Multi-Residential and Mixed-Use Properties WMPSC-C 2-2013 Large Item Collection Service for Multi-Residential Buildings and Mixed-Use Properties PW 47-2012 Consultation Results on Proposed Clear Bag Pilot for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Properties WMPSC 24-2011 Clear Bag for Garbage Pilot for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Properties Page 186 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 19 ______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Prepared by: Brad Whitelaw, BA, CIM, P.Mgr, CAPM Program Manager, Policy & Planning Waste Management Services ________________________________ Recommended by: Catherine Habermebl Acting Commissioner Public Works ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Acting Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Susan McPetrie, Waste Management Services Advisor and reviewed by Sara Mota, Program Financial Specialist, and Catherine Habermebl, Director, Waste Management Services. Appendices Appendix 1 - Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Base Collection Services Page 20 Appendix 2 - Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Page 24 Appendix 3 - Rationale for Proposed Collection Options for Next Contract Page 29 Appendix 4 - Stakeholder Comments on Proposed Base Collection Options Page 46 Appendix 5 - Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Process Page 55 Appendix 6 - Summary of Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Events Page 63 Appendix 7 - Addressing Concerns Related to Proposed Collection Options Page 64 Appendix 8 – LDR Telephone and On-line Survey Results Page 67 Page 187 of 450 Appendix 1 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 20 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 1 - Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Base Collection Services Property Type Current Base Collection Service Level Proposed Base Collection Service Level Low-Density Residential (1 to 6 units): single-family, townhouse, semi- detached, duplex, triplex, fourplex, fiveplex, sixplex, cottages • Weekly garbage, 1 bag/can limit per residential unit • Every-other-week garbage, 2 bag/can limit per residential unit, and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins • Large items, with no limit per collection, per residential unit • Large items, with 4 item limit per collection, per residential unit • Appliances and scrap metal, with no limit per collection, per residential unit • No appliances and scrap metal collection • Weekly Leaf & Yard Waste (L&YW) and 8 brush collections per year • Weekly L&YW and 8 brush collections per year • Additional 4 weeks of dedicated L&YW and brush collections in the spring and the fall seasons, in urban areas only Multi-Residential (7 or more units): • apartments, cottages, condominiums and rentals, nursing and retirement homes, mixed- use, rooming/ boarding houses • Weekly garbage, 1 bag/can limit per residential unit, maximum 12 bags per building • Every-other-week garbage, 2 bag/can limit per residential unit, maximum 24 bags per building and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins or Green Carts (by request) • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins or Green Carts (by request) Page 188 of 450 Appendix 1 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 21 ______________________________________________________________________ Property Type Current Base Collection Service Level Proposed Base Collection Service Level • No large item collection • Provision of large item collection to properties receiving Region’s curbside base or enhanced garbage collection (ELOS provided only) • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection Mixed Use Buildings – Inside DBA • Weekly garbage, maximum 7 bag/can limit per property • Weekly garbage, maximum 4 bag/can limit per property and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins/Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins/Carts • No large item collection • Provision of large item collection to residential units only, which receive Region’s curbside base or enhanced garbage collection (ELOS provided only) • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection Mixed Use Buildings – Outside DBA • Weekly garbage, maximum 6 bag/can limit per property • Weekly garbage, maximum 4 bag/can limit per property • Every-other-week garbage collection, maximum 8 bag/can limit per property (if container limit decrease approved) and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags Page 189 of 450 Appendix 1 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 22 ______________________________________________________________________ Property Type Current Base Collection Service Level Proposed Base Collection Service Level • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • No large item collection • Provision of large item collection to residential units only, which receive Region’s curbside base or enhanced garbage collection (ELOS provided only) • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection IC&I Properties – Inside DBA • Weekly garbage, maximum 7 bag/can limit per property • Weekly garbage, maximum 4 bag/can limit per property and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • No large item collection • No large item collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection IC&I Properties– Outside DBA • Weekly garbage, maximum 4 bag/can limit per property • Every-other-week garbage, maximum 8 bag/can limit per property and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Elimination of restriction on curbside garbage collection for Page 190 of 450 Appendix 1 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 23 ______________________________________________________________________ Property Type Current Base Collection Service Level Proposed Base Collection Service Level IC&I properties receiving private garbage collection • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • No large item collection • No large item collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection Page 191 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 24 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract Fort Erie Street Litter Receptacle Collection Once-per-week collection (Jarvis and Ridge Road) Twice-per-week collection (Jarvis St, Ridge Rd and Niagara Blvd. Once-per-week collection (Crystal Beach DBA) Once-per-week collection (Garrison Rd.) Grimsby Street Litter Receptacle Collection Twice-per week collection Three days-per-week collection Once-per-week collection on Windward Dr. Additional Curbside Waste Collection One additional garbage collection day per week in the downtown core Maximum of 12 garbage containers per property per collection day in the downtown core One additional collection day per week in the downtown core Maximum of 12 garbage containers per property per collection day in the downtown core Lincoln Containerized Waste Collection Once-per-week collection Once-per-week collection Weekly (Blue and Grey) Recycling Cart Collection Once-per-week (Monday) Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling collection as part of base collection service Niagara Falls Street Litter Receptacle Collection Seven days-per-week, year- round collection in Mainline business district Chippawa area collected on Thursday by residential truck and Sundays, mid-May to mid- October, as part of Mainline business district Seven days-per-week, year- round collection in Mainline business district Chippawa DBA collected once- per week. One additional day per week collection from mid- May to mid-October Collection once-per-week for street litter receptacles outside the Mainline Page 192 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 25 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract Containerized Waste Collection Once or twice per week (Monday and/or Thursday) Multi-residential buildings with varying collection frequency Additional Curbside Waste Collection All tourist/commercial business (lodging and food outlets only) on the Mainline receive an increase to 20 garbage containers per property, between July 1 to Labour Day All tourist/commercial businesses (lodging and food outlets only) on the Mainline receive an increase from seven to fifteen garbage containers per property, between the Victoria Day weekend and Labour Day Old Corrugated Cardboard Collection Once-per-week collection (over two days-Thursday and Friday) No collection of old corrugated cardboard Special Set-out Collection for Physically-Challenged Residents Set-out and collection service of standard limit garbage, organics and recycling containers Included in base collection services Niagara-on- the-Lake Additional Curbside Waste Collection Two additional garbage collection days per week in the downtown core Maximum of 20 garbage containers per property for each collection day Two additional garbage collection days per week in the downtown core Maximum of 20 garbage containers per property for each collection day Old Corrugated Cardboard Collection Weekly cardboard collection from commercial properties in the Queen Street Commercial Area, two days per week: Monday and Thursday Two days of curbside collection of cardboard from commercial properties in the Queen Street Commercial Area Weekly (Both Streams) Recycling Cart Collection Once-per-week collection Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling collection as part of base collection service Page 193 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 26 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract Pelham Street Litter Receptacle Collection Once-per-week collection Twice-per-week collection Containerized Waste Collection Once-per-week collection Once-per-week collection, with the exception on one property receiving twice-per-week collection Weekly (Both Streams) Recycling Cart Collection Once-per-week collection (Thursday) Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling collection as part of base collection service Special Set-out Collection for Physically-Challenged Residents Set-out and collection service of standard limit garbage, organics and recycling containers Included in base collection services Port Colborne Street Litter Receptacle Collection No street litter receptacle collection There are street litter receptacles (OMG bins) that require separate collection of Grey and/or Blue Box materials. The recycling from the compartmentalized bins are collected separately and at the same frequency as garbage containers Additional Curbside Waste Collection Daily garbage collection at Port Colborne Hospital (Monday- Friday). No container limit. Additional garbage container limits at group homes, schools, Home Hardware No additional curbside waste collection as part of enhanced services Old Corrugated Cardboard Collection Once-per-week collection (Thursday) Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling Page 194 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 27 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract collection as part of base collection service St.Catharines Street Litter Receptacle Collection Seven days-per-week, including all parks, sports facilities and recyclables from OMG bins Four days-per-week collection for Downtown St.Catharines Seven days-per-week, from May 1 to October 31 inclusive, and one (1) day per week, from November 1 to April 30 inclusive in Port Dalhousie Once-per-week collection for all other street litter receptacles located on city streets, in front of schools, in sports facilities, parks, cemeteries, and recreational and community centres Containerized Waste Collection Variable frequency - multi- residential/Downtown IC&I properties and pullout service Variable frequency - multi- residential properties Additional Curbside Waste Collection Six additional collection days per week in the downtown core, over and above the Base Level of Service Three additional collection days per week in the downtown core, over and above the Base Level of Service Maximum of 7 garbage containers per property per collection day in the downtown core Old Corrugated Cardboard Collection Communal front-end cardboard containers shared by businesses in the downtown collection area Weekly (Both Streams) Recycling Cart Collection Once-per-week collection (Monday or Thursday) Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling collection, as part of base Page 195 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 28 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract collection service Special Set-out Collection for Physically-Challenged Residents Set-out and collection service of standard limit garbage, organics and recycling containers Included in base collection services Thorold Street Litter Receptacle Collection Three days-per-week collection Three days-per-week collection Additional Curbside Waste Collection Two additional collection days per week in the downtown core Two additional collection days per week in the downtown core Additional Blue Box Collection Additional weekly collection of Blue Box recyclables for all commercial properties located within the City of Thorold’s BIA. Additional weekly collection of Blue Box recyclables for all commercial properties located within the City of Thorold’s BIA. Welland Containerized Waste Collection No containerized waste collection Once-per-week collection (condo properties) West Lincoln Containerized Waste Collection Once-per-week collection Once or twice-per-week collection depending on location Additional Curbside Waste Collection No additional curbside waste collection One additional collection day per week in the downtown core Maximum of 7 garbage containers per property per collection day in the downtown core Page 196 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 29 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3 - Rationale for Proposed Collection Service Options for Next Contract Proposed Collection Service Options: 1) Change the weekly garbage container (bag/can) limits for IC&I and MU properties located inside Designated Business Areas (DBA) from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service. Pros Cons 1) Fairness & equity: Base Collection Service: based on the 2018 curbside audits: – average # of garbage containers placed out per week by IC&I properties inside DBAs was 2.1. – in 2018, audits were completed in: Grimsby, Welland (Downtown and North End), Port Colborne (Main St. and Downtown), Lincoln (Beamsville and Vineland), Pelham, Thorold, St. Catharines (Downtown and Port Dalhousie), Fort Erie (Ridgeway, Bridgeburg, and Crystal Beach), and Niagara Falls (Queen, Main St., Lundy’s Lane, Clifton Hill and Chippawa) DBAs. based on the 2016 and 2018 curbside audits: – average # of garbage containers placed out per week by MU properties inside DBAs was 2.0. – in 2016, audits were completed in: Fort Erie (Ridgeway, Bridgeburg, and Crystal Beach), Welland (Downtown and North End), and Port Colborne (Main St. and Downtown) DBAs. – in 2018, audits were completed in: Grimsby, Lincoln (Beamsville and Vineland), Pelham, Thorold, St. Catharines (Downtown and Port Dalhousie), and Niagara Falls (Queen, Main St., Lundy’s Lane, Clifton Hill and Chippawa) DBAs. the proposed 4 garbage container limit should meet the set-out needs of the IC&I and MU properties, based on these audit results, particularly if diversion services are 1) Potential illegal dumping: if garbage container limits are decreased, there is potential for businesses and residents to illegally dump items. 2) Potential for increased number of complaints from business owners, MU property owners and residents due to reduced container limit: business owners may potentially complain about this reduction in container limit being provided to their property. Page 197 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 30 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons utilized. the proposed 4 garbage container limit will align with the existing 4 garbage container limit for IC&I properties located outside DBAs, and the proposed limit for IC&I and MU properties located inside DBAs. it will encourage participation in diversion programs, which are under-utilized. Enhanced Collection Service: based on the 2014 garbage set-outs at enhanced IC&I properties: – Grimsby (12 garbage container limit, twice per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 3.6 – West Lincoln (7 garbage container limit, twice per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 2.5 – Thorold (7 garbage container limit, three times per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 4.5 based on the 2015 garbage set-outs at enhanced Niagara Falls IC&I and MU properties: – Main Street, Lundy’s Lane and Queen Street DBAs – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 5.2 (IC&I) and 2.9 (MU) – audits were completed during the summer months, when the 15 garbage container limit was in effect for food and lodging outlets (1 collection per week). It is a 7 garbage container limit elsewhere, once/week. based on the 2018 garbage set-outs at enhanced IC&I and/or MU properties: – Grimsby (12 garbage container limit, twice per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 1.6 (MU) – West Lincoln (7 garbage container limit, twice per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 1.7 (MU) Page 198 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 31 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons – Thorold (7 garbage container limit, three times per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 1.9 (MU) – NotL (20 garbage container limit, three times per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 6.0 (IC&I) and 6.8 (MU) – St. Catharines (7 garbage container limit, four times per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 2.7 (IC&I) and 1.5 (MU) 2) Change the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service. Pros Cons 1) Fairness & equity: Base Collection Service: based on the 2014 curbside audit: – average # of garbage containers placed out per week by MU properties outside DBAs: 2.4 the proposed four (4) container limit would meet the set-out needs of the MU properties, based on these audit results. the proposed four (4) container garbage limit will align with the existing four container garbage limit for IC&I properties located outside DBAs, and the proposed limit for IC&I and MU properties located inside DBAs. it will increase diversion, with less reliance on landfill. 1) Potential illegal dumping: if garbage container limits are decreased, there is potential for businesses and residents to illegally dump items. 2) Potential for increased number of complaints from business owners, due to reduced container limit: business owners, MU property owners and residents may potentially complain about this reduction in container limit being provided to their property. 3) Every-other-week (EOW) collection for garbage only (weekly recycling and organics to continue) for all sectors outside DBAs, as a base service. Current garbage container limits would double for all sectors (i.e. LDR properties would be allowed to set out two (2) garbage containers, on an EOW basis). Pros Cons 1) Municipal best practice/trend: 1) Potential illegal dumping: Page 199 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 32 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons approximately 70% of the municipal comparators (Barrie, Durham, Halton, Markham, Ottawa, Toronto, Vaughan, Peel and Waterloo) provide EOW garbage collection service. Residents have adapted to this change. 2) Increased waste diversion: waste diversion rates increased between 6% (Peel) and 16% (Durham) for these municipal comparators. This depended on whether they introduced other diversion programs (i.e. organics) at the same time as EOW garbage. 3) Potential contract savings: annual contract savings for the municipal comparators ranged between $200,000 (Barrie), Waterloo ($1.5 million), and $12 million (Peel), depending on size of the contract and any other contract changes that were implemented (i.e. EOW, carts, etc.). – However, Peel staff reported a one-time initial cost to implement three stream cart collection of $35 million (based on 325,000 single-family homes), with an estimated annual maintenance and replacement cost of $1 to 3 million. avoided Walker disposal costs, if there is a decrease in the volume of garbage collected. 4) Regional disposal capacity: preservation of existing Regional disposal capacity, if the volume of garbage landfilled decreases. 5) Fairness & equity: based on the 2015-16 waste composition study, Niagara’s LDR properties set out an average of 0.9 garbage containers per if residents/businesses are not provided with weekly garbage collection service, there is potential for them to illegally dump items. 2) Potential increased number of complaints, due to reduction in service: Residents/businesses may complain about this reduction in garbage collection service being provided to their property. Page 200 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 33 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons week. 4) Mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, with the option of allowing an opaque privacy bag to be placed inside the clear bag. The clear bag program will be for all sectors (both inside and outside DBAs), as a base service. Pros Cons 1) Increased waste diversion: studies completed by Ontario’s Stewardship Effectiveness & Efficiency Fund report that “clear bag programs are successful in decreasing the amount of recyclables being landfilled or incinerated, and have shown that mandatory by-laws and clear bags result in maximum participation and diversion”. implementing clear bags resulted in a 6% increase in Markham’s 2014 diversion rate, for a total diversion rate of 81%. residents are motivated to recycle due to social pressure. 2) Enforcement/safety: increases awareness of what is placed in the garbage, due to visibility of bag contents. eliminates (or minimizes) the option of concealing hazardous or other non-acceptable materials (e.g. recyclables and organics) in the garbage. facilitates education and enforcement of Niagara’s Waste Management By-law, where necessary. 3) Fairness & equity: clear bags are currently being used for diapers by those Niagara residents operating daycares out of 1) Perception of invasion of privacy: residents using clear bags may complain it is an invasion of their privacy. – this concern is partially addressed by allowing the use of an opaque bag inside the clear bag. IC&I business groups, who participated in the Region’s 2012 consultation sessions for a clear garbage bag pilot, expressed privacy concerns, as well. 2) Potential illegal dumping: residents and businesses opposing the use of clear garbage bags may potentially illegally dump their garbage. 3) Collection issues: if a clear bag is placed inside a reusable container, enforcement may become more difficult if driver dumps the contents of the container directly into truck, as opposed to pulling the clear bag out of the container to look at it. the IC&I business groups expressed concerns about the aesthetics of uncollected bags, which would contain non- acceptable materials, being left in downtown or tourist areas. 4) Other Municipal programs: Page 201 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 34 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons their households, or families with at least two children under the age of four years old. – these residents may feel the program ensures equal treatment for all households. clear bag pilots were implemented in two comparator municipalities (Durham and Markham), however only Markham implemented a full program. Durham decided not to implement a region-wide clear bag program in 2014, due to a lack of information on the effectiveness of the clear bag in reducing the amount of garbage collected. 5) Establishment of a four (4) item limit per unit per collection for large item service at LDR, MR and MU properties. Pros Cons 1) Municipal best practice/trend: average large item limit is three per residential unit for those municipalities with weekly collection, and four per residential unit with bi- weekly collection. 2) Potential contract savings: municipalities that implemented collection limits on the number of large items reported contract savings. 3) Fairness & equity: provides a standardized collection limit for all properties. Niagara residents set out an average of fewer than 2 large items per collection in 2018. 1) Potential illegal dumping: if residents are limited in the amount of large items that can be collected, there is potential for them to illegally dump items. 2) Potential increased number of complaints from residents, due to reduction in service: residents may complain about this reduction in service being provided to their property. 6) Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal collection at LDR properties. Pros Cons 1) Municipal best practice/trend: approximately half of municipal comparators (Barrie, Hamilton, 1) Potential illegal dumping: if residents are not provided with service, there is potential for them Page 202 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 35 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons London, Ottawa, Peel and Windsor) do not provide appliance collection service. 2) Potential contract savings: municipalities that eliminated this collection service realized a contract savings. In Peel, this was a net annual savings of $100K. Niagara’s current annual cost to collect these items is $126K (or $2,032 per tonne due to the reduced tonnage). many appliances and scrap metal items are scavenged before municipal contractors can collect them. – for the first two months of 2018, Emterra reported that approximately 60% of the items scheduled for collection were “not out” and were potentially scavenged. appliance and scrap metal tonnages collected in 2017 were 94% lower than what was collected in 2007. 3) Fairness & equity: residents have the option to recycle these items, at no cost, at the Region’s drop-off depots or a scrap metal dealer, as well as call a scrap metal hauler to collect them. to illegally dump items. Barrie reported an increase in illegal dumping when bulky/white goods collection service was discontinued; however it was not sustained (approximately six months). Peel provided its residents with advanced notice of this discontinuation of service and options for collection, so they did not see any significant increase in illegal dumping. 2) Potential increased number of complaints from residents, due to elimination of this service: residents may complain about the elimination of this service. those municipalities that discontinued collection (Barrie, Hamilton, Ottawa and Peel) reported a minimal reaction from their residents. Page 203 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 36 ______________________________________________________________________ Audit Results Base Collection Service Audit Results Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Inside the DBA (Base Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average Number of IC&I Properties Participating in Regional Collection Service Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Garbage Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Garbage Containers Per Set-Out Average % of IC&I Properties Exceeding Garbage Container Limit Fort Erie 2018 56 88% 1.6 0% Grimsby 2018 9.0 89% 1.2 0% Lincoln 2018 18 83% 2.1 3% Niagara Falls 2015 94.5 87% 2.7 6% Pelham 2018 34 85% 2.3 3% Port Colborne 2018 72 88% 2.2 3% St. Catharines 2018 56 71% 1.7 0% Thorold 2018 2 100% 1.8 0% Welland 2018 68 91% 2.0 3% Page 204 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 37 ______________________________________________________________________ Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by MU Properties Inside the DBA (Base Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average Number of MU Properties Participating in Regional Collection Service Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Garbage Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Garbage Containers Per Set-Out Average % of MU Properties Exceeding Garbage Container Limit Fort Erie 2016 63.5 95% 2.6 7% Grimsby 2018 2 50% 1.0 0% Lincoln 2018 21 90% 2.1 5% Niagara Falls 2015 63 98% 1.8 3% Pelham 2018 19 79% 2.8 0% Port Colborne 2016 53 92% 2.5 1% St. Catharines 2018 16 75% 1.6 0% Thorold 2018 0 0% 0 0% Welland 2016 54.5 91% 2.8 3% Page 205 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 38 ______________________________________________________________________ Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Inside the DBA (Base Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Recycling Containers Per Set- Out Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Organics Containers Per Set- Out Fort Erie 2018 66% 1.9 11% 1.8 Grimsby 2018 56% 1.5 22% 0.8 Lincoln 2018 72% 1.9 17% 1.0 Niagara Falls 2015 61% 2.0 11% 1.3 Pelham 2018 62% 3.1 12% 1.0 Port Colborne 2018 72% 1.6 6% 0.6 St. Catharines 2018 73% 1.5 16% 1.5 Thorold 2018 50% 0.5 0% 0.0 Welland 2018 65% 2.1 9% 2.4 Page 206 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 39 ______________________________________________________________________ Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by MU Properties Inside the DBA (Base Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Recycling Containers Per Set- Out Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Organics Containers Per Set- Out Fort Erie 2016 72% 2.0 16% 0.8 Grimsby 2018 100% 1.8 0% 0.0 Lincoln 2018 52% 2.4 19% 1.1 Niagara Falls 2015 46% 1.3 11% 1.0 Pelham 2018 84% 2.5 32% 0.5 Port Colborne 2016 67% 1.9 19% 1.5 St. Catharines 2018 69% 1.5 13% 1.0 Thorold 2018 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 Welland 2016 72% 2.3 17% 1.0 Page 207 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 40 ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Outside the DBA (Base Collection) Municipality Average % of IC&I Properties Using Regional Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Containers Per Set-Out Average Number of IC&I Properties Exceeding 4 Garbage Container Limit Average % of IC&I Properties Exceeding 4 Garbage Container Limit Fort Erie 41% 1.7 12 7% Grimsby 46% 1.8 6 7% Lincoln 47% 1.7 10 5% Niagara Falls 43% 1.8 28 7% Niagara-on-the- Lake 62% 1.3 11 3% Pelham 37% 1.8 3 6% Port Colborne 42% 2.1 9 8% St. Catharines 41% 1.9 35 7% Thorold 26% 1.7 7 11% Wainfleet 44% 1.5 1 2% Welland 39% 1.7 10 6% West Lincoln 46% 1.4 3 3% Regional Average: 44% 1.7 11 6% Page 208 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 41 ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by MU Properties Outside the DBA (Base Collection) Municipality Average % of MU Properties Using Regional Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Containers Per Set-Out Average Number of MU Properties Exceeding 6 Garbage Container Limit Average % of MU Properties Exceeding 6 Garbage Container Limit Fort Erie 71% 1.7 1 1% Grimsby 85% 1.5 0 0% Lincoln 79% 1.6 1 2% Niagara Falls 70% 2.0 2 2% Niagara-on-the- Lake 62% 1.6 0 0% Pelham 67% 1.7 1 5% Port Colborne 86% 1.6 0 0% St. Catharines 69% 1.9 4 2% Thorold 70% 1.1 0 0% Wainfleet 70% 1.4 0 0% Welland 74% 2.0 2 2% West Lincoln 74% 1.5 0 0% Regional Average: 72% 1.8 1 1% Page 209 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 42 ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Outside the DBA (Base Collection) Municipality Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Recycling Containers Per Set-Out Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Organics Containers Per Set-Out Fort Erie 33% 1.6 7% 1.0 Grimsby 35% 1.8 11% 0.7 Lincoln 41% 1.8 11% 0.8 Niagara Falls 32% 1.7 7% 0.8 Niagara-on-the- Lake 58% 1.9 28% 0.8 Pelham 27% 1.6 12% 0.9 Port Colborne 31% 2.0 8% 1.3 St. Catharines 29% 1.8 9% 0.9 Thorold 21% 1.6 6% 0.7 Wainfleet 37% 1.7 7% 0.8 Welland 28% 1.8 7% 1.4 West Lincoln 34% 1.5 10% 0.7 Regional Average: 34% 1.7 11% 0.9 Page 210 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 43 ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by MU Properties Outside the DBA (Base Collection) Municipality Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Recycling Containers Per Set-Out Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Organics Containers Per Set-Out Fort Erie 68% 2.0 23% 0.9 Grimsby 76% 1.8 29% 1.3 Lincoln 70% 2.3 27% 0.9 Niagara Falls 50% 1.9 18% 0.7 Niagara-on-the- Lake 54% 2.0 16% 0.6 Pelham 73% 1.7 17% 0.9 Port Colborne 66% 1.6 17% 1.0 St. Catharines 57% 1.8 17% 0.8 Thorold 70% 1.4 35% 0.8 Wainfleet 56% 1.4 7% 0.5 Welland 63% 1.7 19% 1.1 West Lincoln 59% 1.7 15% 0.8 Regional Average: 61% 1.8 20% 0.8 Page 211 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 44 ______________________________________________________________________ Enhanced Collection Service Audit Results Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Inside the DBA (Enhanced Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average # of IC&I Properties Participating in Regional Collection Service Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Garbage Collection Average # of Garbage Containers Per Set-Out Average % of IC&I Properties Exceeding Garbage Container Limit Grimsby 2014 38 88% 3.6 0% Niagara Falls 2015 147 82% 5.2 6% NOTL 2018 30 80% 6.0 21% St. Catharines 2018 77 52% 2.7 0% Thorold 2014 62.5 94% 4.5 2% West Lincoln 2014 38 95% 2.5 0% Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by MU Properties Inside the DBA (Enhanced Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average # of IC&I Properties Participating in Regional Collection Service Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Garbage Collection Average # of Garbage Containers Per Set-Out Average % of IC&I Properties Exceeding Garbage Container Limit Grimsby 2018 18 89% 1.6 0% Niagara Falls 2015 21 95% 2.9 3% NOTL 2018 17 100% 6.8 12% St. Catharines 2018 71 94% 1.5 0% Thorold 2018 30 92% 1.9 0% West Lincoln 2018 12 100% 1.7 0% Page 212 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 45 ______________________________________________________________________ Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Inside the DBA (Enhanced Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Average # of Recycling Containers Per Set-Out Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Average # of Organics Containers Per Set-Out Grimsby 2014 64% 2.6 7% 1.6 Niagara Falls 2015 55% 2.4 6% 4.4 NOTL 2018 57% 2.9 7% 6.0 St. Catharines 2018 52% 2.6 10% 2.4 Thorold 2014 54% 2.2 6% 0.9 West Lincoln 2014 78% 1.8 7% 0.8 Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by MU Properties Inside the DBA (Enhanced Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Average # of Recycling Containers Per Set-Out Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Average # of Organics Containers Per Set-Out Grimsby 2018 78% 0.9 0% 0.0 Niagara Falls 2015 57% 1.1 14% 0.6 NOTL 2018 59% 2.3 0% 0.0 St. Catharines 2018 55% 2.5 7% 2.6 Thorold 2018 67% 1.1 3% 3.5 West Lincoln 2018 67% 1.8 0% 0.0 Page 213 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 46 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 4 - Stakeholder Comments on Proposed Base Collection Options Consultation and engagement with stakeholders commenced in May of 2018 to obtain input on the proposed base collection options. The following sections summarize the results of the comments provided by stakeholders throughout the consultation process. Not all stakeholders that staff engaged with provided formal comments on the proposed collection options. In addition, the results of the on-line and telephone survey are contained in a separate appendix. The following section summarizes the formal comments provided from the following stakeholders: Regional Departments and Agencies, Boards and Commissions Waste Management Advisory Committee Organizations Representing Business (ie. Business Improvement Associations, Chambers of Commerce, Tourism Agencies and Industrial Associations) Local Area Municipalities Residents and Business Owners (excluding feedback provided through the on-line and telephone surveys) 1.0 Regional Departments and Agencies, Boards and Commissions (ABCs): Staff from the following Regional Departments and ABCs provided input on the proposed base collection options. 1.1 Planning and Development Services Planning and Development Services reviewed the proposed container lim it changes pertaining to MU properties inside and outside DBAs, to ensure alignment with broader Corporate initiatives, including the objectives of Growth Management policies. The following comments were provided by Pat Busnello, Manager Development Planning: “the proposed reduced limit would not affect larger mixed-use developments that already exceed the current container limits and require private garbage collection” “recent curbside audits referenced in Appendix A of Report WMPSC-C 9- 2018 indicate the average number of garbage containers placed out weekly by mixed-use properties was below the proposed limit. The report therefore, indicates that the needs of mixed-use properties are expected to be met based on the audit results, particularly if diversion services are utilized. As Page 214 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 47 ______________________________________________________________________ such, it is generally not anticipated that smaller mixed-use developments would be affected by the proposed change.” Lindsey Savage, Planner with Community and Long Range Planning provided comments on the alignment of the proposed collection options with the new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which took effect on July 1, 2017: “The proposed changes to waste collection services align with and support policy 4.2.9.1 d) i) of the Growth Plan, which requires municipalities to develop and implement official plan policies and other strategies in support of integrated waste management, including through enhanced waste reduction, composting and recycling initiatives. In addition, a new Regional Official Plan is under development which will include policies supporting integrated waste management, in conformity with the Growth Plan.” 1.2 Economic Development Valerie Kuhns, Economic Development Manager with Economic Development indicated that their work generally revolves around larger industrial companies, which would not use the Region’s curbside garbage collection service, and would not be impacted by the proposed collection options 1.3 Niagara Regional Housing Cameron Banach, Manager Housing Operations with Niagara Regional Housing reviewed the relevant proposed collection options and indicated they would not be in support of EOW garbage collection, or mandatory use of clear bags for garbage at their properties. 2.0 Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) At the November 21, 2018 WMAC meeting, members voted all in favour or majority in favour of all base collection options. 3.0 Organizations Representing Business Meetings were held with representatives from each of Niagara’s Business Improvement Associations, Chambers of Commerce, Niagara Tourism Agencies, Niagara Economic Development Corporation, and Niagara Industrial Association, during the months of August and September. Page 215 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 48 ______________________________________________________________________ The following ORBs provided formal comments on the proposed collection options for the next contract: Grimsby Downtown Improvement Association: o Do not support reducing base container limit from seven (7) cans/bags to four (4) cans/bags per week. o Do not support mandatory use of clear garbage bags due to concern about enforcement and mixed-use properties. o Do not support reducing enhanced container limit without knowing the associated cost savings. Niagara Falls - Queen Street Business Improvement Association: o Do not support reducing base container limit from seven (7) cans/bags to four (4) cans/bags per week. o Do not support mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Niagara Falls - Victoria Centre Business Improvement Association: o Request reduction in container limit for enhanced collection service from fifteen (15) cans/bags weekly to seven (7) cans/bags weekly. o Do not support mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Support would be contingent on seeing a report on how the contractor will educate its staff on the proper materials that go into the proper containers/bags. o Request collection start time change to 5 a.m., instead of 7 a.m. Pelham Business Association: o Support all proposed collection options Port Dalhousie Business Association: o Expressed concern that proposed options would make collection more onerous and/or costly for businesses. o Also have concerns about storing garbage in the hot summer months. St. Catharines Downtown Business Association: o Do not support reducing base container limit from seven (7) cans/bags to four (4) cans/bags per week. o Do not support mandatory use of clear garbage bags due to concern about enforcement and mixed-use properties. o Request for increased organics/recycling collection and review of days and times of collection for the enhanced collection area. Also request continued front-end cardboard collection bins. Based on these comments, there was very limited support for the mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, or the reduction in the garbage container limits for IC&I and Page 216 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 49 ______________________________________________________________________ MU properties inside the DBAs. The exception was the Pelham Business Association, which supported all proposed options. 4.0 Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) Formal comments from the LAMs on the proposed collection options and which enhanced services to be included in Niagara Region’s next contract are being requested by February 1, 2019. 5.0 Residents and Businesses The primary method for collecting input from residents and businesses on the proposed collection options was through the on-line survey. Residents of low density residential properties were also targeted for feedback through a tel ephone survey. Individuals that wanted to provide comments and feedback in addition to or as an alternative to the surveys were able to do so through a number of options. While this feedback cannot be included in the statistical analysis as representative of the population, it can be considered as part of the anecdotal findings to support the overall findings. Residents and business owners provided additional comments by posting on Facebook, calling the Waste Info-Line, sending emails, providing web submissions and/or speaking with staff in-person at open house and community booth events. These comments are summarized in the subsections below. 5.1 Facebook Facebook was the primary social media platform used by members of the public to comment on the proposed collection options for the next contract. The majority of comments were related to the proposed options for the mandatory use of clear garbage bags and every-other-week garbage collection. Of all of the comments documented that were related to every-other-week garbage collection, 22% of comments were in support of this proposed option. For clear garbage bags, 10% of comments related to this option were supportive. Overall, the majority of commenters used this platform as a means of communicating their concerns. The comments posted on the Region’s paid Facebook advertisement were reviewed, categorized and tallied. The ten most frequently reported concerns are listed below in order of the frequency that they Page 217 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 50 ______________________________________________________________________ appeared in comment section. As of November 30, 2018, 1,467 Facebook comments were posted. Most Common Comments (by % of most posted comments) 1. Concern about odours from products that cannot be placed in the Green Bin (i.e. diapers and raw meat packaging) increasing with every-other-week garbage collection (16%) 2. Concern about privacy with the use of clear garbage bags for personal items (i.e. incontinence products, feminine hygiene products, prescription bottles, bills) and that one opaque bag is not sufficient to contain all of these items (12%) 3. Concern that services are decreasing, but residents will not receive an associated decrease in taxes (10%) 4. Concern about a potential increase in pests (i.e. rats, raccoons, squirrels, coyotes, maggots) if garbage is collected every-other-week (10%) 5. Concern that mandatory use of clear garbage bags is adding unnecessary plastic waste to the landfills (8%) 6. Requests for Region to use carts, bigger containers and/or containers with lids (7%) 7. Complaints about current service, including missed collection (7%), late collection (7%) and generally displeased with service (4%) Facebook Analytics for “Lets Talk Waste” Campaign: Impressions: 271,397 - The number of times any content from the “Niagara Region” Facebook page entered a person’s screen. Link clicks: 6,633 - The number of clicks on links within the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad that led to the Niagara Region “Lets Talk Waste” webpage. Reach as per analytics: 78,784 - Number of people who had a paid post from the Niagara Region Facebook page enter their screen. Page 218 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 51 ______________________________________________________________________ Reach with organic: 112,159 - Number of people who had an unpaid post from Niagara Region Facebook page enter their screen. Cost per click: 2.44% - The actual price paid for each click in the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad campaign. Total engagements: 19,733 - Includes all actions that people take involving the “Lets Talk Waste” Face book paid ad while it was running. Post engagements can include actions such as reacting to, commenting or sharing the ad, or clicking on a link. Reactions as per analytics: 367 - On the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad itself, Facebook only reports direct reactions on those people who the ad was delivered to. So if a Facebook user received the ad and reacted, that is counted as one reaction per analytic. But if the Facebook user’s friend saw their feed (but did not receive the ad) reacted, it is not counted. Comments as per analytics: 331 - On the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad itself, Facebook only reports direct comments on those people who the ad was delivered to. So if a Facebook user received the ad and commented, that is counted as one comment per analytic. But if the Facebook user’s friend saw their feed (but did not receive the ad) commented, it is not counted. All reactions: 561 - This is the total number of reactions on the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad. This provides a better picture of the total engagement. All comments: 1,467 - All comments (including replies) on the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad. Shares: 358 - The number of times Facebook users shared the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad to their Facebook profile or a different Facebook page. Amount spent: $2,456.23 5.2 Open Houses and Community Booths A public open house, with a presentation was held in each of the twelve municipalities in Niagara. Staffed community booths with informational displays were also held in a public space in each municipality. The community booths were very Page 219 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 52 ______________________________________________________________________ well attended with approximately 450 attendees and open house attendance was lower with 67 attendees, perhaps due to poor weather conditions. The majority of the comments heard were related to the options for every-other- week garbage collection and mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Members of the public visiting the booths and open houses were divided about every-other-week garbage collection. While approximately half of the people that talked to staff at events expressed support, there were some specific concerns that were repeated throughout the consultation process. There was less support for clear bags, with the majority of participants expressing opposition to the option. A minority of the feedback and conversations at these events dealt with the options to introdu ce a four-item limit on bulky item collection and the discontinuation of scrap metal collection, but of those commenting there was a high level of support to implement the changes. The key concerns about the proposed options heard at these stakeholder consultation events are listed below. Most Common Comments (listed in no particular order) 1. Concern about odours from products that cannot be placed in the Green Bin (i.e. diapers and raw meat packaging) increasing with every-other-week garbage collection 2. Concern that illegal dumping will increase as a result of every-other-week garbage collection and/or mandatory use of clear garbage bags. 3. Concern about privacy with the use of clear garbage bags for personal items (i.e. incontinence products, feminine hygiene products, prescription bottles, bills) and that one opaque bag is not sufficient to contain all of these items 4. Concern about the additional expense of having to purchase clear bags and/or privacy bags and potential issues with the quality and availability of clear garbage bags 5. Concern about storing additional garbage bags due to every-other-week garbage collection and/or clear garbage bags that are left behind due to unacceptable materials. 6. Concerns about the ability of collectors to monitor and enforce clear garbage bag contents Page 220 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 53 ______________________________________________________________________ 7. Concern about how residents will transport scrap metals and large appliances to the drop-off depots. 8. Concern about a potential increase in pests (i.e. rats, raccoons, squirrels, coyotes, maggots) if garbage is collected every-other-week 9. Concern that mandatory use of clear garbage bags is adding unnecessary plastic waste to the landfills 10. Complaints about current service, including missed collection, late collection, and generally displeased with service 6.0 Waste Info-Line, Emails, Web Submissions Residents and business owners interested in providing the Region with additional comments were able to do so by calling the Waste Info-Line, sending an email or submitting their comments through the Region’s website. Comments from individuals that provided an address were recorded in CityView, Waste Management’s customer service software. These comments were categorized based on support or opposition to the proposed options. Comments from individuals that did not provide an address recorded in a public comment tracking sheet, separate from the CityView program. As of December 2, 2018, 38 comments were recorded in CityView and 27 additional comments without associated addresses were recorded in the spreadsheet public comment tracking sheet. 6.1 CityView Due to the self-selected nature of the input and the small number of comments recorded, the CityView data cannot be considered representative of the viewpoints of the broader population. The comments do provide anecdotal insight into some of the key attitudes that residents and business owners have towards the proposed collection options. The majority (74%) of individuals that commented were contacting the Region to express concern over one or more of the proposed colle ction options. The key concerns expressed in the comments align with those provided through Facebook and at the open houses/community booths. Individuals opposed to every-other- week garbage collection were concerned about potential odours and pests. Comments related to clear bags were focused on privacy issues. There were also Page 221 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 54 ______________________________________________________________________ concerns from multi-residential and mixed-use property owners about tenants not complying with the diversion programs and thus presenting a challenge for both the every-other-week and clear garbage bag options. Of the 38 comments recorded, 26% were in favour of one or all of the proposed options. In particular, 16% were in favour of every-other-week garbage collection. Other comments provided included suggestions for alternative option s, including collection from alternating sides of the road and communal collection areas. 6.2 Additional Comments The additional comments from residents and business owners that did not provide an address align with the comments provided through Facebook, at public consultation events and in CityView. The most frequent comments were concerns about odours and pests related to every-other-week garbage collection and privacy issues associated with clear garbage bags. Page 222 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 55 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 5 - Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Process An extensive public consultation and engagement process was undertaken to obtain stakeholder input on the proposed base collection options for the next collection contract. The consultation began in May 2018 was carried out in two phases: targeted stakeholder consultation and broad-based community consultation. Targeted stakeholder consultation involved direct communication with specific stakeholder groups to provide information and gather feedback on the proposed collection options. Broad- based community outreach was completed to reach residents and businesses eligible for Regional curbside collection services to inform them about the proposed collection options and encourage participation in the on-line survey, which was the principle mechanism for collecting public input and feedback. A summary of both phases of the consultation is described below. 1. Targeted Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement 1.1. Regional Departments and Agencies, Boards and Commissions (ABCs): The following Regional Departments and ABCs were contacted to discuss proposed options and invite questions, comments and input into the process: o Planning and Development Services Department o Economic Development o Niagara Regional Housing 1.2. Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) At the November 21, 2018 meeting of the WMAC, members were provided with a presentation on the proposed collection options and an opportunity for questions and comments. Members were provided with an opportunity to vote on each proposed service option. 1.3. Organizations Representing Business 1.3.1. Business Improvement Associations (BIAs), Chambers of Commerce, Industrial Associations Waste Management staff met with each of Niagara’s BIAs, Chambers of Commerce and the Niagara Industrial Association in August and September of 2018 to provide a presentation on the proposed service options. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the proposed collection options, obtain preliminary input on these options, obtain input on how to further engage their members and to request formal comments Page 223 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 56 ______________________________________________________________________ by November 30, 2018.The meeting dates and representatives that attended the meetings are listed in the tables below. Waste Management staff sent follow-up emails to each organization after the meetings on October 9, 2018 and November 22, 2018 to request formal feedback. Those organizations were also provided with letters for distribution to their membership on October 24, 2018. The letters contained information about the proposed options and stakeholder consultation process as well as a link to the on-line survey and open house/community booth dates and locations. The following four organizations confirmed they would reach out to members on behalf of the Region to encourage participation in the consultation process: o St. Catharines Downtown Association, Queen Street Niagara Falls BIA, Downtown Welland BIA, Grimsby Downtown Improvement Association Business Improvement Associations LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date Fort Erie Ridgeway Business Improvement Association (BIA) - Marge Ott Crystal Beach BIA – No rep attended Bridgeburg Station BIA – No rep attended Town of Fort Erie – Kelly Walsh August 23, 2018 Grimsby Grimsby Downtown Improvement Association – Leigh Jankiv Town of Grimsby – Bob LeRoux August 1, 2018 Lincoln Downtown Beamsville BIA – Stephanie Hicks Town of Lincoln – Dave Graham August 10, 2018 Niagara Falls Clifton Hill BIA – No rep attended Fallsview BIA – Sue Mingle Lundy’s Lane BIA – David Jankovic Main and Ferry BIA – Ruth Ann Nieuwesteeg Victoria Centre BIA – Eric Marcon Queen Street BIA – No rep attended City of Niagara Falls – Geoff Holman August 15, 2018 Pelham Pelham Business Association – David Tucker Town of Pelham – Derek Young & Ryan Cook August 8, 2018 Page 224 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 57 ______________________________________________________________________ LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date Port Colborne Port Colborne Main Street BIA – Frank Danch Port Colborne Downtown BIA – Betty Konc Town of Port Colborne – Chris Lee August 24, 2018 Port Dalhousie Port Dalhousie Business Association – Wolfgang Guembel August 22, 2018 St. Catharines St. Catharines Downtown Association - Tisha Polocko City of St. Catharines – Dan Dillon August 22, 2018 Thorold Thorold BIA – Marsha Coppola, Tim Whalen City of Thorold – Sean Dunsmore August 2, 2018 Welland Welland Downtown BIA – Amanda MacDonald, Delores Wright Welland North BIA – John Clark City of Welland – Eric Nickel August 9, 2018 Chambers of Commerce LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date Niagara-on-the- Lake (NotL) Chamber of Commerce – Janice Thompson Town of NotL – Sheldon Randall September 10, 2018 Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara Falls, NotL, Pelham, Port Colborne, St. Catharines, Welland, West Lincoln Greater Niagara Chamber of Commerce - Mishka Balsom September 13, 2018 Page 225 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 58 ______________________________________________________________________ Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara Falls, Pelham, Port Colborne, Welland, West Lincoln Niagara Chamber of Commerce Partnership – Rebecca Shelley (Grimsby); Johnathan George (Fort Erie); Paul Scottile, Jim Arnold (Niagara Falls); Denise Potter (West Lincoln); Len Stolk (Port Colborne/Wainfleet); Gary Bruce, Anna Murre (Lincoln); Delores Fabiano (Welland/Pelham, Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Port Colborne/Wainfleet) August 22, 2018 Thorold Venture Niagara – Susan Morin Niagara Centre Board of Trade & Commerce – John D’Amico September 26, 2018 Industrial Associations LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date All Niagara Municipalities Niagara Industrial Association – Adam Joon & Aaron Tisdelle September 21, 2018 1.3.2. Tourism Agencies Waste Management staff met with the Tourism Partnership of Niagara on behalf of five tourism agencies (Destination Marketing Organizations): Niagara Falls Tourism, Tourism Niagara-on-the-Lake, City of St.Catharines Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Twenty Valley Tourism Association and Niagara South Coast Tourism Association. Staff offered to provide a presentation at the meeting. On September 18, 2018, letters were provided to each tourism agency describing proposed options, audit data, info about survey and public events. The letter requested formal feedback on the proposed options be December 7, 2018. A follow-up email containing a link to the project website and on-line survey was sent to the Tourism Partnership of Niagara on November 23, 2018, for distribution to their membership. Tourism Agencies LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date Page 226 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 59 ______________________________________________________________________ Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the- Lake, Port Colborne, St. Catharines, Welland, West Lincoln Tourism Niagara – Anthony Annunziata & Karin Jahnke-Haslam (on behalf of Niagara Falls Tourism, Tourism Niagara-on-the-Lake, City of St.Catharines Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Twenty Valley Tourism Association and Niagara South Coast Tourism Association) September 18, 2018 1.4. Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) (i.e. municipal staff and Councillors) Letters were sent to LAM Clerks on May 4, 2018 and Public Works Officials (PWOs) on June 6, 2018 advising of proposed options and requesting LAM comments by February 1, 2019 Presentations were made to PWOs at their June 11, Oct. 16 & Dec. 11, 2018 meetings In addition, Region staff offered to attend LAM Committee or Council meetings to make a presentation. As of December 11, Region staff were requested to present at the following LAM Committee or Council meetings: o Grimsby Council (December 17, 2018) o Niagara Falls Council (January 15, 2019) o Fort Erie Council (January 21, 2019) o West Lincoln Council (January 21, 2019) o Welland General Committee (January 22, 2019) 2. Broad-Based Community Consultation and Engagement Broad-based community consultation employed a range of outreach activities to engage with as many low density residential (LDR) households, multi-residential (MR) property owners, groups and associations (i.e. property management companies) and Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) and mixed-use (MU) property owners as possible during October and November of 2018. The ta ble below provides details on each outreach activity undertaken as part of the broad-based consultation and engagement. Outreach Activity Description Location Date (2018) Page 227 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 60 ______________________________________________________________________ Letters Letters mailed out containing information on proposed collection options, link to survey, open house/community booth information and an invitation to contact the Region 1,369 businesses inside Designated Business Areas (DBAs) 1,980 businesses outside DBAs 125 multi-residential properties October 22 Web Project website provided information on the proposed collection options, details about public open house events/community booths and the link to the survey Project webpage on Niagara Region website October 23, to November 30 Link to project website Webpage banner on Niagara Region Waste webpage LAM provided with P&E for websites that had link to project webpage October 22 Social Media Link to project website Facebook paid advertisement with link to project webpage October 25- November 28 Twitter post on Niagara Region Twitter with link to project webpage Link to project website and details about open houses/community booths Facebook posts November 1- November 28 Newspaper: Print Ads Invitation to participate in stakeholder consultation with link to project website Niagara This Week October 25, November 1,8,15, 22 St. Catharines Standard October 27, November 10, Welland Tribune November 3, Niagara Falls Review November 3, News Now November 15 and November 22 Page 228 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 61 ______________________________________________________________________ Newspaper: On-line Ads Invitation to participate in stakeholder consultation with link to project website 24 hour ad - St. Catharines Standard, Welland Tribune, Niagara Falls Review websites October 30, November 6,13, 20 24 hour ad - Niagara This Week website November 24 1 week ad - News Now website November 22- 29, 2018 2 week ad - Niagara Independent website November 19- 30 Big Box Takeover- St. Catharines Standard, Welland Tribune, Niagara Falls Review October 30, November 5,11,20 Media Coverage An overview of proposed options and rationale and reference to project webpage, survey and events Media release October 25 Radio interview on 610 CKTB Newstalk November 5 Television coverage on Cogeco YourTV; accessible on-line and aired daily on YourTV November 5 - November 30 Articles - St. Catharines Standard/Niagara Falls Review, Voice of Pelham, Erie Media October 28, November 5, 7, 23 Post Cards Invitation to participate in consultation, list of key options and link to survey/webpage Post cards displayed at LAM offices: 100 each in Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Pelham, Port Colborne, Thorold and Wainfleet; 200 each in Niagara Falls, St.Catharines and Welland. Post cards available at Regional Headquarters and landfill sites Post cards distributed at every community booth and open house October 23- November 30 Internal Advertising Campaign banner and link to survey/webpage Vine intranet for all Regional employees October 31- November 30 Page 229 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 62 ______________________________________________________________________ Vine weekly for all Regional employees November 1 Community Booths A table with educational material and poster boards with information on proposed options were set up in public spaces including malls, arenas, community centres and libraries. Staff were available with iPads to allow visitors complete the on-line surveys and to respond to questions and comments One booth in each LAM during day and/or evening hours Each booth set up for one day in each LAM between Oct 30 –Nov 26 Approx. 450 visitors in total at booths Open Houses Staff provided a 25-minute presentation and the opportunity for a question and answer period. Staff were also available with iPads to allow attendees to complete the on-line survey to respond to questions and comments One open house in each LAM from 6pm-8pm Various dates from Nov 1- Nov 28 Total of 67 attendees Page 230 of 450 Appendix 6 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 63 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 6 - Summary of Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Events Public Open Houses (All public open houses were held from 6:00pm to 8:00pm, with a presentation at 6:30pm) Municipality Location Date Niagara-on-the-Lake Community Centre November 1, 2018 Niagara Falls Gale Centre November 5, 2018 Welland Community Wellness Complex November 6, 2018 Port Colborne Roselawn Centre November 8, 2018 Pelham Pelham Meridian Centre November 12, 2018 Fort Erie Leisureplex November 13, 2018 St. Catharines St. Catharines Public Library- Central Branch November 15, 2018 Thorold Niagara Region Headquarters Building November 19, 2018 Lincoln Fleming Centre November 20, 2018 West Lincoln Municipal Office November 22, 2018 Grimsby Peach King Centre November 27, 2018 Wainfleet Firefighters Memorial Community Hall November 28, 2018 Community Booths: Municipality Location Date Time St. Catharines Pen Centre October 30, 2018 9am-9pm Niagara Falls MacBain Community Centre November 5, 2018 9:30am-4pm Niagara-on- the-Lake Community Centre November 6, 2018 9am-3:30pm Port Colborne Vale Health and Wellness Centre November 7, 2018 4:30pm-9pm Thorold Thorold Public Library November 8, 2018 10am-7:30pm Pelham Pelham Public Library November 12, 2018 10am-4:30pm Fort Erie Fort Erie Centennial Library November 13, 2018 9:30am-4:30pm Welland Seaway Mall November 14, 2018 10am-8pm Lincoln Fleming Centre November 20, 2018 9am -5pm West Lincoln West Lincoln Public Library November 21, 2018 10am-4:30pm Wainfleet Wainfleet Arena November 22, 2018 2:30pm-8:30pm Grimsby Grimsby Public Library November 26, 2018 9am-8:30pm Page 231 of 450 Appendix 7 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 64 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 7 - Addressing Concerns Related to Proposed Collection Options During the stakeholder consultation and engagement process, concerns were expressed by residents and business owners through Facebook, public open houses/community events and communication by email, phone and web submission. Those concerns are summarized in Appendix 4. The following table provides potential responses for addressing those concerns and minimizing potential impacts of the proposed collection options. Resident Concern Options for Addressing Concern Odours from diapers, feminine hygiene products, raw meat packaging increasing with every-other-week garbage Provide option for residents to drop-off clear bags of diapers at landfill sites/drop-off depots at no charge. Diapers, feminine hygiene products and raw meat packaging should be sealed tightly a plastic bag and placed in a container with a lid for storage in a cool, dry location. Styrofoam meat trays can be washed and placed in the Blue Box for weekly collection. Increased illegal dumping of garbage as a result of every- other-week garbage and/or clear garbage bags Experience in other municipalities has shown that property owners readily adapt to collection changes and if there is an increase in illegal dumping after the change in collection is implemented, it is temporary and short-lived. By-law officers work to enforce ongoing issues with illegal dumping. Privacy issues with the use of clear garbage bags for personal items To conceal private or sensitive materials, allow an opaque privacy bag (i.e. grocery bag) to be placed inside the clear garbage bags. Confidential documents should be shredded and placed inside a clear plastic bag before being placed inside the Grey Box or Grey Cart. These materials can also be placed in the Green Bin. Experience in Markham showed that allowing multiple opaque privacy bags at outset of clear bag program facilitated implementation and reduced privacy concerns. Page 232 of 450 Appendix 7 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 65 ______________________________________________________________________ Additional expense of having to purchase clear bags and/or privacy bags and potential issues with quality and availability of clear garbage bags Clear plastic and coloured plastic garbage bags are manufactured from the same type of plastic resin. The quality and strength of clear plastic bags is similar to that of opaque plastic bags. Differences in price and quality may occur, based on individual bag size, closure type, packaging size or brand name. Regional staff would communicate with local businesses to ensure that clear bags would be available for purchase at the same local retailers as traditional opaque bags. Storing additional garbage bags due to every-other-week garbage collection and/or clear garbage bags that are left behind due to unacceptable materials Residents and businesses can significantly reduce their garbage by fully utilizing the weekly, unlimited recycling and organics collection services provided by Niagara Region. Once unacceptable materials are removed from clear garbage bags, the materials can be placed out on the next scheduled collection day or taken to a drop-off depot for a fee. Ability of collectors to monitor and enforce clear garbage bag contents Collectors would evaluate whether a bag conforms to the Waste Management By-law regarding recyclables, organics and hazardous waste, based on what can be seen through the clear bag. Collectors would not be opening bags or searching contents. Bags would be assessed visually during collection time to address clear instances of non-conformance, including situations where non-acceptable materials are visible or a clear garbage bag has not been used. Regional staff will follow-up with the property owner regarding the proper set out of material for collection to avoid re- occurrence of uncollected garbage. Ability of residents to transport scrap metal and large appliances to drop-off depots. Residents that do not have the ability to transport scrap metal and large appliances would have the option of contacting private scrap metal haulers for pick-up. Page 233 of 450 Appendix 7 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 66 ______________________________________________________________________ Increase in pests (i.e. rats, raccoons, squirrels, maggots) if garbage is collected every- other-week Placing food waste and food soiled-paper products in the Green Bin, which will continue to be collected weekly, will remove the most odorous part of the garbage stream, which can attract pests. Residents can take simple steps to deter pests, such as rodents, from their Green Bins, including: o Keeping the Green Bin container securely closed at all times o Setting out the Green Bin for collection every week, even if it is not full o Setting out the Green Bin by 7am on collection day, not the night before o Storing the Green Bin in a shaded, cool area o Lining the Green Bin with paper liner bags, sheets of newspaper or cereal boxes to absorb liquids Clear garbage bags adding unnecessary plastic waste to landfills For those residents already using garbage bags and/or grocery bags, clear bags would not increase the amount of plastic bags being sent to landfills. Plastic opaque privacy bags would be optional. Use of clear garbage bags would be expected to increase diversion rates, potentially offsetting any additional plastic introduced through use of clear garbage bags. Requests for Region to use carts, bigger containers and/or containers with lids The Region has explored the option using carts for residential curbside collection. The results of that research indicate that the costs of that change would be prohibitive at this time. In addition, cart programs utilize single stream recycling collection, which have higher rates of contamination than the two stream recycling program that Niagara Region is currently using and would negatively affect revenue from the sale of recyclables. Page 234 of 450 [Type here] Metroline Research Group Inc. 301-7 Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario 1000-10 Four Seasons Place, Toronto, Ontario Appendix 8 LDR Telephone and On-line Survey Results A quantitative survey with residents of Niagara Region Page 235 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Page 236 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 3 1.0 Current Attitudes/Behaviour 1.1 Importance of Waste Diversion Q11 - How important would you say it is that Niagara region works to reduce the amount of garbage that is sent for disposal? (Full sample) Figure 1.1a – Importance of waste diversion by survey type Diverting waste is important to the vast majority of residents in Niagara Region. In total, 94% of those in the telephone survey said it is ‘important’ to them, with 72% saying “very” important, and 22% saying “somewhat” important. Only 4% told us it was “not important”, or they “don’t know”. Residents in the online survey scored the importance slightly lower, but even still 87% find waste diversion important. Figure 1.1b 1– Importance of waste diversion by survey type (Hamilton) This question was asked in Hamilton in 2016, and the results were similar to what Niagara Region residents have said in this survey. Residents in both surveys feel that waste diversion is important, but in the random telephone survey are more likely to say it is “very” important. 1 City of Hamilton Waste Management Services Public Engagement Survey – Metroline Research Group, 2016 Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) Very important 72% 52% Somewhat important 22% 35% Not very important 3% 8% Not important at all 2% 3% Don’t know 1% 2% Hamilton Waste Survey Telephone (n=800) Online (n=1,468) Very important 75% 60% Somewhat important 21% 30% Not very important 2% 6% Not important at all 1% 3% Don’t know 1% 1% Page 237 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 4 Where relevant, this report will indicate statistically significant differences by sub -groups for the random telephone survey. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Women (76%) are more likely to say reducing the amount of garbage sent for disposal is “very” important than men (68%). Those 65+ years (76%) and those 45-64 years (73%) are more likely to find it “very” important than those 18 -44 years (63%). Those participating in the organics collection program (74%) are more likely to find it “very ” important than those who are not (67%). Those who support clear bags (80%) more likely to find it “very” important than those who do not (65%). Those who could manage every-other-week (EOW) garbage collection (80%) are more likely to find it “very” important than those who would continue to need/want weekly collection (64%). Figure 1.1c - Importance of waste diversion by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Very important 72% 81% 73% 83% 74% 80% 76% 73% 68% 61% 60% 69% 73% Somewhat important 22% 14% 17% 13% 22% 16% 19% 19% 24% 31% 32% 24% 22% Not very important 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% Not important at all 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% -- -- 1% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% Don’t know 1% -- 4% -- 1% 2% 1% 3% -- 1% -- 2% -- Looking across the municipalities in Niagara Region, there are some differences when residents were asked to choose an import ance level. Primarily though this difference is between “very” and “somewhat” important. Overall, the sentiment of important (very/somewhat) vs. not important (not very/not important/don’t know) is pretty similar. At least 9 in 10 residents for all municipalities find diverting waste to be ‘important’. Page 238 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 5 1.2 Garbage Limits Q12 - Niagara Region allows for one bag/container of garbage to be put out per week. Dimensions of the container cannot exceed three feet high by two feet wide (91cm by 61cm) and must not weight more than 50 pounds. Which of the following best describes yo ur situation in an average week? (Full Sample) Figure 1.2a – Typical garbage set out by survey type Residents were pretty much evenly split about how much garbage they put out at the curb in an average week. On one side is the group (53% combined) who put out the maximum one bag (42%) and those who need more than one bag (11%). On the other side (47% combined) is the group who doesn’t have a full bag (34%) or sometimes can afford to skip a week (13%). Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those 18-44 years are more likely to put out a full bag or more (72%) than those 45-64 years (50%) and those 65+ years (45%). Those living in households of three or more people are more likely (73%) to put out a full bag or more than those in households of two people (41%) and those in single person households (30%). Those with a household member using diapers are more likely to put out a full bag or more (87%) than those without (51%). Those who use seven or more bag tags a year are more likely to put out a full bag or more (91%) than those who use 1-6 tags (61%) and those use don’t use any tags in an average year (42%). Those who do not participate in the organics program are more likely to put out a full bag or more (63%) than those who participate (49%). Those who would need to continue weekly garbage collection are more likely to put out a full bag or more (7 0%) than those who could manage EOW (33%). Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) We put out more than one garbage bag/container 11% 9% We put out one full garbage bag/container 42% 49% On a weekly basis, our garbage bag/container is not completely full 34% 29% Some weeks, we do not have enough to put out the garbage bag/container 13% 13% Page 239 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 6 Figure 1.2b – Typical garbage set out by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln We put out more than one garbage bag/ container 11% 7% 11% 8% 13% 9% 10% 4% 11% 11% 16% 14% 8% We put out one full garbage bag/container per week 42% 45% 35% 35% 44% 43% 34% 45% 41% 50% 39% 46% 49% On a weekly basis, our garbage bag/container is not completely full 34% 30% 37% 45% 34% 34% 44% 39% 35% 24% 32% 25% 34% Some weeks, we do not have enough to put out the garbage bag/container 13% 18% 17% 12% 9% 14% 12% 12% 13% 15% 13% 15% 9% All percentage differences fall within the margin of error. The re are a few trends in the data, however these could potentially be a result of the size of the households interviewed for the study rather than something unique to the municipalities : Residents of Thorold (60%), Welland (60%) and Niagara Falls (57%) are slightly higher in putting out one bag or more per collection. Residents of Lincoln (43%) and Pelham (44%) and Grimsby (46%) are slightly lower in putting out one bag or more per collection. 1.3 Garbage Tags Q13 - How many tags for additional garbage bags does your household buy and use in an average year, if any? (Full Sample) Figure 1.3a – Garbage tags used by survey type About two-thirds of the community (65%) told us they do not buy/use any garbage tags in the course of an average year. About one-third (35%) will use a garbage tag at least once a year on average, between those buying and using one to six tags (24%), and those using seven or more tags (11%). (Random telephone survey) Telephone (n=1,253) Online (6,639) None 65% 49% 1-6 24% 32% 7+ 11% 19% Page 240 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 7 Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Household size was the biggest determinant in using garbage tags. About half of those (48%) of household with three or more people require at least one tag a year. 20% of households with three or more people use seven or more tags a year. Figure 1.3b – Garbage tags used by household size (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Household Size 1 2 3+ None 65% 86% 72% 52% 1-6 23% 10% 23% 28% 7+ 12% 4% 5% 20% Age is also a determining factor. The younger the resident in the survey, the more likely they were to have used bag tags. Figure 1.3c – Garbage tags used by age group (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Age group 18-44 45-64 65+ None 65% 54% 62% 78% 1-6 23% 25% 27% 17% 7+ 12% 21% 11% 5% Other significant findings: Those who deal with infant/adult diapers (53% use at least one a year) are more likely to need bag tags than those without diapers (33% use at least one per year). Those who need to put out more than one bag of garbage per week are more likely to use at least on e bag tag per year (67%) than those who put out one bag per week (41%), those who put out a bag per week that isn’t full (2 6%), and those who can afford to occasionally skip a week (12%). Those who need to continue having garbage picked up weekly are more likely to use at least one bag tag per year (41%) than those who could manage every-other-week (27%). Page 241 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 8 Figure 1.3d – Garbage tags used by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None 65% 69% 69% 74% 61% 69% 77% 60% 62% 60% 75% 58% 73% 1-6 23% 21% 19% 21% 25% 24% 19% 32% 24% 24% 16% 29% 20% 7+ 12% 10% 12% 5% 14% 7% 4% 8% 14% 16% 9% 13% 7% Municipalities less likely to have used any garbage tags in the past year: Pelham (23%), Wainfleet (25%), Lincoln (26%) and West Lincoln (27%) Municipalities more likely to have used a garbage tag in the past year: Welland (42%), Thorold (40%), Niagara Falls (39%) and St. Catharines (38%) Page 242 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 9 1.4 Waste Collection Participation Q21 – Does your household put out the following items for curbside collection? (Full sample) Figure 1.4a – Waste collection program participation by survey type Virtually all households in Niagara Region are participating in the recycling program (99%/99%). About 7 in 10 households say they participate in the organics collection program. The participation level is virtually the same between the random telephone survey and the online survey (71%/72%). Participation in leaf/yard waste collection is next (63%/82%), and the brush collection in spring and fall (52%/63%). Participation in both the appliances/scrap metal collection (26%/27%), and the bulky/large item collection (35%/46%) is lower. 99% 71% 26% 35% 63% 50% 99% 72% 27% 46% 81% 63% Recycling - Blue and/or Grey Box Organics - Green Bin Appliances/scrap metal Bulky/large items Leaf/Yard waste Brush in spring/fall Waste Collection Participation Telephone Online Page 243 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 10 Figure 1.3b 2– Waste collection program participation by survey type (Hamilton) The percentages were different, but we found a similar sentiment/pattern in Hamilton in 2016. Virtually all participate in recycling, the organics collection and yard waste collection (which included brush in this survey) were next, and the bulky/large item collection (which includes scrap metal/appliances) had the lowest participation. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Participate in Organics/Green Bin collection Those 65+ years (77%) and 45-64 years (73%) are more likely to participate than those 18-44 years (55%). Those in a single person household (72%) and dual person household (74%) are more likely to participate than those in a household of three or more people (66%). Those with no household members using diapers (72%) are more likely to participate than those with a household member in diapers (50%). Those who can afford to skip a weekly collection (81%), and those who put out a garbage bag every week that isn’t full (76%) are more likely to participate than those who put out a full bag every week (68%) or those who put out more than one bag (52%). Those who can manage every-other-week collection (77%) are more likely to participate than those who need to continue having their garbage collected every week (66%). Participate in bulky/large item collection Those in households of three or more (37%) and two people (35%) are more likely to participate than those in single person households (28%). Those who use seven or more bag tags per year (45%) or 1-6 bag tags (44%) are more likely to participate than those who do not use bag tags in an average year (30%). 2 City of Hamilton Waste Management Services Public Engagement Survey – Metroline Research Group, 2016 Hamilton Waste Survey Telephone (n=800) Online (n=1,468) Blue Box recycling 99% 99% Organics/Green Bin 83% 84% Yard waste 80% 88% Bulky/large item collection 45% 55% Page 244 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 11 Participate in leaf/yard waste pickup Those who could manage garbage collection every-other-week are more likely to participate (67%) than those who need to continue having garbage picked up weekly (61%). Those who participate in organics collection are more likely to participate in leaf/yard waste pickup (71%) than those who do not participate in organic collection (45%). Participate in brush pickup Those who could manage garbage collection every-other-week are more likely to participate (54%) than those who need to continue having garbage picked up weekly (47%). Those who participate in organics collection are more likely to participate in brush pickup (56%) than those who do not participate in organic collection (36%). Figure 1.4c – Waste collection program participation by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Recycling – Blue and/or Grey Box 99% 99% 100% 99% 100% 97% 99% 99% 100% 97% 96% 98% 99% Organics – Green Bin 71% 63% 84% 73% 72% 73% 70% 75% 74% 74% 59% 64% 60% Appliances/Scrap Metal 26% 16% 36% 19% 35% 24% 19% 19% 34% 30% 23% 24% 7% Bulky/Large Items 35% 36% 36% 27% 42% 28% 29% 31% 44% 41% 25% 36% 14% Leaf/Yard Waste 63% 45% 77% 55% 73% 58% 59% 55% 82% 70% 19% 68% 35% Brush in spring/fall 50% 32% 53% 45% 60% 52% 43% 35% 69% 55% 12% 50% 28% Participation rates in the different programs vary by municipality. Some of this may be a result of their geographical location. Municipalities in areas that are less urban may have residents with larger properties to manage their own composting and le af/yard waste or brush disposal, for example. Page 245 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 12 1.5 Recycling Participation 1.5.1 Blue Boxes Q22 - Blue Box recycling includes containers that are made of plastic, metals, glass or styrofoam. How many Blue Boxes does your h ousehold put out at the curb in an average week? (Base – Converted to full sample) Figure 1.5.1a – Number of Blue Boxes by survey type Virtually all residents (99%) of Niagara Region are participating in the recycling program. 97% of residents in the telephone survey are putting out at least one blue box per week. About 1 in 5 residents puts out two or more blue boxes per week. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Household size was a primary factor in the number of blue boxes. Households of three or more people are most likely to be p utting out two or more boxes (34%), compared to two person households (9%) and single person households (3%). Those 18-44 years (29%) are most likely to be putting out two or more boxes, compared to those 45 -64 years (23%) and those 65+ years (7%). Those buying the most (7+) garbage tags per year are also most likely to put out 2+ blue boxes (42%), compared to those who buy 1-6 tags (20%), and those who do not use garbage tags (15%). Those who would need to continue having waste collected weekly are most likely to be putting out two or more blue boxes (22%), compared to those who could manage every-other-week collection (16%). Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) None/Not participating in program 1% 1% Less than once a week 2% -- One per week 78% 70% Two or more per week 19% 29% Page 246 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 13 Figure 1.5.1b – Number of Blue Boxes by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None/Not participating 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% 1% -- 4% 4% 2% 1% Less than once a week 2% -- 2% 3% 1% 3% -- 1% 1% -- -- 4% -- One per week 78% 85% 81% 84% 79% 75% 77% 82% 80% 74% 71% 71% 75% Two or more per week 19% 13% 16% 12% 19% 18% 20% 16% 19% 22% 25% 23% 24% Across all municipalities, there is not much difference when looking at the percentage of households who put out at least one blue box per week on average. Niagara-on-the-Lake was lowest, but even there it was 93% of households. 1.5.2 Grey Boxes Q24 – Grey Box recycling includes items such as paper, cardboard, cereal boxes, tissue boxes, etc., and bundled plastic bags. How many Grey Boxes does your household put out at the curb in an average week? (Base – Converted to full sample) Figure 1.5.2a – Number of Grey Boxes by survey type Almost all Niagara residents are participating in the grey box recycling program as well. Slightly fewer (92%) than the blue box (99%) participation. 92% of Niagara low-density households put out at least one grey box per week on average. Residents are less than half as likely (8%) to put out two or more grey boxes than blue boxes (19%). Telephone (n=1,253) Online (6,639) None/Not participating in program 6% 2% < 1 x week 2% 1% One per week 84% 81% Two or more per week 8% 16% Page 247 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 14 Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Household size a factor once again. Those in households of three or more people are most likely (14%) to put out two or more grey boxes, compared to two person households (4%) and single person households (2%). Those 18-44 years are most likely to put out two or more grey boxes (14%), compared to those 45-64 years (9%) and those 65+ years (2%). Those buying the most (7+) garbage tags per year are also most likely to put out 2+ grey boxes (20%), compared to those who b uy 1-6 tags (8%), and those who do not use garbage tags (6%). Figure 1.5.2b – Number of Grey Boxes by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1.253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None / Not participating 6% 8% 4% 5% 4% 8% 4% 4% 3% 8% 13% 4% 12% < 1 per week 2% -- 1% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 1% -- 1% 3% -- One per week 84% 91% 88% 87% 85% 81% 84% 84% 85% 84% 79% 84% 80% Two or more per week 8% 1% 7% 5% 8% 8% 8% 8% 11% 8% 7% 9% 8% As with the blue box recycling, there is no difference statistically by municipality. Only two municipalities are below 90% of residents putting out at least one grey box in an average week – Wainfleet (86%) and West Lincoln (88%). Page 248 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 15 1.6 Green Bin/Organics Participation Q26 – Green Bin organics program includes food waste, paper napkins/towels/bags, paper take-out trays/egg cartons, coffee grounds/filters & tea bags. How many Green Bins or containers marked as organics does your household put out at the curb in an average week? (Base – Converted to full sample) Figure 1.6a – Number of Green Bins by survey type About 7 in 10 (71%) of Niagara Region residents told us they are participating in the organics collection program. That number dropped slightly when looking at green bins in an average month, to 69%. 68% of residents in the telephone survey told us they put out at lea st one green bin per week. In this particular question, the finding of the online survey was similar, where 70% told us they are putting out one green bin per week on average. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those 65+ years (73%) and 45-64 years (70%) are more likely to put out at least one green bin per week than those 18-44 years (53%). Those using diapers for someone in their household (49%) are less likely to put out at least one green bin per week than those with no diapers in their household (69%). Those who do not use any garbage tags in an average year (68%) and those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (70%) are more likely to put out at least one green bin per week than those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (57%). Those who would need to continue having waste collected weekly (62%) are less likely to put out one or more green bins per week compared to those who could manage every-other-week collection (73%). Those who feel there would be little to no impact to their household with every -other-week collection (72%) are more likely to be putting out at least one green bin per week than those who feel every-other-week would have at least some impact (62%). (Random telephone survey) Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) None / Not participating 31% 29% Less than one per week 1% 1% One per week 63% 63% Two or more per week 5% 7% Page 249 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 16 Figure 1.6b – Put out one or more Green Bins by typical garbage set out Those who can afford to skip a week on garbage collection occasionally (77%), and those who put out less than one full bag/container per week (73%) are more likely to be putting out at least one green bin per week, compared to those who put out one full bag/container per week (65%) and those who put out more than one full bag/container per week (48%). Figure 1.6c – Number of Green Bins by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None / Not participating 31% 39% 17% 28% 28% 27% 32% 29% 28% 27% 45% 36% 46% < 1 per week 1% 1% 2% -- 1% 3% -- 1% 1% 3% -- 3% -- One per week 63% 57% 76% 72% 65% 61% 62% 56% 65% 66% 51% 58% 54% Two or more per week 5% 3% 5% -- 6% 9% 6% 14% 6% 4% 4% 3% -- 48% 65% 73% 77% More than one bag/container One full bag/container One bag/container not full Could skip a week occasionally Page 250 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 17 1.6.1 Not participating in Green Bin/Organics collection Q28 – Why do you not participate in the Green Bin/Organics program? (Base – Not participating) Figure 1.6.1a – Why not participating in Green Bin/Organics program? Just under a third (31%) of those not participating in the Green Bin/Organics program told us they are doing their own composting/vermiposting. “We have a farm and dispose of it in our manure pile…” The next biggest barrier to participating in the Green Bin/Organics program is a concern about smells/odours. 13% of those not participating in this program indicated they do not participate because of a worry about the smell. “It smells awful. We freeze organic waste throughout the week and dispose with the trash on garbage day. You can always tell when someone uses the green organics bin as soon as you walk into their house. It isn't practical…” Lack of motivation was third, with people telling us that separating the waste was inconve nient or extra work for them (11%). “Waste of time separating items and keeping another bin full of stinking food around for rodents and insects to find…” 31% 13% 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 6% 5% 3% 11% Composting/vermiposting Smell/Odour Inconvenient/extra work Worried about bugs/maggots/animals Have a garburator Not interested in sorting it out Don't have enough waste to be worth it Messy Bin breaks, don't have one Don't have room to store Don't know Why not participating in Green Bin/Organics program? (Telephone survey, n=369)Page 251 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 18 The other major barrier is a concern about bugs/maggots/animals in and around the green bin (10%). “Many animals in my neighbourhood makes it difficult to keep the organics from being eaten. I have the same problem with my regular garbage container…” The ‘ick’ factor was expressed as well, with 6% talking about the process being messy and 9% not being interested in sorting out the waste for the Green Bin. “I find it gross and disgusting…” “Because I do not have very much for the green bin and find it disgusting to deal with in the summer…” Page 252 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 19 Page 253 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 20 1.7 Appliances/Scrap Metal Participation 1.7.1 Put out at the curb Q29 - How many times per year would you say your household puts out appliances or scrap metal at the curb for collection? (Base –Converted to full sample) Figure 1.7a – Appliance/Scrap Metal participation by survey type 4 in 5 households in Niagara Region (80%) told us they do not participate in the appliances/scrap metal collection program. Among those who have participated, at most is was about once a year. The results of the online survey are similar in this case, with 75% not participating in the program. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those 18-44 years (21%) and those 45-64 years (22%) are more likely than those 65+ years (15%) to participate in the program at least once a year on average. Those with households of three or more people (23%) and households of two people (20%) are more likely than those in single p erson households (13%) to participate in the program at least once a year on average. Those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (27%) and those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (25%) are more likely than those who do not use garbage tags (17%) to participate in the program at least once a year on average. Figure 1.7a – Appliance/Scrap Metal participation by survey type (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None / Not participating 80% 86% 73% 85% 75% 81% 85% 84% 75% 77% 81% 84% 95% Once per year 15% 11% 23% 15% 16% 18% 8% 8% 19% 19% 16% 11% 4% Twice or more per year 5% 3% 4% -- 9% 1% 7% 8% 6% 4% 3% 5% 1% Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,369) None / Not participating 80% 75% Once per year 15% 15% Twice or more per year 5% 10% Page 254 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 21 1.7.2 Scheduling a pick up Q210 - Do you schedule a pick up with Niagara Region for scrap metal or appliances, or put them out at the curb for anyone to pick u p without scheduling a pick up? (Base – Participate at least once a year on average) Figure 1.7.2a – Appliance/Scrap Metal pick up type by survey type Those who participate in the appliances/scrap metal program at least once a year on average were asked how they arrange for pick up. Three-quarters (74%) of program participants told us they schedule a pick up with Niagara Region, and one-quarter (26%) will simply put the item at the curb. The online survey respondents felt similarly (77% scheduled, 23% leave at curb). Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Women (81%) were more likely than men (65%) to say they scheduled a pick up. Those 65+ years (88%) were more likely to have scheduled a pick up than those 45-64 years (72%) or those 18-44 years (64%). Figure 1.7.2b – Appliance/Scrap Metal pick up type by municipality Note: Sample size varies according to participation rates and survey type Telephone (n=249) Online (n= 1,696) Schedule a pick up 74% 77% Leave out 26% 23% Note: Sample size varies according to participation rates and survey type Total (n=249) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Schedule a pick up 74% 92% 90% 82% 69% 85% 73% 83% 69% 65% 79% 74% 75% Leave out 26% 8% 10% 18% 31% 15% 27% 17% 31% 35% 21% 26% 25% Page 255 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 22 1.8 Bulky/Large Item Collection 1.8.1 Put out at the curb Q211 - Bulky/large item collection includes items like carpet and furniture. How many times per year would you say your household puts out items like this out at the curb for collection? (Base – Converted to full sample) Figure 1.8a – Bulky/Large Item collection by survey type More households (29%) do participate in bulky/large item collection compared to the scrap metal/appliances collection (20%). In total, 29% of households told us they participate at least once a year, with the majority (19%) of households participating once a year, and 10% of households participating two or more times a year on average. Those in the online survey told us they are participating more often. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those in households of three or more are more likely to participate at least once a year (33%), compared to households of two people (28%), or single person households (19%). Those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (43%) are more likely to participate at least once a year (43%), compared to those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (38%) and those who do not use garbage tags (23%). Figure 1.8b – Bulky/Large Item collection by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None 71% 71% 72% 83% 67% 78% 74% 72% 61% 66% 80% 70% 89% Once per year 19% 19% 24% 13% 20% 14% 14% 15% 25% 27% 16% 18% 8% Twice or more per year 10% 10% 4% 4% 13% 8% 12% 13% 14% 7% 4% 13% 3% Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) None/not participating 71% 56% Once per year 19% 20% Twice or more per year 10% 24% Page 256 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 23 1.8.2 Scheduling a pick up Q212 - Do you schedule a pick up with Niagara Region for these bulky/large items, or put them out at the curb for anyone to pick up without scheduling a pick up? (Base – Participate at least once a year on average) Figure 1.8.2a – Bulky/Large Item collection type by survey type Those participating in the bulky/large item pick up are most likely going to be scheduling a pick up with Niagara Region. 94% said they would schedule a pickup for bulky/large items, compared to 74% of those participating in scrap metal/appliances. Figure 1.8.2b – Bulky/Large item collection type by municipality Note: Sample size varies according to participation rates and survey type Telephone (n=365) Online (n=2,943) Schedule a pick up 94% 92% Leave out 6% 8% Note: Sample size varies according to participation rates and survey type Total (n=365) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Schedule a pick up 94% 96% 95% 100% 97% 93% 100% 81% 92% 92% 100% 94% 87% Leave out 6% 4% 5% -- 3% 7% -- 19% 8% 8% -- 6% 13% Page 257 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 24 2.0 Waste Collection Options For Next Contract For Niagara Region’s new waste collection (garbage, recycling and organics) contract, residents and businesses are being aske d for their opinion about several proposal collection options. Adopting some or all of these opt9ions would help reduce the amount of waste going t o disposal, and limit future costs to businesses and taxpayers. The purpose of this survey is to receive feedback from residents on the possible collection options and to help Regional staff understand resident’s feelings about each option. Page 258 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 25 2.1 Bulky/Large Item Collection Q31 - The first option is related to large or bulky item pick up, such as carpet or furniture. The change would be to limit the number of large/bulky items collected to a maximum of four per week. In 2018, 92% of the bookings for large or bulky item pick up wer e for four items or less. If Niagara Region was to make this change, what would be the impact on your household? (Base – Full sample) Figure 2.1a – Change to Bulky/Large Item collection, impact by survey type Making a change to the bulky/large item collection so that a maximum of four items per collection can be put out will not unduly impact Niagara region residents. 6% of residents in the telephone survey, and 14% in the online survey feel this change would have an impact on their household. The vast majority told us there would be little to no impact to them (94% of households in telephone survey, 87% of households in the online survey). Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those in households of three or more (8%) are slightly more likely to feel impacted, compared to households of two people (5%) and single person households (4%). Those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (16%) are most likely to feel there would be an impact on their household, compared to those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (5%) and those who do not use garbage tags (4%). 2% 4% 5% 25% 64% 5% 8% 15% 27% 45% A big impact Some impact Might or might not be an impact Not much of an impact No impact Impact of change to large/bulky item pickup Telephone Online Page 259 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 26 Figure 2.1b – Change to Bulky/Large Item collection, impact by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln A big impact 2 -- 7% -- 2% -- 1% -- 1% 4% -- 2% 1% Some impact 4 1% 8% 3% 7% 2% 3% 7% 5% 3% 1% 3% 4% Might or might not be an impact 5 5% 4% 5% 7% 8% 6% 7% 4% 3% -- 11% 4% Not much of an impact 25 23% 21% 30% 33% 21% 19% 25% 27% 30% 11% 23% 19% No impact 64 71% 60% 62% 51% 69% 71% 61% 63% 60% 88% 61% 72% Page 260 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 27 2.2 Appliances/Scrap Metal Collection Q32 – The second option under consideration would eliminate curbside pickup by Niagara Region of appliances and scrap metal. Curre ntly, residents can go online and schedule a pick up of items at their home. Only 6% of Niagara households are using the curbside collection of appliances and scrap metal service. Also, as much as 60% of these items that are being put out have already been removed by the time crews arrive to pick them up. There would continue to be an opportunity for residents to take the items to a regional drop-off depot, at no charge, or have it picked up by private scrap metal haulers. If Niagara Region was to make this change, what would be the impact on your household? (Base – Full sample) Figure 2.2a – Change to appliance/scrap metal collection, by survey type Dropping/stopping the appliance/scrap metal collection program would have some impact on about 1 in 5 households in Niagara region. 17% of households in the telephone survey, and 22% in the online survey feel there would be at least some impact. 83% of households in the telephone survey, and 78% of the households in the online survey, feel there would be little to no impact on their household. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (23%) are most likely to feel there would be an impact on their household, compared to those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (18%) and those who do not use garbage tags (14%). Those who would need to continue to have their garbage picked up weekly are more likely to find at least some impact (19%) than those who could manage every -other-week collection (12%). 7% 9% 9% 25% 50% 8% 14% 17% 27% 34% A big impact Some impact Might or ight not be an impact Not much of an impact No impact Impact of change to appliance/ scrap metal pickup Telephone Online Page 261 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 28 Figure 2.2b – Impact of change to appliance/scrap metal collection, by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln A big impact 7% -- 11% 7% 8% 10% 7% 9% 7% 8% 3% 8% 4% Some impact 9% 8% 11% 4% 11% 13% 7% 11% 10% 5% 9% 8% 7% Might or might not be an impact 9% 14% 11% 12% 11% 12% 8% 4% 9% 10% 1% 8% 10% Not much of an impact 25% 28% 25% 25% 27% 23% 27% 20% 28% 34% 11% 23% 16% No impact 50% 50% 43% 52% 43% 42% 51% 56% 46% 43% 76% 53% 63% Page 262 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 29 2.3 Clear Bags 2.3.1 Support for clear bags Q33 – A third option under consideration is the mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Some municipalities in Canada have already ma de this change. The cost for the clear bags would be about the same as green/black garbage bags. Clear garbage bags wil l make it easier to see recyclable or organic material that should be placed in the Blue/Grey Box or Green Bin or Hazardous Waste items that should b e disposed of safely. A smaller opaque bag, such as a grocery bag, can be placed inside the clear garbage bag for disposing of sensitive or personal items. Would you support a switch to clear garbage bags? (Full Sample) Figure 2.3.1a – Support for mandatory clear garbage bags by survey type Household support for the mandatory use of clear bags in the telephone survey was surprisingly a fairly even split. 48% would support (definitely or probably), and 52% do not support. It’s a different picture when looking at the sentiment expressed in the online survey. 27% would support, and 73% oppose. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those who would need to continue to have their garbage picked up weekly are more likely to support the use of clear bags (57%) than those who could manage every-other-week collection (40%). 26% 22% 14% 14% 24% 13% 14% 11% 16% 46% Definitely would support Probably would support Might or might not support Probably would not support Definitely would not support Support for change to mandatory clear bags Telephone Online Page 263 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 30 Figure 2.3.1b – Support for mandatory clear garbage bags by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Definitely would support 26% 19% 24% 28% 26% 30% 33% 24% 23% 20% 26% 33% 27% Probably would support 22% 26% 28% 23% 19% 16% 15% 24% 26% 30% 16% 20% 19% Might or might not support 14% 17% 14% 12% 13% 19% 16% 19% 15% 16% 8% 13% 11% Probably would not support 14% 17% 17% 17% 16% 12% 12% 7% 14% 8% 13% 15% 12% Definitely would not support 24% 21% 17% 20% 26% 23% 24% 26% 22% 26% 37% 19% 31% Page 264 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 31 2.3.2 Why support/not support? Q34 – Why do you say that (support/not support clear bags)? (Full Sample) Total Support clear bags Oppose clear bags Keeps unwanted items from landfill 28% 51% 6% Encourages use of Blue/Grey boxes and Green Bins 25% 48% 5% Concerned about invasion of privacy 25% 8% 40% Don’t want my neighbours seeing my garbage 14% 3% 24% Concerned about strength of clear bags 5% 2% 8% We do not need “garbage police” 5% 1% 8% Added cost/more effort 4% 1% 8% Neutral/indifferent (General) 4% 6% 3% We only use small grocery bags 3% 1% 5% Stupid/no need (General) 2% -- 3% Safer/better for waste management people 1% 3% -- NOTE: All other responses are less than one percent total “Clear bags tend to cost more money and are not as readily available. I also think having them curbside looks gross vs a black garbage bag. That being said I can understand why this idea could potentially reduce the amount of unacceptable items…” “I just don't buy garbage bags so that would be an extra expense for us. Otherwise I am on board, we have nothing to hide...” “Taking the trouble to separately sort embarrassing or secure sensitive material is annoying…” “Clear bags are more expensive for one. The world doesn't need to see my garbage. Are you going to refuse pick up if I have recyclables in my trash? What about recycling that can't be cleaned like pizza boxes? Teaching what can be recycled and what can't would be far better…” “If it becomes mandatory I will of course comply but personal items aside, I am not a fan of having my neighbours being able to see what I purchase, eat or throw out. Items come into my house concealed in shopping bags and that privacy with them going out is just as important to me…” Page 265 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 32 2.4 Every Other Week Garbage Collection 2.4.1 Managing every-other-week collection Q35 – In Niagara Region an average of 50% of every garbage bag is food waste. A fourth option under consideration, that is already in practice in many other municipalities which encourages residents to use their Green Bin, is to pick up garbage every -other-week, but continue to collect unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes and Green Bins every week. There would be no change or reduction in the garbage container limit, but there would be less frequent pickup. With collection every-other-week, you would be allowed two garbage bags/containers. Based on your household’s waste practices, would you be able to manage? (Full Sample) Figure 2.4.1a – Ability to manage Every Other Week garbage collection by survey type Residents were split on their feelings about garbage collection every-other- week, with slightly more leaning towards continuing their weekly collection. 46% of the telephone survey, and 41% of those in the online survey could manage every-other-week collection. Niagara Region Waterloo Region3 Telephone (n=1,253) LDR Online (n=6,639) Telephone (n=511) Online (n=7,087) Be able to manage garbage collection every-other-week 46% 43% 50% 36% Need to continue having your garbage picked up weekly 54% 57% 50% 64% 3 Region of Waterloo Waste Survey, Metroline Research Group Inc., 2014 Telephone (n= 1,253) Online (n=6,369) Be able to manage EOW collection 46% 43% Need to continue weekly collection 54% 57% Page 266 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 33 Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Residents 65+ years are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (51%), compared to those 45-64 years (45%) and those 18-44 years (41%). Those in single person households (62%) are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection than those in two person households (50%), and those in households of three or more (37%). Households with no one using diapers are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (47%) than those with someone in diapers (31%). Those who do not use garbage bag tags in an average year are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (52%) than those who use 1-6 garbage tags (41%) and those who use 7+ garbage tags (24%). Those who participate in organics collection are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (50%) compared to those who are not currently participating in organics collection (37%). Those who support mandatory use of clear bags (55%) are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (55%) than those who oppose mandatory clear bags (38%). Those who currently put out more garbage are less likely to say they could manage every-other-week collection Figure 2.4.1b – Ability to manage every-other-week garbage collection by typical garbage set out 23% 31% 60% 80% Put out 1+ bags/containers per week Put out one full bag/container per week Put out one bag/container that is not full Could afford to skip a week Ability to manage every-other-week collection Page 267 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 34 Figure 2.4.1b – Ability to manage Every Other Week garbage collection by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Be able to manage EOW collection 46% 52% 48% 52% 36% 50% 52% 40% 50% 47% 40% 49% 38% Need to continue weekly collection 54% 48% 52% 48% 64% 50% 48% 60% 50% 53% 60% 51% 62% Page 268 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 35 2.4.2 Impact of every-other-week collection Q36 – If Niagara Region collected garbage bags every-other-week, but collected your Blue/Grey Boxes and Green Bins every week, what would be the impact on your household? (Full Sample) Figure 2.4.1a – Impact of Every Other Week garbage collection (Telephone) In the telephone survey, just under half of residents (48%) feel there would be at least “some” impact on their household if Niagara Region switched to every-other- week garbage collection (while continuing to collect blue/grey boxes and green bins weekly). A slight majority (52%) feel there would be little to no impact to their household. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those in households of three or more (62%) are more likely to say there would be a big/some impact, compared to households of two people (40%) and single person households (33%). Those 18-44 years (59%) are more likely to say there would be a big/some impact, compared to those 45-64 years (48%) and those 18-44 years (41%). Those using diapers (70%) are more likely to say there will be an impact, compared to households with no diapers (47%). A big impact 27% Some impact 21% Might or might not be an impact 7% Not much of an impact 19% No impact 26% Impact of Every Other Week garbage collection (Telephone, n=1,253)Page 269 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 36 Those using 7+ garbage bag tags per year (76%) are more likely to say there will be an impact, compared to those using 1-6 garbage tags (55%) and those not using garbage tags (41%). Those not participating in the green bin/organics collection are more likely to say there will be an impact (57%) than those who are participating (45%). Figure 2.4.1b – Impact of Every Other Week garbage collection Niagara Region Hamilton4 Waterloo Region5 Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) Telephone (n=800) Online (n=1,468) Telephone (n=511) Online (n=7,087) A big impact 27% 37% 34% 44% 25% 18% Some impact 21% 21% 20% 19% 29% 24% Might or might not be an impact 7% 9% 6% 8% 7% 10% Not much of an impact 19% 17% 18% 13% 22% 24% No impact 26% 16% 22% 16% 17% 24% Impact Ratio (Big/Some vs. Not much/no impact) +3 +25 +14 +34 +15 -6 While 48% of Niagara region resident indicate every-other-week collection would have some impact on their household, these numbers are lower than the 54% of residents in Hamilton and Waterloo Region who indicated there would be an impact on their household. 4 City of Hamilton Waste Management Services Public Engagement Survey – Metroline Research Group, 2016 5 Region of Waterloo Waste Survey, Metroline Research Group Inc., 2014 Page 270 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 37 Figure 2.4.1c – Impact of Every Other Week garbage collection by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln A big impact 27% 19% 32% 16% 38% 15% 18% 27% 25% 26% 31% 28% 35% Some impact 21% 23% 19% 23% 19% 31% 23% 24% 20% 26% 23% 20% 16% Might or might not be an impact 7% 13% -- 5% 7% 9% 4% 5% 8% 7% 3% 8% 10% Not much of an impact 19% 14% 21% 21% 22% 15% 16% 23% 19% 23% 13% 18% 18% No impact 26% 31% 28% 35% 14% 30% 39% 21% 28% 18% 30% 26% 21% Impact Ratio +3 Page 271 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 38 2.4.3 Why is there an impact Q37 – Why do you say that? (Base - Asked of those who say there would be a big/some impact) Figure 2.4.3a – Why big/some impact of EOW collection? (Telephone) Those who feel there would be a “big impact” or “some impact” were asked for the primary reasons why (unaided, this list was not provided). The biggest barrier is the smell, especially in the summer time (63%), significantly higher than all other mentions. Keeping animals out of the garbage was the second barrier, at 39%. Finding space to store the garbage for the extra week was third, at 35%. “The stench would be absolutely sickening in the summer, and it would also be a big draw for flies and rats and we are overrun with them already - both of which could be a health issue. Instead of punishing those of us that recycle and try to keep garbage at a minimum try increasing the cost of the bag tags substantially - if the price is high enough they'll learn to recycle…” “We produce a full green bin and full garbage every week for a family of 4. Bi-weekly garbage would result in us having 2 bags of garbage bi-weekly. We do not have storage space for this extra bag. We already have a mice problem in our neighbourhood and we are concerned that it would increase if we are keeping bags of garbage for longer. Our garbage contains soiled diapers and holding them longer would greatly increase odour issues…” “Where am I supposed to keep this garbage for an extra week. If I leave it outside animals will get it, if I leave it in my house it will smell and I will have flies in my house…” 63% 39% 35% 23% 22% 12% 7% 6% 3% 3% 3% Smell Animals Storage Insects Messy Health concern Diapers Scheduling/remembering Too much garbage to wait Pet waste Don't know Why big/some impact from EOW collection? (Telephone, n=603)Page 272 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 39 2.5 Making A Choice Q38 - If you had to choose between mandatory use of clear garbage bags, every-other-week garbage collection, or the use of both, which would you choose? (Full Sample) Figure 2.5a – Choice between EOW collection and/or clear garbage bags by survey type In the telephone survey, residents could not see the option for “neither”, and our interviewers worked to force a choice from the other three. In the online survey, this was visible after the first day or two of fieldwork, and as a result was selected more often. In the telephone survey, between the two, there was a slight preference for clear garbage bags over every-other-week, but not dramatically so. In the online survey, residents who made a choice decided on every-other-week collection over clear bags by a margin of about 2:1. Figure 2.5b – Choice between EOW collection and/or clear garbage bags by municipality Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) Clear garbage bags 33% 17% EOW garbage collection 27% 33% Both clear garbage bags and EOW garbage collection 21% 12% Neither ** 19% 38% Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Clear garbage bags 33% 26% 33% 31% 37% 36% 26% 40% 33% 31% 33% 36% 37% EOW garbage collection 27% 31% 24% 33% 22% 22% 34% 21% 30% 42% 21% 20% 20% Both clear garbage bags and EOW garbage collection 21% 25% 24% 20% 13% 30% 19% 24% 20% 16% 19% 25% 22% Neither 19% 18% 19% 16% 28% 12% 21% 15% 17% 11% 27% 19% 21% Page 273 of 450 1 Public Works Committee Meeting January 8, 2019 (Excerpt from Minutes 1-2019) 6. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 6.1 PW 3-2019 Proposed Base Services for Next Collection Contract Catherine Habermebl, Acting Commissioner, Public Works, and David Kain s, Metroline Research Group, provided information respecting Proposed Base Services for Next Collection Contract. Topics of the presentation included: • Proposed Collection Service Options (background, rationale) • Results and key insights of the targeted and broad stakeholder consultations • The research methodology for conducting the stakeholder consultations • Base Garbage Collection Service Options • Stakeholder Consultation • Recommendations A copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes. Moved by Councillor Sendzik Seconded by Councillor Steele That Report PW 3-2019, dated January 8, 2019, respecting Proposed Base Services for Next Collection Contract, BE RECEIVED for information and the following recommendations BE APPROVED: 1. That, based on the results of the stakeholder engagement process, the Request for Proposals for Niagara Region’s next garbage, recycling and organics collection RFP BE APPROVED to be issued with the following, subject to final comments from Local Area Municipalities: a. Pricing for the following garbage collection frequency options: i. Every-other-week (EOW) garbage collection for all residential properties and for those Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed-Use (MU) properties located outside Designated Business Areas (DBAs), as a base service (weekly recycling and organics to continue, and current garbage container (bag/can) limits would double for affected sectors, on an EOW basis), and, ii. Status quo – weekly base garbage collection service. b. Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at Low-Density Residential (LDR) properties, as a base service; c. Pricing for the continuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service. Page 274 of 450 2 d. Change the weekly garbage container (bag/can) limits for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed-Use (MU) properties located inside Designated Business Areas (DBAs) from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service; e. Change the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base se rvice; 2. That Report PW 3-2019 and Council’s resolutions, along with the Metroline stakeholder consultation report, when finalized, BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities, for their review, and comments to be provided by February 1, 2019 or no later than February 20, 2019; and, 3. That staff BE DIRECTED to provide a follow-up report on the position of the Local Area Municipalities on the base and enhanced services to be included in the next garbage, recycling and organics collection contract Request for Proposals. The following friendly amendment was accepted by the Committee Chair, and the mover and seconder of the motion to add clause 1(f) as follows: f. Mandatory use of clear garbage bags for garbage collection. Moved by Councillor Foster Seconded by Councillor Nicholson That clause 1(c) BE AMENDED to read as follows: c. Discontinuation and continuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service. Carried The Committee Chair called the vote on the motion, as amended, as follows: That Report PW 3-2019, dated January 8, 2019, respecting Proposed Base Services for Next Collection Contract, BE RECEIVED for information and the following recommendations BE APPROVED: 1. That, based on the results of the stakeholder engagement process, the Request for Proposals for Niagara Region’s next garbage, recycling and organics collection RFP BE APPROVED to be issued with the following, subject to final comments from Local Area Municipalities: a. Pricing for the following garbage collection frequency options: i. Every-other-week (EOW) garbage collection for all residential properties and for those Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed-Use (MU) properties located outside Designated Business Areas (DBAs), as a base service (weekly recycling and organics to continue, and current garbage container (bag/can) limits would double for affected sectors, on an EOW basis), and, ii. Status quo – weekly base garbage collection service. Page 275 of 450 3 b. Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at Low-Density Residential (LDR) properties, as a base service; c. Discontinuation and continuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service; d. Change the weekly garbage container (bag/can) limits for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed-Use (MU) properties located inside Designated Business Areas (DBAs) from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service; e. Change the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs fr om six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service; f. Mandatory use of clear garbage bags for garbage collection; 2. That Report PW 3-2019 and Council’s resolutions, along with the Metroline stakeholder consultation report, when finalized, BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities, for their review, and comments to be provided by February 1, 2019 or no later than February 20, 2019; and, 3. That staff BE DIRECTED to provide a follow-up report on the position of the Local Area Municipalities on the base and enhanced services to be included in the next garbage, recycling and organics collection contract Request for Proposals. Carried Page 276 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 1 Subject: Proposed Base Services for Next Collection Contract Report to: Public Works Committee Report date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 Recommendations 1. That, based on the results of the stakeholder engagement process, the Request for Proposals for Niagara Region’s next garbage, recycling and organics collection RFP BE APPROVED to be issued with the following, subject to final comments from Local Area Municipalities: a) Pricing for the following garbage collection frequency options: i) Every-other-week (EOW) garbage collection for all residential properties and for those Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed -Use (MU) properties located outside Designated Business Areas (DBAs), as a base service (weekly recycling and organics to continue, and current garbage container (bag/can) limits would double for affected sectors, on an EOW basis), and ii) Status quo – weekly base garbage collection service. b) Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at Low-Density Residential (LDR) properties, as a base service. c) Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service. d) Change the weekly garbage container (bag/can) limits for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed-Use (MU) properties located inside Designated Business Areas (DBAs) from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service. e) Change the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service. 2. That Report PW 3-2019 and Council’s resolutions, along with the Metroline stakeholder consultation report, when finalized, BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities, for their review, and comments to be provided by February 1, 2019 or no later than February 20, 2019; and, Page 277 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ 3. That staff BE DIRECTED to provide a follow-up report on the position of the Local Area Municipalities on the base and enhanced services to be included in the next garbage, recycling and organics collection contract Request for Proposals. Key Facts Niagara Region’s next garbage, recycling and organics collection contract is set to begin by March 8, 2021. The preparation for the next collection contract provides an opportunity to complete a service delivery review to improve program effectiveness (i.e. increase diversion of waste from disposal) and efficiencies (i.e. mechanisms to reduce costs and changes to service to reflect usage). On April 12, 2018, Regional Council approved WMPSC-C 9-2018, which identified the proposed base collection services options to be included in the stakeholder consultation and engagement process. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of the proposed base collection services being recommended for inclusion in Niagara Region’s next collection RFP, based on the results of input received during the stakeholder consultation and engagement phase, subject to further input from Local Area Municipalities (LAMs). Niagara Region is consulting with LAMs on the proposed base collection service changes and to confirm which enhanced collection services they would like included in the next collection RFP. Financial Considerations It is estimated that without any changes to the existing collection service levels to be provided in Niagara Region’s next contract, the annual contract cost could be greater than $25 million in 2021. This is based on an average of the bids received for the current collection contract, plus annual escalation of 1.9%. Factors such as, but not limited to, the increase in minimum wage and driver shortages will more than likely impact pricing. The primary financial implications of implementing the proposed recommendations include: Final consideration of inclusion of EOW garbage collection in the next collection contract would occur after pricing is received for this option. As a point of reference: - In response to Niagara Region’s last collection contract RFP, excluding one submission anomaly, on average bidders priced a cost reduction of approximately $1.2 million annually for EOW garbage collection. - Region of Waterloo’s implementation of EOW garbage collection in their 2017 contract resulted in an annual contract savings of approximately $1.5 million. Page 278 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ Elimination of Niagara Region’s annual contract cost to provide appliance and scrap metal curbside collection, which currently is approximately $130,000. Incremental cost avoidance for the proposed weekly large item and garbage container limit changes, which would likely be offset by incremental increases in the organics and recycling collection costs, based on anticipated increased participation in diversion programs. Extended site life for open Regional landfills, and more revenue generating capacity from the reduction of divertible materials being landfilled by residents and other service users who are participating in the curbside recycling and organics collection programs. Cost avoidance/cost reduction in the landfill contract with Walker Environmental due to an increase in the diversion of waste from disposal. Increased tonnages of food and organic waste collected at the curb from improved participation and capture rates would result in increased processing contract costs, unless the tonnages are offset by food waste avoidance and other reduction initiatives. Reduced methane emissions due to the reduction of organics being landfilled will result in less leachate generated, thereby reducing costs associated with care and control of these landfill sites. Analysis A) BACKGROUND Current Collection Contracts: Niagara Region’s current collection contracts with Halton Recycling Ltd., doing business as Emterra Environmental, and Waste Connections of Canada Inc. expire March 7, 2021. Niagara Region recently awarded a new collection contract for the municipalities of Lincoln and West Lincoln to Canadian Waste Management Inc. from January 2, 2019 until March 7, 2021. These contracts include provision of base and enhanced collection services, which are defined as follows: i) Base Collection Services Niagara Region currently provides base collection services (i.e. weekly garbage, recycling, and organics) to all property types, including IC&I and MU properties located inside and outside DBAs, in all 12 Local Area Municipalities (LAM). Each LAM pays a proportional share of this cost, based on their total household units, as a percen tage of the Region’s total household units. Appendix 1 provides a comparison of the current vs. proposed base collection services for each property type. Page 279 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 4 ii) Enhanced Collection Services Niagara Region also provides enhanced collection services (i.e. street litter, front-end garbage, additional garbage container limits, increased garbage or recycling collection frequency, etc.), at the request of each LAM. Each LAM directly pays for the cost associated with providing their enhanced collection services. Each LAM was requested to verify which enhanced collection services they would like included as part of Niagara Region’s next collection RFP. Appendix 2 provides a detailed comparison of the current vs. previous enhanced collection services provided in each LAM. Current Residential Diversion Rate: Over the past seven years, Niagara Region’s residential diversion rate has increased from 42% (2010) to 56% (2017), however this rate may be plateauing. In preparation for the next contract, Niagara Region is investigating options to increase participation in the recycling and organics diversion programs, such as EOW garbage collection and mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Experience in other Ontario jurisdictions demonstrates that EOW garbage collection is an effective mechanism to increase diversion. It is a best practice in Ontario and the highest residential diversion rate primarily attributable to EOW was in York Region (66% in 2016). While Niagara has achieved its 2016 residential diversion target of 56%, additional mechanisms are needed to achieve the 2020 target of 65%. These mechanisms also include improved recognition of waste reduction and reuse efforts, which traditionally are more difficult to measure. Estimated Landfill Capacity: At the time of this report, approval for the Humberstone Landfill expansion is expected to be finalized before the end of 2018. This landfill expansion will provide capacity for an estimated 25 years or more, based on serving the southern Niagara municipalities. The current remaining capacity at the Niagara Road 12 Landfill is 48 years, based on serving the municipalities of Pelham, Grimsby, Lincoln and West Lincoln. Niagara Region’s current disposal contract with Walker Environmental for the remaining Niagara municipalities ends in February 2031, or just over 12 years. In order to ensure long term disposal capacity is available, Niagara Region staff are: i) Initiating the RFP for the Long Term Waste Management Strategic Plan in 2019- 2020. ii) Participating in the Municipal Mixed Waste Processing (MWP) Working Group, which has the objective to “identify collaboration opportunities and specific information needs, actions and timelines, in order to determine the feasibility of jointly implementing waste management policies, programs and/or facilities”, which includes alternative technology facilities. iii) Continuing to engage other neighbouring municipalities in discussions related to available capacity at their current/future alternative waste management technology Page 280 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ facilities and future needs that could be addressed by partnering on alternative technologies. B) PROPOSED BASE COLLECTION OPTIONS The following proposed base collection options were included as part of the stakeholder consultation and engagement phase for Niagara Region’s next collection contract: 1) Change the weekly garbage container (bag/can) limits for IC&I and MU properties located inside DBAs from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property. 2) Change the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property. 3) Every-other-week (EOW) collection for garbage only (weekly recycling and organics to continue) for all sectors outside DBAs: Current garbage container limits would double for all sectors (i.e. LDR properties would be allowed to set out two (2) garbage containers, on an EOW basis). and/or 4) Mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, with the option of allowing an opaque privacy bag to be placed inside the clear bag: The clear bag program will be for all sectors (both inside and outside DBAs). 5) Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at LDR properties, and, if requested by LAMs, as an enhanced collection service at eligible Multi-Residential (MR) and MU properties. 6) Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal collection at LDR properties. Rationale for Proposed Base Collection Options: The following rationale was taken into consideration when determining which collection options were recommended for consultation: 1) Increasing participation and capture rates in the Region’s recycling and organics diversion programs and extending existing landfill site capacity; Nearly 50% of low density residential garbage is organic waste and only 48% use the residential Green Bin program; IC&I and MU audits show diversion programs underutilized. 2) Benchmarking collection services, based on the best practices and/or major trends observed from the service levels provided at Niagara’s 13 municipal comparators that would result in financial, environmental and/or social benefit e.g. contract cost avoidance and increased diversion though the implementation of EOW garbage collection. 3) Reflecting actual service usage based on results of curbside audits and other collection monitoring/measurements and contract cost avoidance for services with limited usage: 99% of properties using the large item service set out 4 items or less and 92% of the total bookings were for 4 or less items. Appliances and scrap metal: – Tonnages have decreased by 94% since 2007; Page 281 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ – Items can be recycled, at no cost, at the Region’s Drop-off Depots, or by scrap metal haulers/dealers; – Only 6% of properties are using the service. 4) Standardizing base garbage collection limits across similar sectors to improve service delivery and program communication, increase participation and capture rates in diversion programs, potentially avoid contract costs for a service level which is not needed and reduce contract complexity – this specifically includes consistent base garbage collection container (bag/can) limits for the IC&I and MU sectors inside and outside DBAs; Average number of garbage containers placed out per week: – IC&I properties inside DBAs was 2.1; – MU properties inside DBAs was 2.0; – MU properties outside the DBA is 2.4. Proposed four (4) garbage container limit should meet the set-out needs of the IC&I and MU properties, based on these audit results, particularly if diversion services are utilized. IC&I properties outside DBAs already have a base four (4) garbage container limit in place. The associated rationale for each proposed base collection option and the curbside set- out audit data for the IC&I and MU sectors are included in more detail in Appendix 3. C) STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT PHASE The stakeholder consultation and engagement phase was referred to as “Let’s Talk Waste Niagara”. Stakeholder consultation and engagement began in May 2018 and was carried out in two phases: 1) Targeted Stakeholder Consultation 2) Broad-based Community Consultation 1) Targeted Stakeholder Consultation: Various stakeholder groups were targeted for consultation to provide input on the proposed collection options being considered for Niagara Region’s next contract. These stakeholder groups included: a) Regional Departments and Agencies, Boards and Commissions (ABCs) (i.e. Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services Department, Niagara Regional Housing, and Niagara Region’s Economic Development); b) Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC); c) Organizations Representing Businesses (i.e. Business Improvement Associations, Chambers of Commerce, Niagara Tourism Agencies, and Niagara Industrial Association); d) LAMs (i.e. municipal staff and Councillors). Page 282 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ The formal input on the proposed collection options was received from the following targeted stakeholder groups: a) Regional Departments and ABCs: i) Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services: Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services noted the proposed options align with and support policy 4.2.9.1 d) i) of the Growth Plan, which relates to waste management. Staff also reviewed the proposed container limit changes pertaining to MU properties inside and outside DBAs, to ensure alignment with broader Corporate initiatives, including the objectives of Growth Management policies. Based upon their review, it was anticipated that smaller MU developments would not be affected by the proposed change in container limits. ii) Niagara Regional Housing: Niagara Regional Housing reviewed the relevant proposed collection options and indicated they would not be in support of EOW garbage collection, or mandatory use of clear bags for garbage at their properties. iii) Niagara Region’s Economic Development: Niagara Region’s Economic Development indicated that their work generally revolves around larger industrial companies, which would not use the Region’s curbside garbage collection service, and would not be impacted by the proposed collection options. b) Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) A meeting was held with members of the WMAC on November 21, 2018 to discuss the proposed collection options and obtain their formal comments. The WMAC members voted all in favour or majority in favour of all of the proposed collection options. c) Organizations Representing Businesses (ORBs): Meetings were held with representatives from each of Niagara’s local Business Improvement Associations (including LAM staff), Chambers of Commerce, Niagara Tourism Agencies, Niagara Economic Development Corporation, and Niagara Industrial Association, during the months of July, August and September. The dates of these meetings can be found in Appendix 5. Page 283 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________ The purpose of these meetings was to: Discuss the proposed collection options; Obtain their preliminary input on these options; Obtain their input on how to further engage their members; and, Request their formal comments on the proposed collection options by November 30, 2018. The following ORBs provided formal comments on the proposed collection options for the next contract: Queen Street BIA, Niagara Falls Victoria Centre BIA, Niagara Falls St. Catharines Downtown Business Association Port Dalhousie Business Association Grimsby Downtown Improvement Association Pelham Business Association A copy of the ORB’s comments were provided to the respective LAM, for their consideration, and are included in Appendix 4. Based on the comments received, there was limited support for the mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, or the reduction in the garbage container limits for IC&I and MU properties inside the DBAs. d) Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) Correspondence on the proposed collection options and enhanced collection services was sent to LAM Clerks and Public Works Officials (PWO) in May 2018, for their review and comment. Niagara Region made presentations on the proposed collection options at several PWO meetings during 2018. In addition, Region staff offered to attend LAM Committee or Council meetings to make a presentation. As of December 19, Region staff were requested to present at the following LAM Committee or Council meetings: Grimsby Council (December 17, 2018) Niagara-on-the-Lake Council (January 7, 2019) Lincoln Council (January 14, 2019) Niagara Falls Council (January 15, 2019) Fort Erie Council (January 21, 2019) West Lincoln Council (January 21, 2019) Welland General Committee (January 22, 2019) Town of Grimsby Town of Grimsby Council, at its December 17, 2018 meeting, approved the eight recommendations, which were included in Report DPW18-42: Page 284 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________ 1) Implement EOW garbage collection for all residential properties and for those IC&I and MU properties located outside the Grimsby DIA area, as a base service. 2) Do not implement clear garbage bags. 3) Establish a four-item limit for large item collection, per residential unit. 4) Provide large-item collection at MR buildings with 7 or more residential units and MU properties with 1 or more residential unit. 5) Discontinue appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties. 6) Reduce the number of garbage bags/containers for IC&I and MU properties inside the DIA area from 7 to 4 per week, as a base service. 7) The Town’s enhanced service and extra payment for collection inside the Grimsby DIA area remain at two collection days per week but changed to Tuesdays and Fridays and that the number of garbage bags/containers be reduced from 12 per pick-up day to 6 per pick-up day (12 per week), resulting in the Town’s Enhanced service payment being reduced from 17 bags/containers per week to 8. 8) The number of garbage bags/containers for MU properties outside the Grimsby DIA area be reduced from 6 to 4 per week, or 8 containers under EOW garbage collection, as a base service. Formal comments from the remaining LAMs on the proposed base collection options and which enhanced services are to be included in Niagara Region’s next contract are requested by February 1, 2019 or no later than February 20, 2019. 2) Broad-based Community Consultation: In addition to targeted stakeholder consultation, a broad-based community consultation was undertaken with the following stakeholder groups: LDR households; MR property owners, groups and associations (i.e. property management companies); IC&I and MU property owners This broad-based community consultation included the following activities and approaches: a) Promotion & Outreach; b) Surveys; c) Public Open Houses and Community Booths; d) Social Media; and e) Waste Management Info-Line and Website. a) Promotion & Outreach: The following mediums were used during the last week of October and the entire month of November to promote community consultation on the proposed collection options: (i) Niagara Region’s Website Page 285 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 10 ______________________________________________________________________ (ii) Social Media (i.e. Facebook paid ads and posts and Twitter posts) wi th a link to the “Let’s Talk Waste” webpage; (iii) Letters sent to IC&I, MU and MR properties, which use Region’s curbside garbage; (iv) Newspaper Advertisements (i.e. print and on-line); (v) Media Coverage (i.e. Cogeco YourTV, 610 CKTB, newspaper articles); (vi) Postcards (Regional and Municipal offices) Details on each of the various promotional mediums can be found in Appendix 5. b) Surveys: A Request for Proposal was awarded to Metroline Research Group to undertake quantitative research to determine whether there was sufficient support for recommending the proposed collection options. The following surveys were completed: (i) On-line surveys were completed by 6,639 LDR households, 38 MR and 166 IC&I and MU properties (86 outside DBAs and 80 inside DBAs); (ii) Telephone survey of 1,253 LDR households; Based on preliminary results, as of December 17, 2018, strong support for the following options occurred: Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at LDR properties, as a base service. Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service. However, no clear LDR support for EOW garbage collection or mandatory use of clear garbage bags was demonstrated in the survey results: LDR households were roughly split on supporting EOW garbage collection with slightly more leaning towards continuing their weekly collection . Opposition to the mandatory use of clear garbage bags was apparent, particularly from the on-line survey (73% of LDR households opposed). In order to determine the order of preference for clear garbage bags versus EOW garbage collection (or both), all survey respondents were asked to make a program choice. The below table highlights the results from all stakeholder groups, with the exception of IC&I and MU inside DBAs who would not receive EOW garbage collection, and in many cases receive enhanced services. LDR MR IC&I and MU Outside DBAs Telephone On-line On-line On-line Clear Bag 33% 17% 29% 36% EOW 27% 33% 13% 15% Page 286 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________ LDR MR IC&I and MU Outside DBAs Both Clear Bag and EOW 21% 12% 18% 7% Neither1 19% 38% 40% 42% 1. In the telephone survey, LDR households could not see the option of ‘neither’ and the interviewer worked to obtain a choice, which is why this option has a much lower response than in the on-line surveys. In the case of the IC&I and MU sectors: Majority of those property owners (58% of 43 respondents) receiving base garbage collection inside the DBAs indicated they can manage if the container limit is reduced from seven (7) containers to four (4); Majority of those property owners (65% of 43 IC&I respondents and 74% of 35 MU respondents) outside the DBAs support continuing the current level of service. A more detailed description of results is provided below. (i) On-line Surveys: On-line surveys were developed to obtain formal input from various stakeholder groups (i.e. LDR, MR, IC&I and MU) on the proposed collection options. These on-line surveys were open to all residents and businesses receiving Niagara Region’s curbside garbage collection service. A total of 6,639 on-line surveys were completed by LDR households, 38 on -line surveys by MR households, and 166 on-line surveys by IC&I and MU properties. There were no controls to limit the regions or populations for survey participants. However, Metroline monitored and deleted any duplicate survey submissions. The highlights of the on-line survey results for each sector are included below. LDR: o 43% would be able to manage with EOW garbage collection; o 62% would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage; o 33% would choose the option of EOW garbage collection; 17% clear bags; 12% both EOW and clear bags; and 38% neither option; o 72% would not be impacted with placing a maximum limit of four large items per weekly collection; o 61% would not be impacted with the elimination of curbside collection of appliances/scrap metal MR: o 37% would be able to manage with EOW garbage collection; Page 287 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 12 ______________________________________________________________________ o 42% would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage; o 13% would choose the option of EOW garbage collection; 29% clear bags; 18% both EOW and clear bags; and 40% neither option IC&I and MU Inside DBAs (Base Collection): o 58% could manage if the weekly base container limit was reduced from seven to four containers; o 46% of IC&I and 49% of MU properties would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage IC&I and MU Inside DBAs (Enhanced Collection): o 66% feel they need to maintain their current container limits; o 87% feel they need to continue with their current frequency of collection IC&I and MU Outside DBAs (Base Collection): o 66% of MU properties could manage if the weekly base container limit was reduced from six to four containers; o 35% of IC&I and 26% of MU properties would be able to manage with EOW garbage collection o 38% of IC&I and 63% of MU properties would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage (ii) Telephone Survey: Metroline conducted a random telephone survey of residents living in LDR properties. In total, 1,253 surveys were conducted, which can be considered statistically accurate to within +/-2.8%, 19 times out of 20 (95% Confidence Interval). The sample was divided between the 12 LAMs, with minimum of 75 surveys was completed in each. The highlights of the telephone survey results are included below: LDR: o 46% would be able to manage with EOW garbage collection; o 38% would not support mandatory use of clear bags for garbage; o 27% would choose the option of EOW garbage collection; 33% clear bags; 21% both EOW and clear bags; and 19% neither option; o 89% would not be impacted with placing a maximum limit of four large items per weekly collection; o 75% would not be impacted with the elimination of curbside collection of appliances/scrap metal Additional details on the LDR on-line and telephone survey results can be found in Appendix 8. Page 288 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 13 ______________________________________________________________________ c) Public Open Houses and Community Booths: Niagara Region conducted one public open house and one community booth event in each of Niagara’s 12 LAMs during the month of November. The dates and locations of these events can be found in Appendix 6. The purpose of these events was to engage participants on the proposed collection options and request their input on the proposed collection options through completion of the on-line survey. There were over 500 participants that attended these various events held across the region. The majority of comments received were related to the options for EOW garbage collection and mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Participants attending the community booths and open houses were divided about every-other-week garbage collection. While approximately half of the participants expressed their support, there were some specific concerns that were repeated throughout the consultation process. There was less support for clear bags, with the majority of participants expressing opposition to this option. A minority of the feedback and conversations at these events dealt with the options to introduce a four-item limit on large item collection and the discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection, but of those commenting, there was a high level of support to implement these changes. Appendix 4 provides a summary of the more commonly-repeated concerns raised during these events. d) Social Media: Facebook was the primary social media platform used by stakeholders to comment on the proposed collection options for the next contract. The majority of comments were related to the proposed options for the mandatory use of clear garbage bags and every-other-week garbage collection. Of all the comments documented that were related to every-other-week garbage collection, 22% of comments were in support of this proposed option. For clear garbage bags, 10% of comments related to this option were supportive. Overall, the majority of commenters used this platform as a means of communicating their concerns. The comments posted on the Region’s paid Facebook advertisement were reviewed, categorized and tallied. As of November 30, 2018, there were 1,467 Facebook comments were posted. Appendix 4 provides a summary of the ten most frequently reported concerns, in order of the frequency that they appeared in the comments section. Page 289 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 14 ______________________________________________________________________ e) Comments from Niagara Region’s Waste Management Info-Line and Website: A total of 65 comments/inquiries on the proposed collection options were received and responded to by staff through Niagara Region’s Waste Management Info-Line, Website or by email in either June, October, or November. D) OVERVIEW OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Base Collection Service Changes As a result of the stakeholder engagement and consultation process, the following key recommendations are being made: a) EOW Garbage Collection Based on best practices and experience with EOW garbage collection in Niagara’s municipal comparator group (municipalities with populations greater than 300,000) and the potential for significant cost reduction, it is recommended that this option be included for pricing in the next collection contract RFP, for comparison with weekly garbage collection frequency. Although there was no clear stakeholder support and Niagara Regional Housing expressed opposition to this option, municipalities who have implemented this change note that residents do adapt and increase their diversion efforts, as a result. EOW garbage collection would apply to all residential properties and those Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) and Mixed-Use (MU) properties located outside Designated Business Areas (DBAs), as a base service (weekly recycling and organics to continue, and current garbage container (bag/can) limits would double for affected sectors, on an EOW basis). b) Limit on Large Item Collection Establishment of a four (4) item limit per residential unit, per collection, for large item collection at LDR properties, as a base service is recommended, based on actual usage statistics and responses from a majority of survey respondents. c) Discontinuation of Appliances and Scrap Metal Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal curbside collection at LDR properties, as a base service is recommended based on actual usage statistics and responses from a majority of survey respondents. d) Weekly Base Garbage Container Limits Inside DBAs Changing the weekly garbage container limits for IC&I and MU properties located inside Designated Business Areas (DBAs) from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service, is recommended, based on actual usage statistics and responses from a majority of base service user on-line survey respondents. Although the base garbage container limit would decrease, eligible IC&I and MU properties inside the DBAs have unlimited organics and recycling collection once weekly, but currently Page 290 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 15 ______________________________________________________________________ these diversion programs are underutilized. It should be noted that of the six (6) ORBs that provided formal comment, only one (1) supported this change. e) Weekly Base Garbage Container Limits Outside DBAs Changing the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service, is recommended, based on actual usage statistics and to achieve a standardized base collection service across all similar sectors (in combination with option d) above). This will reduce service and contract complexity and improve program communication across the region. This change is also expected to result in increased diversion efforts, as the current unlimited recycling and organics program for all eligible IC&I and MU properties are currently underutilized. The IC&I sector outside the DBAs has had four (4) container limit per property, as a base service since March 2011. However, it should be noted that out of the 43 MU survey respondents, only one third felt they could manage if this change was made. While the initial list of all proposed options is supported by WMAC and Niagara Region’s Planning and Development Services noted the options align with and support policy 4.2.9.1 d) i) of the Growth Plan, which relates to waste management, one of the options is not recommended for implementation based on the general lack of support from survey respondents. The use of mandatory clear garbage bags will continue to be monitored for potential future implementation but based on existing data from Ontario jurisdictions, EOW garbage collection is expected to have more of a positive financial and diversion performance impact. In order to address the concerns and comments received on the proposed options being recommended for inclusion in the next collection contract, Appendix 7 proposes potential solutions to minimize impact of the change(s) on the service user. This appendix will continue to be developed and expanded, as required. 2. Enhanced Collection Service Changes Niagara Region is requesting that LAMs confirm existing or new enhanced services that should be provided as part of the next collection contract. There are three areas that should be specifically addressed: a) In those LAMS that provide enhanced garbage collection service to DBAs, Regional staff have been engaged in discussions with Local Public Works Officials on one or more of the following proposals for the IC&I and MU sectors, based on usage of current garbage collection service and underutilization of the diversion programs: Reducing DBA garbage container limits; Reducing frequency of DBA garbage collection; and Increasing recycling and/or organics collection service to align with frequency of garbage collection. Page 291 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 16 ______________________________________________________________________ b) Provision of enhanced bulky goods collection to those households in MR buildings with seven (7) or more residential units (garbage limit of a maximum of 12 containers per week with no tags) and MU properties with one (1) or more residential unit (garbage limit of a maximum of seven (7) containers per week outside the DBA and a maximum of six (6) containers per week inside the DBA), that receive the Region’s curbside base garbage collection and/or to those MR building receiving enhanced Regional containerized front end garbage collection service: These properties must be participating in the Region’s diversion programs (i.e. recycling and organics) in order to qualify to receive this service. This service would be provided in a manner that is parallel to the approved service for the LDR sector. c) Verification if any municipality would like to include a per stop price for in -ground public space recycling and litter bins and/or for in-ground IC&I, MR and/or MU properties (all streams), as an enhanced service under provisional items. 3. Contract Service Improvements As outlined in Report WMPSC-C 9-2018, staff will be pursuing the following service improvements in the next collection contract RFP: a) Potential changes to how the Region collects leaf and yard waste (L&YW) and brush at LDR households, which would be a seamless change to residents: In addition to the current service level, the Region would obtain pricing to provide an additional four weeks of dedicated L&YW and branch collection in the spring and the fall seasons, in the urban areas only, or potentially expanding a dedicated L&YW and brush collection to approximately ten (10) months of the year in urban areas; This change would result in lower organics processing costs by separating L&YW material from green bin material, thereby removing this material from the GORE system; This change would result in increased organics collection costs associated with providing these additional L&YW and branch collection service; Staff will need to complete a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the organics processing cost savings outweigh the increased collection costs before determining whether to proceed with these changes. b) Elimination of a current restriction that impacts IC&I properties with private garbage collection. Currently, these properties, which would otherwise have been eligible to receive curbside garbage collection, are restricted from using this service. These properties must be participating in the Region’s diversion programs (i.e. recycling and organics), in order to qualify to receive the curbside garbage collection service. Page 292 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 17 ______________________________________________________________________ E) NEXT STEPS The Region is requesting receipt of the following from LAMs by February 1, 2019 or no later than Feb 20, 2019: Comments/position on proposed base collection service options ; Verification of current or additional enhanced services - this would include: - Services to IC&I and MU properties inside DBAs; - Provision of enhanced large item collection service to MR and MU residential units, in a manner parallel to the service provided to the LDR sector (i.e. if LDR has a 4 item limit per unit per collection day, this would also apply to MR and MU residential units); - Inclusion of a per stop price for in-ground public space recycling and litter bins and/or for in-ground IC&I, MR and/or MU properties (all streams), as an enhanced service under provisional items. The milestones for the collection contract RFP development are outlined below: Report to Public Works Committee (PWC) and Council on results of stakeholder consultation and engagement (PWC January 8, 2019 and Council January 17, 2019); Receipt of each LAM’s position on base and enhanced services (no later than February 20, 2019); Council approval of service levels to be included and RFP development initiated (Q2 to Q3 2019); RFP issuance (early Q4 2019); Award of new collection contract (Q1 2020); One year for successful bidders to order/receive their fleet of collection vehicles (Q1 2020 to Q1 2021); Start of new contract (March 8, 2021). Alternatives Reviewed Niagara Region investigated the option of switching over to cart-based collection for the next collection contract. Under the Province’s Environmental Plan, waste diversion programs, such as the Blue Box Program, may be moving to the producer responsibility model. As a result, Niagara Region would no longer be responsible for providing collection and processing of Blue Box materials. This would be the responsibili ty of the Blue Box industry stewards. Therefore, at this time, staff did not believe implementing major program changes was advisable. Also, based on the experiences of other municipalities that implemented a cart-based collection program, this option was not recommended for further consideration for the following reasons: 1) Significant capital costs to purchase and distribute the carts Page 293 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 18 ______________________________________________________________________ 2) On-going annual maintenance and replacement costs associated with the carts 3) Higher contamination rates of the recycling and organics streams associated with the use of carts. As a result, there would be a decrease in the Region’s revenues and difficulty with marketing the recyclables. 4) Additional costs associated with retrofitting Niagara Region’s Materials Recycling Facility from the current two-stream operation to a single-stream operation, if all recyclables are collected in one cart. Based on the results received during the stakeholder consultation and engagement phase, the following proposed collection option is not being recommended for implementation, as part of Niagara Region’s next collection contract: 1) Mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, with the option of allowing an opaque privacy bag to be placed inside the clear bag Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities The recommendation to approve the proposed base collection services for Niagara Region’s next collection contract supports Council’s Strategic Priority of Investment, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Other Pertinent Reports CWCD 357-2018 Let’s Talk Waste Niagara – Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Activities for the Proposed Waste Collection Options CWCD 216-2018 Fact Sheet – Consultation and Engagement Strategy for Proposed Service Level Collection Options Under Consultation WMPSC-C 9-2018 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement on Proposed Collection Service Changes for Next Collection Contract WMPSC-C 34-2017 Schedule for the Next Regional Waste, Recycling and Organics Collection Contract PW 42-2014 A Matter of the Security of the Property of the Municipality – Bulky/ White Goods Collection Service for Multi-Residential and Mixed-Use Properties WMPSC-C 44-2013 Bulky/White Goods Collection Service for Multi-Residential and Mixed-Use Properties WMPSC-C 2-2013 Large Item Collection Service for Multi-Residential Buildings and Mixed-Use Properties PW 47-2012 Consultation Results on Proposed Clear Bag Pilot for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Properties WMPSC 24-2011 Clear Bag for Garbage Pilot for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Properties Page 294 of 450 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 19 ______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Prepared by: Brad Whitelaw, BA, CIM, P.Mgr, CAPM Program Manager, Policy & Planning Waste Management Services ________________________________ Recommended by: Catherine Habermebl Acting Commissioner Public Works ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Acting Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Susan McPetrie, Waste Management Services Advisor and reviewed by Sara Mota, Program Financial Specialist, and Catherine Habermebl, Director, Waste Management Services. Appendices Appendix 1 - Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Base Collection Services Page 20 Appendix 2 - Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Page 24 Appendix 3 - Rationale for Proposed Collection Options for Next Contract Page 29 Appendix 4 - Stakeholder Comments on Proposed Base Collection Options Page 46 Appendix 5 - Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Process Page 55 Appendix 6 - Summary of Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Events Page 63 Appendix 7 - Addressing Concerns Related to Proposed Collection Options Page 64 Appendix 8 – LDR Telephone and On-line Survey Results Page 67 Page 295 of 450 Appendix 1 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 20 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 1 - Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Base Collection Services Property Type Current Base Collection Service Level Proposed Base Collection Service Level Low-Density Residential (1 to 6 units): single-family, townhouse, semi- detached, duplex, triplex, fourplex, fiveplex, sixplex, cottages • Weekly garbage, 1 bag/can limit per residential unit • Every-other-week garbage, 2 bag/can limit per residential unit, and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins • Large items, with no limit per collection, per residential unit • Large items, with 4 item limit per collection, per residential unit • Appliances and scrap metal, with no limit per collection, per residential unit • No appliances and scrap metal collection • Weekly Leaf & Yard Waste (L&YW) and 8 brush collections per year • Weekly L&YW and 8 brush collections per year • Additional 4 weeks of dedicated L&YW and brush collections in the spring and the fall seasons, in urban areas only Multi-Residential (7 or more units): • apartments, cottages, condominiums and rentals, nursing and retirement homes, mixed- use, rooming/ boarding houses • Weekly garbage, 1 bag/can limit per residential unit, maximum 12 bags per building • Every-other-week garbage, 2 bag/can limit per residential unit, maximum 24 bags per building and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins or Green Carts (by request) • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins or Green Carts (by request) Page 296 of 450 Appendix 1 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 21 ______________________________________________________________________ Property Type Current Base Collection Service Level Proposed Base Collection Service Level • No large item collection • Provision of large item collection to properties receiving Region’s curbside base or enhanced garbage collection (ELOS provided only) • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection Mixed Use Buildings – Inside DBA • Weekly garbage, maximum 7 bag/can limit per property • Weekly garbage, maximum 4 bag/can limit per property and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins/Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bins/Carts • No large item collection • Provision of large item collection to residential units only, which receive Region’s curbside base or enhanced garbage collection (ELOS provided only) • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection Mixed Use Buildings – Outside DBA • Weekly garbage, maximum 6 bag/can limit per property • Weekly garbage, maximum 4 bag/can limit per property • Every-other-week garbage collection, maximum 8 bag/can limit per property (if container limit decrease approved) and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags Page 297 of 450 Appendix 1 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 22 ______________________________________________________________________ Property Type Current Base Collection Service Level Proposed Base Collection Service Level • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • No large item collection • Provision of large item collection to residential units only, which receive Region’s curbside base or enhanced garbage collection (ELOS provided only) • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection IC&I Properties – Inside DBA • Weekly garbage, maximum 7 bag/can limit per property • Weekly garbage, maximum 4 bag/can limit per property and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • No large item collection • No large item collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection IC&I Properties– Outside DBA • Weekly garbage, maximum 4 bag/can limit per property • Every-other-week garbage, maximum 8 bag/can limit per property and/or • Mandatory use of clear garbage bags • Elimination of restriction on curbside garbage collection for Page 298 of 450 Appendix 1 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 23 ______________________________________________________________________ Property Type Current Base Collection Service Level Proposed Base Collection Service Level IC&I properties receiving private garbage collection • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes or Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • Weekly, unlimited Green Bin/Carts • No large item collection • No large item collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No appliances and scrap metal collection • No L&YW or brush collection • No L&YW or brush collection Page 299 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 24 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract Fort Erie Street Litter Receptacle Collection Once-per-week collection (Jarvis and Ridge Road) Twice-per-week collection (Jarvis St, Ridge Rd and Niagara Blvd. Once-per-week collection (Crystal Beach DBA) Once-per-week collection (Garrison Rd.) Grimsby Street Litter Receptacle Collection Twice-per week collection Three days-per-week collection Once-per-week collection on Windward Dr. Additional Curbside Waste Collection One additional garbage collection day per week in the downtown core Maximum of 12 garbage containers per property per collection day in the downtown core One additional collection day per week in the downtown core Maximum of 12 garbage containers per property per collection day in the downtown core Lincoln Containerized Waste Collection Once-per-week collection Once-per-week collection Weekly (Blue and Grey) Recycling Cart Collection Once-per-week (Monday) Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling collection as part of base collection service Niagara Falls Street Litter Receptacle Collection Seven days-per-week, year- round collection in Mainline business district Chippawa area collected on Thursday by residential truck and Sundays, mid-May to mid- October, as part of Mainline business district Seven days-per-week, year- round collection in Mainline business district Chippawa DBA collected once- per week. One additional day per week collection from mid- May to mid-October Collection once-per-week for street litter receptacles outside the Mainline Page 300 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 25 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract Containerized Waste Collection Once or twice per week (Monday and/or Thursday) Multi-residential buildings with varying collection frequency Additional Curbside Waste Collection All tourist/commercial business (lodging and food outlets only) on the Mainline receive an increase to 20 garbage containers per property, between July 1 to Labour Day All tourist/commercial businesses (lodging and food outlets only) on the Mainline receive an increase from seven to fifteen garbage containers per property, between the Victoria Day weekend and Labour Day Old Corrugated Cardboard Collection Once-per-week collection (over two days-Thursday and Friday) No collection of old corrugated cardboard Special Set-out Collection for Physically-Challenged Residents Set-out and collection service of standard limit garbage, organics and recycling containers Included in base collection services Niagara-on- the-Lake Additional Curbside Waste Collection Two additional garbage collection days per week in the downtown core Maximum of 20 garbage containers per property for each collection day Two additional garbage collection days per week in the downtown core Maximum of 20 garbage containers per property for each collection day Old Corrugated Cardboard Collection Weekly cardboard collection from commercial properties in the Queen Street Commercial Area, two days per week: Monday and Thursday Two days of curbside collection of cardboard from commercial properties in the Queen Street Commercial Area Weekly (Both Streams) Recycling Cart Collection Once-per-week collection Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling collection as part of base collection service Page 301 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 26 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract Pelham Street Litter Receptacle Collection Once-per-week collection Twice-per-week collection Containerized Waste Collection Once-per-week collection Once-per-week collection, with the exception on one property receiving twice-per-week collection Weekly (Both Streams) Recycling Cart Collection Once-per-week collection (Thursday) Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling collection as part of base collection service Special Set-out Collection for Physically-Challenged Residents Set-out and collection service of standard limit garbage, organics and recycling containers Included in base collection services Port Colborne Street Litter Receptacle Collection No street litter receptacle collection There are street litter receptacles (OMG bins) that require separate collection of Grey and/or Blue Box materials. The recycling from the compartmentalized bins are collected separately and at the same frequency as garbage containers Additional Curbside Waste Collection Daily garbage collection at Port Colborne Hospital (Monday- Friday). No container limit. Additional garbage container limits at group homes, schools, Home Hardware No additional curbside waste collection as part of enhanced services Old Corrugated Cardboard Collection Once-per-week collection (Thursday) Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling Page 302 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 27 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract collection as part of base collection service St.Catharines Street Litter Receptacle Collection Seven days-per-week, including all parks, sports facilities and recyclables from OMG bins Four days-per-week collection for Downtown St.Catharines Seven days-per-week, from May 1 to October 31 inclusive, and one (1) day per week, from November 1 to April 30 inclusive in Port Dalhousie Once-per-week collection for all other street litter receptacles located on city streets, in front of schools, in sports facilities, parks, cemeteries, and recreational and community centres Containerized Waste Collection Variable frequency - multi- residential/Downtown IC&I properties and pullout service Variable frequency - multi- residential properties Additional Curbside Waste Collection Six additional collection days per week in the downtown core, over and above the Base Level of Service Three additional collection days per week in the downtown core, over and above the Base Level of Service Maximum of 7 garbage containers per property per collection day in the downtown core Old Corrugated Cardboard Collection Communal front-end cardboard containers shared by businesses in the downtown collection area Weekly (Both Streams) Recycling Cart Collection Once-per-week collection (Monday or Thursday) Every municipality with a Designated Business Area receives weekly recycling collection, as part of base Page 303 of 450 Appendix 2 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 28 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 – Comparison of Current vs. Previous Enhanced Collection Services Municipality 2004-11 Collection Contract 2011-21 Collection Contract collection service Special Set-out Collection for Physically-Challenged Residents Set-out and collection service of standard limit garbage, organics and recycling containers Included in base collection services Thorold Street Litter Receptacle Collection Three days-per-week collection Three days-per-week collection Additional Curbside Waste Collection Two additional collection days per week in the downtown core Two additional collection days per week in the downtown core Additional Blue Box Collection Additional weekly collection of Blue Box recyclables for all commercial properties located within the City of Thorold’s BIA. Additional weekly collection of Blue Box recyclables for all commercial properties located within the City of Thorold’s BIA. Welland Containerized Waste Collection No containerized waste collection Once-per-week collection (condo properties) West Lincoln Containerized Waste Collection Once-per-week collection Once or twice-per-week collection depending on location Additional Curbside Waste Collection No additional curbside waste collection One additional collection day per week in the downtown core Maximum of 7 garbage containers per property per collection day in the downtown core Page 304 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 29 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3 - Rationale for Proposed Collection Service Options for Next Contract Proposed Collection Service Options: 1) Change the weekly garbage container (bag/can) limits for IC&I and MU properties located inside Designated Business Areas (DBA) from seven (7) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service. Pros Cons 1) Fairness & equity: Base Collection Service: based on the 2018 curbside audits: – average # of garbage containers placed out per week by IC&I properties inside DBAs was 2.1. – in 2018, audits were completed in: Grimsby, Welland (Downtown and North End), Port Colborne (Main St. and Downtown), Lincoln (Beamsville and Vineland), Pelham, Thorold, St. Catharines (Downtown and Port Dalhousie), Fort Erie (Ridgeway, Bridgeburg, and Crystal Beach), and Niagara Falls (Queen, Main St., Lundy’s Lane, Clifton Hill and Chippawa) DBAs. based on the 2016 and 2018 curbside audits: – average # of garbage containers placed out per week by MU properties inside DBAs was 2.0. – in 2016, audits were completed in: Fort Erie (Ridgeway, Bridgeburg, and Crystal Beach), Welland (Downtown and North End), and Port Colborne (Main St. and Downtown) DBAs. – in 2018, audits were completed in: Grimsby, Lincoln (Beamsville and Vineland), Pelham, Thorold, St. Catharines (Downtown and Port Dalhousie), and Niagara Falls (Queen, Main St., Lundy’s Lane, Clifton Hill and Chippawa) DBAs. the proposed 4 garbage container limit should meet the set-out needs of the IC&I and MU properties, based on these audit results, particularly if diversion services are 1) Potential illegal dumping: if garbage container limits are decreased, there is potential for businesses and residents to illegally dump items. 2) Potential for increased number of complaints from business owners, MU property owners and residents due to reduced container limit: business owners may potentially complain about this reduction in container limit being provided to their property. Page 305 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 30 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons utilized. the proposed 4 garbage container limit will align with the existing 4 garbage container limit for IC&I properties located outside DBAs, and the proposed limit for IC&I and MU properties located inside DBAs. it will encourage participation in diversion programs, which are under-utilized. Enhanced Collection Service: based on the 2014 garbage set-outs at enhanced IC&I properties: – Grimsby (12 garbage container limit, twice per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 3.6 – West Lincoln (7 garbage container limit, twice per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 2.5 – Thorold (7 garbage container limit, three times per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 4.5 based on the 2015 garbage set-outs at enhanced Niagara Falls IC&I and MU properties: – Main Street, Lundy’s Lane and Queen Street DBAs – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 5.2 (IC&I) and 2.9 (MU) – audits were completed during the summer months, when the 15 garbage container limit was in effect for food and lodging outlets (1 collection per week). It is a 7 garbage container limit elsewhere, once/week. based on the 2018 garbage set-outs at enhanced IC&I and/or MU properties: – Grimsby (12 garbage container limit, twice per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 1.6 (MU) – West Lincoln (7 garbage container limit, twice per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 1.7 (MU) Page 306 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 31 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons – Thorold (7 garbage container limit, three times per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 1.9 (MU) – NotL (20 garbage container limit, three times per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 6.0 (IC&I) and 6.8 (MU) – St. Catharines (7 garbage container limit, four times per week) – average # of garbage containers placed out per set-out: 2.7 (IC&I) and 1.5 (MU) 2) Change the weekly garbage container limit for MU properties located outside DBAs from six (6) containers to four (4) containers per property, as a base service. Pros Cons 1) Fairness & equity: Base Collection Service: based on the 2014 curbside audit: – average # of garbage containers placed out per week by MU properties outside DBAs: 2.4 the proposed four (4) container limit would meet the set-out needs of the MU properties, based on these audit results. the proposed four (4) container garbage limit will align with the existing four container garbage limit for IC&I properties located outside DBAs, and the proposed limit for IC&I and MU properties located inside DBAs. it will increase diversion, with less reliance on landfill. 1) Potential illegal dumping: if garbage container limits are decreased, there is potential for businesses and residents to illegally dump items. 2) Potential for increased number of complaints from business owners, due to reduced container limit: business owners, MU property owners and residents may potentially complain about this reduction in container limit being provided to their property. 3) Every-other-week (EOW) collection for garbage only (weekly recycling and organics to continue) for all sectors outside DBAs, as a base service. Current garbage container limits would double for all sectors (i.e. LDR properties would be allowed to set out two (2) garbage containers, on an EOW basis). Pros Cons 1) Municipal best practice/trend: 1) Potential illegal dumping: Page 307 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 32 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons approximately 70% of the municipal comparators (Barrie, Durham, Halton, Markham, Ottawa, Toronto, Vaughan, Peel and Waterloo) provide EOW garbage collection service. Residents have adapted to this change. 2) Increased waste diversion: waste diversion rates increased between 6% (Peel) and 16% (Durham) for these municipal comparators. This depended on whether they introduced other diversion programs (i.e. organics) at the same time as EOW garbage. 3) Potential contract savings: annual contract savings for the municipal comparators ranged between $200,000 (Barrie), Waterloo ($1.5 million), and $12 million (Peel), depending on size of the contract and any other contract changes that were implemented (i.e. EOW, carts, etc.). – However, Peel staff reported a one-time initial cost to implement three stream cart collection of $35 million (based on 325,000 single-family homes), with an estimated annual maintenance and replacement cost of $1 to 3 million. avoided Walker disposal costs, if there is a decrease in the volume of garbage collected. 4) Regional disposal capacity: preservation of existing Regional disposal capacity, if the volume of garbage landfilled decreases. 5) Fairness & equity: based on the 2015-16 waste composition study, Niagara’s LDR properties set out an average of 0.9 garbage containers per if residents/businesses are not provided with weekly garbage collection service, there is potential for them to illegally dump items. 2) Potential increased number of complaints, due to reduction in service: Residents/businesses may complain about this reduction in garbage collection service being provided to their property. Page 308 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 33 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons week. 4) Mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, with the option of allowing an opaque privacy bag to be placed inside the clear bag. The clear bag program will be for all sectors (both inside and outside DBAs), as a base service. Pros Cons 1) Increased waste diversion: studies completed by Ontario’s Stewardship Effectiveness & Efficiency Fund report that “clear bag programs are successful in decreasing the amount of recyclables being landfilled or incinerated, and have shown that mandatory by-laws and clear bags result in maximum participation and diversion”. implementing clear bags resulted in a 6% increase in Markham’s 2014 diversion rate, for a total diversion rate of 81%. residents are motivated to recycle due to social pressure. 2) Enforcement/safety: increases awareness of what is placed in the garbage, due to visibility of bag contents. eliminates (or minimizes) the option of concealing hazardous or other non-acceptable materials (e.g. recyclables and organics) in the garbage. facilitates education and enforcement of Niagara’s Waste Management By-law, where necessary. 3) Fairness & equity: clear bags are currently being used for diapers by those Niagara residents operating daycares out of 1) Perception of invasion of privacy: residents using clear bags may complain it is an invasion of their privacy. – this concern is partially addressed by allowing the use of an opaque bag inside the clear bag. IC&I business groups, who participated in the Region’s 2012 consultation sessions for a clear garbage bag pilot, expressed privacy concerns, as well. 2) Potential illegal dumping: residents and businesses opposing the use of clear garbage bags may potentially illegally dump their garbage. 3) Collection issues: if a clear bag is placed inside a reusable container, enforcement may become more difficult if driver dumps the contents of the container directly into truck, as opposed to pulling the clear bag out of the container to look at it. the IC&I business groups expressed concerns about the aesthetics of uncollected bags, which would contain non- acceptable materials, being left in downtown or tourist areas. 4) Other Municipal programs: Page 309 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 34 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons their households, or families with at least two children under the age of four years old. – these residents may feel the program ensures equal treatment for all households. clear bag pilots were implemented in two comparator municipalities (Durham and Markham), however only Markham implemented a full program. Durham decided not to implement a region-wide clear bag program in 2014, due to a lack of information on the effectiveness of the clear bag in reducing the amount of garbage collected. 5) Establishment of a four (4) item limit per unit per collection for large item service at LDR, MR and MU properties. Pros Cons 1) Municipal best practice/trend: average large item limit is three per residential unit for those municipalities with weekly collection, and four per residential unit with bi- weekly collection. 2) Potential contract savings: municipalities that implemented collection limits on the number of large items reported contract savings. 3) Fairness & equity: provides a standardized collection limit for all properties. Niagara residents set out an average of fewer than 2 large items per collection in 2018. 1) Potential illegal dumping: if residents are limited in the amount of large items that can be collected, there is potential for them to illegally dump items. 2) Potential increased number of complaints from residents, due to reduction in service: residents may complain about this reduction in service being provided to their property. 6) Discontinuation of appliances and scrap metal collection at LDR properties. Pros Cons 1) Municipal best practice/trend: approximately half of municipal comparators (Barrie, Hamilton, 1) Potential illegal dumping: if residents are not provided with service, there is potential for them Page 310 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 35 ______________________________________________________________________ Pros Cons London, Ottawa, Peel and Windsor) do not provide appliance collection service. 2) Potential contract savings: municipalities that eliminated this collection service realized a contract savings. In Peel, this was a net annual savings of $100K. Niagara’s current annual cost to collect these items is $126K (or $2,032 per tonne due to the reduced tonnage). many appliances and scrap metal items are scavenged before municipal contractors can collect them. – for the first two months of 2018, Emterra reported that approximately 60% of the items scheduled for collection were “not out” and were potentially scavenged. appliance and scrap metal tonnages collected in 2017 were 94% lower than what was collected in 2007. 3) Fairness & equity: residents have the option to recycle these items, at no cost, at the Region’s drop-off depots or a scrap metal dealer, as well as call a scrap metal hauler to collect them. to illegally dump items. Barrie reported an increase in illegal dumping when bulky/white goods collection service was discontinued; however it was not sustained (approximately six months). Peel provided its residents with advanced notice of this discontinuation of service and options for collection, so they did not see any significant increase in illegal dumping. 2) Potential increased number of complaints from residents, due to elimination of this service: residents may complain about the elimination of this service. those municipalities that discontinued collection (Barrie, Hamilton, Ottawa and Peel) reported a minimal reaction from their residents. Page 311 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 36 ______________________________________________________________________ Audit Results Base Collection Service Audit Results Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Inside the DBA (Base Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average Number of IC&I Properties Participating in Regional Collection Service Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Garbage Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Garbage Containers Per Set-Out Average % of IC&I Properties Exceeding Garbage Container Limit Fort Erie 2018 56 88% 1.6 0% Grimsby 2018 9.0 89% 1.2 0% Lincoln 2018 18 83% 2.1 3% Niagara Falls 2015 94.5 87% 2.7 6% Pelham 2018 34 85% 2.3 3% Port Colborne 2018 72 88% 2.2 3% St. Catharines 2018 56 71% 1.7 0% Thorold 2018 2 100% 1.8 0% Welland 2018 68 91% 2.0 3% Page 312 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 37 ______________________________________________________________________ Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by MU Properties Inside the DBA (Base Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average Number of MU Properties Participating in Regional Collection Service Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Garbage Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Garbage Containers Per Set-Out Average % of MU Properties Exceeding Garbage Container Limit Fort Erie 2016 63.5 95% 2.6 7% Grimsby 2018 2 50% 1.0 0% Lincoln 2018 21 90% 2.1 5% Niagara Falls 2015 63 98% 1.8 3% Pelham 2018 19 79% 2.8 0% Port Colborne 2016 53 92% 2.5 1% St. Catharines 2018 16 75% 1.6 0% Thorold 2018 0 0% 0 0% Welland 2016 54.5 91% 2.8 3% Page 313 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 38 ______________________________________________________________________ Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Inside the DBA (Base Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Recycling Containers Per Set- Out Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Organics Containers Per Set- Out Fort Erie 2018 66% 1.9 11% 1.8 Grimsby 2018 56% 1.5 22% 0.8 Lincoln 2018 72% 1.9 17% 1.0 Niagara Falls 2015 61% 2.0 11% 1.3 Pelham 2018 62% 3.1 12% 1.0 Port Colborne 2018 72% 1.6 6% 0.6 St. Catharines 2018 73% 1.5 16% 1.5 Thorold 2018 50% 0.5 0% 0.0 Welland 2018 65% 2.1 9% 2.4 Page 314 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 39 ______________________________________________________________________ Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by MU Properties Inside the DBA (Base Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Recycling Containers Per Set- Out Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Service Inside DBA Average Number of Organics Containers Per Set- Out Fort Erie 2016 72% 2.0 16% 0.8 Grimsby 2018 100% 1.8 0% 0.0 Lincoln 2018 52% 2.4 19% 1.1 Niagara Falls 2015 46% 1.3 11% 1.0 Pelham 2018 84% 2.5 32% 0.5 Port Colborne 2016 67% 1.9 19% 1.5 St. Catharines 2018 69% 1.5 13% 1.0 Thorold 2018 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 Welland 2016 72% 2.3 17% 1.0 Page 315 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 40 ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Outside the DBA (Base Collection) Municipality Average % of IC&I Properties Using Regional Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Containers Per Set-Out Average Number of IC&I Properties Exceeding 4 Garbage Container Limit Average % of IC&I Properties Exceeding 4 Garbage Container Limit Fort Erie 41% 1.7 12 7% Grimsby 46% 1.8 6 7% Lincoln 47% 1.7 10 5% Niagara Falls 43% 1.8 28 7% Niagara-on-the- Lake 62% 1.3 11 3% Pelham 37% 1.8 3 6% Port Colborne 42% 2.1 9 8% St. Catharines 41% 1.9 35 7% Thorold 26% 1.7 7 11% Wainfleet 44% 1.5 1 2% Welland 39% 1.7 10 6% West Lincoln 46% 1.4 3 3% Regional Average: 44% 1.7 11 6% Page 316 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 41 ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by MU Properties Outside the DBA (Base Collection) Municipality Average % of MU Properties Using Regional Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Containers Per Set-Out Average Number of MU Properties Exceeding 6 Garbage Container Limit Average % of MU Properties Exceeding 6 Garbage Container Limit Fort Erie 71% 1.7 1 1% Grimsby 85% 1.5 0 0% Lincoln 79% 1.6 1 2% Niagara Falls 70% 2.0 2 2% Niagara-on-the- Lake 62% 1.6 0 0% Pelham 67% 1.7 1 5% Port Colborne 86% 1.6 0 0% St. Catharines 69% 1.9 4 2% Thorold 70% 1.1 0 0% Wainfleet 70% 1.4 0 0% Welland 74% 2.0 2 2% West Lincoln 74% 1.5 0 0% Regional Average: 72% 1.8 1 1% Page 317 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 42 ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Outside the DBA (Base Collection) Municipality Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Recycling Containers Per Set-Out Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Organics Containers Per Set-Out Fort Erie 33% 1.6 7% 1.0 Grimsby 35% 1.8 11% 0.7 Lincoln 41% 1.8 11% 0.8 Niagara Falls 32% 1.7 7% 0.8 Niagara-on-the- Lake 58% 1.9 28% 0.8 Pelham 27% 1.6 12% 0.9 Port Colborne 31% 2.0 8% 1.3 St. Catharines 29% 1.8 9% 0.9 Thorold 21% 1.6 6% 0.7 Wainfleet 37% 1.7 7% 0.8 Welland 28% 1.8 7% 1.4 West Lincoln 34% 1.5 10% 0.7 Regional Average: 34% 1.7 11% 0.9 Page 318 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 43 ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by MU Properties Outside the DBA (Base Collection) Municipality Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Recycling Containers Per Set-Out Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Service Outside DBA Average Number of Organics Containers Per Set-Out Fort Erie 68% 2.0 23% 0.9 Grimsby 76% 1.8 29% 1.3 Lincoln 70% 2.3 27% 0.9 Niagara Falls 50% 1.9 18% 0.7 Niagara-on-the- Lake 54% 2.0 16% 0.6 Pelham 73% 1.7 17% 0.9 Port Colborne 66% 1.6 17% 1.0 St. Catharines 57% 1.8 17% 0.8 Thorold 70% 1.4 35% 0.8 Wainfleet 56% 1.4 7% 0.5 Welland 63% 1.7 19% 1.1 West Lincoln 59% 1.7 15% 0.8 Regional Average: 61% 1.8 20% 0.8 Page 319 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 44 ______________________________________________________________________ Enhanced Collection Service Audit Results Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Inside the DBA (Enhanced Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average # of IC&I Properties Participating in Regional Collection Service Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Garbage Collection Average # of Garbage Containers Per Set-Out Average % of IC&I Properties Exceeding Garbage Container Limit Grimsby 2014 38 88% 3.6 0% Niagara Falls 2015 147 82% 5.2 6% NOTL 2018 30 80% 6.0 21% St. Catharines 2018 77 52% 2.7 0% Thorold 2014 62.5 94% 4.5 2% West Lincoln 2014 38 95% 2.5 0% Weekly Average Garbage Containers Set Out by MU Properties Inside the DBA (Enhanced Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average # of IC&I Properties Participating in Regional Collection Service Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Garbage Collection Average # of Garbage Containers Per Set-Out Average % of IC&I Properties Exceeding Garbage Container Limit Grimsby 2018 18 89% 1.6 0% Niagara Falls 2015 21 95% 2.9 3% NOTL 2018 17 100% 6.8 12% St. Catharines 2018 71 94% 1.5 0% Thorold 2018 30 92% 1.9 0% West Lincoln 2018 12 100% 1.7 0% Page 320 of 450 Appendix 3 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 45 ______________________________________________________________________ Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by IC&I Properties Inside the DBA (Enhanced Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Average # of Recycling Containers Per Set-Out Average % of Participating IC&I Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Average # of Organics Containers Per Set-Out Grimsby 2014 64% 2.6 7% 1.6 Niagara Falls 2015 55% 2.4 6% 4.4 NOTL 2018 57% 2.9 7% 6.0 St. Catharines 2018 52% 2.6 10% 2.4 Thorold 2014 54% 2.2 6% 0.9 West Lincoln 2014 78% 1.8 7% 0.8 Weekly Average Recycling and Organics Containers Set Out by MU Properties Inside the DBA (Enhanced Collection Area) Municipality Audit Year Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Recycling Collection Average # of Recycling Containers Per Set-Out Average % of Participating MU Properties Using Regional Organics Collection Average # of Organics Containers Per Set-Out Grimsby 2018 78% 0.9 0% 0.0 Niagara Falls 2015 57% 1.1 14% 0.6 NOTL 2018 59% 2.3 0% 0.0 St. Catharines 2018 55% 2.5 7% 2.6 Thorold 2018 67% 1.1 3% 3.5 West Lincoln 2018 67% 1.8 0% 0.0 Page 321 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 46 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 4 - Stakeholder Comments on Proposed Base Collection Options Consultation and engagement with stakeholders commenced in May of 2018 to obtain input on the proposed base collection options. The following sections summarize the results of the comments provided by stakeholders throughout the consultation process. Not all stakeholders that staff engaged with provided formal comments on the proposed collection options. In addition, the results of the on-line and telephone survey are contained in a separate appendix. The following section summarizes the formal comments provided from the following stakeholders: Regional Departments and Agencies, Boards and Commissions Waste Management Advisory Committee Organizations Representing Business (ie. Business Improvement Associations, Chambers of Commerce, Tourism Agencies and Industrial Associations) Local Area Municipalities Residents and Business Owners (excluding feedback provided through the on-line and telephone surveys) 1.0 Regional Departments and Agencies, Boards and Commissions (ABCs): Staff from the following Regional Departments and ABCs provided input on the proposed base collection options. 1.1 Planning and Development Services Planning and Development Services reviewed the proposed container lim it changes pertaining to MU properties inside and outside DBAs, to ensure alignment with broader Corporate initiatives, including the objectives of Growth Management policies. The following comments were provided by Pat Busnello, Manager Development Planning: “the proposed reduced limit would not affect larger mixed-use developments that already exceed the current container limits and require private garbage collection” “recent curbside audits referenced in Appendix A of Report WMPSC-C 9- 2018 indicate the average number of garbage containers placed out weekly by mixed-use properties was below the proposed limit. The report therefore, indicates that the needs of mixed-use properties are expected to be met based on the audit results, particularly if diversion services are utilized. As Page 322 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 47 ______________________________________________________________________ such, it is generally not anticipated that smaller mixed-use developments would be affected by the proposed change.” Lindsey Savage, Planner with Community and Long Range Planning provided comments on the alignment of the proposed collection options with the new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which took effect on July 1, 2017: “The proposed changes to waste collection services align with and support policy 4.2.9.1 d) i) of the Growth Plan, which requires municipalities to develop and implement official plan policies and other strategies in support of integrated waste management, including through enhanced waste reduction, composting and recycling initiatives. In addition, a new Regional Official Plan is under development which will include policies supporting integrated waste management, in conformity with the Growth Plan.” 1.2 Economic Development Valerie Kuhns, Economic Development Manager with Economic Development indicated that their work generally revolves around larger industrial companies, which would not use the Region’s curbside garbage collection service, and would not be impacted by the proposed collection options 1.3 Niagara Regional Housing Cameron Banach, Manager Housing Operations with Niagara Regional Housing reviewed the relevant proposed collection options and indicated they would not be in support of EOW garbage collection, or mandatory use of clear bags for garbage at their properties. 2.0 Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) At the November 21, 2018 WMAC meeting, members voted all in favour or majority in favour of all base collection options. 3.0 Organizations Representing Business Meetings were held with representatives from each of Niagara’s Business Improvement Associations, Chambers of Commerce, Niagara Tourism Agencies, Niagara Economic Development Corporation, and Niagara Industrial Association, during the months of August and September. Page 323 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 48 ______________________________________________________________________ The following ORBs provided formal comments on the proposed collection options for the next contract: Grimsby Downtown Improvement Association: o Do not support reducing base container limit from seven (7) cans/bags to four (4) cans/bags per week. o Do not support mandatory use of clear garbage bags due to concern about enforcement and mixed-use properties. o Do not support reducing enhanced container limit without knowing the associated cost savings. Niagara Falls - Queen Street Business Improvement Association: o Do not support reducing base container limit from seven (7) cans/bags to four (4) cans/bags per week. o Do not support mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Niagara Falls - Victoria Centre Business Improvement Association: o Request reduction in container limit for enhanced collection service from fifteen (15) cans/bags weekly to seven (7) cans/bags weekly. o Do not support mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Support would be contingent on seeing a report on how the contractor will educate its staff on the proper materials that go into the proper containers/bags. o Request collection start time change to 5 a.m., instead of 7 a.m. Pelham Business Association: o Support all proposed collection options Port Dalhousie Business Association: o Expressed concern that proposed options would make collection more onerous and/or costly for businesses. o Also have concerns about storing garbage in the hot summer months. St. Catharines Downtown Business Association: o Do not support reducing base container limit from seven (7) cans/bags to four (4) cans/bags per week. o Do not support mandatory use of clear garbage bags due to concern about enforcement and mixed-use properties. o Request for increased organics/recycling collection and review of days and times of collection for the enhanced collection area. Also request continued front-end cardboard collection bins. Based on these comments, there was very limited support for the mandatory use of clear bags for garbage, or the reduction in the garbage container limits for IC&I and Page 324 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 49 ______________________________________________________________________ MU properties inside the DBAs. The exception was the Pelham Business Association, which supported all proposed options. 4.0 Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) Formal comments from the LAMs on the proposed collection options and which enhanced services to be included in Niagara Region’s next contract are being requested by February 1, 2019. 5.0 Residents and Businesses The primary method for collecting input from residents and businesses on the proposed collection options was through the on-line survey. Residents of low density residential properties were also targeted for feedback through a tel ephone survey. Individuals that wanted to provide comments and feedback in addition to or as an alternative to the surveys were able to do so through a number of options. While this feedback cannot be included in the statistical analysis as representative of the population, it can be considered as part of the anecdotal findings to support the overall findings. Residents and business owners provided additional comments by posting on Facebook, calling the Waste Info-Line, sending emails, providing web submissions and/or speaking with staff in-person at open house and community booth events. These comments are summarized in the subsections below. 5.1 Facebook Facebook was the primary social media platform used by members of the public to comment on the proposed collection options for the next contract. The majority of comments were related to the proposed options for the mandatory use of clear garbage bags and every-other-week garbage collection. Of all of the comments documented that were related to every-other-week garbage collection, 22% of comments were in support of this proposed option. For clear garbage bags, 10% of comments related to this option were supportive. Overall, the majority of commenters used this platform as a means of communicating their concerns. The comments posted on the Region’s paid Facebook advertisement were reviewed, categorized and tallied. The ten most frequently reported concerns are listed below in order of the frequency that they Page 325 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 50 ______________________________________________________________________ appeared in comment section. As of November 30, 2018, 1,467 Facebook comments were posted. Most Common Comments (by % of most posted comments) 1. Concern about odours from products that cannot be placed in the Green Bin (i.e. diapers and raw meat packaging) increasing with every-other-week garbage collection (16%) 2. Concern about privacy with the use of clear garbage bags for personal items (i.e. incontinence products, feminine hygiene products, prescription bottles, bills) and that one opaque bag is not sufficient to contain all of these items (12%) 3. Concern that services are decreasing, but residents will not receive an associated decrease in taxes (10%) 4. Concern about a potential increase in pests (i.e. rats, raccoons, squirrels, coyotes, maggots) if garbage is collected every-other-week (10%) 5. Concern that mandatory use of clear garbage bags is adding unnecessary plastic waste to the landfills (8%) 6. Requests for Region to use carts, bigger containers and/or containers with lids (7%) 7. Complaints about current service, including missed collection (7%), late collection (7%) and generally displeased with service (4%) Facebook Analytics for “Lets Talk Waste” Campaign: Impressions: 271,397 - The number of times any content from the “Niagara Region” Facebook page entered a person’s screen. Link clicks: 6,633 - The number of clicks on links within the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad that led to the Niagara Region “Lets Talk Waste” webpage. Reach as per analytics: 78,784 - Number of people who had a paid post from the Niagara Region Facebook page enter their screen. Page 326 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 51 ______________________________________________________________________ Reach with organic: 112,159 - Number of people who had an unpaid post from Niagara Region Facebook page enter their screen. Cost per click: 2.44% - The actual price paid for each click in the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad campaign. Total engagements: 19,733 - Includes all actions that people take involving the “Lets Talk Waste” Face book paid ad while it was running. Post engagements can include actions such as reacting to, commenting or sharing the ad, or clicking on a link. Reactions as per analytics: 367 - On the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad itself, Facebook only reports direct reactions on those people who the ad was delivered to. So if a Facebook user received the ad and reacted, that is counted as one reaction per analytic. But if the Facebook user’s friend saw their feed (but did not receive the ad) reacted, it is not counted. Comments as per analytics: 331 - On the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad itself, Facebook only reports direct comments on those people who the ad was delivered to. So if a Facebook user received the ad and commented, that is counted as one comment per analytic. But if the Facebook user’s friend saw their feed (but did not receive the ad) commented, it is not counted. All reactions: 561 - This is the total number of reactions on the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad. This provides a better picture of the total engagement. All comments: 1,467 - All comments (including replies) on the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad. Shares: 358 - The number of times Facebook users shared the “Lets Talk Waste” Facebook paid ad to their Facebook profile or a different Facebook page. Amount spent: $2,456.23 5.2 Open Houses and Community Booths A public open house, with a presentation was held in each of the twelve municipalities in Niagara. Staffed community booths with informational displays were also held in a public space in each municipality. The community booths were very Page 327 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 52 ______________________________________________________________________ well attended with approximately 450 attendees and open house attendance was lower with 67 attendees, perhaps due to poor weather conditions. The majority of the comments heard were related to the options for every-other- week garbage collection and mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Members of the public visiting the booths and open houses were divided about every-other-week garbage collection. While approximately half of the people that talked to staff at events expressed support, there were some specific concerns that were repeated throughout the consultation process. There was less support for clear bags, with the majority of participants expressing opposition to the option. A minority of the feedback and conversations at these events dealt with the options to introdu ce a four-item limit on bulky item collection and the discontinuation of scrap metal collection, but of those commenting there was a high level of support to implement the changes. The key concerns about the proposed options heard at these stakeholder consultation events are listed below. Most Common Comments (listed in no particular order) 1. Concern about odours from products that cannot be placed in the Green Bin (i.e. diapers and raw meat packaging) increasing with every-other-week garbage collection 2. Concern that illegal dumping will increase as a result of every-other-week garbage collection and/or mandatory use of clear garbage bags. 3. Concern about privacy with the use of clear garbage bags for personal items (i.e. incontinence products, feminine hygiene products, prescription bottles, bills) and that one opaque bag is not sufficient to contain all of these items 4. Concern about the additional expense of having to purchase clear bags and/or privacy bags and potential issues with the quality and availability of clear garbage bags 5. Concern about storing additional garbage bags due to every-other-week garbage collection and/or clear garbage bags that are left behind due to unacceptable materials. 6. Concerns about the ability of collectors to monitor and enforce clear garbage bag contents Page 328 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 53 ______________________________________________________________________ 7. Concern about how residents will transport scrap metals and large appliances to the drop-off depots. 8. Concern about a potential increase in pests (i.e. rats, raccoons, squirrels, coyotes, maggots) if garbage is collected every-other-week 9. Concern that mandatory use of clear garbage bags is adding unnecessary plastic waste to the landfills 10. Complaints about current service, including missed collection, late collection, and generally displeased with service 6.0 Waste Info-Line, Emails, Web Submissions Residents and business owners interested in providing the Region with additional comments were able to do so by calling the Waste Info-Line, sending an email or submitting their comments through the Region’s website. Comments from individuals that provided an address were recorded in CityView, Waste Management’s customer service software. These comments were categorized based on support or opposition to the proposed options. Comments from individuals that did not provide an address recorded in a public comment tracking sheet, separate from the CityView program. As of December 2, 2018, 38 comments were recorded in CityView and 27 additional comments without associated addresses were recorded in the spreadsheet public comment tracking sheet. 6.1 CityView Due to the self-selected nature of the input and the small number of comments recorded, the CityView data cannot be considered representative of the viewpoints of the broader population. The comments do provide anecdotal insight into some of the key attitudes that residents and business owners have towards the proposed collection options. The majority (74%) of individuals that commented were contacting the Region to express concern over one or more of the proposed colle ction options. The key concerns expressed in the comments align with those provided through Facebook and at the open houses/community booths. Individuals opposed to every-other- week garbage collection were concerned about potential odours and pests. Comments related to clear bags were focused on privacy issues. There were also Page 329 of 450 Appendix 4 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 54 ______________________________________________________________________ concerns from multi-residential and mixed-use property owners about tenants not complying with the diversion programs and thus presenting a challenge for both the every-other-week and clear garbage bag options. Of the 38 comments recorded, 26% were in favour of one or all of the proposed options. In particular, 16% were in favour of every-other-week garbage collection. Other comments provided included suggestions for alternative option s, including collection from alternating sides of the road and communal collection areas. 6.2 Additional Comments The additional comments from residents and business owners that did not provide an address align with the comments provided through Facebook, at public consultation events and in CityView. The most frequent comments were concerns about odours and pests related to every-other-week garbage collection and privacy issues associated with clear garbage bags. Page 330 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 55 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 5 - Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Process An extensive public consultation and engagement process was undertaken to obtain stakeholder input on the proposed base collection options for the next collection contract. The consultation began in May 2018 was carried out in two phases: targeted stakeholder consultation and broad-based community consultation. Targeted stakeholder consultation involved direct communication with specific stakeholder groups to provide information and gather feedback on the proposed collection options. Broad- based community outreach was completed to reach residents and businesses eligible for Regional curbside collection services to inform them about the proposed collection options and encourage participation in the on-line survey, which was the principle mechanism for collecting public input and feedback. A summary of both phases of the consultation is described below. 1. Targeted Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement 1.1. Regional Departments and Agencies, Boards and Commissions (ABCs): The following Regional Departments and ABCs were contacted to discuss proposed options and invite questions, comments and input into the process: o Planning and Development Services Department o Economic Development o Niagara Regional Housing 1.2. Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) At the November 21, 2018 meeting of the WMAC, members were provided with a presentation on the proposed collection options and an opportunity for questions and comments. Members were provided with an opportunity to vote on each proposed service option. 1.3. Organizations Representing Business 1.3.1. Business Improvement Associations (BIAs), Chambers of Commerce, Industrial Associations Waste Management staff met with each of Niagara’s BIAs, Chambers of Commerce and the Niagara Industrial Association in August and September of 2018 to provide a presentation on the proposed service options. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the proposed collection options, obtain preliminary input on these options, obtain input on how to further engage their members and to request formal comments Page 331 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 56 ______________________________________________________________________ by November 30, 2018.The meeting dates and representatives that attended the meetings are listed in the tables below. Waste Management staff sent follow-up emails to each organization after the meetings on October 9, 2018 and November 22, 2018 to request formal feedback. Those organizations were also provided with letters for distribution to their membership on October 24, 2018. The letters contained information about the proposed options and stakeholder consultation process as well as a link to the on-line survey and open house/community booth dates and locations. The following four organizations confirmed they would reach out to members on behalf of the Region to encourage participation in the consultation process: o St. Catharines Downtown Association, Queen Street Niagara Falls BIA, Downtown Welland BIA, Grimsby Downtown Improvement Association Business Improvement Associations LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date Fort Erie Ridgeway Business Improvement Association (BIA) - Marge Ott Crystal Beach BIA – No rep attended Bridgeburg Station BIA – No rep attended Town of Fort Erie – Kelly Walsh August 23, 2018 Grimsby Grimsby Downtown Improvement Association – Leigh Jankiv Town of Grimsby – Bob LeRoux August 1, 2018 Lincoln Downtown Beamsville BIA – Stephanie Hicks Town of Lincoln – Dave Graham August 10, 2018 Niagara Falls Clifton Hill BIA – No rep attended Fallsview BIA – Sue Mingle Lundy’s Lane BIA – David Jankovic Main and Ferry BIA – Ruth Ann Nieuwesteeg Victoria Centre BIA – Eric Marcon Queen Street BIA – No rep attended City of Niagara Falls – Geoff Holman August 15, 2018 Pelham Pelham Business Association – David Tucker Town of Pelham – Derek Young & Ryan Cook August 8, 2018 Page 332 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 57 ______________________________________________________________________ LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date Port Colborne Port Colborne Main Street BIA – Frank Danch Port Colborne Downtown BIA – Betty Konc Town of Port Colborne – Chris Lee August 24, 2018 Port Dalhousie Port Dalhousie Business Association – Wolfgang Guembel August 22, 2018 St. Catharines St. Catharines Downtown Association - Tisha Polocko City of St. Catharines – Dan Dillon August 22, 2018 Thorold Thorold BIA – Marsha Coppola, Tim Whalen City of Thorold – Sean Dunsmore August 2, 2018 Welland Welland Downtown BIA – Amanda MacDonald, Delores Wright Welland North BIA – John Clark City of Welland – Eric Nickel August 9, 2018 Chambers of Commerce LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date Niagara-on-the- Lake (NotL) Chamber of Commerce – Janice Thompson Town of NotL – Sheldon Randall September 10, 2018 Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara Falls, NotL, Pelham, Port Colborne, St. Catharines, Welland, West Lincoln Greater Niagara Chamber of Commerce - Mishka Balsom September 13, 2018 Page 333 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 58 ______________________________________________________________________ Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara Falls, Pelham, Port Colborne, Welland, West Lincoln Niagara Chamber of Commerce Partnership – Rebecca Shelley (Grimsby); Johnathan George (Fort Erie); Paul Scottile, Jim Arnold (Niagara Falls); Denise Potter (West Lincoln); Len Stolk (Port Colborne/Wainfleet); Gary Bruce, Anna Murre (Lincoln); Delores Fabiano (Welland/Pelham, Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Port Colborne/Wainfleet) August 22, 2018 Thorold Venture Niagara – Susan Morin Niagara Centre Board of Trade & Commerce – John D’Amico September 26, 2018 Industrial Associations LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date All Niagara Municipalities Niagara Industrial Association – Adam Joon & Aaron Tisdelle September 21, 2018 1.3.2. Tourism Agencies Waste Management staff met with the Tourism Partnership of Niagara on behalf of five tourism agencies (Destination Marketing Organizations): Niagara Falls Tourism, Tourism Niagara-on-the-Lake, City of St.Catharines Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Twenty Valley Tourism Association and Niagara South Coast Tourism Association. Staff offered to provide a presentation at the meeting. On September 18, 2018, letters were provided to each tourism agency describing proposed options, audit data, info about survey and public events. The letter requested formal feedback on the proposed options be December 7, 2018. A follow-up email containing a link to the project website and on-line survey was sent to the Tourism Partnership of Niagara on November 23, 2018, for distribution to their membership. Tourism Agencies LAM Represented Organization/Representative Meeting Date Page 334 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 59 ______________________________________________________________________ Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the- Lake, Port Colborne, St. Catharines, Welland, West Lincoln Tourism Niagara – Anthony Annunziata & Karin Jahnke-Haslam (on behalf of Niagara Falls Tourism, Tourism Niagara-on-the-Lake, City of St.Catharines Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Twenty Valley Tourism Association and Niagara South Coast Tourism Association) September 18, 2018 1.4. Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) (i.e. municipal staff and Councillors) Letters were sent to LAM Clerks on May 4, 2018 and Public Works Officials (PWOs) on June 6, 2018 advising of proposed options and requesting LAM comments by February 1, 2019 Presentations were made to PWOs at their June 11, Oct. 16 & Dec. 11, 2018 meetings In addition, Region staff offered to attend LAM Committee or Council meetings to make a presentation. As of December 11, Region staff were requested to present at the following LAM Committee or Council meetings: o Grimsby Council (December 17, 2018) o Niagara Falls Council (January 15, 2019) o Fort Erie Council (January 21, 2019) o West Lincoln Council (January 21, 2019) o Welland General Committee (January 22, 2019) 2. Broad-Based Community Consultation and Engagement Broad-based community consultation employed a range of outreach activities to engage with as many low density residential (LDR) households, multi-residential (MR) property owners, groups and associations (i.e. property management companies) and Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) and mixed-use (MU) property owners as possible during October and November of 2018. The ta ble below provides details on each outreach activity undertaken as part of the broad-based consultation and engagement. Outreach Activity Description Location Date (2018) Page 335 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 60 ______________________________________________________________________ Letters Letters mailed out containing information on proposed collection options, link to survey, open house/community booth information and an invitation to contact the Region 1,369 businesses inside Designated Business Areas (DBAs) 1,980 businesses outside DBAs 125 multi-residential properties October 22 Web Project website provided information on the proposed collection options, details about public open house events/community booths and the link to the survey Project webpage on Niagara Region website October 23, to November 30 Link to project website Webpage banner on Niagara Region Waste webpage LAM provided with P&E for websites that had link to project webpage October 22 Social Media Link to project website Facebook paid advertisement with link to project webpage October 25- November 28 Twitter post on Niagara Region Twitter with link to project webpage Link to project website and details about open houses/community booths Facebook posts November 1- November 28 Newspaper: Print Ads Invitation to participate in stakeholder consultation with link to project website Niagara This Week October 25, November 1,8,15, 22 St. Catharines Standard October 27, November 10, Welland Tribune November 3, Niagara Falls Review November 3, News Now November 15 and November 22 Page 336 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 61 ______________________________________________________________________ Newspaper: On-line Ads Invitation to participate in stakeholder consultation with link to project website 24 hour ad - St. Catharines Standard, Welland Tribune, Niagara Falls Review websites October 30, November 6,13, 20 24 hour ad - Niagara This Week website November 24 1 week ad - News Now website November 22- 29, 2018 2 week ad - Niagara Independent website November 19- 30 Big Box Takeover- St. Catharines Standard, Welland Tribune, Niagara Falls Review October 30, November 5,11,20 Media Coverage An overview of proposed options and rationale and reference to project webpage, survey and events Media release October 25 Radio interview on 610 CKTB Newstalk November 5 Television coverage on Cogeco YourTV; accessible on-line and aired daily on YourTV November 5 - November 30 Articles - St. Catharines Standard/Niagara Falls Review, Voice of Pelham, Erie Media October 28, November 5, 7, 23 Post Cards Invitation to participate in consultation, list of key options and link to survey/webpage Post cards displayed at LAM offices: 100 each in Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Pelham, Port Colborne, Thorold and Wainfleet; 200 each in Niagara Falls, St.Catharines and Welland. Post cards available at Regional Headquarters and landfill sites Post cards distributed at every community booth and open house October 23- November 30 Internal Advertising Campaign banner and link to survey/webpage Vine intranet for all Regional employees October 31- November 30 Page 337 of 450 Appendix 5 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 62 ______________________________________________________________________ Vine weekly for all Regional employees November 1 Community Booths A table with educational material and poster boards with information on proposed options were set up in public spaces including malls, arenas, community centres and libraries. Staff were available with iPads to allow visitors complete the on-line surveys and to respond to questions and comments One booth in each LAM during day and/or evening hours Each booth set up for one day in each LAM between Oct 30 –Nov 26 Approx. 450 visitors in total at booths Open Houses Staff provided a 25-minute presentation and the opportunity for a question and answer period. Staff were also available with iPads to allow attendees to complete the on-line survey to respond to questions and comments One open house in each LAM from 6pm-8pm Various dates from Nov 1- Nov 28 Total of 67 attendees Page 338 of 450 Appendix 6 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 63 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 6 - Summary of Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Events Public Open Houses (All public open houses were held from 6:00pm to 8:00pm, with a presentation at 6:30pm) Municipality Location Date Niagara-on-the-Lake Community Centre November 1, 2018 Niagara Falls Gale Centre November 5, 2018 Welland Community Wellness Complex November 6, 2018 Port Colborne Roselawn Centre November 8, 2018 Pelham Pelham Meridian Centre November 12, 2018 Fort Erie Leisureplex November 13, 2018 St. Catharines St. Catharines Public Library- Central Branch November 15, 2018 Thorold Niagara Region Headquarters Building November 19, 2018 Lincoln Fleming Centre November 20, 2018 West Lincoln Municipal Office November 22, 2018 Grimsby Peach King Centre November 27, 2018 Wainfleet Firefighters Memorial Community Hall November 28, 2018 Community Booths: Municipality Location Date Time St. Catharines Pen Centre October 30, 2018 9am-9pm Niagara Falls MacBain Community Centre November 5, 2018 9:30am-4pm Niagara-on- the-Lake Community Centre November 6, 2018 9am-3:30pm Port Colborne Vale Health and Wellness Centre November 7, 2018 4:30pm-9pm Thorold Thorold Public Library November 8, 2018 10am-7:30pm Pelham Pelham Public Library November 12, 2018 10am-4:30pm Fort Erie Fort Erie Centennial Library November 13, 2018 9:30am-4:30pm Welland Seaway Mall November 14, 2018 10am-8pm Lincoln Fleming Centre November 20, 2018 9am -5pm West Lincoln West Lincoln Public Library November 21, 2018 10am-4:30pm Wainfleet Wainfleet Arena November 22, 2018 2:30pm-8:30pm Grimsby Grimsby Public Library November 26, 2018 9am-8:30pm Page 339 of 450 Appendix 7 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 64 ______________________________________________________________________ Appendix 7 - Addressing Concerns Related to Proposed Collection Options During the stakeholder consultation and engagement process, concerns were expressed by residents and business owners through Facebook, public open houses/community events and communication by email, phone and web submission. Those concerns are summarized in Appendix 4. The following table provides potential responses for addressing those concerns and minimizing potential impacts of the proposed collection options. Resident Concern Options for Addressing Concern Odours from diapers, feminine hygiene products, raw meat packaging increasing with every-other-week garbage Provide option for residents to drop-off clear bags of diapers at landfill sites/drop-off depots at no charge. Diapers, feminine hygiene products and raw meat packaging should be sealed tightly a plastic bag and placed in a container with a lid for storage in a cool, dry location. Styrofoam meat trays can be washed and placed in the Blue Box for weekly collection. Increased illegal dumping of garbage as a result of every- other-week garbage and/or clear garbage bags Experience in other municipalities has shown that property owners readily adapt to collection changes and if there is an increase in illegal dumping after the change in collection is implemented, it is temporary and short-lived. By-law officers work to enforce ongoing issues with illegal dumping. Privacy issues with the use of clear garbage bags for personal items To conceal private or sensitive materials, allow an opaque privacy bag (i.e. grocery bag) to be placed inside the clear garbage bags. Confidential documents should be shredded and placed inside a clear plastic bag before being placed inside the Grey Box or Grey Cart. These materials can also be placed in the Green Bin. Experience in Markham showed that allowing multiple opaque privacy bags at outset of clear bag program facilitated implementation and reduced privacy concerns. Page 340 of 450 Appendix 7 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 65 ______________________________________________________________________ Additional expense of having to purchase clear bags and/or privacy bags and potential issues with quality and availability of clear garbage bags Clear plastic and coloured plastic garbage bags are manufactured from the same type of plastic resin. The quality and strength of clear plastic bags is similar to that of opaque plastic bags. Differences in price and quality may occur, based on individual bag size, closure type, packaging size or brand name. Regional staff would communicate with local businesses to ensure that clear bags would be available for purchase at the same local retailers as traditional opaque bags. Storing additional garbage bags due to every-other-week garbage collection and/or clear garbage bags that are left behind due to unacceptable materials Residents and businesses can significantly reduce their garbage by fully utilizing the weekly, unlimited recycling and organics collection services provided by Niagara Region. Once unacceptable materials are removed from clear garbage bags, the materials can be placed out on the next scheduled collection day or taken to a drop-off depot for a fee. Ability of collectors to monitor and enforce clear garbage bag contents Collectors would evaluate whether a bag conforms to the Waste Management By-law regarding recyclables, organics and hazardous waste, based on what can be seen through the clear bag. Collectors would not be opening bags or searching contents. Bags would be assessed visually during collection time to address clear instances of non-conformance, including situations where non-acceptable materials are visible or a clear garbage bag has not been used. Regional staff will follow-up with the property owner regarding the proper set out of material for collection to avoid re- occurrence of uncollected garbage. Ability of residents to transport scrap metal and large appliances to drop-off depots. Residents that do not have the ability to transport scrap metal and large appliances would have the option of contacting private scrap metal haulers for pick-up. Page 341 of 450 Appendix 7 PW 3-2019 January 8, 2019 Page 66 ______________________________________________________________________ Increase in pests (i.e. rats, raccoons, squirrels, maggots) if garbage is collected every- other-week Placing food waste and food soiled-paper products in the Green Bin, which will continue to be collected weekly, will remove the most odorous part of the garbage stream, which can attract pests. Residents can take simple steps to deter pests, such as rodents, from their Green Bins, including: o Keeping the Green Bin container securely closed at all times o Setting out the Green Bin for collection every week, even if it is not full o Setting out the Green Bin by 7am on collection day, not the night before o Storing the Green Bin in a shaded, cool area o Lining the Green Bin with paper liner bags, sheets of newspaper or cereal boxes to absorb liquids Clear garbage bags adding unnecessary plastic waste to landfills For those residents already using garbage bags and/or grocery bags, clear bags would not increase the amount of plastic bags being sent to landfills. Plastic opaque privacy bags would be optional. Use of clear garbage bags would be expected to increase diversion rates, potentially offsetting any additional plastic introduced through use of clear garbage bags. Requests for Region to use carts, bigger containers and/or containers with lids The Region has explored the option using carts for residential curbside collection. The results of that research indicate that the costs of that change would be prohibitive at this time. In addition, cart programs utilize single stream recycling collection, which have higher rates of contamination than the two stream recycling program that Niagara Region is currently using and would negatively affect revenue from the sale of recyclables. Page 342 of 450 [Type here] Metroline Research Group Inc. 301-7 Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario 1000-10 Four Seasons Place, Toronto, Ontario Appendix 8 LDR Telephone and On-line Survey Results A quantitative survey with residents of Niagara Region Page 343 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Page 344 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 3 1.0 Current Attitudes/Behaviour 1.1 Importance of Waste Diversion Q11 - How important would you say it is that Niagara region works to reduce the amount of garbage that is sent for disposal? (Full sample) Figure 1.1a – Importance of waste diversion by survey type Diverting waste is important to the vast majority of residents in Niagara Region. In total, 94% of those in the telephone survey said it is ‘important’ to them, with 72% saying “very” important, and 22% saying “somewhat” important. Only 4% told us it was “not important”, or they “don’t know”. Residents in the online survey scored the importance slightly lower, but even still 87% find waste diversion important. Figure 1.1b 1– Importance of waste diversion by survey type (Hamilton) This question was asked in Hamilton in 2016, and the results were similar to what Niagara Region residents have said in this survey. Residents in both surveys feel that waste diversion is important, but in the random telephone survey are more likely to say it is “very” important. 1 City of Hamilton Waste Management Services Public Engagement Survey – Metroline Research Group, 2016 Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) Very important 72% 52% Somewhat important 22% 35% Not very important 3% 8% Not important at all 2% 3% Don’t know 1% 2% Hamilton Waste Survey Telephone (n=800) Online (n=1,468) Very important 75% 60% Somewhat important 21% 30% Not very important 2% 6% Not important at all 1% 3% Don’t know 1% 1% Page 345 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 4 Where relevant, this report will indicate statistically significant differences by sub -groups for the random telephone survey. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Women (76%) are more likely to say reducing the amount of garbage sent for disposal is “very” important than men (68%). Those 65+ years (76%) and those 45-64 years (73%) are more likely to find it “very” important than those 18 -44 years (63%). Those participating in the organics collection program (74%) are more likely to find it “very ” important than those who are not (67%). Those who support clear bags (80%) more likely to find it “very” important than those who do not (65%). Those who could manage every-other-week (EOW) garbage collection (80%) are more likely to find it “very” important than those who would continue to need/want weekly collection (64%). Figure 1.1c - Importance of waste diversion by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Very important 72% 81% 73% 83% 74% 80% 76% 73% 68% 61% 60% 69% 73% Somewhat important 22% 14% 17% 13% 22% 16% 19% 19% 24% 31% 32% 24% 22% Not very important 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% Not important at all 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% -- -- 1% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% Don’t know 1% -- 4% -- 1% 2% 1% 3% -- 1% -- 2% -- Looking across the municipalities in Niagara Region, there are some differences when residents were asked to choose an import ance level. Primarily though this difference is between “very” and “somewhat” important. Overall, the sentiment of important (very/somewhat) vs. not important (not very/not important/don’t know) is pretty similar. At least 9 in 10 residents for all municipalities find diverting waste to be ‘important’. Page 346 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 5 1.2 Garbage Limits Q12 - Niagara Region allows for one bag/container of garbage to be put out per week. Dimensions of the container cannot exceed three feet high by two feet wide (91cm by 61cm) and must not weight more than 50 pounds. Which of the following best describes yo ur situation in an average week? (Full Sample) Figure 1.2a – Typical garbage set out by survey type Residents were pretty much evenly split about how much garbage they put out at the curb in an average week. On one side is the group (53% combined) who put out the maximum one bag (42%) and those who need more than one bag (11%). On the other side (47% combined) is the group who doesn’t have a full bag (34%) or sometimes can afford to skip a week (13%). Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those 18-44 years are more likely to put out a full bag or more (72%) than those 45-64 years (50%) and those 65+ years (45%). Those living in households of three or more people are more likely (73%) to put out a full bag or more than those in households of two people (41%) and those in single person households (30%). Those with a household member using diapers are more likely to put out a full bag or more (87%) than those without (51%). Those who use seven or more bag tags a year are more likely to put out a full bag or more (91%) than those who use 1-6 tags (61%) and those use don’t use any tags in an average year (42%). Those who do not participate in the organics program are more likely to put out a full bag or more (63%) than those who participate (49%). Those who would need to continue weekly garbage collection are more likely to put out a full bag or more (7 0%) than those who could manage EOW (33%). Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) We put out more than one garbage bag/container 11% 9% We put out one full garbage bag/container 42% 49% On a weekly basis, our garbage bag/container is not completely full 34% 29% Some weeks, we do not have enough to put out the garbage bag/container 13% 13% Page 347 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 6 Figure 1.2b – Typical garbage set out by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln We put out more than one garbage bag/ container 11% 7% 11% 8% 13% 9% 10% 4% 11% 11% 16% 14% 8% We put out one full garbage bag/container per week 42% 45% 35% 35% 44% 43% 34% 45% 41% 50% 39% 46% 49% On a weekly basis, our garbage bag/container is not completely full 34% 30% 37% 45% 34% 34% 44% 39% 35% 24% 32% 25% 34% Some weeks, we do not have enough to put out the garbage bag/container 13% 18% 17% 12% 9% 14% 12% 12% 13% 15% 13% 15% 9% All percentage differences fall within the margin of error. The re are a few trends in the data, however these could potentially be a result of the size of the households interviewed for the study rather than something unique to the municipalities : Residents of Thorold (60%), Welland (60%) and Niagara Falls (57%) are slightly higher in putting out one bag or more per collection. Residents of Lincoln (43%) and Pelham (44%) and Grimsby (46%) are slightly lower in putting out one bag or more per collection. 1.3 Garbage Tags Q13 - How many tags for additional garbage bags does your household buy and use in an average year, if any? (Full Sample) Figure 1.3a – Garbage tags used by survey type About two-thirds of the community (65%) told us they do not buy/use any garbage tags in the course of an average year. About one-third (35%) will use a garbage tag at least once a year on average, between those buying and using one to six tags (24%), and those using seven or more tags (11%). (Random telephone survey) Telephone (n=1,253) Online (6,639) None 65% 49% 1-6 24% 32% 7+ 11% 19% Page 348 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 7 Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Household size was the biggest determinant in using garbage tags. About half of those (48%) of household with three or more people require at least one tag a year. 20% of households with three or more people use seven or more tags a year. Figure 1.3b – Garbage tags used by household size (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Household Size 1 2 3+ None 65% 86% 72% 52% 1-6 23% 10% 23% 28% 7+ 12% 4% 5% 20% Age is also a determining factor. The younger the resident in the survey, the more likely they were to have used bag tags. Figure 1.3c – Garbage tags used by age group (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Age group 18-44 45-64 65+ None 65% 54% 62% 78% 1-6 23% 25% 27% 17% 7+ 12% 21% 11% 5% Other significant findings: Those who deal with infant/adult diapers (53% use at least one a year) are more likely to need bag tags than those without diapers (33% use at least one per year). Those who need to put out more than one bag of garbage per week are more likely to use at least on e bag tag per year (67%) than those who put out one bag per week (41%), those who put out a bag per week that isn’t full (2 6%), and those who can afford to occasionally skip a week (12%). Those who need to continue having garbage picked up weekly are more likely to use at least one bag tag per year (41%) than those who could manage every-other-week (27%). Page 349 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 8 Figure 1.3d – Garbage tags used by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None 65% 69% 69% 74% 61% 69% 77% 60% 62% 60% 75% 58% 73% 1-6 23% 21% 19% 21% 25% 24% 19% 32% 24% 24% 16% 29% 20% 7+ 12% 10% 12% 5% 14% 7% 4% 8% 14% 16% 9% 13% 7% Municipalities less likely to have used any garbage tags in the past year: Pelham (23%), Wainfleet (25%), Lincoln (26%) and West Lincoln (27%) Municipalities more likely to have used a garbage tag in the past year: Welland (42%), Thorold (40%), Niagara Falls (39%) and St. Catharines (38%) Page 350 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 9 1.4 Waste Collection Participation Q21 – Does your household put out the following items for curbside collection? (Full sample) Figure 1.4a – Waste collection program participation by survey type Virtually all households in Niagara Region are participating in the recycling program (99%/99%). About 7 in 10 households say they participate in the organics collection program. The participation level is virtually the same between the random telephone survey and the online survey (71%/72%). Participation in leaf/yard waste collection is next (63%/82%), and the brush collection in spring and fall (52%/63%). Participation in both the appliances/scrap metal collection (26%/27%), and the bulky/large item collection (35%/46%) is lower. 99% 71% 26% 35% 63% 50% 99% 72% 27% 46% 81% 63% Recycling - Blue and/or Grey Box Organics - Green Bin Appliances/scrap metal Bulky/large items Leaf/Yard waste Brush in spring/fall Waste Collection Participation Telephone Online Page 351 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 10 Figure 1.3b 2– Waste collection program participation by survey type (Hamilton) The percentages were different, but we found a similar sentiment/pattern in Hamilton in 2016. Virtually all participate in recycling, the organics collection and yard waste collection (which included brush in this survey) were next, and the bulky/large item collection (which includes scrap metal/appliances) had the lowest participation. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Participate in Organics/Green Bin collection Those 65+ years (77%) and 45-64 years (73%) are more likely to participate than those 18-44 years (55%). Those in a single person household (72%) and dual person household (74%) are more likely to participate than those in a household of three or more people (66%). Those with no household members using diapers (72%) are more likely to participate than those with a household member in diapers (50%). Those who can afford to skip a weekly collection (81%), and those who put out a garbage bag every week that isn’t full (76%) are more likely to participate than those who put out a full bag every week (68%) or those who put out more than one bag (52%). Those who can manage every-other-week collection (77%) are more likely to participate than those who need to continue having their garbage collected every week (66%). Participate in bulky/large item collection Those in households of three or more (37%) and two people (35%) are more likely to participate than those in single person households (28%). Those who use seven or more bag tags per year (45%) or 1-6 bag tags (44%) are more likely to participate than those who do not use bag tags in an average year (30%). 2 City of Hamilton Waste Management Services Public Engagement Survey – Metroline Research Group, 2016 Hamilton Waste Survey Telephone (n=800) Online (n=1,468) Blue Box recycling 99% 99% Organics/Green Bin 83% 84% Yard waste 80% 88% Bulky/large item collection 45% 55% Page 352 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 11 Participate in leaf/yard waste pickup Those who could manage garbage collection every-other-week are more likely to participate (67%) than those who need to continue having garbage picked up weekly (61%). Those who participate in organics collection are more likely to participate in leaf/yard waste pickup (71%) than those who do not participate in organic collection (45%). Participate in brush pickup Those who could manage garbage collection every-other-week are more likely to participate (54%) than those who need to continue having garbage picked up weekly (47%). Those who participate in organics collection are more likely to participate in brush pickup (56%) than those who do not participate in organic collection (36%). Figure 1.4c – Waste collection program participation by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Recycling – Blue and/or Grey Box 99% 99% 100% 99% 100% 97% 99% 99% 100% 97% 96% 98% 99% Organics – Green Bin 71% 63% 84% 73% 72% 73% 70% 75% 74% 74% 59% 64% 60% Appliances/Scrap Metal 26% 16% 36% 19% 35% 24% 19% 19% 34% 30% 23% 24% 7% Bulky/Large Items 35% 36% 36% 27% 42% 28% 29% 31% 44% 41% 25% 36% 14% Leaf/Yard Waste 63% 45% 77% 55% 73% 58% 59% 55% 82% 70% 19% 68% 35% Brush in spring/fall 50% 32% 53% 45% 60% 52% 43% 35% 69% 55% 12% 50% 28% Participation rates in the different programs vary by municipality. Some of this may be a result of their geographical location. Municipalities in areas that are less urban may have residents with larger properties to manage their own composting and le af/yard waste or brush disposal, for example. Page 353 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 12 1.5 Recycling Participation 1.5.1 Blue Boxes Q22 - Blue Box recycling includes containers that are made of plastic, metals, glass or styrofoam. How many Blue Boxes does your h ousehold put out at the curb in an average week? (Base – Converted to full sample) Figure 1.5.1a – Number of Blue Boxes by survey type Virtually all residents (99%) of Niagara Region are participating in the recycling program. 97% of residents in the telephone survey are putting out at least one blue box per week. About 1 in 5 residents puts out two or more blue boxes per week. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Household size was a primary factor in the number of blue boxes. Households of three or more people are most likely to be p utting out two or more boxes (34%), compared to two person households (9%) and single person households (3%). Those 18-44 years (29%) are most likely to be putting out two or more boxes, compared to those 45 -64 years (23%) and those 65+ years (7%). Those buying the most (7+) garbage tags per year are also most likely to put out 2+ blue boxes (42%), compared to those who buy 1-6 tags (20%), and those who do not use garbage tags (15%). Those who would need to continue having waste collected weekly are most likely to be putting out two or more blue boxes (22%), compared to those who could manage every-other-week collection (16%). Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) None/Not participating in program 1% 1% Less than once a week 2% -- One per week 78% 70% Two or more per week 19% 29% Page 354 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 13 Figure 1.5.1b – Number of Blue Boxes by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None/Not participating 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% 1% -- 4% 4% 2% 1% Less than once a week 2% -- 2% 3% 1% 3% -- 1% 1% -- -- 4% -- One per week 78% 85% 81% 84% 79% 75% 77% 82% 80% 74% 71% 71% 75% Two or more per week 19% 13% 16% 12% 19% 18% 20% 16% 19% 22% 25% 23% 24% Across all municipalities, there is not much difference when looking at the percentage of households who put out at least one blue box per week on average. Niagara-on-the-Lake was lowest, but even there it was 93% of households. 1.5.2 Grey Boxes Q24 – Grey Box recycling includes items such as paper, cardboard, cereal boxes, tissue boxes, etc., and bundled plastic bags. How many Grey Boxes does your household put out at the curb in an average week? (Base – Converted to full sample) Figure 1.5.2a – Number of Grey Boxes by survey type Almost all Niagara residents are participating in the grey box recycling program as well. Slightly fewer (92%) than the blue box (99%) participation. 92% of Niagara low-density households put out at least one grey box per week on average. Residents are less than half as likely (8%) to put out two or more grey boxes than blue boxes (19%). Telephone (n=1,253) Online (6,639) None/Not participating in program 6% 2% < 1 x week 2% 1% One per week 84% 81% Two or more per week 8% 16% Page 355 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 14 Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Household size a factor once again. Those in households of three or more people are most likely (14%) to put out two or more grey boxes, compared to two person households (4%) and single person households (2%). Those 18-44 years are most likely to put out two or more grey boxes (14%), compared to those 45-64 years (9%) and those 65+ years (2%). Those buying the most (7+) garbage tags per year are also most likely to put out 2+ grey boxes (20%), compared to those who b uy 1-6 tags (8%), and those who do not use garbage tags (6%). Figure 1.5.2b – Number of Grey Boxes by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1.253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None / Not participating 6% 8% 4% 5% 4% 8% 4% 4% 3% 8% 13% 4% 12% < 1 per week 2% -- 1% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 1% -- 1% 3% -- One per week 84% 91% 88% 87% 85% 81% 84% 84% 85% 84% 79% 84% 80% Two or more per week 8% 1% 7% 5% 8% 8% 8% 8% 11% 8% 7% 9% 8% As with the blue box recycling, there is no difference statistically by municipality. Only two municipalities are below 90% of residents putting out at least one grey box in an average week – Wainfleet (86%) and West Lincoln (88%). Page 356 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 15 1.6 Green Bin/Organics Participation Q26 – Green Bin organics program includes food waste, paper napkins/towels/bags, paper take-out trays/egg cartons, coffee grounds/filters & tea bags. How many Green Bins or containers marked as organics does your household put out at the curb in an average week? (Base – Converted to full sample) Figure 1.6a – Number of Green Bins by survey type About 7 in 10 (71%) of Niagara Region residents told us they are participating in the organics collection program. That number dropped slightly when looking at green bins in an average month, to 69%. 68% of residents in the telephone survey told us they put out at lea st one green bin per week. In this particular question, the finding of the online survey was similar, where 70% told us they are putting out one green bin per week on average. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those 65+ years (73%) and 45-64 years (70%) are more likely to put out at least one green bin per week than those 18-44 years (53%). Those using diapers for someone in their household (49%) are less likely to put out at least one green bin per week than those with no diapers in their household (69%). Those who do not use any garbage tags in an average year (68%) and those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (70%) are more likely to put out at least one green bin per week than those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (57%). Those who would need to continue having waste collected weekly (62%) are less likely to put out one or more green bins per week compared to those who could manage every-other-week collection (73%). Those who feel there would be little to no impact to their household with every -other-week collection (72%) are more likely to be putting out at least one green bin per week than those who feel every-other-week would have at least some impact (62%). (Random telephone survey) Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) None / Not participating 31% 29% Less than one per week 1% 1% One per week 63% 63% Two or more per week 5% 7% Page 357 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 16 Figure 1.6b – Put out one or more Green Bins by typical garbage set out Those who can afford to skip a week on garbage collection occasionally (77%), and those who put out less than one full bag/container per week (73%) are more likely to be putting out at least one green bin per week, compared to those who put out one full bag/container per week (65%) and those who put out more than one full bag/container per week (48%). Figure 1.6c – Number of Green Bins by municipality (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None / Not participating 31% 39% 17% 28% 28% 27% 32% 29% 28% 27% 45% 36% 46% < 1 per week 1% 1% 2% -- 1% 3% -- 1% 1% 3% -- 3% -- One per week 63% 57% 76% 72% 65% 61% 62% 56% 65% 66% 51% 58% 54% Two or more per week 5% 3% 5% -- 6% 9% 6% 14% 6% 4% 4% 3% -- 48% 65% 73% 77% More than one bag/container One full bag/container One bag/container not full Could skip a week occasionally Page 358 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 17 1.6.1 Not participating in Green Bin/Organics collection Q28 – Why do you not participate in the Green Bin/Organics program? (Base – Not participating) Figure 1.6.1a – Why not participating in Green Bin/Organics program? Just under a third (31%) of those not participating in the Green Bin/Organics program told us they are doing their own composting/vermiposting. “We have a farm and dispose of it in our manure pile…” The next biggest barrier to participating in the Green Bin/Organics program is a concern about smells/odours. 13% of those not participating in this program indicated they do not participate because of a worry about the smell. “It smells awful. We freeze organic waste throughout the week and dispose with the trash on garbage day. You can always tell when someone uses the green organics bin as soon as you walk into their house. It isn't practical…” Lack of motivation was third, with people telling us that separating the waste was inconve nient or extra work for them (11%). “Waste of time separating items and keeping another bin full of stinking food around for rodents and insects to find…” 31% 13% 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 6% 5% 3% 11% Composting/vermiposting Smell/Odour Inconvenient/extra work Worried about bugs/maggots/animals Have a garburator Not interested in sorting it out Don't have enough waste to be worth it Messy Bin breaks, don't have one Don't have room to store Don't know Why not participating in Green Bin/Organics program? (Telephone survey, n=369)Page 359 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 18 The other major barrier is a concern about bugs/maggots/animals in and around the green bin (10%). “Many animals in my neighbourhood makes it difficult to keep the organics from being eaten. I have the same problem with my regular garbage container…” The ‘ick’ factor was expressed as well, with 6% talking about the process being messy and 9% not being interested in sorting out the waste for the Green Bin. “I find it gross and disgusting…” “Because I do not have very much for the green bin and find it disgusting to deal with in the summer…” Page 360 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 19 Page 361 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 20 1.7 Appliances/Scrap Metal Participation 1.7.1 Put out at the curb Q29 - How many times per year would you say your household puts out appliances or scrap metal at the curb for collection? (Base –Converted to full sample) Figure 1.7a – Appliance/Scrap Metal participation by survey type 4 in 5 households in Niagara Region (80%) told us they do not participate in the appliances/scrap metal collection program. Among those who have participated, at most is was about once a year. The results of the online survey are similar in this case, with 75% not participating in the program. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those 18-44 years (21%) and those 45-64 years (22%) are more likely than those 65+ years (15%) to participate in the program at least once a year on average. Those with households of three or more people (23%) and households of two people (20%) are more likely than those in single p erson households (13%) to participate in the program at least once a year on average. Those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (27%) and those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (25%) are more likely than those who do not use garbage tags (17%) to participate in the program at least once a year on average. Figure 1.7a – Appliance/Scrap Metal participation by survey type (Random telephone survey) Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None / Not participating 80% 86% 73% 85% 75% 81% 85% 84% 75% 77% 81% 84% 95% Once per year 15% 11% 23% 15% 16% 18% 8% 8% 19% 19% 16% 11% 4% Twice or more per year 5% 3% 4% -- 9% 1% 7% 8% 6% 4% 3% 5% 1% Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,369) None / Not participating 80% 75% Once per year 15% 15% Twice or more per year 5% 10% Page 362 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 21 1.7.2 Scheduling a pick up Q210 - Do you schedule a pick up with Niagara Region for scrap metal or appliances, or put them out at the curb for anyone to pick u p without scheduling a pick up? (Base – Participate at least once a year on average) Figure 1.7.2a – Appliance/Scrap Metal pick up type by survey type Those who participate in the appliances/scrap metal program at least once a year on average were asked how they arrange for pick up. Three-quarters (74%) of program participants told us they schedule a pick up with Niagara Region, and one-quarter (26%) will simply put the item at the curb. The online survey respondents felt similarly (77% scheduled, 23% leave at curb). Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Women (81%) were more likely than men (65%) to say they scheduled a pick up. Those 65+ years (88%) were more likely to have scheduled a pick up than those 45-64 years (72%) or those 18-44 years (64%). Figure 1.7.2b – Appliance/Scrap Metal pick up type by municipality Note: Sample size varies according to participation rates and survey type Telephone (n=249) Online (n= 1,696) Schedule a pick up 74% 77% Leave out 26% 23% Note: Sample size varies according to participation rates and survey type Total (n=249) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Schedule a pick up 74% 92% 90% 82% 69% 85% 73% 83% 69% 65% 79% 74% 75% Leave out 26% 8% 10% 18% 31% 15% 27% 17% 31% 35% 21% 26% 25% Page 363 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 22 1.8 Bulky/Large Item Collection 1.8.1 Put out at the curb Q211 - Bulky/large item collection includes items like carpet and furniture. How many times per year would you say your household puts out items like this out at the curb for collection? (Base – Converted to full sample) Figure 1.8a – Bulky/Large Item collection by survey type More households (29%) do participate in bulky/large item collection compared to the scrap metal/appliances collection (20%). In total, 29% of households told us they participate at least once a year, with the majority (19%) of households participating once a year, and 10% of households participating two or more times a year on average. Those in the online survey told us they are participating more often. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those in households of three or more are more likely to participate at least once a year (33%), compared to households of two people (28%), or single person households (19%). Those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (43%) are more likely to participate at least once a year (43%), compared to those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (38%) and those who do not use garbage tags (23%). Figure 1.8b – Bulky/Large Item collection by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln None 71% 71% 72% 83% 67% 78% 74% 72% 61% 66% 80% 70% 89% Once per year 19% 19% 24% 13% 20% 14% 14% 15% 25% 27% 16% 18% 8% Twice or more per year 10% 10% 4% 4% 13% 8% 12% 13% 14% 7% 4% 13% 3% Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) None/not participating 71% 56% Once per year 19% 20% Twice or more per year 10% 24% Page 364 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 23 1.8.2 Scheduling a pick up Q212 - Do you schedule a pick up with Niagara Region for these bulky/large items, or put them out at the curb for anyone to pick up without scheduling a pick up? (Base – Participate at least once a year on average) Figure 1.8.2a – Bulky/Large Item collection type by survey type Those participating in the bulky/large item pick up are most likely going to be scheduling a pick up with Niagara Region. 94% said they would schedule a pickup for bulky/large items, compared to 74% of those participating in scrap metal/appliances. Figure 1.8.2b – Bulky/Large item collection type by municipality Note: Sample size varies according to participation rates and survey type Telephone (n=365) Online (n=2,943) Schedule a pick up 94% 92% Leave out 6% 8% Note: Sample size varies according to participation rates and survey type Total (n=365) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Schedule a pick up 94% 96% 95% 100% 97% 93% 100% 81% 92% 92% 100% 94% 87% Leave out 6% 4% 5% -- 3% 7% -- 19% 8% 8% -- 6% 13% Page 365 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 24 2.0 Waste Collection Options For Next Contract For Niagara Region’s new waste collection (garbage, recycling and organics) contract, residents and businesses are being aske d for their opinion about several proposal collection options. Adopting some or all of these opt9ions would help reduce the amount of waste going t o disposal, and limit future costs to businesses and taxpayers. The purpose of this survey is to receive feedback from residents on the possible collection options and to help Regional staff understand resident’s feelings about each option. Page 366 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 25 2.1 Bulky/Large Item Collection Q31 - The first option is related to large or bulky item pick up, such as carpet or furniture. The change would be to limit the number of large/bulky items collected to a maximum of four per week. In 2018, 92% of the bookings for large or bulky item pick up wer e for four items or less. If Niagara Region was to make this change, what would be the impact on your household? (Base – Full sample) Figure 2.1a – Change to Bulky/Large Item collection, impact by survey type Making a change to the bulky/large item collection so that a maximum of four items per collection can be put out will not unduly impact Niagara region residents. 6% of residents in the telephone survey, and 14% in the online survey feel this change would have an impact on their household. The vast majority told us there would be little to no impact to them (94% of households in telephone survey, 87% of households in the online survey). Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those in households of three or more (8%) are slightly more likely to feel impacted, compared to households of two people (5%) and single person households (4%). Those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (16%) are most likely to feel there would be an impact on their household, compared to those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (5%) and those who do not use garbage tags (4%). 2% 4% 5% 25% 64% 5% 8% 15% 27% 45% A big impact Some impact Might or might not be an impact Not much of an impact No impact Impact of change to large/bulky item pickup Telephone Online Page 367 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 26 Figure 2.1b – Change to Bulky/Large Item collection, impact by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln A big impact 2 -- 7% -- 2% -- 1% -- 1% 4% -- 2% 1% Some impact 4 1% 8% 3% 7% 2% 3% 7% 5% 3% 1% 3% 4% Might or might not be an impact 5 5% 4% 5% 7% 8% 6% 7% 4% 3% -- 11% 4% Not much of an impact 25 23% 21% 30% 33% 21% 19% 25% 27% 30% 11% 23% 19% No impact 64 71% 60% 62% 51% 69% 71% 61% 63% 60% 88% 61% 72% Page 368 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 27 2.2 Appliances/Scrap Metal Collection Q32 – The second option under consideration would eliminate curbside pickup by Niagara Region of appliances and scrap metal. Curre ntly, residents can go online and schedule a pick up of items at their home. Only 6% of Niagara households are using the curbside collection of appliances and scrap metal service. Also, as much as 60% of these items that are being put out have already been removed by the time crews arrive to pick them up. There would continue to be an opportunity for residents to take the items to a regional drop-off depot, at no charge, or have it picked up by private scrap metal haulers. If Niagara Region was to make this change, what would be the impact on your household? (Base – Full sample) Figure 2.2a – Change to appliance/scrap metal collection, by survey type Dropping/stopping the appliance/scrap metal collection program would have some impact on about 1 in 5 households in Niagara region. 17% of households in the telephone survey, and 22% in the online survey feel there would be at least some impact. 83% of households in the telephone survey, and 78% of the households in the online survey, feel there would be little to no impact on their household. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those who use 7+ garbage tags per year (23%) are most likely to feel there would be an impact on their household, compared to those who use 1-6 garbage tags per year (18%) and those who do not use garbage tags (14%). Those who would need to continue to have their garbage picked up weekly are more likely to find at least some impact (19%) than those who could manage every -other-week collection (12%). 7% 9% 9% 25% 50% 8% 14% 17% 27% 34% A big impact Some impact Might or ight not be an impact Not much of an impact No impact Impact of change to appliance/ scrap metal pickup Telephone Online Page 369 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 28 Figure 2.2b – Impact of change to appliance/scrap metal collection, by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln A big impact 7% -- 11% 7% 8% 10% 7% 9% 7% 8% 3% 8% 4% Some impact 9% 8% 11% 4% 11% 13% 7% 11% 10% 5% 9% 8% 7% Might or might not be an impact 9% 14% 11% 12% 11% 12% 8% 4% 9% 10% 1% 8% 10% Not much of an impact 25% 28% 25% 25% 27% 23% 27% 20% 28% 34% 11% 23% 16% No impact 50% 50% 43% 52% 43% 42% 51% 56% 46% 43% 76% 53% 63% Page 370 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 29 2.3 Clear Bags 2.3.1 Support for clear bags Q33 – A third option under consideration is the mandatory use of clear garbage bags. Some municipalities in Canada have already ma de this change. The cost for the clear bags would be about the same as green/black garbage bags. Clear garbage bags wil l make it easier to see recyclable or organic material that should be placed in the Blue/Grey Box or Green Bin or Hazardous Waste items that should b e disposed of safely. A smaller opaque bag, such as a grocery bag, can be placed inside the clear garbage bag for disposing of sensitive or personal items. Would you support a switch to clear garbage bags? (Full Sample) Figure 2.3.1a – Support for mandatory clear garbage bags by survey type Household support for the mandatory use of clear bags in the telephone survey was surprisingly a fairly even split. 48% would support (definitely or probably), and 52% do not support. It’s a different picture when looking at the sentiment expressed in the online survey. 27% would support, and 73% oppose. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those who would need to continue to have their garbage picked up weekly are more likely to support the use of clear bags (57%) than those who could manage every-other-week collection (40%). 26% 22% 14% 14% 24% 13% 14% 11% 16% 46% Definitely would support Probably would support Might or might not support Probably would not support Definitely would not support Support for change to mandatory clear bags Telephone Online Page 371 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 30 Figure 2.3.1b – Support for mandatory clear garbage bags by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Definitely would support 26% 19% 24% 28% 26% 30% 33% 24% 23% 20% 26% 33% 27% Probably would support 22% 26% 28% 23% 19% 16% 15% 24% 26% 30% 16% 20% 19% Might or might not support 14% 17% 14% 12% 13% 19% 16% 19% 15% 16% 8% 13% 11% Probably would not support 14% 17% 17% 17% 16% 12% 12% 7% 14% 8% 13% 15% 12% Definitely would not support 24% 21% 17% 20% 26% 23% 24% 26% 22% 26% 37% 19% 31% Page 372 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 31 2.3.2 Why support/not support? Q34 – Why do you say that (support/not support clear bags)? (Full Sample) Total Support clear bags Oppose clear bags Keeps unwanted items from landfill 28% 51% 6% Encourages use of Blue/Grey boxes and Green Bins 25% 48% 5% Concerned about invasion of privacy 25% 8% 40% Don’t want my neighbours seeing my garbage 14% 3% 24% Concerned about strength of clear bags 5% 2% 8% We do not need “garbage police” 5% 1% 8% Added cost/more effort 4% 1% 8% Neutral/indifferent (General) 4% 6% 3% We only use small grocery bags 3% 1% 5% Stupid/no need (General) 2% -- 3% Safer/better for waste management people 1% 3% -- NOTE: All other responses are less than one percent total “Clear bags tend to cost more money and are not as readily available. I also think having them curbside looks gross vs a black garbage bag. That being said I can understand why this idea could potentially reduce the amount of unacceptable items…” “I just don't buy garbage bags so that would be an extra expense for us. Otherwise I am on board, we have nothing to hide...” “Taking the trouble to separately sort embarrassing or secure sensitive material is annoying…” “Clear bags are more expensive for one. The world doesn't need to see my garbage. Are you going to refuse pick up if I have recyclables in my trash? What about recycling that can't be cleaned like pizza boxes? Teaching what can be recycled and what can't would be far better…” “If it becomes mandatory I will of course comply but personal items aside, I am not a fan of having my neighbours being able to see what I purchase, eat or throw out. Items come into my house concealed in shopping bags and that privacy with them going out is just as important to me…” Page 373 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 32 2.4 Every Other Week Garbage Collection 2.4.1 Managing every-other-week collection Q35 – In Niagara Region an average of 50% of every garbage bag is food waste. A fourth option under consideration, that is already in practice in many other municipalities which encourages residents to use their Green Bin, is to pick up garbage every -other-week, but continue to collect unlimited Blue/Grey Boxes and Green Bins every week. There would be no change or reduction in the garbage container limit, but there would be less frequent pickup. With collection every-other-week, you would be allowed two garbage bags/containers. Based on your household’s waste practices, would you be able to manage? (Full Sample) Figure 2.4.1a – Ability to manage Every Other Week garbage collection by survey type Residents were split on their feelings about garbage collection every-other- week, with slightly more leaning towards continuing their weekly collection. 46% of the telephone survey, and 41% of those in the online survey could manage every-other-week collection. Niagara Region Waterloo Region3 Telephone (n=1,253) LDR Online (n=6,639) Telephone (n=511) Online (n=7,087) Be able to manage garbage collection every-other-week 46% 43% 50% 36% Need to continue having your garbage picked up weekly 54% 57% 50% 64% 3 Region of Waterloo Waste Survey, Metroline Research Group Inc., 2014 Telephone (n= 1,253) Online (n=6,369) Be able to manage EOW collection 46% 43% Need to continue weekly collection 54% 57% Page 374 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 33 Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Residents 65+ years are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (51%), compared to those 45-64 years (45%) and those 18-44 years (41%). Those in single person households (62%) are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection than those in two person households (50%), and those in households of three or more (37%). Households with no one using diapers are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (47%) than those with someone in diapers (31%). Those who do not use garbage bag tags in an average year are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (52%) than those who use 1-6 garbage tags (41%) and those who use 7+ garbage tags (24%). Those who participate in organics collection are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (50%) compared to those who are not currently participating in organics collection (37%). Those who support mandatory use of clear bags (55%) are more likely to be able to manage every-other-week collection (55%) than those who oppose mandatory clear bags (38%). Those who currently put out more garbage are less likely to say they could manage every-other-week collection Figure 2.4.1b – Ability to manage every-other-week garbage collection by typical garbage set out 23% 31% 60% 80% Put out 1+ bags/containers per week Put out one full bag/container per week Put out one bag/container that is not full Could afford to skip a week Ability to manage every-other-week collection Page 375 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 34 Figure 2.4.1b – Ability to manage Every Other Week garbage collection by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Be able to manage EOW collection 46% 52% 48% 52% 36% 50% 52% 40% 50% 47% 40% 49% 38% Need to continue weekly collection 54% 48% 52% 48% 64% 50% 48% 60% 50% 53% 60% 51% 62% Page 376 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 35 2.4.2 Impact of every-other-week collection Q36 – If Niagara Region collected garbage bags every-other-week, but collected your Blue/Grey Boxes and Green Bins every week, what would be the impact on your household? (Full Sample) Figure 2.4.1a – Impact of Every Other Week garbage collection (Telephone) In the telephone survey, just under half of residents (48%) feel there would be at least “some” impact on their household if Niagara Region switched to every-other- week garbage collection (while continuing to collect blue/grey boxes and green bins weekly). A slight majority (52%) feel there would be little to no impact to their household. Respondent Sub-Segment Findings (Telephone) Those in households of three or more (62%) are more likely to say there would be a big/some impact, compared to households of two people (40%) and single person households (33%). Those 18-44 years (59%) are more likely to say there would be a big/some impact, compared to those 45-64 years (48%) and those 18-44 years (41%). Those using diapers (70%) are more likely to say there will be an impact, compared to households with no diapers (47%). A big impact 27% Some impact 21% Might or might not be an impact 7% Not much of an impact 19% No impact 26% Impact of Every Other Week garbage collection (Telephone, n=1,253)Page 377 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 36 Those using 7+ garbage bag tags per year (76%) are more likely to say there will be an impact, compared to those using 1-6 garbage tags (55%) and those not using garbage tags (41%). Those not participating in the green bin/organics collection are more likely to say there will be an impact (57%) than those who are participating (45%). Figure 2.4.1b – Impact of Every Other Week garbage collection Niagara Region Hamilton4 Waterloo Region5 Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) Telephone (n=800) Online (n=1,468) Telephone (n=511) Online (n=7,087) A big impact 27% 37% 34% 44% 25% 18% Some impact 21% 21% 20% 19% 29% 24% Might or might not be an impact 7% 9% 6% 8% 7% 10% Not much of an impact 19% 17% 18% 13% 22% 24% No impact 26% 16% 22% 16% 17% 24% Impact Ratio (Big/Some vs. Not much/no impact) +3 +25 +14 +34 +15 -6 While 48% of Niagara region resident indicate every-other-week collection would have some impact on their household, these numbers are lower than the 54% of residents in Hamilton and Waterloo Region who indicated there would be an impact on their household. 4 City of Hamilton Waste Management Services Public Engagement Survey – Metroline Research Group, 2016 5 Region of Waterloo Waste Survey, Metroline Research Group Inc., 2014 Page 378 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 37 Figure 2.4.1c – Impact of Every Other Week garbage collection by municipality Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln A big impact 27% 19% 32% 16% 38% 15% 18% 27% 25% 26% 31% 28% 35% Some impact 21% 23% 19% 23% 19% 31% 23% 24% 20% 26% 23% 20% 16% Might or might not be an impact 7% 13% -- 5% 7% 9% 4% 5% 8% 7% 3% 8% 10% Not much of an impact 19% 14% 21% 21% 22% 15% 16% 23% 19% 23% 13% 18% 18% No impact 26% 31% 28% 35% 14% 30% 39% 21% 28% 18% 30% 26% 21% Impact Ratio +3 Page 379 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 38 2.4.3 Why is there an impact Q37 – Why do you say that? (Base - Asked of those who say there would be a big/some impact) Figure 2.4.3a – Why big/some impact of EOW collection? (Telephone) Those who feel there would be a “big impact” or “some impact” were asked for the primary reasons why (unaided, this list was not provided). The biggest barrier is the smell, especially in the summer time (63%), significantly higher than all other mentions. Keeping animals out of the garbage was the second barrier, at 39%. Finding space to store the garbage for the extra week was third, at 35%. “The stench would be absolutely sickening in the summer, and it would also be a big draw for flies and rats and we are overrun with them already - both of which could be a health issue. Instead of punishing those of us that recycle and try to keep garbage at a minimum try increasing the cost of the bag tags substantially - if the price is high enough they'll learn to recycle…” “We produce a full green bin and full garbage every week for a family of 4. Bi-weekly garbage would result in us having 2 bags of garbage bi-weekly. We do not have storage space for this extra bag. We already have a mice problem in our neighbourhood and we are concerned that it would increase if we are keeping bags of garbage for longer. Our garbage contains soiled diapers and holding them longer would greatly increase odour issues…” “Where am I supposed to keep this garbage for an extra week. If I leave it outside animals will get it, if I leave it in my house it will smell and I will have flies in my house…” 63% 39% 35% 23% 22% 12% 7% 6% 3% 3% 3% Smell Animals Storage Insects Messy Health concern Diapers Scheduling/remembering Too much garbage to wait Pet waste Don't know Why big/some impact from EOW collection? (Telephone, n=603)Page 380 of 450 Niagara Region Waste Collection – December, 2018 Page 39 2.5 Making A Choice Q38 - If you had to choose between mandatory use of clear garbage bags, every-other-week garbage collection, or the use of both, which would you choose? (Full Sample) Figure 2.5a – Choice between EOW collection and/or clear garbage bags by survey type In the telephone survey, residents could not see the option for “neither”, and our interviewers worked to force a choice from the other three. In the online survey, this was visible after the first day or two of fieldwork, and as a result was selected more often. In the telephone survey, between the two, there was a slight preference for clear garbage bags over every-other-week, but not dramatically so. In the online survey, residents who made a choice decided on every-other-week collection over clear bags by a margin of about 2:1. Figure 2.5b – Choice between EOW collection and/or clear garbage bags by municipality Telephone (n=1,253) Online (n=6,639) Clear garbage bags 33% 17% EOW garbage collection 27% 33% Both clear garbage bags and EOW garbage collection 21% 12% Neither ** 19% 38% Total (n=1,253) Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niag. Falls NOTL Pelham Pt. Colb. St. Cath. Thor. Wain- fleet. Welland West Lincoln Clear garbage bags 33% 26% 33% 31% 37% 36% 26% 40% 33% 31% 33% 36% 37% EOW garbage collection 27% 31% 24% 33% 22% 22% 34% 21% 30% 42% 21% 20% 20% Both clear garbage bags and EOW garbage collection 21% 25% 24% 20% 13% 30% 19% 24% 20% 16% 19% 25% 22% Neither 19% 18% 19% 16% 28% 12% 21% 15% 17% 11% 27% 19% 21% Page 381 of 450 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca January 23, 2019 AREA MUNICIPAL CLERKS SENT ELECTRONICALLY Re: Notice of Passing of By-law to Amend By-law 112-2013 Being a By-law to Protect Children and Vulnerable Persons from Exposure to Outdoor Second-Hand Smoke - Triple Majority Requirement PHD 02-2019, January 8, 2019 Regional Council, at its meeting of January 17, 2019, approved the following recommendation of its Public Health and Social Services Committee: 1. That By-law No. 112-2013 BE UPDATED to harmonize with the Smoke Free Ontario Act to include vaping and cannabis, as an interim measure for consistency, with an appropriate sunset clause; 2. That staff BE DIRECTED to consult with the Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) and the public to build a consensus on an updated regional by-law to protect children and vulnerable persons from exposure to outdoor second-hand smoke; 3. That staff BE DIRECTED to report back to PHSSC in a timely manner on the learnings from this consultation with the recommended next steps. By-law No. 2019-07 was subsequently passed; however, the by-law is not valid until triple majority status is achieved. Pursuant to Section 115(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001, a by-law passed under subsection 115(1) shall not come into force unless: a) A majority of all votes on the Council of the upper-tier municipality are cast in its favour; b) A majority of the Councils of all the lower-tier municipalities forming part of the upper-tier municipality for municipal purposes have passed resolutions giving their consent to the by-law; and Page 382 of 450 Area Municipal Clerks Outdoor Second-Hand Smoke Triple Majority Requirement January 23, 2019 Page 2 c) The total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions under clause (b) form a majority of all the electors in the upper-tier municipality. Section 219(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001 defines “elector” as a person whose name appears on the voters’ list, as amended up until the close of voting on voting day, for the last regular election preceding the coming into force of the by-law. The number of electors as defined above for each area municipality is set out below. In the event your number is incorrect, please advise me as soon as possible. Local Area Municipality Population Eligible Electors Fort Erie 30,710 23,460 Grimsby 27,314 20,398 Lincoln 23,787 16,974 Niagara Falls 88,071 60,892 Niagara-on-the-Lake 17,511 14,237 Pelham 17,110 13,910 Port Colborne 18,306 15,208 St. Catharines 133,113 92,133 Thorold 18,801 14,471 Wainfleet 6,372 5,786 Welland 52,293 37,879 West Lincoln 14,500 11,336 Total for Region 447,888 326,684 *as of the 2018 Municipal Election We respectfully request that you place this matter before your Council at your earliest opportunity to consider a resolution consenting to the by-law and advise accordingly of the action taken by your Council. Page 383 of 450 Area Municipal Clerks Outdoor Second-Hand Smoke Triple Majority Requirement January 23, 2019 Page 3 A copy of Report PHD 02-2019 REVISED and By-law No.2019-07 are enclosed for your information. Thanking you in advance for your assistance and should you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk CLK-C 2019-39 Page 384 of 450 PHD 02-2019 REVISED January 8, 2019 Page 1 Subject: Outdoor Second-hand Smoking By-law Amendment – REVISED Report to: Public Health and Social Services Committee Report date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 Recommendations 1. That By-law No. 112-2013 BE UPDATED to harmonize with the Smoke Free Ontario Act to include vaping and cannabis, as an interim measure for consistency, with an appropriate sunset clause; 2. That staff BE DIRECTED to consult with the Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) on revisions to By-law No. 112-2013 and the public to build a consensus on an updated regional by-law to protect children and vulnerable persons from exposure to outdoor second-hand smoke as follows:; and a) Addition of cannabis and e-cigarettes to substances prohibited from use in public outdoor spaces. b) Addition to the list of prohibited places of use including nine metres from any public building entrance and/or exit. 3. That staff BE DIRECTED to report back to PHSSC in a timely manner on the learnings from this consultation with the recommended next steps. Key Facts • The Province of Ontario passed the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017 (SFOA), which prohibits spaces where individuals can smoke or vape. Changes to this legislation expand beyond tobacco to include cannabis and all vaping products. • Niagara’s By-Law No. 112-2013 aims to protect children and vulnerable persons from exposure to outdoor second-hand tobacco smoke, which does not address the second-hand smoke exposure to cannabis or second-hand vapour exposure from electronic e-cigarettes through outdoor spaces. • Local data suggests support in Niagara to harmonize the Regional By-law with SFOA by including vaping and cannabis, in addition to tobacco, as well as support for restrictions around entrances and exits. as an interim measure to ensure consistency and avoid confusion • Consultation internally, across Regional departments is important, as well as consultation with the LAMs and the public, is important to assess support. to develop the next version of the Regional By-law, by consensus across all municipalities. Page 385 of 450 PHD 02-2019 REVISED January 8, 2019 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ Financial Considerations The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) provides multiple funding sources to support the Smoke-Free Ontario strategy at 100% with the approved budget of $668,600 for 2018. This funding supports five FTE Tobacco Control Officers (TCO) responsible for the promotion, education, enforcement of the SFOA and Niagara Region’s By-law 112-2013. The province has announced that it will provide $40 million over two years to help municipalities with costs related to the legalization of cannabis.1 In the first phase, $15 million is to be disbursed in early January 2019, this has been allocated for each municipality. The allocation of these funds to Public Health will be determined once funding amounts have been finalized. NRPH & ES received 281 complaints, requests and inquiries related to tobacco, cannabis and e-cigarette products in 2018. Of these calls, 82 were complaints related to use of tobacco products being used in places thought to be prohibited places. NRPH & ES has requested funding from MOHLTC to support increased staff time related to cannabis enforcement and prevention work. At the time of writing this report there has been no response to the funding request. Analysis SFOA, 2017 Updates The SFOA restricts tobacco sale, supply and places of use; changes to the SFOA now include cannabis and vaping products in those restrictions. SFOA Prohibited Place Examples • Enclosed public places • Enclosed work places • Condos, apartment buildings and university/college residents o Application: Common areas • Playgrounds o Application: Perimeter plus 20 metres • Sports fields o Application: Patio plus 20 metres • Restaurant bar patios o Application: Patio plus nine metres 1 Fedeli, V. Ontario Cannabis Legalization Implementation Fund — Heads of Council Letter [Internet]. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Finance; 2018 [cited 2018 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/oclif/ Page 386 of 450 PHD 02-2019 REVISED January 8, 2019 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ • Hospitals, psychiatric facilities, community health facilities o Application: Grounds of facility • Child care Centre o Application: Grounds of facility Niagara’s By-Law No. 112-2013 Tobacco In 2012, NRPH & ES conducted public consultations and found that 88% of the 1,907 Niagara residents surveyed supported a by-law restricting smoking in outdoor public settings.2 In order to protect the public from second-hand exposure to outdoor smoke, Niagara passed By-law No. 112-2013, which prohibits smoking tobacco on the grounds of all municipal and regional properties, parks, playground, sports fields, splash pads, outdoor pools, arenas and bus shelters. The by-law has a strong focus on protecting children and youth, and this includes denormalization. Also, those who wish to quit find that fewer visual cues and denormalization of smoking is helpful. Strengthening local by-laws to reduce second-hand exposure to tobacco in outdoor spaces, has been ranked as a highly impactful policy change to protect the public from tobacco smoke.3 Prohibiting tobacco and cannabis smoke and vaping of any product within nine metres of public entrances and exits will be a consideration during consultations. Beyond tobacco, the SFOA now prohibits the use of cannabis and e-cigarettes in public spaces. The benefits of aligning the By-law No. 112-2013 with the SFOA by the inclusion of cannabis and e-cigarettes are: 1. Protecting individuals, especially children and vulnerable populations from second-hand smoke exposure 2. Preventing the normalization of tobacco, cannabis, e-cigarette use amongst youth 3. Creating supportive environments for individuals that are motivated to quit or cut back from use of tobacco, cannabis or e-cigarettes Cannabis 2 Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report, Niagara Region Public Health [Summer 2012] 3 Smoke-Free Ontario Scientific Advisory Committee. Evidence to Guide Action: Comprehensive tobacco control in Ontario [Internet]. Toronto, ON: Public Health Ontario [cited 2018 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/BrowseByTopic/ChronicDiseasesAndInjuries/Pages/smoke- free-ontario.aspx Page 387 of 450 PHD 02-2019 REVISED January 8, 2019 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ Cannabis has been criminalized in Canada since 1923, yet prior to legalization 46.4% of adults in Niagara indicated that they have used cannabis at least once in their lifetime and 12.2% used cannabis in the past 12 months.4 Within Niagara’s secondary schools 35% have used cannabis in the past 12 months and 23% have used cannabis in the past 4 weeks.5 The Canadian Cannabis Survey (2018) included 12,958 respondents and found the most common form of consumption of cannabis was through smoking (89%), followed by edibles (42%), and e-cigarettes (26%).6 Research has found that second-hand exposure to cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke have similar chemical composition. 7, 8 Holitzki et. al recommend an alignment in tobacco and cannabis policy by prohibiting outdoor spaces where products can be used.9 Including cannabis as a prohibited drug to smoke or vape into the amended by-law will be a consideration during consultations. E-cigarettes Electronic Cigarettes are known as e-cigarettes, e-cigs or vapes, and typically include a rechargeable battery, a heating element, and an e-juice containing chemical ingredients, which forms a vapour when inhaled. E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco but generally contain nicotine, which may lead to addiction in those who vape but aren’t smokers. E-cigarettes contain more than 80 compounds, such as particles, metals, nitrosamines, carbonyls, and flavourings.10 While the long-term health effects from e- cigarette use are still unknown, some research indicates that use can lead to lung damage, and short-term health effects can include increased heart rate, increased blood pressure, increased airway resistance, decreased airway conductance.11 In Niagara, 25% of secondary students have used an e-cigarette in the past 12 months.12 The Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey found that 61% of secondary students believe there is no risk from regular e-cigarette use.13 Including e-cigarettes as 4 Canadian Community Health Survey [2015-2016] 5 Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health [2015] 6 Canadian Cannabis Survey 2018 Summary. Government of Canada. [cited 2018 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/drugs-health-products/canadian-cannabis- survey-2018-summary.html 7 Maertens RM, White PA, Williams A, et al. A global toxicogenomic analysis investigating the mechanistic differences between tobacco and marijuana smoke condensates in vitro. Toxicology 2013;308:60-73. 8 Maertens RM, White PA, Rickert W, et al. The genotoxicity of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco smoke condensates. Chem Res Toxicol 2009;22:1406-14. 9 Holitzki, H., Dowsett, L.E., Spackman, E., Noseworthy, T., Clement, T., Health effects of exposure to second- and third-hand marijuana smoke: A systematic review [Internet] Canadian Medical Association Journal Open, 2017: Oct-Dec, 5(4): E814-E822. [cited 2018 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5741419/ 10 Tobacco and Public Health: From Theory to Practice, E-Cigarettes Module [Internet], Toronto, ON, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit [cited Dec 11]. Available from: https://tobaccocourse.otru.org/course/ 11 Tobacco and Public Health: From Theory to Practice, E-Cigarettes Module [Internet], Toronto, ON, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit [cited Dec 11]. Available from: https://tobaccocourse.otru.org/course/ 12 Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health [2015] 13 Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health [2015] Page 388 of 450 PHD 02-2019 REVISED January 8, 2019 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ a prohibited product into the amended by-law will be a consideration during consultations. In By-law No. 112-2013, tobacco use is more restricted than the public places outlined in the provincial SFOA. Outside of the established buffer zones in the SFOA, individuals could be fined for use of tobacco, but not for cannabis or e-cigarettes at those same locations. As an interim measure, harmonizing the By-law No. 112-2013 with the SFOA is important to ensure consistency and avoid confusion. By enhancing By- law No. 112-2013, NRPH & ES is aiming to align it with the provincial legislation to include cannabis and e-cigarettes. Proposed Municipal Consultation In preparation for cannabis legislation, NRPH & ES has been meeting with the municipal partners through their by-law, park/recreation and planning staff. Area Chief Administrative Officers have been notified of the proposed amendments, and meetings with each of the local area municipalities discussed next steps and support harmonizing now, with a sunset clause, with a consensus approach moving forward. An initial meeting is are being planned for late January/early February. During these meetings, NRPH & ES will learn whether the municipalities want to 1. Continue with the status quo By-law 112-2013 includes only tobacco within the mandate with the SFOA restricting use of tobacco, cannabis and e-cigarettes, despite the confusion in the application and messaging between the pieces of legislation. 2. Amend By-law No. 112-2013 to align products with the SFOA Include the substances of cannabis and e-cigarettes to apply to the same places that are currently covered by the by-law. 3. Amend By-law No. 112-2013 to align products with the SFOA and add in restrictions related to public entrances and exits Include the substances of cannabis and e-cigarettes to apply to nine metres from all public entrances/exits. 4. Amend By-law No. 112-2013 to align products with the SFOA and expand the prohibited places of use Include the substances of cannabis and e-cigarettes to tobacco, and add additional places (i.e. nine metres from all public entrances, beaches, trails). Once we have this information, we propose that we return to PHSSC to provide recommended next steps. If there is support for updating the by-law we will bring the proposed amendments to Council. Page 389 of 450 PHD 02-2019 REVISED January 8, 2019 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ Alternatives Reviewed Consideration was given to not harmonizing, and just embarking on the a larger public consultation process. We recommend that we first assess whether there is agreement on harmonizeing and updating the by-law as outlined, as it is likely that a large public consultation beyond municipal and regional meetings is not warranted for the two recommended changes. for this simplification of the bylaw. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities This work supports Doing Business Differently by proposing that Niagara continue to aim for simplicity and consistency while remaining among the leaders in Ontario in its smoke-free policies. Other Pertinent Reports • PHD 01-2019 – Cannabis Legalization • PHD 13-2018 – Comprehensive Tobacco Control Report • PHD 07-2018 – Cannabis Legalization • PHD 01-2018 – Smoke-Free Ontario Modernization • PHD 04-2017 - Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey Results • PHD 09-2016 Revised - Cannabis Regulation and Control ________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Teng Manager, Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention Public Health and Emergency Services ________________________________ Recommended by: M. Mustafa Hirji, MD MPH RCPC Acting Medical Officer of Health Public Health and Emergency Services ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Trip, P.Eng. Acting, Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Renata Faber, Manager, Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention, David Lorenzo, Associate Director, Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention and reviewed by Dr. Feller, Associate Medical Office of Health. Page 390 of 450 Bill 112 Page 1 of 4 THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA BY-LAW NO. 112-2013 A REGIONAL BY-LAW TO PROTECT CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE PERSONS FROM EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR SECOND-HAND SMOKE WHEREAS subsection 115(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended provides that a municipality may prohibit or regulate the smoking of tobacco in public places; AND WHEREAS it has been determined that smoking and second-hand tobacco smoke is a health hazard or discomfort for individuals residing in or visiting The Regional Municipality of Niagara (hereinafter, “Niagara Region”); AND WHEREAS smoke-free policy interventions are effective mechanisms to reduce exposure to tobacco smoke, prevent initiation of smoking, encourage cessation of smoking, support recent quitters, and contribute to the denormalization of tobacco use; AND WHEREAS Niagara Region therefore wishes to prohibit tobacco smoking in outdoor public places for the health of the public generally, and particularly for the benefit of young persons, and to improve the environmental and social conditions in public places; AND WHEREAS Section 115(5) of the said Act provides that a by-law passed under subsection 115(1) shall not come into force unless, (a) a majority of all votes on the Council of the upper-tier municipality are cast in its favour; (b) a majority of the Councils of all the lower-tier municipalities forming part of the upper-tier municipality for municipal purposes have passed resolutions giving their consent to the by-law; and (c) the total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions under clause (b) form a majority of all the electors in the upper-tier municipality. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of The Regional Municipality of Niagara enacts as follows: Page 391 of 450 Bill 112 Page 2 of 4 DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 1. (1) The following definitions shall be used in interpreting and applying this by-law: “authorized person” means an individual designated or authorized by Niagara Region or an area municipality whose duties include, without limitation, tobacco control or the monitoring of regional or municipal property for the purpose of addressing unauthorized activities; “area municipality” means any one of the municipalities of the Town of Fort Erie, Town of Grimsby, Town of Lincoln, City of Niagara Falls, Town of Niagara-on-the- Lake, Town of Pelham, City of Port Colborne, City of St. Catharines, City of Thorold, Township of Wainfleet, City of Welland and the Township of West Lincoln. “outdoor public place” means any property owned, leased or controlled by the Niagara Region or any area municipality, including without limitation parks, playgrounds, sports or playing fields, arenas, recreational centres, bus shelters, splash pads, pools and any area that is within a nine-metre radius of an entrance to or exit from a building located on any property owned, leased or controlled by the Niagara Region or any area municipality, whether or not a “No Smoking” sign is posted, but does not include the following: a. highways; b. road allowances abutting a regional or municipal property; c. municipal sidewalks, save and except for that portion of any municipal sidewalk that is within a nine-metre radius of any entrance to or exit from a building located on any property owned, leased or controlled by the Niagara Region or any area municipality; d. parking lots or any area designated for the parking of motor vehicles; e. beaches; f. walking or hiking trails; g. rights-of-way; and h. residential dwellings owned, operated or subsidized by Niagara Regional Housing or an area municipality; “smoke” or “smoking” includes the holding of tobacco or other lighted smoking material or equipment while the product is alight or emitting smoke; “tobacco” includes pipe tobacco, water-pipe tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos or any similar product made with or containing tobacco; Page 392 of 450 Bill 112 Page 3 of 4 PROHIBITION 2.(1) No person shall smoke tobacco upon or within an outdoor public place. 2.(2) The prohibition in section 2.(1) above applies whether or not a “No Smoking” sign of any format or content is posted. 2.(3) No person shall remove a sign posted under this section while the prohibition remains in force. 2.(4) No person shall hinder or obstruct an authorized person lawfully carrying out the enforcement of this by-law. OFFENCE and SET FINE 3.(1) Any person who contravenes a provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and, upon conviction, is liable to a set fine of $250.00. ENFORCEMENT 4.(1) The provisions of this by-law respecting smoking in an outdoor public place shall be enforced by any authorized person as designated by the Niagara Region or an area municipality. CONFLICTS 5.(1) If a provision of this by-law conflicts with an Act or a regulation or another by-law, the provision that is the most restrictive of smoking shall prevail. SEVERABILITY 6.(1) If any section or part of this by-law are found by any Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such section or part shall be deemed to be severable and all other sections of this by-law shall remain valid and enforceable. ENACTMENT 7.(1) This by-law shall come into force on the day that it is approved in accordance with section 115(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, C.25. Page 393 of 450 Bill 112 Page 4 of 4 EFFECTIVE BY-LAW DATE 8. This by-law shall come into force on the date specified by the Regional Clerk as the date when the following have been achieved: a) A majority of the Councils of all of the lower-tier municipalities forming part of The Regional Municipality of Niagara have passed resolutions giving consent to this by-law: and b) The total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions under clause (a) above form a majority of all the electors in The Regional Municipality of Niagara. PASSED, a majority of the members of the Regional Council assenting hereto, this 10th day of October, 2013. THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA Original Signed By: ______________________________________ (Gary Burroughs, Regional Chair) Original Signed By: ______________________________________ (Janet Pilon, Regional Clerk) Page 394 of 450 Bill 112 XXZZZ ZBil Page 1 of 4 THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA (CONSOLIDATED) BY-LAW NO. 112-2-13 A REGIONAL BY-LAW TO PROTECT CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE PERSONS FROM EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR SECOND-HAND SMOKE AND VAPING WHEREAS subsection 115(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended provides that a municipality may prohibit or regulate the smoking of tobacco or cannabis in public places; AND WHEREAS the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 26 as amended prohibits smoking tobacco or cannabis and vaping (use electronic cigarette), but Regional By-Law No. 112-2013 only prohibits smoking tobacco; AND WHEREAS it has been determined that smoking and second-hand tobacco and cannabis smoke is a health hazard or discomfort for individuals residing in or visiting The Regional Municipality of Niagara (hereinafter, "Niagara Region"); AND WHEREAS smoke-free policy interventions are effective mechanisms to reduce exposure to tobacco smoke, prevent initiation of smoking, encourage cessation of smoking, support recent quitters, and contribute to the denormalization of tobacco uses smoking; AND WHEREAS Niagara Region therefore wishes to prohibit tobacco and cannabis smoking and vaping (use electronic cigarette) in outdoor public places for the health of the public generally, and particularly for the benefit of young persons, and to improve the environmental and social conditions in public places; AND WHEREAS Section 115(5) of the said Act provides that a by-law passed under subsection 115(1) shall not come into force unless, (a) a majority of all votes on the Council of the upper-tier municipality are cast in its favour; (b) a majority of the Councils of all the lower-tier municipalities forming part of the upper-tier municipality for municipal purposes have passed resolutions giving their consent to the by-law; and (c) the total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions under clause (b) form a majority of all the electors in the upper-tier municipality. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of The Regional Municipality of Niagara enacts as follows: Page 395 of 450 Bill112 Page 2 of 4 DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 1. (1) The following definitions shall be used in interpreting and applying this by-law: "authorized person" means an individual designated or authorized by Niagara Region or an area municipality whose duties include, without limitation, tobacco, cannabis or electronic cigarette control or the monitoring of regional or municipal property for the purpose of addressing unauthorized activities; "area municipality" means any one of the municipalities of the Town of Fort Erie, Town of Grimsby, Town of Lincoln, City of Niagara Falls, Town of Niagara-on-the- Lake, Town of Pelham, City of Port Colborne, City of St. Catharines, City of Thorold, Township of Wainfleet, City of Weiland and the Township of West Lincoln. "outdoor public place" means any property owned, leased or controlled by the Niagara Region or any area municipality, including without limitation parks, playgrounds, sports or playing fields, arenas, recreational centres, bus shelters, splash pads, pools and any area that is within a nine-metre radius of an entrance to or exit from a building located on any property owned, leased or controlled by the Niagara Region or any area municipality, whether or not a "No Smoking" or “No Vaping” sign is posted, but does not include the following: a. highways; b. road allowances abutting a regional or municipal property; c. municipal sidewalks, save and except for that portion of any municipal sidewalk that is within a nine-metre radius of any entrance to or exit from a building located on any property owned, leased or controlled by the Niagara Region or any area municipality; d. parking lots or any area designated for the parking of motor vehicles; e. beaches; f. walking or hiking trails; g. rights-of-way; and h. residential dwellings owned, operated or subsidized by Niagara Regional Housing or an area municipality; "smoke" or "smoking" includes the holding of tobacco or cannabis or other lighted smoking material or equipment while the product is alight or emitting smoke; "tobacco" includes pipe tobacco, water-pipe tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos or any similar product made with or containing tobacco; Page 396 of 450 Bill112 Page 3 of 4 “cannabis” has the same meaning as in subsection 2 (1) of the Cannabis Act (Canada); (“cannabis”) “electronic cigarette” has the same meaning as in subsection 1 (1) of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017 PROHIBITION 2.(1) No person shall smoke tobacco or cannabis, or vape (use electronic cigarette) upon or within an outdoor public place. 2.(2) The prohibition in section 2.(1) above applies whether or not a "No Smoking" or “No Vaping” sign of any format or content is posted. 2.(3) No person shall remove a sign posted under this section while the prohibition remains in force. 2.(4) No person shall hinder or obstruct an authorized person lawfully carrying out the enforcement of this by-law. OFFENCE and SET FINE 3.(1) Any person who contravenes a provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and, upon conviction, is liable to a set fine of $250.00. ENFORCEMENT 4.(1) The provisions of this by-law respecting smoking in an outdoor public place shall be enforced by any authorized person as designated by the Niagara Region or an area municipality. CONFLICTS 5.(1) If a provision of this by-law conflicts with an Act or a regulation or another by-law, the provision that is the most restrictive of smoking shall prevail. SEVERABILITY 6.(1) If any section or part of this by-law are found by any Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such section or part shall be deemed to be severable and all other sections of this by-law shall remain valid and enforceable. Page 397 of 450 Bill112 Page 4 of 4 ENACTMENT 7.(1) This by-law shall come into force on the day that it is approved in accordance with section 115(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, C.25 as amended. EFFECTIVE BY-LAW DATE 8. This by-law shall come into force on the date specified by the Regional Clerk as the date when the following have been achieved: a) A majority of the Councils of all of the lower-tier municipalities forming part of The Regional Municipality of Niagara have passed resolutions giving consent to this by-law: and b) The total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions under clause (a) above form a majority of all the electors in The Regional Municipality of Niagara. THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA : (James Bradley, Regional Chair) (, Regional Clerk) Page 398 of 450 Bill 2019-07 Authorization Reference: PHSSC 1-2019; Minute Item 6.2 Page 1 of 3 THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA BY-LAW NO. 2019-07 A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 112-2013 BEING A BY- LAW TO PROTECT CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE PERSONS FROM EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR SECOND- HAND SMOKE WHEREAS subsection 115(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended (hereinafter the “Act”) provides that a municipality may prohibit or regulate the smoking of tobacco or cannabis in public places; WHEREAS subsection 11(2) of the Act provides The Regional Municipality of Niagara (hereinafter, "Niagara Region") broad authority to govern the health, safety and well- being of persons; WHEREAS the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 26 (hereinafter the “Smoke-Free Ontario Act”) as amended prohibits smoking tobacco or cannabis, and vaping (the use of electronic cigarettes), but Regional By-Law No. 112-2013 only prohibits smoking tobacco; WHEREAS pursuant to subsection 115(10) of the Act if there is a conflict between a by-law passed by a municipality and the provisions of any other statute or regulation of Ontario, the provision that is most restrictive of smoking of tobacco or cannabis prevails; WHEREAS it has been determined that smoking, second-hand tobacco and cannabis smoke and vaping are health hazards and a discomfort for individuals residing in or visiting Niagara Region; WHEREAS smoke-free policy interventions are effective mechanisms to reduce exposure to tobacco smoke, prevent initiation of smoking, encourage cessation of smoking, support recent quitters, and contribute to the denormalization of smoking; WHEREAS Niagara Region therefore wishes to prohibit tobacco and cannabis smoking and vaping (use of electronic cigarettes) in outdoor public places for the health of the public generally, and particularly for the benefit of young persons, and to improve the environmental and social conditions in public places; and, WHEREAS Section 115(5) of the said Act provides that a by-law passed under subsection 115(1) shall not come into force unless, (a) a majority of all votes on the Council of the upper-tier municipality are cast in its favour; Page 399 of 450 Bill 2019-07 Authorization Reference: PHSSC 1-2019; Minute Item 6.2 Page 2 of 3 (b) a majority of the Councils of all the lower-tier municipalities forming part of the upper-tier municipality for municipal purposes have passed resolutions giving their consent to the by-law; and (c) the total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions under clause (b) form a majority of all the electors in the upper- tier municipality. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Regional Municipality of Niagara enacts as follows: 1. That the following definitions are added to subsection 1(1) of By-law 112-2013 in alphabetical order within the context of all definitions currently contained in said by- law: “cannabis” has the same meaning as in subsection 1 (1) of the Smoke -Free Ontario Act, 2017” “electronic cigarette” has the same meaning as in subsection 1 (1) of the Smoke- Free Ontario Act, 2017” "use” with respect to electronic cigarettes includes any of the following: (a) Inhaling vapour from an electronic cigarette; (b) Exhaling vapour from an electronic cigarette; (c) Hold an activated electronic cigarette; “vape” means to use an electronic cigarette; 2. The definition of “smoke or smoking” contained in subsection 1(1) of By-law 112- 2013 shall have the words “or cannabis” added following the word “tobacco” and prior to the word “or”. 3. Section 2(1) of By-law 112-2013 shall be amended by adding after the word “tobacco” and prior to the word “upon” the following words: “or cannabis or vape” 4. The invalidity or unenforceability of a provision of this by-law or part of a provision of this by-law shall not negate the effectiveness or validity of the remaining provisions or parts thereof of this by-law. 5. This by-law shall come into force on the date specified by the Regional Clerk as the date when the following have been achieved: Page 400 of 450 Bill 2019-07 Authorization Reference: PHSSC 1-2019; Minute Item 6.2 Page 3 of 3 a) A majority of the Councils of all of the lower-tier municipalities forming part of The Regional Municipality of Niagara have passed resolutions giving consent to this by-law: and b) The total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions under clause (a) above form a majority of all the electors in The Regional Municipality of Niagara. 6. The amendments to By-law 112-2013 effected by sections one to three of this by- law shall cease to be effective one year from the date this by-law comes into force pursuant to section 5 thereof provided: a. On and after the date upon which sections one to three of this by-law cease to be effective, the provisions of By-law 112-2013 excepting the specific amendments described by this by-law shall remain in force as if this By-law had not been enacted; b. And section 6 of this by-law shall not invalidate any proceedings regarding contraventions of section 2(1) of By-law 112-2013, as amended by this by- law, occurring during the period when the amendments remained in effect notwithstanding that the prosecution and conviction may occur after the date upon which sections one to three of this by-law cease to be effective . 7. That this by-law was passed by the Council for Niagara Region as of the 17th day of January 2019. THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA James Bradley, Regional Chair Ann-Marie Norio, Regional Clerk Passed: <date> Page 401 of 450 1 Bill Matson From:Carey Campbell Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:06 AM To:Bill Matson; Ken Todd Subject:Fwd: National Poetry Month Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Wayne Thomson <wthomson@niagarafalls.ca> Date: January 28, 2019 at 7:53:13 PM EST To: Carey Campbell <ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Fwd: National Poetry Month Carey Can you put this on the Agenda so we can support Poetry for Niagara Falls! Thanks Niagara Falls Wayne Thomson Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Grey Borders <editors@greyborders.com> Date: January 28, 2019 at 7:43:31 PM EST To: "councilmembers@niagarafalls.ca" <councilmembers@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: National Poetry Month Reply-To: Grey Borders <editors@greyborders.com> Good Day Niagara Falls City Council; My name is Jordan Fry, owner and publisher of Grey Borders Books here in wonderful Niagara Falls. I am writing to you today to encourage your support of National Poetry Month - April 2019. During this month, the League of Poets (www.poets.ca) encourages and spreads the fantastic poetic works coming out of Canada through their various National Poetry Month projects. By promoting poetry we engage the public in an artistic endeavor meant to create discussion, inspire, and highlight various aspects of the world we live in. For 2019, the League of Poets has chosen "Nature" as their theme, and what is more representative of Natural Beauty than our Niagara Falls? We are world destination where our main attraction is the epicenter of natural tourism. There is no place else like Niagara Falls. For this, and in co- ordination with National Poetry Month, I am requesting that council commit to opening council meetings throughout April with a poem read by a local author. If Page 402 of 450 2 requested, Grey Borders Books has a list of local, national and international authors who are all willing to read a poem to council As Niagara Falls continues to grow its cultural resources, that is, our poets, painters, authors and artists, it is imperative to support this industry and take advantage of marketing resources that help promote and highlight our beautiful city. Participating cities will be promoted through the League of Poets webpage and social media networks throughout April. National Poetry Month can help build on the backbone of established poetry about and from Niagara Falls. As well, a new Niagara Falls Writer's Festival ( Niagara Falls Writers Festival ) is gaining momentum in the buildup for the festival in October 2018 with a special event on Saturday, April 13th, 1pm at the Niagara Falls Public Library. One aspect of that festival is the Niagara Falls Poetry Contest, where the festival organizers (Grey Borders Books included) are currently receiving poems from around the globe with the specific theme of Niagara Falls. With so many people in literary industry having their eyes turned to Niagara Falls, participation with National Poetry Month can signal to industry leaders that Niagara Falls is a cultural destination unique to the world. I thank you for taking the time to consider this request. Jordan Fry Grey Borders Books 905.329.4739 (GREY) www.greyborders.com Here is a short list of websites beneficial to Niagara Falls literature: Niagara Falls Poetry ( www.niagarapoetry.ca ) National Poetry Month (League of Poets) http://poets.ca/npm/ Niagara Falls Writer's Festival (Contest) http://www.nfwritersfestival.jigsy.com/contest or, join us on Saturday, April 13th @1pm at the Niagara Falls Public Library (Vicotria Ave, Rosberg Gallery) as we feature Sarah Burgess (Niagara), Jeni De La O (Detroit), TAK Erzinger (USA/Switzerland), Alia Wall (Niagara), Mohamad Kebbewar (Syria/Toronto) and Steven Mayoff (PEI) Page 403 of 450 3 Steven Mayoff Steven Mayoff was born and raised in Montreal, lived in Toronto for 17 years and moved to Prince Edward Island i... Mohamad Kebbewar Mohamad Kebbewar was born and raised in Aleppo. Immigrating to Canada at age 19, Kebbewar earned a degree in hi... Alia Wall Alia Wall is an award winning poet whose work can be found in The Banister and Gravitas. She is one of the 2014/... Page 404 of 450 4 TAK Erzinger TAK Erzinger is an American/Swiss poet and artist. She originates from Florida and spent most of her childhood i... Jeni De La O Jeni De La O is an Afro-Cuban poet and storyteller living in Detroit. Her work has appeared or is forthcoming in... Sarah Burgess Page 405 of 450 5 Sarah Burgess was born in November ’86 and has lived in St. Catharines all her life. At the age of 13, the back ... Page 406 of 450 1 Lauren Van Patter PhD Candidate Geography & Planning Queen’s University Kingston ON K7L 3N6 16lvp@queensu.ca 519-362-2500 Niagara Falls City Council 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON Canada L2E 6X5 January 25, 2019 RE: Trail cameras in City parks for coyote research Dear members of Niagara Falls City Council, Request I am an Animal Geographer who is using trail cameras (motion-activated camera traps) to investigate coyote behaviour, ecology, and use of space. I am requesting permission to mount several (4-6) cameras in city parks (e.g. John Allen Park), during my short data collection period (February-July 2019) to collect images of coyotes within these spaces. I have enclosed a Property Access Consent Form with further details. NOTE: The purpose of trail cameras is solely to collect data on urban wildlife. No human data will be collected using these methods. Any incidental pictures captured of humans will be immediately and permanently deleted (see below). Only pictures of coyotes and other wildlife will be retained for use. Due to this provision, I advance that this research does NOT fall under the purview of public video surveillance guidelines. It is common practice in many communities to use remote imaging methods to monitor wildlife on both public and private property (e.g. Vancouver: https://globalnews.ca/video/3880903/trail- cameras-set-up-to-monitor-urban-coyotes; Calgary: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Wildlife-Monitoring.aspx). Project details This research is being undertaken as part of my doctoral thesis in the Department of Geography and Planning at Queen’s University. The aim is to pair social and ecological research tools to investigate urban coyotes in several communities in southern Ontario and contribute to human- wildlife conflict mitigation efforts. Cameras mounted in urban parks will provide insights into coyote ecology and spatial use, which will be paired with interviews in the surrounding community to understand human experiences and perspectives. Human data collection methods (i.e. interviews) have been reviewed and received ethics clearance from the Queen’s University Research Ethics Board. Page 407 of 450 2 This research is being undertaken in partnership with Coyote Watch Canada, and is supported by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF), who have provided the trail cameras for this purpose. Results of this study will be provided to municipalities, Coyote Watch Canada, the OMNRF, and other relevant stakeholders to inform effective and community- supported coyote management initiatives. Protection of data details Only I will have access to the raw data from the cameras (SD cards). The cameras will be protected from theft using a secure lock box. The cameras will be mounted in areas where they are most likely to capture wildlife, and least likely to capture humans (i.e. in wooded areas adjacent to parks). Photos containing humans will be immediately and permanently deleted from the SD card. Only pictures of coyotes and other wildlife will be retained for use. Many thanks for your assistance in this important research. Sincerely, Lauren Van Patter, BSc, MA Page 408 of 450 3 Property Access Consent Form I______________________ do hereby attest that I am the owner of, or am able to give consent to access, the property as described below. I consent to providing the researcher and members of Coyote Watch Canada access to this property, at reasonable times and under reasonable conditions, for the purpose of coyote research, including: • Tracking coyotes and collecting scat; • Setting up and retrieving data from Camera Traps (note: all photos in which humans are captured will be permanently deleted immediately after noting the date and time). Community/ Association/ Business (if applicable): ______________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________ I understand that this activity may involve several visits to the site to collect data, monitor cameras, etc. I do hereby consent to allow, at reasonable times, free and unrestricted access to this property, between the dates of January 1, 2019-January 1, 2020. Signature: _________________________ Print Name: ___________________________ Date: _________________ Phone #: ______________ If you have any further questions, please call Lauren Van Patter at 519-362-2500. Please return this signed consent to: Lauren Van Patter Queen’s University 519-362-2500 16lvp@queensu.ca Page 409 of 450 w=__<_m$o: 303”?m::c3‘_<_m::m<<A_<_m::m<<.?m::c3@:_m©m$«mmmo:.8v mmz?_<_o:Qm<._m:cmJ\mm.NQS:EE3 ._.on>332rmvoms?mhE:_<_m.8o:MmosamZmm:no-Uc:_n.Uossm_um_<mn::_o..ImNm_momavr mm?ozw_om::mmQ3m..§1Am_om.5:9Zm:n<wowwm?om_um.B«:59m.n:omm_o_.nm3_..$3. m..8_o:m:m..<<__=m3_Ao_mmm m:E.mnnZ_mmm$mmmwo:nocsnznolmmnosamsnm >:..mn_=:m:..m”n:A-nNo$-w§%nmum,mo$.u% moon303:6 _u_mmmmmmmEmmzmormaoozmmnosqmsomqmmumonso>_2u8<m_2_3m:35,2Um?mmmag>3oc2m. _uSm:m3.8Emz_mmmSEmma:00:30:Bmmzsorm:oz,_m::m_.<3.N39Em::.o::m:o:aswim o:o:_m$q.8Em_oom_mamm3c:wo__om_Oocsozm*2::.o::m:o:. mmumam. _<_m::m<< _<_m£:m<<._._.m:::3 _um_u£<_»m9o:m_O_m_.x O33923mmm©_o:m_Em}.z_mm_m_jmmmmmo: U303?8m-©mo-mooomx?.$3._.o__-:.mm”Zwoo-N8-§ <<<<<<.3mmwmqm53.8 $5WomwosmzKsiogmmaxomZwmmmamn8m%a§3ZomomA50wswogmdwob835%3sawooBB:§._ommos E?s?bmE‘?m?mogob?m35%va8sm%a§.Wm3.8593055»3:6:moomEaHaoduwobxmv35$mwo/5.was gm?3Emwzwwai?omom.EnEaHommaaomnmmBammmmmWm52$53.8539Hwo?mob?«ozmam533momma9a mumEmmaaismmowu?m?csmobuEmo?omsaouca833om9%ooBBcBom:oP9.mumowmmoo?aamuWm33%waowmuxam.Rwas~53382$mamooasabciomnos3BeerEammo3&3$5oo?gsiommob.8$5$32 mum%§§§&@308$5oamsa25mbwoowwom:W05%O:HOOHDHVGHGH.m%m8B.?g?«oz.Page 410 of 450 Zmmmwwm >n_3_=§..m:o= E —?.Ommnm0."EmWmmosaQmwr mW_O:as2..5%m3%<52.mowox:5.153:.oz_.~<.5. ._.m_mv:o:m”oom-$T§.m._.o=-Emmn_-moo-~$-S;mmx”.mom-m.3-$d <<<<¢<.:mmmw_.m:.mmmo:.nm LmscméB.83 00:30:mmmm_o:_._m::m_.<,3.No.8 oo:::_:mmmmmmmos...m::.m_.<9No.8 omum-~o8.._m::m_.<w.83 F095.>mm>§:2.o=u.£.3mm mmzam..mQ.mo2.o>:.< >mm8<m_2.3513_.m<K.Um.?mmmag>3o:2m mmu30$ mm9o:m_Oocsoz.m?zmEmmzsmEmao:._m:cm23.N39nmmmmaEm..o__o<<Em wmoo33m:qm:o:9.2mOozuo?m?mmm_.<_ommOo33Emm” Eammuo:own306.qm?mq._m:cm2m.83.wmmumozsm>vu8<m_o.“3513 _.m<<Um?mmmug>3o:3m.mmmmmm_<mcmagEm3__o<<Em«moo33m:am.._o:m mm>_u.umo<muH E43%EmE513m3oc2m*2Emmm9o:m__m<<mm>_uumo<mu3 _»mm_o:m_OocsozEEmm3o:3mm:o<<:E>%9a.x _ .8mmvo:owna. N3? NArm»Emmm9o:m_O_mEmzmcammEm:Emmuvaouzm?mU<-_m<<mm _umm_u>mm_u61Emmmimaos.8mm@_o:m_Oocsoz*2oo:mam$:o:mag mun8<m_“man a.gm:mmuo:mmom-.u.3mmmo_moc_.>4mu8EmOocsozm9.Em_oom_ m?mm3_.S_o:mm_ammEaE..o3.m:o:. >832own306am:o_ommq..2<05.am?mwmsom. <oSm:.:_<, $3/\ >::-_<_m1m225 mm@.o:m_O_m% ”_<C._.Page 411 of 450 >_uv8<m_2.3513_.m<<Um?mmmag>3oc2m ._m::m2B.N03 _ummmm OCAIOM20.3 on”Im_m:O:m3Um2m.:Uxmo?on_u3m:Qm__<_m:mmm3m:..msa_u_m::3m\Owns??mmmcamw Page 412 of 450 .zm_.m~......m.‘\.\\wmaomowhim ,_m:_._m29B3 _ummmA mc?mon>E:o<m_9“_3m:3_.m<<Um?mmmag>3o::.Hm mmuo:.8_00808.5mm_.<_omm0o33_:mm mmuo:3:2<<mnEmma_m<.._m::m2©«NQE _»moo33m:n_m:o:m M. w AEREmE523m3o:2mEaEmmmQo:m__m<<mm>_uvmo<muU<mm©_o:m_Oocsoz EEmm3oc2mm:o<<:E>_o_um:n=x _ 8Emma:mmom-No§ .33Emmm9o:m_O_mEmzmcammEm:Emmvv?onzm?m_u<-_m<<mmE»m_u>mmo3.. Emmmimzoz.8mm9o:m_OoczozEaoosmamaaosmagmnU8<m_“msq Arm:«mum:omuwhoammo_moc_.>amu.8EmOocsozm9.Em_oom_m?mm 3c:_m6m_amm..2E..o_.3m.._o:. _Am<mmoam .§mccacomm2Eaammo:a.8203%msE613_m<<mnE<m_m28max.9.EmU12 <mm:.mmnu8<mn_mm:3m.nmmncacmi8mmoao:Ba9.Em_<_§a_8_>o.HEo&m~.8 oosmscmooqm$2332.2.8Emmqo_u.._o:2vcamm?mm:3m»mmEaEm<mmr .:EmmcEoE<3E09.mxumsazc?mm3mm9o:m_qmvm:3m3m.comammagmmmsommm _mm?mamq3mmm_o:m_Oo::o__E85:Emm:::m_mun8<mgucamm?mm28238 3Em_<_c:_o6m_>3. ArmmmgosmmamaOo:.:o_$.92$03-3.$23:mavmammwmvsmp9o<Emm Em:U128Ooc:o___mm_ov3<m_9.EmOcmaasomama35,2.moclmi<mm1m mxumsqzcamm33cmEoczmq2mUcqom?..2mm_3:m_.:m3mx_m.HmaEEm_2m<mocm <mm1mo_um_.m.§mUcamm?magEmmxnmsqzcwmm_mm»Emmm3mmm_.<mom_m<m_mmEm U12<mm«msaQomm:2mxommqmeg.:Emm3o:3mvv_.ov:m.?mQEEm9m<_o:m <mm1monmaasm932. :5mm9o_.__mwcqom?02:3.w<_m<<$03-8.$25:3Um?mmwmvjEEosqmm Em”U12.8Oo_._:o__.mmvu3<m_o.“EmOmv:m_mamaw<_m<<_mxcm:q_.P=mm*2:92 om_o:m__...8_.mo.a3m<cmumzs?mq:msEn=<E:m_omv:m__u8_.mQ_mamm3mqmclog? 3Ooc:o__magmumo3om__<mUv8<mqc<OocsozEmQ<m:om2Em@m:mB_omu:m_ 9:62U<_m<<Ammomo:ma.vmammamur3. _um:m:o_m_Oo:mEm_.m:o:m arm3513_m<<m3o:2m8cmamgcmmaosmq:03Em_oom_mwmm3c:_o_vm_Emm8.85 m:m_mE.$mA®m:mE__.m<$man.mine;.30A<<mm.nm_<_m:mmm3m_..c3:m.83:9” ?mo.m.a.mom2mo:2EmNOS_m<_mQm3oc2m..§mE613_m<<<<=_v8<Emmc3o_m3 Page 413 of 450 0m00-0.03 33:020.~30 UmmmN 033:0<<m:0:0::m3.H<mm:mmm:0300m$:03m:3:_m00:0<m_0.“EmM0300mB:3m 0:060:m30_m<<mE0:3.Hm. >3m_<wmm .:3mm:E03..<.8E0::mx0m3n:.E:mm0<_»mm:03m_0m_0m:3m3Hm.00030030mmm30_mm.0 083.603mmm.03m_00:30:E8:m3Emm33:m_m00:0<m000m:m:3m0:0©m:mm 0:mm030m00<Em_<_:3_0_0m_>03._u30_1.0Emm3m33:m_0:0mm.?_0mEmm000.nm00< _»mm:03m_00:30:.0<_m<<83.8mmm00:0<m0_0<mmm_03m_00:30:0_.0<ammEm: :mm_03m_0m0m:Em3$.comam030mmm30_mmEm<E05mx0m3mmm:0.8moo:0."Em:030: <mm:_m00m$:3o0:0©mHE0am:.8EmE.BE0:mEmmmmm:m:m_:0:mmm_03m_mm_.<:0mm. _u:_.Em:.8E6.mm0:03030..Em_<_:3_0_0m_>0:m:E03Nmm00:30:E8:m3m0<_m<<8 0:0<_:mm3E533_m<<m::_<m_m3H.5moo:0."Em030:<mm:_mm00_.0<m0mm:EmHmmAm:_0:_m0: .80m:mEm0_.:m.:3m3.HmV_0m..0:mEm9:00:030.“0:0©m.hmm:33mHmm:0:Em<mm3:3mm_0mm3 Em_»mo_03.m00$0$0:0m.8_m<<03E533_m<<E2:2.8E30mm@_03m_mm:<:0mm030: EEmm00:0<m_03..Emm33:m_0:003030:3m__m<<mE0:3.?m. mx_0m30:::mm3.0:3920m0:m_08_.m0$030:E00:30:.mm00:0<m_0:EmN03 003m0:0m.?m00m_0:m__0:0@m.H0<_m<<Em<0m0m:3Em0:.m3E0:<a:m_000:0:0:0_.m0.H:0 0mm3m0m0303.2300:30:030m0m0:n.0m:<m_003<m0300:30:Em0<m30m0..Em ©m3mB_0m0:m_0:0©mH0<_m<<Amm0:0300.00363033. >:m_.3m:<mmmm<_m<<ma >:mEm:<mE:mm30_0m<<m:m30:003m_:m:m0mmEmE533_m<<0.“moo:0m23_:m00<Em _<_:3_0:0m_>0:2::©m3m:m__<m3m:_.m0mm3E:0<<mEEmm30:m_..Hm_.33mamm0_m.8 m000EE00m.?mEm_m<m_03.mx0m30:::mm.3.3m_<_:3:0:0m_>0»00mm30.“3m<mm :m::_:m33m3.n3m00_.0<mmm0m30Em:3:Em0<m30m0:"Em_0:0mm.Hm00:0<m_30<<m<m:Em _03m0:0m3mm0mm3m00Em00<Emmm©_03E:0:o30<_m<<003-00. E533_m<<qm?mmmam003m_mHm3.?<sEEm030:<mm:m.3.3m_00m_m_.mm3:3_0:0m::mm<<m_.m 003m::m0m3:30m:mEm:<mqm?mmmam003mEm:m0. _»m_m:03m3_0300:30:m=.m:mm.0_u.._0_.Emm >00:0<m_0:EmE.?m33.__m<<:0:N05<<:_0m:3:mx0m30_.E:mm.80mE0:3.m0E0:0m:.8 EmE.BE3:mEmmmmm:m:m_3.0..mmm_03m_mm2:0mm. OEm.._um_.:3m3~Wmcolm z\>.Page 414 of 450 omum-mo$ ._m:cm2m.83 Ummmm _u_.o_uw—.mQ5:_»mno33m:amn_3: Im_m:O:m3Um1m3.O_u>.O>40%Imimoz.O_u>.O_<_> U308:_u3m:o_m__<_m:mmm3m3WOo33_mm6:m3$mmSm« _u_m::_:m\Umcc.2._.._.mmm_..:»®1m2m6:mmmmmocwom_<_m:mmm3m2 mm_.<_om.m mccazag3:mo:$6?_u.m:© >o::mO39.>q3§m.:m:<m0309 dimEnos.EmubambmwmqSoo:m§.m:.o:<s.SmacIm:2.:©\$3.3HmxW.mm<m::m>:m€m~mus. $S.m<<mQEximwomwmw§:S3\.>mmoQ.m$9.59.03manna.U\m:§.:©wm~<m~.m©<. >_o_um:o=omm >vum:q_x _ _2m23_.m<<_um<3m3mmagDm?mm_um©mA Page 415 of 450 nmo38¢ >U_om:n:x _ _m:cm2m.NONE 3%b >_u_um_,_&x _ -.3323_:m<<_um<3m3mmanUmamm Qm:m_.m__..¢<< 2_==§_§_:< _ 39333.33.5319N93_4oa__=.2_3_.m<< 9%:.3wt:.3.3mm»mm: Elm_Nd_8$3.83m?om Em.o.a_mo$3.83O38 $_mK_mm3.39%8..§m_§ Zmm.m_.m..o:-n=m-_.m_$$8.3.\._wmm_i3.30.8 p89338.338% vol0o_co..:m$3.8m.m.\.m.Sm..\mm.wN.\. mpOw:._m1:mmBu:NABu:Nu»3..RN$o ._.:o..oEw.$o_omm_$o.8mumimm <<m=..2mmn$00.80SoobmoNbo?m? a???lwsm?mimmba:.m$_%_ <<mw.n_._:oo_:m8moi 42».mm2:.2%8$428._Nw3»3m <<mm$_<_m:mmm_.:m:»mumn_m__.m<< _<_§.n__8_=< _ _<_m3_.$.....2o _ 2_m<._m.~o8_.3$___:2_3_.m<< 23.2»Ea z.m.ma-o=-:a-_.aa 2.om=§=am QESE ._.oz._922».m<<mm»m_sm:mmm3m_:=:m...3_um<< _<_§§_8_=< _ _sm_a=3.B$ _ _s21m.~.:o _ ._.oS__:»m_.__.=_.....<< 23.3m___m z_m.m_a-o_..:a-_.aa w_$m_omwmmwomNENQ mxzwmmw.wa.Nm9833 2.omzszzmmNm.o$.3mpoéuomwommii w.§m.8w.§m.8iombm $8.:$8.:N.$m.mm wswmm939mmabo?om N80NANmac3mwoo3 mmw?mmmm8»mm:3mumSm Page 416 of 450 Bill Matson From:Trennum,Matthew <Matthew.Trennum@niagararegion.ca> Sent:Monday,January 28,2019 11:03 AM To:Amber LaPointe;BillMatson;Bonnie Nistico—Dunk;Donna Delvechhio;Hazel Soady— Easton;Joanne Scime;Kirkelos,Julie;Nancy Bozzato;Peter Todd;Schofield,Carol;Tara Stephens;William Kolasa Subject:Niagara Regional Council Correspondence Attachments:CLK—C2019-33.pdf;CSD 3—2019.pdf Good morning Please see the attached correspondence respecting Vacancy Program Revisions to Ministry of Finance. Pursuant to the Niagara Region Council meeting held on January 17,2019,this information is being circulated to the local area municipal Councils for information. Regards, Matthew Matthew Trennum Deputy Regional Clerk Office of the Regional Clerk,Niagara Region Phone:905-980-6000 ext.3273 Toll—free:1-800-263-721 wvvw.niagararegion.ca The Regional Municipality of Niagara Con?dentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be con?dential,is intended only for the use of the recipient(s)named above,and may be legally privileged.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination,distribution,disclosure,or copying of this communication,or any of its contents,is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please re—sendthis communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of it from your computer system.Thank you. Page 417 of 450 Niagara Administration Of?ce of the Regional Clerk |8l5 Sir lsaac Brock Way,PO Box I042,Thorold,ON L2V4T7 January 21,2019 Telephone:905-685-4225 Toll-free:l-800-263-72l5 Fax:905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca Council Session,January 17,2019 Committee Session,January 9,2019 CSD 3-2019,January 9,2019 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY Vacancy Program Revisions to Ministry of Finance CSD 3-2019 Regional Council,at its meeting held on January 17,2019,passed the following recommendation of its Corporate Services Committee: That Report CSD 3-2019,dated January 9,2019,respecting Vacancy Program Revisions to Ministry of Finance,BE RECEIVED and that the following recommendations BE APPROVED: 1.That the proposed amendments to the existing Commercial/industrial Vacant Unit Rebate and Vacant/Excess Land Subclass property tax rate reductions programs BE APPROVED as follows: a)Vacant Unit Tax Rebate Commercial Properties:Phase out the current program in its entirety,over three years,by reducing the eligible rebate percentage from the current rate of 30%in 2018,to 20%in 2019,10%in 2020,and 0%in 2021 and onwards. Industrial Properties:Phase out the current program in its entirety,over three years,by reducing the eligible rebate percentage from the current rate of 30%in 2018,to 20%in 2019,10%in 2020,and 0%in 2021 and onwards. b)Vacant/Excess Land Tax Rate Reduction Commercial Properties:Phase out the current program in its entirety,over four years starting 2021,by reducing the eligible rebate percentage from the current rate of 30%in 2018,to 22.5%in 2021,15%in 2022,7.5%in 2023 and 0%in 2024 and onwards. Page 418 of 450 Vacancy Program Revisions to Ministry of Finance January 21,2019 Page 2 ii.industrial Properties:Phase out the current program in its entirety,over four years starting 2021,by reducing the eligible rebate percentage from the current rate of 30%in 2018,to 22.5%in 2021,15%in 2022,7.5%in 2023 and 0%in 2024 and onwards; 2.That the Province of Ontario BE REQUESTED to adopt regulations and make any other legislative amendments required to adjust Niagara Region’s Vacant Unit and Vacant/Excess Land Tax Programs as per Recommendation 1; 3.That the Commissioner,Enterprise Resource Management Services/Treasurer BE DIRECTEDto submit this report to the Ontario Minster of Finance,along with any other supporting documentation as required by the Ministry to enact the requested program changes;and 4.That this report BE CIRCULATED to the Councils of the area municipalities for information. A copy of CSD 3-2019 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, oé7"mé\/ Ann—MarieNorio Regional Clerk :MJT CLK-C 2019-33 cc:Rob Fleming Senior Tax &Revenue Analyst Page 419 of 450 --CSD 3-2019Niagara./l/Region January 9,2019 Page 1 Subject:Vacancy Program Revisions to Ministry of Finance Report to:Corporate Services Committee Report date:Wednesday,January 9,2019 Recommendations 1.That the proposed amendments to the existing Commercial/Industrial Vacant Unit Rebate and Vacant/Excess Land Subclass property tax rate reductions programs BE APPROVED as follows: a.Vacant Unit Tax Rebate i.Commercial Properties:Phase out the current program in its entirety,over three years,by reducing the eligible rebate percentage from the current rate of 30%in 2018,to 20%in 2019, 10%in 2020,and 0%in 2021 and onwards. ii.Industrial Properties:Phase out the current program in its entirety, over three years,by reducing the eligible rebate percentage from the current rate of 30%in 2018,to 20%in 2019,10%in 2020,and 0%in 2021 and onwards. b.Vacant/Excess Land Tax Rate Reduction l.Commercial Properties:Phase out the current program in its entirety,over four years starting 2021,by reducing the eligible rebate percentage from the current rate of 30%in 2018,to 22.5%in 2021,15%in 2022,7.5%in 2023 and 0%in 2024 and onwards. ii.Industrial Properties:Phase out the current program in its entirety, over four years starting 2021,by reducing the eligible rebate percentage from the current rate of 30%in 2018,to 22.5%in 2021, 15%in 2022,7.5%in 2023 and 0%in 2024 and onwards; 2.That the Province of Ontario BE REQUESTED to adopt regulations and make any other legislative amendments require to adjust Niagara Region’s Vacant Unit and Vacant/Excess Land Tax Programs as per Recommendation 1. 3.That the Commissioner,Enterprise Resource Management Services/Treasurer BE DIRECTED to submit this report to the Ontario Minster of Finance,along with any other supporting documentation as required by the Ministry to enact the request program changes;and 4.That this report BE CIRCULATED to the Councils of the area municipalities for information. Page 420 of 450 CSD 3-2019 January 9,2019 Page 2 Key Facts o Commencing in 2017,the Province provided municipalities a greater range of options to modify or eliminate the Vacant Unit Property Tax Rebate and Commercial/Industrial Vacant/Excess Subclass property tax reduction programs. 0 Currently,Niagara Region has adopted property tax rebate/reduction for the above noted programs of 30%. o Report CSD 77-2017 Commercial and Industrial Sub Class Tax Rate Reduction and Rebates,dated November 29,2019,Regional Council approved a public consultation process to be conducted in order to solicit opinions on program alterations.Both area municipal staff and business associations were consulted. o Report CSD 41-2018 dated July 18,2018 presented the result of the public engagement to Council and based on the comments provided by local stakeholders, Regional staff proposed amendments to the existing rebate and reduction programs as outlined in the recommendations section of this report. a Council reviewed the proposed changes included in CSD 41-2018 and requested that additional public engagement occur in order to ensure communication of the proposed changes and input is achieved. o Three additional public engagement sessions were held and no changes to the previously presented program revisions as per CSD 41-2018 are being recommended as a result of no new information being obtained from the business community coupled with an increased desired from the non—commercial/industrial property owners for program elimination. Financial Considerations Vacant Unit Rebates —The Region’s vacancy rebate program is an application based program that provides for a 30%rebate to both commercial and industrial property classes if vacancies are experienced in year.The rebate program policy is a decision of Regional Council that applies to all the Niagara municipalities. Unlike the subclass reduction program described below,the Region and each municipality budget for the cost of providing these vacancy rebates.The Region’s 2018 budget expense for providing this program was approximately $1 Million or 0.28%of the tax levy.The impact on the local area municipal levies would be of a similar dollar magnitude in aggregate.Elimination of this program could provide direct budget opportunities for both the Region and area municipality’s budgets or could be used to provide mitigation against future budget increases. Subclass Rate Reduction —The Region’s vacant and excess land discount factor for commercial and industrial properties is 30%for 2018 for properties that are vacant or have excess land.The subclass rate reductions are one of the tax policy decisions the Regional Council must make each year that apply to all the Niagara municipalities. Page 421 of 450 CSD 3-2019 January 9,2019 Page 3 The subclass reductions provided to commercial and industrial vacant/excess lands amounts to approximately $1.6 million (Regional portion only).It is important to note, that any changes to this program would not provide direct budget relief to the tax levy. Any reduction of the subclass discount percentage would result in a tax shift away from all other classes (including the residential,farm,full commercial and industrial classes) onto the previously discounted commercial and industrial classes.Unlike the vacant unit rebates,discussed above,the property owners do not have to apply for the reduction. Eligibilityfor the subclasses is ultimately determined by MPAC and is reflected annually on the tax roll. The impact to the average residential household of eliminating the vacant unit rebate plus the benefit of the tax shift from eliminating the subclass discounts is estimated at $10.96 or 0.75%reduction for the average household (Region portion only).For commercial and industrial properties assessed at $1 million,the benefit of eliminating the discounts and rebates is $74 and $112,respectively. The savings of starting the phase—out in 2019 will result in a decrease in the Region’s Vacant Unit Rebate budget by approximately $300 thousand which has been repurposed to other Regional priorities in the 2019 operating budget.As a result of the program change,a similar impact can be expected for the area municipalities in aggregate. Analysis Additional Public Engagement At the direction of Corporate Services Committee,staff undertook additional consultation with local area municipalities and business associations above what was originally conducted.The Niagara Industrial Association,Greater Niagara Chambers of Commerce and previous users of the program were further engaged in order to ensure communication of the changes and input was achieved. Regional staff organized two additional engagement sessions open to both area municipal staff and business groups/residents.Notification was distributed to area municipal staff informing them of the upcoming meeting.in order to increase awareness of the engagement session with the business groups and residents,Regional staff coordinated press releases through both the Niagara Industrial Association and Greater Niagara Chamber of Commerce,undertook a social media campaign and provided further information on the Region’s website. In order to ensure a comprehensive public engagement,Regional staff invited area municipal finance staff to complete direct mail outs to former recipients of the vacant unit rebate informing them of the intended program revisions and directing them to the Regions online survey.The direct mail out did yield a few verbal enquiries,however, Page 422 of 450 CSD 3-2019 January 9,2019 Page 4 staff believe that the increase in the number of surveys completed (in comparison to the May 2018 survey)can partially be attributed to the direct mail outs and the social media campaign. Region staff were also contacted by the Niagara Industrial and Commercial Brokers association with comments on the proposed program revisions.As a result,an additional meeting was arranged between the members of the association and Region staff to further discuss the existing program,the proposed program revisions and the impact of such changes.This meeting was attended by representatives of many commercial and industrial property owners across Niagara. Result of Additional Public Engagement The results of the additional municipal engagement were consistent with the previous sessions held with municipal staff.There was an interest in eliminating the programs and allocating the funds currently utilized by these program elsewhere (i.e.,economic development activities or to the tax levy). The results of the additional public engagement session with the community were mixed.The representatives in attendance from one of Niagara Business Improvement Areas was in support of program alterations while those that identified as business owners were not in favour of the proposed changes.The discussion primarily focused on the vacant unit rebate instead of the vacant/excess land subclass reduction program. in general,comments received from those in attendance were in support of the vacant unit rebate program as it provides assistance to business owners during challenging periods and/or transition periods between tenants. Comments received from the Realtors association were similar to those received during the additional public consultation from the community as well.Those in attendance noted that the Region should not enact program changes for the sole purpose of being consistent with other municipalities across Southern Ontario.Those in attendance stressed the importance of a “made in Niagara”solution.This meeting also resulted in 9 letters in support of the current program being submitted to the Region from business owners (included as Appendix I). From the time that report CSD 41-2018 was presented to Council anadditional 157 online surveys were completed by business owners and residents.The full summary of the results are included as Appendix II to this report.The survey was designed to separate those that are representatives or owners of commercial/industrial properties and those that are not.Approximately 38%of the survey respondents identified themselves as a representative or owner of a commercial or industrial property in Niagara while the remaining 62%did not.The responses from those that identified as representatives or owners of a business were for the most part,consistent with the verbal feedback received at all engagement sessions.Unlike the engagement sessions Page 423 of 450 CSD 3-2019 January 9,2019 Page 5 though,significant input was received from those that did not identify as representatives or owners of a business property.The majority of this group did not feel that the existing vacancy programs creates a positive impact on the local community and as a result, both programs should be discontinued. Recommendation Based on Public Engagement As discussed in CSD 41-2018,staff presented rationale for eliminating the programs which included: o Existing programs place strain on current municipal budgets; o No limitation on the number of years a property can be considered vacant and eligible which can lead to lack of incentive to develop properties or fill vacancies; o Assessment practices have led to “double-dipping”as properties can receive reduced assessed values related to vacancies (as a.result of built in assessment obsolescence factors by MPAC)in addition to a vacancy tax rebate during the same period. Based on discussions from all stakeholder engagements,staff are recommending that the below phase-out schedules for both programs be endorsed by Council.It should be noted that the recommended program revisions are a “made in Niagara”solution.Many Golden Horseshoe municipalities (as noted in Appendix Ill)have opted to eliminate the Vacant Unit program through a phase-out starting 2017 or eliminate the program immediately without a phase-out.As noted in Table 1,the “made in Niagara”solution is to phase-out the Vacant Unit rebate starting 2019 and a delayed 4 year phase-out for the vacant/excess land subclass discount starting 2021. Table 1:Recommended Program Phase-out Schedule Year Vacant Unit Rebate %Vac‘;nt,Exc. eSsoLand eductlon A 2018 30%30% 2019 20%30% 2020 10%30% 2021 0%22.5% 2022 0%15% 2023 0%7.5% 2024 and onwards 0%0% As discussed in CSD 41-2018,the intent of the phase out starting 2019 for the vacant unit rebate program is to allow for business owners that would be effected by the program change to adjust their business plans (i.e.seek tenants,better utilize available building space,etc.).The intent of the four year phase-out starting 2021 for the vacant and excess land subclass reduction program is to provide time for commercial and industrial land owners to create productive land and to match MPAC’s assessment phase—incycles allowing for a “fresh start”in 2024.It should also be noted that the Page 424 of 450 CSD 3-2019 January 9,2019 Page 6 Ontario Business improvement Area Association is in support of eliminating the vacant unit rebate for similar reasons as noted above (press release included as Appendix IV). Provincial Requirements to Enact Requested Program Revisions As outlined in Appendix V,the Province established requirements that must be completed prior to submitting program changes for their consideration.Over the course of the review period conducted by Regional staff,all requirements have been completed save and except the final requirement of Council to pass a resolution indicating approval of the changes.If Council passes a resolution in accordance with the report recommendations as presented,staff will request the Province to enact the program revisions as outlined in Table 1 noted above. Alternatives Reviewed Continue both the commercial/industrial vacant unit and vacant/excess land subclass tax reduction programs as a status quo.This alternative is NOT RECOMMENDED as it does not respond to the concerns heard during the public consultation process. Eliminate both the vacant unit and vacant/excess land subclass rebate and reduction programs immediately without phase-out.This alternative is NOT RECOMMENDED as it would not provide sufficient time for local business owners to adjust their business plans accordingly. Continue the vacant unit program but limit the number of years that a property can be eligible for rebate.This alternative is NOT RECOMMENDED as it does not represent the majority of the input received during the public engagement sessions.It is also believed that this approach would create confusion with the program and increase administrative burden of having these programs. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities Options provided supports Council’s priority of fostering an environment for economic prosperity. Other Pertinent Reports CSD 79-2016 Recommended Actions for Correspondence from the City of St. Catharines respecting Tax Policy Changes CSD 77-2017 Commercial and Industrial Sub Class Tax Rate Reductions and Rebates CWCD 142-2017 Response to enquires from March 22,2017 Corporate services Committee meeting CSD 18-2018 Property Tax Policy,Ratios and Rates CSD 41-2018 Results of Stakeholder Engagement for Vacancy Rebate Program Revisions Page 425 of 450 CSD 3-2019 January 9,2019 Page 7 Prepared by:Recommended by: Rob Fleming,MBA Todd Harrison,CPA,CMA Senior Tax &Revenue Analyst CommissionerlTreasurer Enterprise Resource Management Enterprise Resource Management Services Services Submitted by: Ron Tripp,P.Eng. Acting Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Margaret Murphy,Associate Director,Budget Planning &Strategy and Ken Scholtens,Manager,Business Development &Expedited Services,and reviewed by Helen Chamberlain,Director,Financial Management &Planning /Deputy Treasurer. Appendices Appendix I Letters Re Vacancy Program Revisions Appendix II Survey Outcomes Appendix lll Map of Neighbouring Municipalities with Council Approved Program Changes Appendix lV News Release -Ontario Business Improvement Area Association Appendix V Letter from Ministry of Finance Re:Vacant Unit and Vacant/Excess Land Subclasses Page 426 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix l January 9,2019 Rob Flemming Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst Financial Management and Planning Enterprise Resource Management Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way Thorold,ON L2V4T7 I'm the owner of the property located at 142 Cushman Road,St.Catharines,consisting of ‘f:1>%3[ti<;j2sq.ft. l‘m opposed to any removal of the Vacancy Tax Credit. Even though other regions have opted out of the Vacancy Tax Credit,I believe as with many of my colleagues that this should be a "Made in Niagara Solution".What may work in other Regions,I can assure you that this proposal will not work here.We are just coming into a healthy rental market with a forecast of a downturn some late 2019 through to 2022.Other Regions have experienced strong market conditions and have expanded significantly.Whereas Niagara is just starting to fill their industrial, commercial is holding its own and office is looking bleak.How could you even consider implementing a measure such as this when we have had such a dismal past. Please remove this proposal from the Region and Municipalities. Sincerely, Collini Ferretti Holdings lnc: Page 427 of 450 CSD 3—2019 Appendix l January 9,2019 Rob Flemming Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst Financial Management and Planning Enterprise Resource Management Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way Thoroid,ON L2V4T7 I'm the owner of the property located at 1620 Dominion Road,Fort Erie,consisting of i2§"’§iv?d sq.ft. I'm opposed to any removal of the Vacancy Tax Credit. Even though other regions have opted out of the Vacancy Tax Credit,i believe as with many of my colleagues that this should be a "Made in Niagara Solution".What may work in other Regions,i can assure you that this proposal will not work here.We are just coming into a healthy rental market with a forecast of a downturn come late 2019 through to 2022.Other Regions have experienced strong market conditions and have expanded significantly.Whereas Niagara is just starting to fill their industrial, commercial is holding its own and office is looking bleak.How could you even consider implementing a measure such as this whenwe have had such a dismal past. Please remove this proposal from the Region and Municipalities. Sincerely, Larry Stewart Page 428 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix I January 9,2019 Rob Flemming Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst Financial Management and Planning Enterprise Resource Management Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way Thorold,ON L2V 4T7 l‘mtheowner of the property located at 10 Duniop St,St.Catharines,consisting of i—§;\,§3‘.>sq.it. I'm opposed to any removal of the Vacancy Tax Credit. Even though other regions have opted out of the Vacancy Tax Credit,I believe as with many of my colleagues that this should be a "Made in Niagara Solution".What may work in other Regions,1can assure you that this proposal will not work here.We are just coming into a healthy rental market with a forecast of a downturn come late 2019 through to 2022.Other Regions have experienced strong market conditions and have expanded significantly.Whereas Niagara is just starting to ?ll their industrial, commercial is holding its own and office is looking bieak.How could you even consider implementing a measure such as this when we have had such a dismal past. Please remove this proposai from the Region and Municipalities. Sincerely, Larry Stewa rt Page 429 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix I January 9,2019 Rob Flemming Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst Financial Management and Planning Enterprise Resource Management Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way Thorold,ON L2V 4T7 ,'m theowner of the property located at 543 Allanburg Road,Thorold,consisting of3/1‘;/Cf?sq.ft. I'm opposed to any removal of the Vacancy Tax Credit. Even though other regions have opted out of the Vacancy Tax Credit,I believe as with many of my colleagues that this should be a "Made in Niagara Solution".What may work in other Regions,I can assure you that this proposal will not work here.We are just coming into a healthy rental market with a forecast of a downturn come late 2019 through to 2022.Other Regions have experienced strong market conditions and have expanded significantly.Whereas Niagara is just starting to ?ll their industrial, commercial is holding its own and office is looking bleak.How could you even consider implementing a measure such as this when we have had such a dismal past. Please remove this proposal from the Region and Municipalities. Sincerely, ry Stewart Page 430 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix l January 9,2019 Rob Flemming Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst Financial Management and Planning Enterprise Resource Management Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir lsaac Brook Way Thorold,ON L2V 4T7 |‘rn the owner of the property located at 101 Hannover Drive,St.Catharines,consisting of ‘3>"iasq.ft. i'm opposed to any removal of the Vacancy Tax Credit. Even though other regions have opted out of the Vacancy Tax Credit,i believe as with many of my colleagues that this should be a "Made in Niagara Solution".What may work in other Regions,i can assure you that this proposal will not work here.We are just coming into a healthy rental market with a forecast of a downturn come late 2019 through to 2022.Other Regions have experienced strong market conditions and have expanded significantly.Whereas Niagara is just starting to fill their industrial, commercial is holding its own and office islooking bleak.How could you even consider implementing a measure such as this when we have had such a dismal past. Please remove this proposal from the Region and Municipalities. Sincerely, Larry Stewart Page 431 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix I A W 0 e 1 January 9,2019CUSEAYPRPERTIESINC. 242 Main Street East Phone:(905)528-8956 Hamilton,Ontario,L8N 1H5 Fax:(905)528~2165 November 15”‘,2018 Rob Flemming Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst Financial Management and Planning Enterprise Resource Management Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way Thorold,ON L2V 4T7 Causeway Properties Inc.is the owner of the property located at 113-115 Cushman Road St.Catharines,Ontario,consisting of 185,642 sq.it. I'm opposed to any removal of the Vacancy Tax Credit. Even though other regions have opted out of the Vacancy Tax Credit,I believe as with many of my colleagues that this should be a "Made in Niagara Solution".What may work in other Regions,I can assure you that this proposal will not work here.We are just coming into a healthy rental market with a forecast of a downturn come late 2019 through to 2022.Other Regions have experienced strong market conditions and have expanded significantly.Whereas Niagara is just starting to filltheir industrial, commercial is holding its own and office is looking bleak.How could you even consider implementing a measure such as this when we have had such a dismal past. Please remove this proposal from the Region and Municipalities, Sincerely, CAUSEWAY PROPERTIESINC. Page 432 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix I i January 9,2019F.T.A.CONDOR HOLDINGS INC. 242 Main Street East Phone:(905)528-8956 Hamilton,Ontario,L8N 1H5 Fax:(905)528—2165 November 15”‘,2018 Rob Flemming Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst Financial Management and Planning Enterprise Resource Management Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way Thorold,ON L2V 4T7 F.T.A.Condor Holdings Inc.is the owner of the property located at 380 Vansickle Road, St.Catharines,Ontario,consisting of 99,762 sq.ft. l'm opposed to any removal of the Vacancy Tax Credit. Even though other regions have opted out of the Vacancy Tax Credit,I believe as with many of my colleagues that this should be a "Made in Niagara Solution".What may work in other Regions,I can assure you that this proposal will not work here.We are just coming into a healthy rental market with a forecast of a downturn come late 2019 through to 2022.Other Regions have experienced strong market conditions and have expanded significantly.Whereas Niagara is just starting to fill their industrial, commercial is holding its own and office is looking bleak.How could you even consider implementing a measure such as this when we have had such a dismal past. Please remove this proposal from the Region and Municipalities. Sincerely, F.T.A.CONDOR HOLDINGS INC. Page 433 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix I M l l l January 9,2019F.T.A.CONDOR HOLDINGS INC. 242 Main Street East Phone:(905)528~8956 Hamilton,Ontario,L8N 1H5 Fax:(905)528-2165 November 15"‘,2018 Rob Flemming Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst Financial Management and Planning Enterprise Resource Management Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way Thorold,ON L2V 4T7 F.T.A.Condor Holdings inc.is the owner of the property located at 360 YorkRoad, Niagara-on-the—Lake,Ontario,consisting of 66,458 sq.ft. I'm opposed to any removal of the Vacancy Tax Credit. Even though other regions have opted out of the Vacancy Tax Credit,I believe as with many of my colleagues that this should be a "Made in Niagara Solution".What may work in other Regions,I can assure you that this proposal will not work here.We are just coming into a healthy rental market with a forecast of a downturn come late 2019 through to 2022.Other Regions have experienced strong market conditions and have expanded significantly.Whereas Niagara is just starting to filltheir industrial, commercial is holding its own and office is looking bleak.How could you even consider implementing a measure such as this when we have had such a dismal past. Please remove this proposal from the Region and Municipalities. Sincerely, F.T.A.CONDOR HOLDINGS INC. Per: Page 434 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix l January 9,2019 Rob Flemming ,Senor Tax &Revenue Analyst FinancialManagement and Planning Enterprise Resource Management ServicesNiagaraRegion 1815 Sir lsaac Brock Way Thorold,ON L2V 4T7 S &S PIEROGLIMITED Page 435 of 450 1. 2. 3. Surve Res onse Summar Summary/number of responses: CSD 3-2019 Appendix Ii January 9,2019 Introductor uestions R%’E“E§;?I?Z:1i"l5ECZo:a.ints ?omp=ii:—tia:anRate; 'E’ompie;e Parrti.-.1I ’"‘1 Totals:15? Do you own,or represent an owner,of a commercial /industrial property in Niagara? Value Percent "T25 ;.'ii11?.E%"E«'£i fwio -§s2.1‘«‘:%§ Do you understand these two programs and the differences between them? A Value Percent ‘re5 ‘I?1.4 5%. ii.-592%f“-40 Page 436 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix ll January 9,2019 Responses from Niagara Commercial[Industria|Property Owners[Representatives 1.Did you know that for 2018 these programs cost commercial and industrial property owners approximately $74 and $112 in Regional property taxes,respectively?(Based on a $1 million assessment) Value Percent "?es ‘El. l“«l.c:£1]ii,;;"£%« 2.indicate if you currently,or have previously,benefitted from either of these programs: Value Percent ltfalcarit Unit bate 899a "-r':i«:»:snt,.*"Excess Land Fteduttifdn l?ils?é i'~l»eiti"as:=r j 3.How important are the rebates and reductions in your business plan? Vane l“»l'«;:2l:lnimcirtant Ea ntewh.:atimpo r1::mt lmp«:sr‘tant WeW lmport;rit Ezaztreme ly imp»~::»rta rut 4.Would a multi—yearphase out of these programs allow you to prepare for the elimination of these programs? Value Percenrt ‘Fe5 £;:5.«z3‘I33 isle 44.4 Page 437 of 450 CSD 3~2019 Appendix H January 9,2019 5.Do you believe that either the rebate or reduction creates a positive impact on the local community? Value l?erceni: "‘i"E=5 Eta F l"~l»u Ei¢l.E: 6.Should the rebate or reduction continue? Value Percenst “'r"e5.cc:n?lnue l3o‘th r5‘§i.4'£z V55.Co n?nue the "la".-:lr:.~:irr1tUnitRebate lilo,‘f§lS|:E|Fl?:|"|'ll’-E lJu«?"a it 8;Ei9-E 7.Would you rather see these program expenditures allocated to other Economic Development incentives / programs or reduce the tax levy? Value Farce ht ‘Yes 25.1?“a run ir4.3';=t: 8.Did you know that as a commercial /industrial property owner,a portion of your property taxes goes toward subsidizing these programs? Value Percent was 257.31%;Mb Page 438 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix II January 9,2019 Responses from Non—Commercia|[Industrial Property Owners[Regresentatives 1.Did you know that the Region currently budgets $1 million each year in Vacant Unit Rebates for commercial and industrial properties? Value ?ercelnt ‘res No‘Watt; 2.Do you believe that either the rebate or reduction creates a positive impact on the local community? Valarie Percent veg We 3.Should the rebate or reduction continue? Valtga Percent Veg,com?niie hem ‘fez/,cananwebaa v‘aimntunitae;ha«:a : M 24%: ‘reg,vz?rminatethe vacgmtrgxcm Land Fétedut?on D 311% Mu,disicon?a1u»:e mm F L 4.Would you rather see these program expenditures allocated to other Economic Development incentives / programs or reduce the tax levy? Value Parlcent Yes aa.o% Mo 12+lfl% Page 439 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix III January 9,2019 Appendix I -Map of Neighbouring Municipalities with Council Approved Program Changes =Council Approval to Eliminate Vacant Unit Rebate Page 440 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix lV Janaury 9,2019 iS:}i\lTAi%?;it:iBUSINESSIMPROVEIVIENTAREA Returnon Investment of BlAs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -March 22,2017 Changing the Landscape by Changing the Vacant Unit Rebate The Ontario BIA Association works with the Province,through the Planning,Environment, Resources and Land Deputies Committee (PERL)and the Ministry of Finance to help BIAs change the landscape through Municipal Act Changes. Ontario's BlAs have continued to raise the Vacant Unit Rebate (Municipal Act 364)as a deterrent from their beautification and revitalization efforts.Vacant and deteriorating buildings can and do result in a decrease in the marketable lease rates or the overall ‘lease-ability’of a BIA area. At the recent meeting of the PERL Deputy Ministers and the Board of OBlAA,the board sited contradicting strategies between BlAs and the Province,stated “that B/AS build programs and invest funds to promote vacant property to prospective lessees and in order to achieve full occupancy,but”,the board went on to state,“the provincial incentives assist property owners with remaining vacant.” Through consultation with the province’s BlAs,the Board informed the Deputy Ministers,“Once a property owner is accepted,to our knowledge,there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the property owner is actively seeking tenant occupancy.”Noting that “Property owners purchasing property for purely ?nancial reasons (tax write offs)and not for positive investment.”The OBIAA Board indicated that in the case of both large and small BlAs (Downtowns),those vacant and derelict buildings are a challenge. OBIAA applauds The Province’s consultation with Municipalities to consider changing the wording to allow Municipalities to opt in or out of the Vacant Unit Rebate,and would like to suggest to BlAs and Municipalities that the Vacant Unit Rebate be renamed and used as an Economic Development Tool.The Board is suggesting a new business classification of “Main Street Business”that would assist BlAs and Property Owners around the province to apply for an “Attraction Rebate”.The OBIAA Board is suggesting the following timelines and guidelines: Attraction Rebate for Main Street Class:Attraction Guidelines for Main Street Class: (non-office towers)(non—of?cetowers) -Year One —100%of the 30%or 35%-Property Standards as set by the Municipalities. -Year Two -50 %of the 30%or 35%Validation of state of the building(s).Year Three -25 %of the 30%or 35%-Market Value Rental Value as set by the local -Year Four —0%of the 30%or 35%marketplace -Education of local Economic Development Tools stimulus,as provided by the Municipalities (ClPs, Heritage etc.). -Pop Up vs incubator —to allow a property owner to have either of these without losing the Vacant Unit Rebate. The Ministry of Finance is now moving forward with providing municipalities’broad flexibility for 2017 and in future years.This change was announced in November 2016 and is intended to allow municipalities to tailor the vacant rebate and reduction programs to reflect community needs and circumstances.Municipalities will be required to submit a response to a Ministry of Finance Checklist and a Council Resolution indicating how they will be implementing the changes to the Vacant Rebate and Reduction Programs. OBIAA supports these changes and is encouraging BlAs and Municipalities to consider implementing the above noted “Attraction Rebate”as an Economic Development Tool that could make our Urban and Rural Communities stronger. Page 441 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix IV —~TM Janaury 9,2019 i:ti‘li”Ai7%:£E%i::iBUSINESSIMPROVEMENTAREA Return on investrnent of BIAS _-30 _ About OBIAA OBIAA is the network that represents unique and vibrant BlAs across Ontario.The Association,incorporated in 2001,supports and advocates on behalf of its members through the building and nurturing of strong relationships and partnerships.OBIAA is a leader in the development and sharing of information,tools,resources and best practices,and is the ONE voice on common issues.www.obiaa.com For more information,please contact: Kay Matthews,Executive Director OBIAA info@obiaa.com Page 442 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix V (\Janaury 9,2019 .V”)?r Ministry of Finance VACANT UNIT REBATE AND VACANT/EXCESSLAND SUBCLASSES January 2017 Since 1998,the Vacant Unit Rebate and Vacant/ExcessLand Subclasses have provided tax rebates and reductions to property owners who have vacancies in commercial and industrial buildings or land. 0 Vacant Unit Rebates:The Vacant Unit Rebate provides a tax rebate to property owners who have vacancies in commercial and industrial buildings.This app|ication—based program is administered by municipalities.The current rebate is 30%of the property tax for vacant commercial space and 35%for vacant industrial space. 0 Vacant and Excess Land Property Tax Subclass:Commercial and industrial properties or portions of these properties in the Vacant and Excess Land Property Tax Subclasses are taxed at a fixed percentage rate below the tax rate of the broad class.These properties are discounted at 30%to 35%of the full Commercial and/or industrial rate. Currently,upper-and sing|e—tier municipalities may choose to apply the same percentage of relief (between 30%—35%)to both the commercial and industrialproperty classes. NEW MUNICIPAL FLEXIBILITYFOR 2017 AND FUTUREYEARS The Province has reviewed the Vacant Unit Rebate and the Vacant/ExcessLand Subclasses in consultation with municipal and business stakeholders. in response to municipal and other stakeholders’requests,the Province is now moving forward with providing municipalities broad flexibility for 2017 and future years.This change, announced in November 2016,is intended to allow municipalities to tailor the vacant rebate and reduction programs to reflect community needs and circumstances,while considering the interests of local businesses. in order to provide the most flexibility for municipalities,changes to the rebate and reduction programs will be implemented through regulation.Upper—and sing|e—tier municipalities that have decided to change the programs can notify the Minister of their intent to utilize this flexibility and provide details of the proposed changes along with a council resolution. To support implementation of changes to the vacant rebate and reduction programs, municipalities should review the attached checklist prior to submitting a request for changes to the Minister. Page 443 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix V Janaury 9,2019 IMPLEMENTATION Municipalities wishing to utilize the flexibility available to them must submit details of proposed changes to the Minister along with a council resolution by one of the following dates to ensure amendments are included in a regulation as soon as possible. -March 1,2017 -Apri|1,2O17 -Julyl,2017 Municipalities will be notified when the regulation implementing the requested changes has been enacted. Note that in two—tiered municipalities,any program changes to be implemented will be an upper—tier municipal decision,consistent with the flexibility currently available to upper—tier municipalities,to determine the rebate and reduction percentage between 30%and 35%. The Province has an interest in continuing to ensure tax competitiveness and consistency for taxpayers and as such,the Minister will consider proposed program changes within this context. FURTHER INFORMATION For general information about the vacant rebate and reduction programs,please contact the Ministry of Finance at info.propertytax@ontario.ca. Page 444 of 450 CSD 3-2019 Appendix V D Janaury 9,2019 i.*>W Ministry of Finance VACANCY REBATE AND REDUCTION PROGRAM CHANGES CHECKLIST January 2017 BUSINESS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT V Have you engaged the local business community? V Can you provide details on how and when you have engaged the local business community? V Have you considered the potential impacts the proposed changes may have on local businesses? V Have you communicated potential impacts of proposed changes to the business community? V Has Council been made aware of the potential impacts on the business community? PROGRAM DETAILS Have you outlined details of program changes in your submission? For municipalities in a two—tiered system,have you discussed proposed changes with lower—tiermunicipalities? \ Have you considered how you will implement or administer any potential changes to the vacancy programs? Have you considered these changes as part of a multi—yearstrategy? Has Council passed a resolution indicating approval of these changes? \\\\\ FURTHER INFORMATION If you have any questions about implementation of changes to the vacant rebate and reduction programs,please contact the Ministry of Finance at info.propertytax@ontario.ca. Page 445 of 450 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution January 29, 2019 Moved by: Seconded by: WHEREAS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and WHEREAS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public is if the subject matter falls under one of the exceptions under s. 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on February 12, 2019 at 3:30 p.m., Niagara Falls City Council will go into a closed meeting to consider matters that fall under s. 239(3.1), for the purpose of educating or training the members on an update to the City’s proposed Cultural Hub. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI ACTING CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 446 of 450 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 - 12 A by-law to declare Lot 228 on Plan 316, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara and municipally known as 4840 Willmott Street, as surplus. WHEREAS City of Niagara Falls By-law No. 2003-16 governing the sale of land by the City of Niagara Falls provides that prior to selling any land, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls shall by by-law or resolution declare the land to be surplus; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, at its meeting of January 29, 2019, adopted the Recommendations of Council Report L-2019- 02, to permanently close and declare surplus Lot 228 on Plan 316; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls now deems it expedient to pass this by-law; THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Lot 228 on Plan 316, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, hereby declared surplus. 2. The Mayor and Acting City Clerk and Solicitor acting for the City are hereby authorized to execute all documents that may be required for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this by-law and the Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto and to deliver such documents. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 29th day of January, 2019. ................................................................ ................................................................ WILLIAM G. MATSON, ACTING CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 447 of 450 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 – 13 A by-law to amend By-law No. 87-143, being a by-law respecting smoking. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. By-law No. 87-143 is hereby amended by deleting Section 1(m) in its entirety and inserting the following, in lieu thereof: (m) “second-hand smoke” means, (i) exhaled smoke or vapour from any of the devices list in (ii); (ii) smoke from tobacco or any other substance from an idling, A. cigarette; or B. cigar; or C. pipe; or D. any other tobacco-using device; or E. electronic cigarette, vape pen or personal vaporiser; but does not include smoke that has drifted into a place or an area in which smoking is prohibited from a place or area in which smoking is not prohibited; Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 29th day of January, 2019. ................................................................ ................................................................ WILLIAM G. MATSON, ACTING CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 448 of 450 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 – 14 A by-law to amend By-law No. 2011-51, being a by-law to prohibit the smoking of tobacco and other substances upon or within any land or buildings owned by The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. By-law No. 2011-51 is hereby amended by deleting Section 2.1 in its entirety and inserting the following, in lieu thereof: 2.1 No person shall smoke tobacco or any other substance, including the use of an electronic cigarette, vape pen or personal vaporiser, upon or within any lands or buildings owned by The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 29th day of January, 2019. ................................................................ ................................................................ WILLIAM G. MATSON, ACTING CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 449 of 450 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 - 13 A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 29th day of January, 2019. WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient that the actions and proceedings of Council as herein set forth be adopted, ratified and confirmed by by-law. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The actions of the Council at its meeting held on the 15th day of January, 2019 including all motions, resolutions and other actions taken by the Council at its said meeting, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if they were expressly embodied in this by-law, except where the prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board or other authority is by law required or any action required by law to be taken by resolution. 2. Where no individual by-law has been or is passed with respect to the taking of any action authorized in or with respect to the exercise of any powers by the Council, then this by-law shall be deemed for all purposes to be the by-law required for approving, authorizing and taking of any action authorized therein or thereby, or required for the exercise of any powers thereon by the Council. 3. The Mayor and the proper officers of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said actions of the Council or to obtain approvals where required, and, except where otherwise provided, the Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents arising therefrom and necessary on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and to affix thereto the corporate seal of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 29th day of January, 2019. .............................................................. ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, ACTING CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 450 of 450